Harry resigns from Sentebale, the charity he founded!

[AtIusvue]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14536443/prince-Harry-resigns-charity-cofounder-leadership-row.html

or

The Times

https://archive.ph/GWUac

The answer is very simple.

Because it's too much like hard work to deal with it and he's more interested in his public image and saleability as a brand than this as a cause. He sees a risk of reputational damage tainting him rather than being committed to sorting the problem out. That's work for someone else to do.

In other words he's work shy and shallow. He likes an easy life.

And because he's rich enough to just be able to walk away.

This isn't another 'hate on Harry' idea. It's just that there are no other logical explanations which makes sense.

She sued the trustees, not Harry. So, it isn't his place to fight it. He showed his solidarity with the rest of the Board by resigning (he wasn't a Board member himself at the time, but is patron).

The NY post comments point out that USAID payments have now stopped so it means the charity now needs to raise funds itself. Too much hard work for H.

Actually no one has defended what Philip or Andrew have said or done. That’s absolute nonsense. EVERY time Philip said anything unsavoury it we always front page news and it certainly was never ignored

You do have to wonder what Harry's input into the governance and management of the charities he is associated with is though.

I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't go much beyond turning up, sharing a few fist pumps here and there, twisting some random male nipples, making the odd humorous quip, and in the case of Sentebale showing up for a game of polo.

Will be interesting to know if he claims expenses from Sentebale for his public attendance at their fund raising events, but I guess they cannot disclose that.

Aren't the trustees also Board members? I have always thought the terms were interchangeable, but as I always say, what do I know?

I know that.

The trustees all resigned because they said that they couldn’t let the charity take on the cost of the lawsuit…..so why not stay on the board, fight the case and get Harry to pay for it?

And that would be right and proper, wouldn't it? You leave the governance to the trustees and Chair. They all voted against her for a reason and I am not convinced that it could just be due to her being a woman of colour. After all, they would have appointed her as Chair in the first place. Something went drastically wrong. The way that she operates (giving just enough detail to the press to put others in the firing line) gives me a tiny indication of why they might have ended up with a vote of no confidence in her.

Great article. Basically it’s over for Harry in Africa and he’s lost without the palace aides.

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/prince-harry-charity-sentebale-b2721959.html

‘Sentebales current turmoil is a reminder that “serving” is no longer enough. Optics are all important, likewise the managerial depth to contain any untoward implosions. The royal family are not immune to tensions associated with unfortunate missions across the Commonwealth (Kate and William’s Caribbean tour of 2022 anyone?), so too are managerial mishaps and unfortunate headlines par for the course. But unlike lonesome Harry, the institution of monarchy has the depth and support to withstand critical blows and cast out in new directions.
Nearly 20 years on from the founding of Sentebale (and assuming the resignation of his patronage becomes permanent), it will be harder for Harry to begin again in Africa (if that is what he chooses to do). Our current foreign minister, David Lammy, is not the only person to have pointed out that Britain’s historic white saviour complex (in Lammy’s case, the target was Stacey Dooley and Comic Relief) holds back perceptions of Africa as a continent with a large diaspora and a track record of helping itself. Quite where this narrative leaves Harry as a white privileged man who wants to do good on the continent and beyond remains to be seen.
His princely offerings of polo fundraisers and diplomatic glad-handing already feel a little dated.’

‘Meghan’s marriage to Harry gave her the X-factor she needed to transfer from B-list actor to A-list celebrity. Sadly, the same cannot be said for Harry. When he married Meghan and left the British monarchy, he swapped royalty for celebrity – and naively believed that a “life of service” would prove a straightforward affair outside protective palace walls.
The reality suggests otherwise, with the Invictus Games Harry’s one significant remaining triumph. In an increasingly dangerous world full of war and poverty, it is tragic that our most able prince of hearts finds himself not only without his honorary military roles – but is now minus his flagship charitable mission in one of Africa’s poorest regions.‘

He has the financial means to run the legal kitty for this. He is throwing enough money around on other legal cases, so 🤷‍♀️

Oh that is good 😆 👏

All things we have all said:

• dated optics
• lost without the men is grey suits

Whether she has a case or not imo the Board of Trustees were right to resign in order to avoid costly law suits - which, I am guessing would have to be paid for by the Charity. An absolute waste of money given the Charity's aims. And given that under her stewardship they haven't raised the funds they had hoped for. You have to remember that the Polo match, though obviously enjoyable for participants, was a significant fund raiser which she got rid of.

Harry's lawsuits against the press are personal and a completely separate issue. I am guessing that she is conflating them in our minds because it is expedient to do so. She's clever.

I don't know how Chandauka now proceeds with no Board of Trustees to Chair. We'll have to wait and see. And for those who say the Trustees were all white I am not convinced as some of the names of trustees sound as though they might be local.

Despite what it sounds like I am neutral on this, but I really dislike people giving me disinformation and thinking that I am just going to drink it in because I hate H&M and looking for anything to further that hate.

And for those who say the Trustees were all white I am not convinced as some of the names of trustees sound as though they might be local.

They're not. There's the Prince and another local, plus a Motswana.

I'm also no particular H&M fan btw, he seems to be an idiot and she's a grifter. But at the heart of this is presumably beneficiaries losing out.

That post makes zero sense.

I just said, that Harry should cover the cost, not the charity. That way they could fight it. He formed the charity in the memory of his mother….but is not willing to do the right thing and cover the costs for the charity.

Yes, the trustees and the board members (directors) are one and the same- the term trustee is generally used in the UK for directors of a charity and the associated company (most charities are structured as a company limited by guarantee so the trustees are the directors of that company). The ones on the current website and listed on the Charities Commission website are the new trustees who have been appointed after the old ones resigned.

Harry was never a trustee. He and the Prince were the patrons which carries no legal status.

Harry's lawsuits against the press are personal and a completely separate issue. I am guessing that she is conflating them in our minds because it is expedient to do so. She's clever.

That wasn’t my point, my point was that he has the financial means to take this on legally. The charity is his baby and was set up in honour of his mum. I just think it’s a bit odd.

Sources have conceded it was a bunch of white blokes that were running things. All set out in the articles above.

In People Magazine the Trustees identify themselves as British and African:

"Former trustees Timothy Boucher, Mark Dyer, Audrey Kgosidintsi, Dr Kelello Lerotholi and Damian West said in their own statement: "As a group of British and African trustees, we have made the difficult decision to unanimously resign as board members of Sentebale."

You're getting a bit confused (and therefore risk misinforming others). It would not be quorate to have only 3 trustees. The prince is not a trustee. He resigned in sympathy with them.

What’s the confusion here?

The charity was sued. The trustees resigned so the charity wouldn’t have to pay for a lawsuit.

However, they could afford to fight it, if Harry put his hand in his pocket. Why? Because he founded the charity, supposedly in memory of his mother. Yet he walks away from the charity, leaving it in the hands of someone he believes has destroyed it? No sorry, that’s just not believable. He has the means to fund the case. He has chosen not to. I suspect because he doesn’t want info coming out in court.

No one is saying she is suing Harry.

You're getting a bit confused (and therefore risk misinforming others). It would not be quorate to have only 3 trustees. The prince is not a trustee. He resigned in sympathy with them.

I'm taking an interest in the thread as I have knowledge of the country. I freely admit to not being au fait with how large international charities operate.

I think Harry has finally learnt his lesson about the cost of court cases and will be reluctant to fund more. Several tens of millions of pounds might seem an awful lot to most of us but when you are funding his lifestyle and security and your sources of income are rapidly drying up, you would not be wanting to throw your personal money to ensure selected trustees on the board of a charity maintain control

Good point. He probably doesn’t even have standing to bring a case.

Yes they are. The board is made up of trustees.

Has Prince Seeiso said anything ? I admit to knowing nothing about him but I would have thought he and Harry would issue a joint statement. ( if they have apologies for missing it )