Sentebale #2

[Words]

Second thread .

As I've mentioned before, glitterturd, this is what happens once the sh1t really starts to hit the fan ... others get splattered, and unfortunately they can include some of the better folk around

I think Sophie is sitting with Iain Rawlinson, so sounds like he’s there is back her up.

https://www.rawlinsonpartners.com/about/

Guaranteed to wind Meghan up. She always wants to be top dog.

@IcedPurple I will reserve response for now. We need to see the whole thing in context.

What I will say is that it is odd to me that a legally trained, presumably media trained accomplished corporate executive would use a boardroom PR battle - Harry's camp released this statement and didn't tell me! They are bullies! They have bullied all our staff! On national telly In this way. It's amateur.

I have wondered about the quality of pr advice and specialist legal advice she has had from the beginning. But then reflected on spanakopita's input about legal going through everything. Now I just don't know.

Has anyone (who?) actually suggested H&M suggested US funds were channelled through Archewell ? Sorry if I've missed that bit. If that's demonstrable then that surely is a grave thing for Harry. I know they haven't through Archewell but given there seems no benefit to the charity even the suggestion would sound a bit dodge.

https://youtube.com/shorts/Clifwjg6DZk?si=xVmB4xTnEYeg6E7w

The big question is will Harry realise he's been taken for a ride?

😁

I never really bought into the 'his wife hates him', but there are times when you might question your stance on that 😂........

@Thedom we are coming at this from différent perspectives. Mine is a bit more clinical. I don't want to fall out!

If the coverage has convinced you sc is a victim ( clawing her way out of a pit with her fingernails) thén I am utterly wrong and SC and comms have scored a massive success and no gnawing of hands will take place.

Yes, saying that he didn't inform them of the move might be poor practice, but it's hardly 'bullying'. It all seemed a bit sensationalist but I too will reserve judgement until I've seen the entire interview.

What do you think is amateur about this? She’s positioned herself as a whistleblower via a process for which she has to produce actual evidence of her claim, and convince a High Court judge to take it seriously. She appears to have done that, so her claims immediately have met an initial credibility hurdle, even if not yet proved.

She has spoken to the FT (serious newspaper with impeccable reputation) and is speaking on tv on a Sunday morning show generally seen as serious.

So far, she’s completely avoided the tabloids and the populist commentariat. Given this is all, at heart so far “he said, she said” I’m not sure what she could have done differently to position herself as a credible complainant. (Doesn’t mean she’s right of course!).

Polo fundraising

It looks increasingly likely that the charity is at risk of closing.

H still has a surprising amount of goodwill as many people are unable to shake the visual of a small boy walking behind his mother's coffin in line with four tall men.

I was rather disappointed in the determination of some in my friendship group to fully blame M as some sort of temptress who led vulnerable victim H astray. As though H had zero agency in the matter! Sadly, some people will blame M and, as ever, H will evade accountability in messy situation.

And if H were ever to turn on M, like he turned on his family, I can see H shamelessly leaning into the "I was seduced and misled by that Jezebel" trope to paint himself as a victim and continue to evade accountability for his actions.

We still don't know the actual nature of the complaint she made to the Charity Commision - that will be interesting

No falling out @words, I just don't see how anyone, clinical or not, can view it as "she dug her own pit and fell into it. Not thé performance I would havé expected from a média traîned corporate lawyer. Weird."

She is up against a multimillion $ PR campaign, she was already on the backfoot when Harry and Seesio made their statement public, she is a woman, she is black, she is a volunteer, she is an underdog and doesn't have the access to funds or media that Harry has.

@My2cents1975 oh, I'm certain he would. I don't subscribe to the view that Harry has been an innocent dupe in anything which has gone on.

What she has done is call the online supporters bluff, their instincts are to just bombard with insults and slander and by doing so supporting what she is saying. It cannot be denied that anyone who dares question them is met by at best mean words and at its worst doxxing and death threats. This is the second time that I can recall she done this with the remark about Harry using the press followed immediately by the People exclusive being the first.

@Serenster you are being too lawyer.

I am concerned her média stratègy is off.

In that interview she deflected the first question beautifully then dived back into the issue, named Harry, got a bit sensational. If that is her objective fine, but it is hugely risky all round

I don't subscribe to the view that Harry has been an innocent dupe in anything which has gone on.

Not innocent, just too dim to foresee the consequences of his actions. Starting with the belief that the Queen would agree to half in, half out. Everything that has happened since has shown how right she was, and how right the RF has been to keep them at arm's length.

Has anyone (who?) actually suggested H&M suggested US funds were channelled through Archewell?

The post was by @Chuchoter at 18:17 today, @BasiliskStare

I did ask where this assertion came from but haven't had a reply yet ...

Andrew, you forgot to mention Andrew

I should have been clearer @Thedom .

From a comms point of view the snippet from Sky wasn't great imho. She deflected the question perfectly first time but then rambled on into the trap she was first set. Anyway let's see what transpires tomorrow.

Her accomplishments, although impressive sounding are not quite what they appear, including the doctorate already mentioned, but I don't want to go into that now.

Let's be clear though. SC is no underdog. Her career will have made her substantially wealthy.

Good on her for devoting her time for free to charitable endeavours .

Let's be clear though. SC is no underdog. Her career will have made her substantially wealthy.

She's an underdog in the sense that up until a few days ago very few people will have heard of her. Also, she doesn't have a whole media 'machine' and pet journalists at the end of the phone in the way that Harry does, despite, as she suggested, having public 'disdain' for that same media.

Her and Dr C together eating pie....

That family tried everything as far as I can see. They made the effort to

Give him a knighthood
Give him a royal dukedom
Give him an income
Give a shit
Send the older brother in for a private word
Ask close friends to speak to him
Have the matriarch say some stern words
Get Papa to go full on 'darling boy ...'
Ask experienced courtiers to assist
Ask nice Auntie Sophie Wessex to help
Start charities for him
Give him patronages
Employ therapists for him
Give him a private medical team
Give him staff
Give him offers of a palace apartment and houses
Manage his diary, back off from his diary ...
Back off from him, manage him, find him a career, let him find his own way ...

On and on and on and on.

Prince Harry has had 5 years of no one standing up to him, and now it's finally happened, imagine going on the PR interviews he's done and not really have to answer any difficult questions because it was all agreed before, now we have an educated black woman, who is not prepared to be used in the PR game they like to use, standing up for herself, it was going to happen at some point. What's Meghan's mantra about women being given a voice? Does it only mean the ones who are sucking up to them?