Sentebale #2

[Words]

Second thread .

I imagine the members of the Sussex Survivors Club around the globe are giving her a collective standing ovation right now.

The Sussex PR machine are continuing to try to destroy her.

I bet it was Dr C who was originally meant to be handing over the polo trophy, before Meghan muscled in.

Here’s how it was at Sentabale polo in 2023 when it was in Singapore.
I wonder how much dealings SC had had with Meghan before she rocked up to the polo in 2024? She must have been fuming to suddenly find herself treated like the office junior.

Maybe. I'm on record upthread as saying that these things are always complicated and rarely the result of one person doing the wrong thing.

But the homogenous answers I'm seeing in several places does suggest that there is a narrative that is being put out. That's what good PR does after all, try to get control of the public narrative. What I find interesting is that there is no acknowledgement that Harry put this into the public arena and it will probably end up backfiring most on the charity he founded which is a pity as it seems to do good work.

The way the whole situation was handled may definitely have a negative effect with regards to securing future funding. Hopefully not.

However, if there are concerns over how things were being handled internally, and these concerns were not taken into consideration, it is in the interest of those who were previously involved with the charity to ring the alarm and change direction and maybe found or join new charity that champion a similar cause and serves a similar demographic.

At the end of the day, a charity if not a fortune
100 company, you can secure all the funds that you want, but there will always be the need to make sure that the largest proportion possible goes to the intended receivers.

A good way to secure additional funding would have been to highlight the efficiency of the whole operation with figures.

If she feels that she is being attacked unjustly, why didn't she come out with figures and argue that actually no, PH, the board and are wrong because "x percentage of the funds are going to the children".

Meghan seems to make a habit of gate crashing Harry's events, she did it at the Invictus games when she made her unplanned speech. Why on earth doesn't Harry tell her no , it's so rude .

And she’s asked one of her kids to put their thumb on it for clicks (bottom left).

All this is certainly making me reflect on what a self serving sham it is being rich and privileged and setting up a charity.

You get to feel all sanctimonious and claim philanthropy while all you're really doing is organising posh events for you and your posh friends.

This type of philanthropy is the ultimate privilege. You get to believe you are a Good Person because of your good works without realising your good works are all part of your privilege.

I guess I've always known this but this story about the Polo matches is really making it stink.

Genuine philanthropy has to be done very carefully and guarding against hubris and self service.

Maybe the royals manage this role because it's a job so there isn't any pretence that 'I do this because I'm such a great person'.
Which is where H^M fell down at the start and continued with all their word salads.

They believe they are super special and compassionate, and that's why they are 'philanthropists' not because they are privileged or had a job to do.

Exactly.

People can scream PR all they want.
However, this is just common sense.

There were probably disagreements with regards to how things were run( on both sides), and I am not going to sit here and pretend to know exactly what was going on. However, I would have expected the lady to react in a different way by arguing her corner with facts.

My priority would have been to provide a clear trail of the spendings of the charity in order to prove that I was simply being maligned and that the board had no reasons for being concerned. It is as simply as that. Anybody would do the exact same thing, if being faced with a similar scenario in any workplace.
Protecting my professional reputation and highlighting how efficiently my charity handles funds would take absolute priority over talking about the spouse of one of the founders.

*is

How do you know she hasn’t done that ad infinitum already PP? Probably she has in many meetings and it’s ended up here?

SC did back her argument with facts- the fact that they lost out on a polo venue due to Harry trying to bring a Netflix crew along, the fact that they lost sponsors, the fact that trustees had been on the board for far too long.

I will open another thread, maybe those who are asking the same questions over and over and over, can revise this one for the answers to their questions, while others move on to seeing continuing events unfold in the latest Sussex PR shambles.

We actually have 3 different accounts, if you include Prince Lesotho’s from Santabale.

I see the cognitive dissonance continues.

Many different people have taken issue with Meghan and Harry for entitled behaviour. And yet there are still people ready to dismiss theses testimonies as smear campaigns.

If you are only prepared to defend your icon then you aren’t progressive or kind. You are delusional and manipulated. It makes the Sussex Squad look like a cult.

None of this is clearly addressing the elephant in the room with regards to funding management and efficiency when it comes to money allocation within the charity.

We have investors coming and going from any charity(ex. with IG who lost Jaguar after H&M left the RF, however we had other investors joining in such as Boeing)

Again, there is no fault in trying to seek fundings from a larger pool of investors. However, this is not the main issue at play.

My priority would have been to provide a clear trail of the spendings of the charity in order to prove that I was simply being maligned and that the board had no reasons for being concerned. It is as simply as that

Your view of the governance of a multimillion pound charity is extraordinarily naive @LipglossAlly

The issues SC is highlighting are around a change of direction, adapting to the needs of children in Lesotho now - as opposed to 19 years ago, operating a board of trustees in line with best practice, creating a professional environment not a culture of simply doing what the patrons want etc.

Nothing simple about it. But I love how you have identified with certainly that there is a single issue with expenditure.

New thread open for when this one fills up,

As stated in previous posts, I am not arguing with this approach which I believe could be healthy for the charity.

We are not in disagreement here.

What I am highlighting is that there were apparently concerns around the expenditures of the charity and the efficiency of money allocation within the organisation.

This is what apparently prompted a whole board to resign and this is not being addressed.

I'm a bit perplexed as to why Sophie Chandauka is reduced to being called the lady. It feels a bit misogynistic to be honest.

The reason are people are impressed by how articulate and clear she is is because we are used to Harry just spouting nonsense which he never backs up. She gives clear examples which seem plausible. At the end of the interview, we have also this a source says so and so. Why won't the source stand up and be counted?

I believe Sophie because this is part of a pattern which dates back to pre Meghan Harry behaviour. It's not one thing, it's drip drip of poor behaviour on his part.

It’s pretty big news down here in Australia too. Was on our 6 o’clock news last night too. www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/toxic-harry-and-disruptive-meghan-face-crushing-anniversary-amid-charity-crisis/news-story/77489ae2fb626a5efc9cbb2b4526fa32

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

“ Sources”

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14552837/harry-meghan-charity-claims-baseless-source.html

Exactly Jads

Sophie is just another one in a long list of targets and victims of the Sussexs'