Page 30 | Sentebale #2

stillavid · 30/03/2025 19:27

It is a real shame for the people who benefited from Sentable that a lot of donors seem to have stepped away.

I am sure Harry realised that would be the case after his dramatic exit and trashing of the RF so would have thought he had a whole new list of donors ready to step in. I assume that's what the trustees also hoped - hence their pivot to the US for donors.

Will be very interesting to see what comes of this.

MrsLeonFarrell · 30/03/2025 19:28

Harry putting out that press release rather than letting the system work may well be the deciding factor in the future of Sentebele. The CC aren't going to decide quickly and in the meantime he has smeared the charity in such a way that I suspect donors will be few and far between.

This is all on Harry, not Meghan.

NewAgeNewMe · 30/03/2025 19:30

No one would have known about this if Harry hadn’t issued a statement. The fact this is out there is on him and not SC.

AsterTurq · 30/03/2025 19:30

IAmATorturedPoet · 30/03/2025 18:55

Ok, you used the wrong phrase and corrected it because being 'mentally incompetent' was not what you meant.

Then you went on and used the word 'mental' to describe this thread.

That doesn't really help your argument that your initial phrase selection was an error.🤷‍♀️

Oh and I'm not a man 😵‍💫

Show quote history

No you’re not a man obviously - that was the point - you speak to other women like they’re idiots so same thing.

Mylovelygreendress · 30/03/2025 19:31

RandyRedHumpback · 30/03/2025 18:49

The mismanagement started with Harry flouncing out of his own charity and publicly slating her. Rather than staying put and dealing with whatever the problems are. Up until that point, there was nothing in the public discourse to say anything was wrong.

Show quote history

Harry has previous for flouncing and look how that turned out .

Lunde · 30/03/2025 19:31

Uricon2 · 30/03/2025 19:21

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

Edited

I think we are seeing the results of Harry no longer having well qualified "men in grey suits" to do the tricky work. I sure that they used to read all of those boring reports, papers and financial statements and summarize them into a short briefing paper and made sure his issues were put on the agenda.

I'm not sure whether Harry still employs anyone who has a thorough knowledge of the British charity organisation, law and regulations rather than the much looser (up to 95% expenses allowed) in a Delaware "charitable" foundation.

Then you have Meghan whispering in his ear that he should demand huge sponsorship amounts for the polo events (which led to Audi walking away when they got a sudden demand for £1million)

Thedom · 30/03/2025 19:32

Onlyonekenobe · 30/03/2025 19:25

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?

Amen to your post Onlyonekenobe.

Lunde · 30/03/2025 19:33

MrsLeonFarrell · 30/03/2025 19:28

Harry putting out that press release rather than letting the system work may well be the deciding factor in the future of Sentebele. The CC aren't going to decide quickly and in the meantime he has smeared the charity in such a way that I suspect donors will be few and far between.

This is all on Harry, not Meghan.

Yeah the CC take ages - didn't it take 2 years to investigate the Captain Tom Foundation?

MrsLeonFarrell · 30/03/2025 19:34

Lunde · 30/03/2025 19:33

Yeah the CC take ages - didn't it take 2 years to investigate the Captain Tom Foundation?

Show quote history

Something like that, it all takes an age and in the meantime the charity could have been seeking new revenue streams.

LipglossAlly · 30/03/2025 19:34

As I have said let's wait for the investigation results to have a clearer picture.

The way this story was handled( from both a reputational and professional point of view), and having an entire board stepping back in protest just seems strange to me.

It is true that we may have different scenarios. It might come out that there is some illegal activity going on or that the funds are simply not being managed efficiently. Again, running a charity also means optimise the management of the funds in the most efficient way possible. Failing to do that may have alerted the board who finally decided to step back.

We still do not have a clear picture yet, as the main priority of this lady seems to be discussing the Sussexes( both of them?)

I really hope that Santable manages to attract funding, because they champion a really important cause( we are talking about children with HIV).

BreadInCaptivity · 30/03/2025 19:35

stillavid · 30/03/2025 19:27

It is a real shame for the people who benefited from Sentable that a lot of donors seem to have stepped away.

I am sure Harry realised that would be the case after his dramatic exit and trashing of the RF so would have thought he had a whole new list of donors ready to step in. I assume that's what the trustees also hoped - hence their pivot to the US for donors.

Will be very interesting to see what comes of this.

I’m highly skeptical that the impact on Sentable funding even crossed H’s mind when deciding to leave the RF.

There is no evidence that he considered any negative consequences of leaving the BRF (and the manner in which they did it) on himself and M let alone anyone else and would imply a level of strategic planning/critical thinking that has been woefully absent from H&M’s post Royal actions.

AsterTurq · 30/03/2025 19:35

jeffgoldblum · 30/03/2025 18:40

Mansplaining is when a man explains something to a woman!
@IAmATorturedPoet , is not a man ! Odd you would assume so!

Show quote history

The point I’m making is that obviously you’re a woman – but you are speaking to me as if you are a man who thinks all women apart from themselves are stupid. An alternative opinion to theirs is not allowed, and they have to define things you already comprehend. Pedantically naturally. A bit of self righteousness thrown in for good measure (MN style). It was a play on words, to try and get that meaning of course. I obviously failed and it went over your head. No worries.

Uricon2 · 30/03/2025 19:35

I am hoping that this will embolden someone with journalistic cred to really take a hard, proper look at the African Parks situation, because that is a scandal on a level that makes the Sentebale imbroglio look trivial.

Ohpleeeease · 30/03/2025 19:36

Weepixie · 30/03/2025 19:11

I thought I was replying to Astroturf.

Show quote history

You probably were!

Weepixie · 30/03/2025 19:37

We still do not have a clear picture yet, as the main priority of this lady seems to be discussing the Sussexes( both of them?)

She can’t tell the story as it unfolded unless she mentions their part in the story.

AsterTurq · 30/03/2025 19:38

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Baital · 30/03/2025 19:39

Onestopshop11 · 30/03/2025 18:42

You are correct. The behaviour of the patron and his wife is not a matter for the Charity Commission. The affected person should have taken it to the Board of Tristees who would collectively decide whether to remove the patronage - by voting in accordance with the Trust voting arrangements.

Show quote history

That is assuming the trustees are acting in the best interests if the charity. If they aren't - maybe out of loyalty to the patron rather than the beneficiaries of the charity - then the Charity Commission are the appropriate regulatory authority.

MayaKovskaya · 30/03/2025 19:40

Uricon2 · 30/03/2025 19:35

I am hoping that this will embolden someone with journalistic cred to really take a hard, proper look at the African Parks situation, because that is a scandal on a level that makes the Sentebale imbroglio look trivial.

This ⬆️. African Parks definitely needs to be investigated.

Vespanest · 30/03/2025 19:40

I do think that the PR and supporter have to tread a careful line. It's so easy to attempt to discredit Sophie and the easiest form of attack but should this blow up and she does have receipts all it would take is a an A lister to support Sophie and the walls become to crumble. An Oprah or Tyler showing a glimpse of solidarity and their reputations will be trashed.

Lunde · 30/03/2025 19:42

Serenster · 30/03/2025 19:09

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.

This was covered in the royal podcast linked on here yesterday with the royal journalists.

After having a series of sponsorship/gifts in kind deals for many years - Harry was convinced (possibly by Meghan) that he should be demanding much bigger money from sponsors for the honour of sponsoring his polo event. So he demanded £1 million from Audi and they walked away.

Thedom · 30/03/2025 19:42

Well the comparison list of donors above absolutely validates and proves one of her criticisms, thats an easy receipt to prove.

IAmATorturedPoet · 30/03/2025 19:43

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

AtIusvue · 30/03/2025 19:44

LipglossAlly · 30/03/2025 19:34

As I have said let's wait for the investigation results to have a clearer picture.

The way this story was handled( from both a reputational and professional point of view), and having an entire board stepping back in protest just seems strange to me.

It is true that we may have different scenarios. It might come out that there is some illegal activity going on or that the funds are simply not being managed efficiently. Again, running a charity also means optimise the management of the funds in the most efficient way possible. Failing to do that may have alerted the board who finally decided to step back.

We still do not have a clear picture yet, as the main priority of this lady seems to be discussing the Sussexes( both of them?)

I really hope that Santable manages to attract funding, because they champion a really important cause( we are talking about children with HIV).

Why should we wait on the results of the CC investigation?

This is a discussion thread. We don’t have to wait for an official report, to talk about statements/interviews given to media, by Harry and Sophie. That is up for public comment and that’s what we are discussing.

You are trying your very best to shut down the conversation because of how bad this reflects on Harry.

Weepixie · 30/03/2025 19:46

@Astroturf - Your use of derogatory terms for anything related to a persons cognitive ability as well as those who may have poor mental health says all there is to say about you. End of.

MargaretThursday · 30/03/2025 19:48

RandyRedHumpback · 30/03/2025 18:41

Her first reaction was to report to the Charities Commission and to apply to court to stop the trustees from removing her. It would have remained an internal matter had Harry not leaked a statement saying he was resigning and making accusations against SC. Which then prompted her to make her own statement on Friday in her defence. The questions she answered today about MM were just that - answered questions.

Clear her name for what? What wrongdoing has she been accused of? Can you set it out.

Show quote history

I think also it's providing context for the bullying behaviour. If she noticed the attitude change at the point she refused to do the PR, then it adds context to the situation and explains why the relationship changed.

When I was bullied at work, having prior to this having a good relationship with the bullies, the immediate reaction from some people was "why would they?" Then when I said I didn't know then they immediately discounted the possibility that they could be bullying.
It didn't seem to occur to them that if their attitude "needed a reason" to change from friendly to bullying, then surely there needed to be a reason why I'd gone from friendly with them to saying they were bullying me.

So I can see how she would feel this was an important part of the jigsaw.