Sentebale #2

[Words]

Second thread .

I’d be worrying about Harry’s mental health if he was my family but with a tiny bit of ‘I told you so’

His mental health has always been a worry to them, and they've done their utmost to help, support and protect him.

@PippistrelleBat made this point yesterday
which I hope she won’t mind me reposting

”I don’t think we call rule out her wanting to pursue a strategy/approach at odds with that preferred by the other trustees. A disagreement over direction does not mean either side is wrong.”

The trustees are supposed to act together. The chair is on an equal footing to the other trustees and if they collectively preferred another direction they were within their rights to say so. The CC interferes as little as possible in internal disputes, they’re on a hiding to nothing by doing so.

I think what we’re seeing is a bad case of Founder’s Syndrome, a weak board and a dominant chair.

It’s almost amusing how grimly predictable it is on social media. Despite shouting for years about how when a woman of colour tells you what she’s experienced, you believe her, and nodding along enthusiastically at Meghan investigating in her Archetypes podcast the misogynistic pejoratives casually applied to women, especially women of colour, like “b!tch”…

…well, you can have two guesses as to what Meghan’s fans are saying about Sophie, and whether or not they are minded to give her the benefit of the doubt.

I agree, but I’d also add that a charity that founders because it hasn’t appreciated that it needs to evolve, and that has become reliant on one funding source, is a charity that has been failed by its management.

SC said that when she came back as chair in 2023 (having been previously involved as trustee), she noticed that a number of big fundraisers (some of them individual families) had dropped away over the previous years. But none of this drop off was minuted in any of the trustees' meeting notes. When she asked the trustees about it, they said that it was too difficult/personal to have these conversations because they related to Prince Harry's negative effect on those fundraisers. Clearly the case she is making is that they were not acting in the best interests of the charity because of their deference towards Harry and his influence over them. Whist he may not be accountable in any legal sense, he may well be in a moral one. And since his social and economic currency is his supreme goodness as holder of the golden victimhood card, he will not escape unscathed if this turns out to be true.

Just missed Trevor Phillips on Sky being interviewed now. Hopefully will be repeated later.

"golden victimhood card"
Spot on, @RandyRedHumpback

I imagine the Invictus comms department is working overtime fielding enquires about Harry and Meghans influence on their operations.

There must be skin and hair flying in the Sussex war room.

I thought the conversation between the journalists, linked to earlier, was more telling. William and Harry have an informal relationship with Audi sponsoring their charity polo matches, Meghan comes along and tells Audi they need to pay more and the arrangement needs to be made official, Audi then decides to drop out completely.

It shows that Meghan has that 'price of everything, value of nothing' Trumpian attitude to the world. Relationships are transactional, the most important thing about any situation is how much money can be squeezed out of it, it's better to burn everything to the ground than to not get your own way.

Somewhere in London, a man in a grey suit is smirking into his Sunday morning cup of Earl Grey.

😂

Not sure if this has already been posted ? Struggling to keep up !
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-14551807/Prince-Harry-charity-Sentebale-william-ally.html

I imagine his family are more worried about Charles at the moment, given his hospitalisation for side effects this week. If that were my dad I'd be coming over to see him ASAP.

Is it Mother's Day in the USA? Must be a muted celebration at Sussex Towers if so.

On Sky news Sir Trevor Phillips being interviewed by Matt Barbet

Matt Barbet, "what Sophie Chandauka said was jaw dropping, her composure and measured approach to detailing...'

"it is hard not to be persuaded"

"The Sussexes and those around them have refused to be interviewed, make of that what you will"

Basically even the reporters are saying she is credible and believable.

It has to be true because It's so specific and detailed.

Well I have to ask the question: why didn't the DM write about this when they knew about it? Why is this only coming out because a whistle blower is speaking? The press is supposed to lead an investigation, not follow along meekly behind civilians or internet sleuths brave enough to put their heads above the parapet. What else are these journalists sitting on?

Oh my goodness. Perhaps the chickens will all come home to roost. Very apt for them.

No one seems to have picked up on this from the Telegraph article linked upthread:

“The newly formed board includes Iain Rawlinson, a financier who was previously chairman of Tusk Trust, the Prince of Wales’s conservation charity, and who has been advising Ms Chandauka.
He claimed there had been a concerted effort by certain trustees “to destabilise and remove Sophie” from her position.”

Hopefully this doesn’t lead to any backlash in Tusk or PW.

It is very noticeable that Senetable has lost most of its "gifts in kind" from sponsors in recent years - I presume such things as gifted venues perhaps gifts of food, drink, cars, equipment etc

In 2019 "gifts in kind" were valued at £719,000 but in 2023 it had fallen by over 70% to £204,000. It seems like people were backing away from the Sussex brand.

It was discussed on the previous thread that charity whistleblowers have the added moral dilemma of the service user. In that thread there was the questions asked on why didn't Sophie just resign, and basically think of the children, the press would have the same dilemma

Just watching Sophie’s interview with Trevor Phillips now. She and Ian Rawlinson are bang on with what she is saying about how a well-run board and governance structure should operate. If she does have the documents to back her allegations up, then Sentabale was a very dysfunctional operation that were completely tied to Prince Harry’s fortunes, was treated by him as his personal fiefdom, and didn’t want to change.

As I said upthread, the sugars online are already pinning this on William and Rawlinson.

Of course there could be lots of reasons for this drop in 'gifts', such as Covid and the economic downturn, but I would say that a lot of sponsors were after a royal connection, not a connection with Harry and Meghan who live in California. I don't think either of them ever understood that, even if it was obvious all along.

Take away the royal allure, and Sentebale, however deserving, is just another small African charity.

Well Rawlinson has only been in the role with Sentebale for 4 days, but it is interesting they have appointed someone who knows how a well run charity operates and who also has a royal family member as its patron.