Sentebale #2

[Words]

Second thread .

Exactly

Again, I would wait for the results of the investigation regarding the mismanagement of Santabale's funds which at the end of the day is the core issue.
Did she mismanaged these funds or not?
Why did an entire board of trustees decided to leave as a result of her not stepping down?
Why is she not providing a detailed account of how the funding is being managed. The latter, would frankly be the top priority for anybody else in her position.

deflect deflect deflect.

I looked at the list of “Acknowledgements” - likely those who donated either money or other items of value (like the use of polo fields) to Sentabale in the 2023 accounts and compared them to previous years (2015 shown in the paler blue). It’s notable how slimmed down the list is, with big names ike Emirates, KPMG and Audi that did reoccur in past years now missing, along with various UAE donors.

Yes but likely to be relatively limited in scope and value though useful. The main issue for trustees with professional qualifications is risk of damage to professional reputation or disqualification from professional bodies.

I’ve had a ringside seat at some real stunners in the past and would never join a volunteer board.

Can she really spend that sort of money as a volunteer without board/trustee approval?

Or is it a case of buyers' remorse that the investment didn't turn out the way they hoped?

One thing is clear is that the income from the big polo events was in decline £1.944 million in 2019, £1.612 in 2023 - a drop of about 18% at a time when costs were rising - they needed to do something.

She has spoken up about the bullying.

Again, I would wait for the results of the investigation regarding the mismanagement of Santabale's funds which at the end of the day is the core issue.

At best, that’s one of the core issues. The other being the charity’s governance and whether it was improperly influenced by the interests of one of its patrons…

That is a really interesting look at some facts.

Script script script

I thought I was replying to Astroturf.

Well I’m not on Tattle so that has passed me by, I certainly didn’t mean it that way and I hope you are not implying in your post that that was my intention, I also think it says more about the thought process of the person who reported my post than me who wrote it. I actually thought its was because I described posters who descend onto insignificant posts about spread/jam as “unwell pooches”

I posted earlier that the Squaddie scipt seemed to have been formulated and was being delivered. I listed the points of the script I had noted at that point.

This post was me adding to that list.

We don't know if the trustees agreed to the consultancy expenditure. If they didn't, that would be financial mismanagement, as it should have had trustee approval, but the trustees would be showing they had made a poor chair appointment. No doubt the CC will be looking at this. They also seem to be suggesting the money has not been well spent as the work done has not resulted in new sources of funding.

I'm so sorry! I didn't clock that 😄

You say that we should "wait for the investigation" - yet continually repeat un-evidenced claims that SC "mismanaged funds" 🤔

That is fascinating Serenster, thank you. !

All the Gulf royals gone, Elton John aids foundation gone,

William and Catherine's Royal Foundation did support them in 2023.

The Washington Post reporting.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/03/30/prince-harry-aids-charity-diana-dispute-africa-sentebale/0700aae0-0d5f-11f0-b319-ba9d1af23a2f_story.html

They also seem to be suggesting the money has not been well spent as the work done has not resulted in new sources of funding

it was always going to be money down the drain as long as a Harry was still part of the charity but the money had to be spent to prove it.

It's interesting to see that from certain sections more weight is put on undisclosed sources allegations than words from a persons actual mouth. No bias there.

Think I've just about caught up! Thank you to the many people who have made such insightful and pertinent posts.

I think what struck me most is a small thing, partially seen at the bottom of one of @Atlusvue s copies of the transcript of the interview with SC. It's about Harry introducing things that were not on the agenda at board meetings (where he shouldn't have been anyway)

I find this entirely credible. He sees Sentebale as his project and doesn't know where the boundaries are or where his remit as Patron properly stops. I can imagine this would utterly infuriate someone who wanted it to be run and developed properly, especially in the atmosphere of an "old mates club" who are (allegedly) loathe to challenge Harry at all and are (allegedly) content to bumble along like paternalistic Victorian aristocrats dispensing charity to the Unfortunate.

It does not seem at all credible to me that someone of SC's standing would put herself in the firing line as she has unless she was very sure that she had evidence to back up her claims. I'm sure the infuriating behaviour at that polo match helped not at all, but it has to be part of a very much bigger and more concerning picture to have made her put her reputation on the line in this way.

We don't have all the details of course but unless there is something massive we don't know this shows no signs of playing out well for Harry and worse, I can't see Sentebale surviving, which is a bloody shame.

Edit for typo

Yes - some cover is better than others, but it's not a silver bullet by any stretch. I have only done trustee work if I've been comfortable that the charity understands its legal obligations, particularly in respect of governance and transparency. The potential reputational risk was a much greater concern than the risk of financial liability.

As PP have said, the CC aren't that speedy in their investigations, so I'd be surprised if we heard much about their findings before the end of next year.

That’s a very interesting list.

Suggests a very clear backing off from organisations/people who are likely to have perceived H’s attitude towards his family negatively.

@Serenster thank you for that.

It looks to me as if the Emiratis who were great friends of the late Queen and great lovers of all things horsey came out in support initially because of the late Queen then quietly drifted away when they could.

Oh for goodness sake.

It’s been YEARS of Harry and Meghan showing the world with their words and actions exactly who they are, what they want, what motivates them, what they think of themselves, what they think of others. We also have countless third party accounts which, failing evidentiary proof of the standard required in courts of law 🙄 (courts, incidentally, which themselves have highlighted both Harry’s and Meghan’s lies), all mysteriously point the same way. Everything and everyone is showing us they’re mendacious, greedy, increasingly desperate, grandiose people with inflated egos and a tendency to bully their way through life (deliberately or through stupidity and sheer entitlement) with nary a consideration for friend, family, employees, the public - all in pursuit of nothing but money (H&M) and fame/adoration (Meghan).

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck - it’s a fucking duck!

Harry puts out a press release and people think it should be taken at face value as the gospel truth. Yet SC, with more education and experience and intelligence and nous and knowledge of the situation in Lesotho and in the daily workings of Sentebale than Harry and Meghan put together multiplied by 10, is required to prove herself through the courts and the CC?? What a load of shite. How do people contort themselves like this, for people who have shown time and again that they have no loyalty to anyone who doesn’t feed their egos or give them money? What warped thinking is this?