Sentebale #2

[Words]

Second thread .

Indeed. If they found it too difficult to discuss this very important issue in front of him he should have been asked to leave the room. Which he shouldn’t have been in in the first place.

Hwi · Today 16:12
So what Prince Philip was intelligent - do you think there were no intelligent and SOLVENT royal princes in Europe for HM to marry? Her equals, I mean, not penniless refugees (like Prince Philip) who would never forgive her higher status and would forever punish her with affairs?

Which solvent European Princes are you talking about that were of the right age in the aftermath of World War II between 1945-55?

The entire royal family were condemned without proof on the word of one woman!

Dr C has shown is she is certainly close to being the full shilling. Her story is clear, coherent and evidenced. If at board meetings she was saying things like 'Our funding model is not sustainable, we are losing funding because Harry is toxic, we will not survive, if as a board we don't discuss how to resolve these issues we are failing as a board' it's easy to see how that becomes 'She's difficult, she's aggressive' which from the point of view of a board member really means 'I don't like what she's saying and the issues she's raising are too difficult'.

SC says in the interview that the matter of long term donors falling away after 2020 was not minuted in the board minutes as a discussion that ever took place. When she started looking at this, having taken the chair position in 2023, she was told by the trustees it wasn't discussed - they said they were embarrassed to bring it up. If you have a charity whose fundraising is inextricably tied to the fortunes, ego, friendships and connections of the patron, and that patron simply will not accept that his life is fundamentally worse than it was when he "escaped" the very institution that gave him the social currency that allowed him to fundraise in the first place, then you have a big problem on your hands.

Exactly.
Plus: neither Harry nor Meghan have proved to be reliable narrators.

As with everything they do, it’s always the short game and the quick buck. They do not have the awareness (or even possibly the intelligence) to think ahead, to question if we do X will that affect Y. They are the perpetual victims so any negative ramifications from their behaviour that may hit further down the line will always be someone else’s fault.

That, but also by leaving, he was nolonger a direct line to the monarch and direct heirs because he was 'outside'.

I'm just reflecting on how women get silenced
Hysterical
Bossy
Karen
Strident
Hormonal
Menopausal
Not The Full Shilling.

Don’t forget “ difficult “ and “ scheming “ !

I realise that. And as I’ve already said I’m far from a fan of MM or her husband. But that doesn’t mean Dr. Chandauka‘s words are all true either. We just don’t know is all that I’m saying and I’m not going to judge a boardroom matter such as this where we are only hearing one side of the story, as I said he said-she said.

This is a fascinating thread. It's hard to see how Harry can be taken seriously after this. And Meghan has form for offloading people she no longer needs.

I think it is unlikely Rawlinson would have accepted the post without any sort of discussion/approval from PW, so it does seem possible that a known safe pair of hands was, perhaps, parachuted in. Whether with the goal of saving the charity or supporting SC or both it is impossible to say. If, coincidentally, achieving that goal meant Harry being removed/having to leave his beloved charity that might be viewed by some as an added bonus.

Harry losing his charities, one by one, could be the final closing of the gate to his past life as a Royal and person of any significance. Completing the eviction from the Royal family.

I certainly don't think any of this has been engineered by PW as obviously the issues complained of by SC go back a long way, but he is unlikely to be disinterested in the final outcome.

Not the full shilling I’ve already said was not the right wording, not fully convincing I corrected it to. But if this is one of those mental angry threads that you get on MN, which I am now getting a strong impression that it is, I’m hiding it.

I think this has been a pretty calm, rational thread. People have said that t hey are looking forward to the Charity Commission investigation. They are also making valid comments.

I have a nasty feeling that Harry is being portrayed as a hen pecked bullied husband, and Meghan is his persecutor. There is so much negative media around her now, and Harry appearing to be the poor misunderstood victim - maybe in preparation for a return to the fold before Charles's health declines. And frankly he's far more culpable than she is for their behaviour. He knew the rules, knew the protocol and chose not to guide her gently into the family nor public role. I think she's a complete grifter but he's let her be.

@AsterTurq If by “Not the full shilling” you mean “Not all she appears” I think that’s a fair assumption. Obviously she will be putting her side of the story, others will have a different view. The clincher will be the evidence that both sides present to support their case. I know where my money would be.

I think what Chandauka is saying is the entire Senetable fundraising strategy was based around Harry being a prince who could call in big favours from the wealthy (who wanted to mingle with the RF), the aristocracy and the polo fraternity. But the problem was that Harry didn't really consider changing it after he left the RF to "find freedom" as his traditional playing polo fundraisers didn't really translate well into LA/Holywood.

Therefore the fundraising for Senetable stagnated because it was all too focussed on Harry's hobbies. But the longstanding trustees were reluctant to have difficult conversations with Harry.

Personally I think they could have made a lot of money in the US if they had started back in 2018 or 2019 and held a Gala fundraiser in New York or LA - 6-7 years ago A-listers would have been queuing up to buy tables to mingle with the RF. But now their brand is more toxic. Also post Covid and BLM a charity that fundraises through uber-rich guys playing polo seems very dated with a hint of colonialism.

I think those are very good points, @Lunde .
As you say, it removes the colonialism look as well.

The new script is emerging.
Trevor Phillips is dodgy.
Poor Harry won't ever get a fair hearing in the Press so shouldn't be expected to answer the allegations.
We weren't at the meeting so dob't know what happened.
And the obligatory "I'm not a fan/ supporter".

I would agree with this. I don't like Harry portrayed as completely under the control of Meghan. Typical to blame the woman. He's a 40 year old man, with access to all manner of help, advice and support. The choices are his.

Of course! Additionally, I'm sure this is just intensified if you are a Black African woman speaking up.

Doubtless she has witnesses and cast iron évidence in support of her very serious allégations about racism etc.

I guess she'd better have, @Words, because as you say they're serious allegations and if she can't prove them this could easily swing against her

On the other hand god only knows what it would do to what remains of Harry's reputation if she could prove he had been racist - especially when added to other known examples of this

Either way none of this looks good and I just wish they could get on and sort it, if nothing else for the sake of the beneficiaries who need their help

No, it means mentally deficient. They're not at full capacity.

A doom-laden comment that made me grimace. An alternative view is that as Meghan also comes off badly, she and H will stick together all the more in their twin victimhood.