Sentebale #2

[Words]

Second thread .

@BigWillyLittleTodger
@Rhaidimiddim

I remember reading that post before it disappeared.
I saw nothing objectionable in it

It was the use of the word spread (instead of jam, which you use in your amended post) immediately after Meghan’s apostrophised name. That's being used a lot on tattle as a sexual slur.

IMHO it is because H on his own is no draw at all. The only value H had up until his exit as a working royal was his direct access to the monarch (then QE2) and the 3 heirs (KC3, future KW5 and future KG7).

Today, Hollywood A-listers and billionaires have better access to H's family than he does. For example, Tom Cruise and billionaire investor Michael Bloomberg have both spent more time with W these past few years than H!

How would anyone in the highly transactional West Coast environment benefit from being associated with H? Why would any of them turn up to write a check? What is the quid pro quo? I don't think fruit spread and edible flowers can compare to a ride in a historically significant carriage in Great Windsor Park, or a guest invite to Sandringham or Balmoral as these exclusive experiences can't be purchased on the open market.

You are so right. This is MM saying in Australia “I can’t believe I’m not getting paid for this”. Charging charities a hefty appearance fee, ideally almost entirely tax free through a Delaware foundation, is 100% “getting paid for this”. That woman wouldn’t sneeze for free if she could help it.

Has Harry finally encountered an actual strong black woman? And she’s having none of his bullshit.

I don't think she rows back at all. If you're referring to the phrase 'There is no suggestion that Prince Harry...' was being racist/misogynist etc, that's not from SC. That's the FT editorialising to cover themselves legally. That's not to say that SC doesn't have evidence of bad behaviour from PH, and that she hasn't supplied it to the charity commission. It just means that the FT hasn't seen it.

At the moment, SC is winning the PR battle because she's going on the record which signals confidence in her complaints. PH's side on the other side is definitely briefing the media, but is doing so either off the record (Bryony piece) or on background (the various unattributed quotes).

That doesn't mean that SC's side is the right one; I suspect that there are two valid sides to this story. But it does mean that PH's team isn't willing to put him or someone from his side on the record - either because they fear it will make him look undignified (never stopped him before tbh) or because (more likely in my view) his legal team don't know exactly what documentary evidence SC's side might have and is worried he'll get put on the spot with a curveball question.

It seems to me that PH's / the old Trustees' side is using PRs and 'friends' (like the Tory peer) to proactively brief the media against SC, whilst Harry's legal team is handling right of reply type queries. The fact that lawyers are handling these is highly significant.

If I were a betting woman I would say that in the coming weeks and months this is going to turn into a wider scandal around allegations that the Sussexes misuse PH's charities for their own PR efforts (ie they use them to PR the Sussexes rather than the charity). Possibly also allegations of misuse of funds.

All of that to say that reading between the lines of what's out there, we can see both sides marshalling their forces and so I think this has all the hallmarks of an opening skirmish in a much larger, noisier and more tawdry set of alleged scandals.

@GiveMeSpanakopita this is absolutely fascinating, thank you.

I’m confused by the report in the Telegraph that she was being paid as chair( 2k a day capped at 300k per annum) Trustees/ directors of uk charities cannot be paid and I can’t imagine that any of the other trustees or SC herself weren’t aware of that. She could be paid for work that wasn’t within the remit of trustee ( which are actually v broad and would definitely involve engaging donors) but it’s v v unusual. If true, this does cast it in a slightly different light- ie she was paid to do something and didn’t do it successfully.

In the FT article, SC talks about having meetings with large potential donors and their top concern was always the 'toxicity' of Harry's brand.

I do think, unfortunately, that Harry's brand is now so toxic that he's not a good desirable patron for any charity. I think that's why there was an effort made last September to announce a decoupling of Harry's and Meghan's brands. I think the issues around donors pulling out due to Harry's involvement really kicked up around that time and so his team rushed out and started briefing the media that his brand and Meghan's would be separated. To save his position with his charities. Probably Sentebale and their potential big west coast donors saw the dreadful publicity around the Pat Tillman award and the problems Invictus were having and took fright.

The problem is that announcing you're going to do something is not enough. You actually have to do it. And H&M ARE appearing together a lot less, but they're still inextricably linked, not least because she NEEDS him if her businesses are to have any success.

There's a toxic dichotomy there. Meg NEEDS Harry's brand for her business. But Meg is toxifying Harry's position with his charities. I'm not sure how you solve that. Well, you can't solve it. Certainly not by putting out press releases saying you're going to separate the brands. It's just not credible. All Meghan really has is the royal connection. She ain't gonna be selling much jam without it.

If I were a betting woman I would say that in the coming weeks and months this is going to turn into a wider scandal around allegations that the Sussexes misuse PH's charities for their own PR efforts (ie they use them to PR the Sussexes rather than the charity). Possibly also allegations of misuse of funds.

I'd be putting my money on this too.

I’m confused by the report in the Telegraph that she was being paid as chair( 2k a day capped at 300k per annum

I thought this was an amount suggested when discussions were underway about her possibly becoming a paid employee of the charity.

One final thought from me and apologies for the irritating multiple posts.

A few MN-ers upthread have pointed to the Sussex PR machine tactic of wheeling out 'friends' to 'clap back' at negative publicity by giving anonymous quotes to the media about how wonderful Meghan is, or blasting H&M's detractors.

I have little doubt that such a machine exists, especially on social media. The talking points and even phraseology are too similar. It's interesting to me because it's a tactic I would expect to see from an influencer, not an A list celeb of the level H&M are at (or should be at).

On this sort of scale it's very expensive. I have no doubt they're spending a lot of money on it. Money that would be better spent on taking some proper strategic advice on a whole ground up reset of their image and PR strategy, imho.

Yes, I agree. It’s very rare for trustees to be paid and they need specific authority. For SC to involve the Charity Commission she must either feel safe on that score, or she’s underestimated the CC’s regulatory scope and powers.

You can watch the interview from 8.30am wirh Dr Sophie on Sky News

https://news.sky.com/story/politics-latest-full-interview-after-prince-harry-allegations-yvette-cooper-to-face-questions-trevor-phillips-live-12593360

It is not so uncommon for trustees to be paid by their charity for services (in her case it could be for legal services). BUT if she was being paid this would create a conflict of interest that would need to be managed - normally this would be by absenting herself from any involvement in discussions around what she is being paid for, other than in the capacity in which she is being paid. So she would not act as chair or as a trustee in those discussions/decisions but only as eg a lawyer offering the rest of the trustees legal advice. And could not be part of the board decision to pay her. There would be no way she could be paid if the rest of the trustees decided ‘no’.

sky news:

The board were serving PH over the purposes of a charity

sponsors were walking away because of PH reputations

PH didn’t follow any rules- acted like he wanted.

I think I like SC, IF all of this is true then I hope that she is believed.

Polo match:

a month before, PH said I’m bringing NF along.

She wasn’t happy, that others werent asked

He didn’t seek consent from the property owners of the polo field etc. the venue owner then seen this as a commercial venture…:so said these are now the terms….which sent snake couldn’t afford. So they had to move polo fields.

They got another polo field but there was a lot of disruption because of what happened and people unhappy.

Watching this live, SC is making some strong points.

On the day- the PH was there. But Meghan showed up and they hadn’t been told that meghan was going to show up and she brought Serena

she didnt put out PR for meghan, because she knew she would be trolled.

PH wanted to eject her for months….through bullying etc.

They then briefed sponsors against her when they could get rid of her

He didn't go there for 5 years! He went to Colombia and Nigeria but couldn't manage Sentabele?

Part of the Sky News interview talking about the polo incident.