Page 26 | Sentebale #2

MayaKovskaya · 30/03/2025 18:09

Thank you, @LemonLeaves .

PeggyMitchellsCameo · 30/03/2025 18:10

This couple have now had bullying allegations raised, twice, from people working for them in some capacity. Not by media figures after a quick buck, but palace staff and the highly respected Dr. Chandauka.
From the Spotify executive who described them as grifters, to the sadly silenced Angela Kelly who wouldn’t hand over the tiara, it is one fiasco after another.
These are highly pampered people and it’s clear they don’t always foster good relationships. If you go back to Harry going on the beg for Meghan to get voiceover work, they just never seem to get it right.
Yes, Harry’s book was a huge seller because people wanted to read about the Royals. It’s that simple.
The original Netflix show did well because again some viewers want more Royal gossip.
Once that’s been squeezed enough, they don’t really have a lot to offer.
Harry has Invictus, which could be a huge asset to him but he uses it to promote his wife as much as the veterans.
Meghan has her lifestyle brand and it’s unoriginal. I’d rather buy one of Lauren Goodger’s inflammable leisure suits than a jar of her jam.
None of it is original, or groundbreaking, or authentic.
We all saw the video at the polo match. We saw Meghan trying to remove the Doctor from the line up, it was awful.
I don’t think the RF are perfect by any means. Andrew needs to go to the Tower and take his grabby ex wife with him. There is a lot of dead wood that makes the whole thing look so dated.
Without William and Catherine, I think they would be in serious trouble.
I adored Diana when she was here, I realise now she was also troubled and made a lot of mistakes. But she had a big heart. You can’t fake that.
The late Queen was simply unique and I don’t think anyone could match her fortitude and ability to stay above the drama.
I would love to spend a couple of hours with Angela Kelly to find out what life with her was really like, and what happened over the tiara.

IdaGlossop · 30/03/2025 18:11

JSMill · 30/03/2025 17:55

That interview was fascinating. It’s actually fortunate for the charity that SC came along. Otherwise I expect it would have stagnated. It makes me wonder what goes on at Invictus.

I had an odd moment of revelation when watching Dr C's interview earlier today: she's showing with conviction and evidence what lots of people are thinking - H&M are in it for themselves; money is the driver; their philanthropy is skin deep; their self-importance knows no bounds. We've had four years of their manipulation and half truths, and it's getting tedious. If this debacle results in them being quiet, staying in Montecito and enjoying their privileged life with their children, that would be a good outcome. Another would be the survival or reconfiguring of Sentebale. Yet another would be Invictus finding a new patron and its focus being veterans.

jeffgoldblum · 30/03/2025 18:11

LipglossAlly · 30/03/2025 18:07

Something is certainly not adding up in this story.
From my understanding there are questions and investigations going on around the charity's funds management. Why diverge the attention to the Sussexes when a number of board members resigned as a result of her not stepping down?

I tried to give her the benefit of the doubt last week that she was just a poor leader who didn't know how to recalibrate, but her statements seem targeted at PH, and she has almost nothing to say about the other founder who also resigned(the Prince of Losotho).

She also stated that PH stepping down was an attempt to make the charity fail without his patronage - why would he want a charity which was his pride and joy to fail. It doesn't make sense.

It makes more sense that H and co left for self- protection.

If this lady has been doing things that are ill-adviced

and/or unethical , the board and the patrons would not want to be seen supporting or condoning her activities, or to be held liable in anyway. They supposedly requested her resignation, she refused, and they left.

Again, as reported by the CNN, she gave a false statement to the UK tabloids and other media outlets about getting an induction, did she also lie to the trustees and fundraiser about this? Hopefully the Charity Commission Investigation will uncover the facts and hopefully audits publishing her expenses will come out soon

Induction?
thought that was a hob!

RandyRedHumpback · 30/03/2025 18:16

Profhilodisaster · 30/03/2025 18:02

I'm very late to the party but have just listened to the interview, Sophie said that Meghan had invited guests and hadn't told/asked anyone if it was ok to do so, resulting in too many people being on the podium and the very awkward 'choreography' of who should stand where.

Show quote history

It went further than that. Meghan had said she wasn't coming. Then just turned up with no notice with Serena Williams in tow. And yes, it was not planned for MM to be on the podium, leading to the awkwardness.

Reminds me of Invictus in Germany. The word went out that MM wasn't going, and she's papped buying milkshakes in CA. Next thing you know, she's arrived at the Games, making odd speeches and awkwardly taking part in ceremonies (like marching in her shorty shorts in front of veterans) that she shouldn't have been part of. Probably because nobody within the organising committee knew what to do with her to include her - but had she given them actual notice of her attendance, they would probably have been able to arrange something that didn't look completely inappropriate.

LipglossAlly · 30/03/2025 18:18

jeffgoldblum · 30/03/2025 18:11

Induction?
thought that was a hob!

Show quote history

injunction

LipglossAlly · 30/03/2025 18:19

jeffgoldblum · 30/03/2025 18:11

Induction?
thought that was a hob!

Show quote history

*injunction

LipglossAlly · 30/03/2025 18:20

LipglossAlly · 30/03/2025 18:07

Something is certainly not adding up in this story.
From my understanding there are questions and investigations going on around the charity's funds management. Why diverge the attention to the Sussexes when a number of board members resigned as a result of her not stepping down?

I tried to give her the benefit of the doubt last week that she was just a poor leader who didn't know how to recalibrate, but her statements seem targeted at PH, and she has almost nothing to say about the other founder who also resigned(the Prince of Losotho).

She also stated that PH stepping down was an attempt to make the charity fail without his patronage - why would he want a charity which was his pride and joy to fail. It doesn't make sense.

It makes more sense that H and co left for self- protection.

If this lady has been doing things that are ill-adviced

and/or unethical , the board and the patrons would not want to be seen supporting or condoning her activities, or to be held liable in anyway. They supposedly requested her resignation, she refused, and they left.

Again, as reported by the CNN, she gave a false statement to the UK tabloids and other media outlets about getting an induction, did she also lie to the trustees and fundraiser about this? Hopefully the Charity Commission Investigation will uncover the facts and hopefully audits publishing her expenses will come out soon

*injunction

Thedom · 30/03/2025 18:20

HereIGoAgainOnMyOwn44 · 30/03/2025 17:00

Name changed for this. I've worked with both Sophie Chandauka and Jason Knauf in different capacities. Sophie isn't the easiest character but - in my personal experience only - she is trustworthy. Usually comes out on top in a challenge.
Jason always came across as level headed and calm. Never saw him under pressure though.

This is interesting, thanks for the personal insight.

Did you watch her interview ?, having worked with her, how did you think she came across?

Lunde · 30/03/2025 18:22

LipglossAlly · 30/03/2025 18:07

Something is certainly not adding up in this story.
From my understanding there are questions and investigations going on around the charity's funds management. Why diverge the attention to the Sussexes when a number of board members resigned as a result of her not stepping down?

I tried to give her the benefit of the doubt last week that she was just a poor leader who didn't know how to recalibrate, but her statements seem targeted at PH, and she has almost nothing to say about the other founder who also resigned(the Prince of Losotho).

She also stated that PH stepping down was an attempt to make the charity fail without his patronage - why would he want a charity which was his pride and joy to fail. It doesn't make sense.

It makes more sense that H and co left for self- protection.

If this lady has been doing things that are ill-adviced

and/or unethical , the board and the patrons would not want to be seen supporting or condoning her activities, or to be held liable in anyway. They supposedly requested her resignation, she refused, and they left.

Again, as reported by the CNN, she gave a false statement to the UK tabloids and other media outlets about getting an induction, did she also lie to the trustees and fundraiser about this? Hopefully the Charity Commission Investigation will uncover the facts and hopefully audits publishing her expenses will come out soon

She certainly applied for an injunction because the application is on the UK Court's website - she did it weeks ago on March 5th. We don't know what happened but the fact that the trustees resigned meant it wasn't needed as there was no vote.

Personally I think Harry flounced at being questioned and expected/expects to be invited back as he said he had stepped down "for now". Which made it sound temporary.

Yes she didn't have much to say about Prince Seeiso apart from criticising his cousin who was put on the board and didn't attend meetings.

Her main issue seems to be the weakness of an organisation that was set up and managed around Harry's polo hobby - but when that income dropped the trustees didn't want to have the difficult conversation with Harry.

Original poster

Words · 30/03/2025 18:23

@jeffgoldblum yes. Thé fashionable view that challenging a black person's accusation of racism is itself racist is a dangerous and foolish road.

I absolutely hope this is not thé path SC choses.

It undermines thé cause and leads to thé sort of déranged Trumpian backlash currently underway.

OP posts:

RandyRedHumpback · 30/03/2025 18:23

When you apply for an injunction, you apply for an interim injunction (generally ex party) to halt the action immediately (in this case, the action being SC's dismissal). A final injunction hearing takes place later, where it will either be upheld or dismissed on the evidence presented by both parties. As I understand it, a final injunction wouldn't have been necessary because Harry and the trustees left instead. What bit was she lying about?

LemonLeaves · 30/03/2025 18:23

LipglossAlly · 30/03/2025 18:07

Something is certainly not adding up in this story.
From my understanding there are questions and investigations going on around the charity's funds management. Why diverge the attention to the Sussexes when a number of board members resigned as a result of her not stepping down?

I tried to give her the benefit of the doubt last week that she was just a poor leader who didn't know how to recalibrate, but her statements seem targeted at PH, and she has almost nothing to say about the other founder who also resigned(the Prince of Losotho).

She also stated that PH stepping down was an attempt to make the charity fail without his patronage - why would he want a charity which was his pride and joy to fail. It doesn't make sense.

It makes more sense that H and co left for self- protection.

If this lady has been doing things that are ill-adviced

and/or unethical , the board and the patrons would not want to be seen supporting or condoning her activities, or to be held liable in anyway. They supposedly requested her resignation, she refused, and they left.

Again, as reported by the CNN, she gave a false statement to the UK tabloids and other media outlets about getting an induction, did she also lie to the trustees and fundraiser about this? Hopefully the Charity Commission Investigation will uncover the facts and hopefully audits publishing her expenses will come out soon

The post I've just shared explains a (little) bit about being a trustee. The concept of Sophie Chandauka self-reporting to the regulator if she has been guilty of wrong-doing, is possible. But would be an insane move from someone who by all accounts is well-educated, legally trained, and experienced in governance and corporate management.

A trustee who believes in the charity's mission, wants to stay involved and is confident of their own accountability and transparency, should not feel the need to step down. A trustee that has been party to less than transparent dealings, either actively or passively, would be far more likely to want to head for the emergency exit. The irony being that it won't matter a jot in respect of their liability because that ship has already sailed.

The acid test here is whether you are able to recruit new trustees with the skills and experience you need. The fact that Iain Rawlinson has agreed to join is very telling. He is a very experienced trustee and non-executive director. It's extremely unlikely he would have joined as a trustee unless he was confident in the charity's direction and Sophie Chandauka's actions.

Onestopshop11 · 30/03/2025 18:24

@LemonLeaves this is an interesting and useful post for those less familiar with the role of a trustee. I think it is worth adding that whistleblowing must meet the public interest test to afford protection to the whistleblower either in disclosing while they are a party to an nda or really for any other public disclosure. Without that protection the other party could seek any number of legal remedies, not just breach of nda but say slander or libel. The Public Interest test is specific - the reported wrongdoing must be either:

Criminal offence
Failure to comply with a Statutory Obligation
Miscarriage of Justice
Health and Safety
Causing Environmental Damage
Covering up any of the above.

i think the only relevant one here would be 2.

RandyRedHumpback · 30/03/2025 18:25

Yes she didn't have much to say about Prince Seeiso apart from criticising his cousin who was put on the board and didn't attend meetings.

In the interview this morning, she did talk about one of the members of the board continually stopping her from speaking at the meetings. She specified it was not Harry, but didn't say who it was.

MissRoseDurward · 30/03/2025 18:26

There is a lot of dead wood that makes the whole thing look so dated.

What dead wood? Current working members of the RF are
The King and Queen
The Prince and Princess of Wales
The Princess Royal
The Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh
and
The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, who are elderly and now quite far removed from the line of succession, but still turn up for important events, and have their own patronages and areas of interest.

And I'm not sure whether Princess Alexandra still counts as working. She too is elderly and has appeared to have quite severe mobility problems when she has appeared in public.

LipglossAlly · 30/03/2025 18:29

I also find very weird that when being investigated for something as serious as mismanaging the funds of a charity catering to the most vulnerable of children, your first reaction would be to bring up the spouse of one of the founders and using the key buzzwords and adopt key talking points of the BM( deviation tactics maybe?)rather than clearing your name and providing a precise and detailed account of who/ where these funds were allocated to. Very interesting. The truth will eventually come out once a detailed investigation report is made public and shows how the aforementioned funds were managed or mismanaged

Onestopshop11 · 30/03/2025 18:32

RandyRedHumpback · 30/03/2025 18:25

Yes she didn't have much to say about Prince Seeiso apart from criticising his cousin who was put on the board and didn't attend meetings.

In the interview this morning, she did talk about one of the members of the board continually stopping her from speaking at the meetings. She specified it was not Harry, but didn't say who it was.

Prince Harry is a Patron not a Trustee so would not attend Board Meetings. A Patron is a figurehead and has no legal role in running the charity. The Chair is there to direct the meeting not to monopolise it.

JudgeJ · 30/03/2025 18:32

AtIusvue · 29/03/2025 14:45

It’s always someone else’s problem with Meghan.

Harry was told she was rude- Harry started a fight with William

Harry was told Meghan can’t demand to have a tiara- Harry said what Meghan wants Meghan gets

Harry makes out it was the toxic press that caused the bad headlines, not Megs daft behaviour (empath bananas anyone?),
-Harry makes out that his family were cold and unwelcoming- not that meghan can’t seem to read a room and has no self awareness.
Staff have left both the palace and in the US over her alleged bullying behaviour and she can still do not wrong in his eyes.

He cannot see that she’s rude, entitled and even people thinking she’s a bully. The guy is an absolute fruit loop, completely detached from reality.

Edited

I dread to think what will happen to him when the penny finally drops. that all his problems with other people stem from his wife's behaviour and demands. If he is to survive the humiliation he will need the love and support of many of the people he's slagged off.

jeffgoldblum · 30/03/2025 18:32

LipglossAlly · 30/03/2025 18:29

I also find very weird that when being investigated for something as serious as mismanaging the funds of a charity catering to the most vulnerable of children, your first reaction would be to bring up the spouse of one of the founders and using the key buzzwords and adopt key talking points of the BM( deviation tactics maybe?)rather than clearing your name and providing a precise and detailed account of who/ where these funds were allocated to. Very interesting. The truth will eventually come out once a detailed investigation report is made public and shows how the aforementioned funds were managed or mismanaged

Of course you are an impartial poster I assume.

Serenster · 30/03/2025 18:33

RandyRedHumpback · 30/03/2025 18:25

Yes she didn't have much to say about Prince Seeiso apart from criticising his cousin who was put on the board and didn't attend meetings.

In the interview this morning, she did talk about one of the members of the board continually stopping her from speaking at the meetings. She specified it was not Harry, but didn't say who it was.

Reading between the Iines of today’s interview, it sounds like despite not having a formal role in the charity’s governance structure, Harry attended board meetings - from time to time at least. And seems to have had considerable influence, being able to propose new board members with no notice, for example. We don’t know if Prince Seeiso ever attended. He had appointed his cousin to the Board, and allegedly he didn’t often attend meetings (the cousin denies this to be the case).

Since the allegations that we currently know about resolve around the board deferring to Harry’s wishes and being unwilling to raise awkward issues with him, even when it was to the charity’s overall detriment, it’s not surprising he is currently a focus. If Prince Seeiso had more of a hands off role, there’s no obvious reason why he would be being discussed?

PippistrelleBat · 30/03/2025 18:34

JudgeJ · 30/03/2025 18:32

I dread to think what will happen to him when the penny finally drops. that all his problems with other people stem from his wife's behaviour and demands. If he is to survive the humiliation he will need the love and support of many of the people he's slagged off.

Show quote history

They don’t, they stem from himself.

jeffgoldblum · 30/03/2025 18:34

Words · 30/03/2025 18:23

@jeffgoldblum yes. Thé fashionable view that challenging a black person's accusation of racism is itself racist is a dangerous and foolish road.

I absolutely hope this is not thé path SC choses.

It undermines thé cause and leads to thé sort of déranged Trumpian backlash currently underway.

How did you get the dashes ( I’m aware they have a proper name that’s escaped me right now!) above your e’s ?

RandyRedHumpback · 30/03/2025 18:36

Onestopshop11 · 30/03/2025 18:32

Prince Harry is a Patron not a Trustee so would not attend Board Meetings. A Patron is a figurehead and has no legal role in running the charity. The Chair is there to direct the meeting not to monopolise it.

Show quote history

I know. I was answering the point that SC didn't talk about anyone else on the committee/anyone else but Harry.

AsterTurq · 30/03/2025 18:37

IAmATorturedPoet · 30/03/2025 17:55

The meaning of full shilling:

The phrase "not the full shilling" means 'not fully sane or mentally competent.' When someone is described as "not the full shilling", it suggests that they may be lacking mental clarity or have some level of cognitive impairment.

I wouldn’t call any thread ‘one of those mental angry threads’ either but each to their own.

Show quote history

I know what it means, no need to mansplain, I just couldn’t find the right phrase, which I have corrected 3 x now 🙄

And yes you do get very irate and angry threads in MN, it does seem to attract such women 🤷‍♀️. Not all, luckily, but I unfortunately walked into this one.