Sentebale no. 3

[Thedom]

The ex lead Patron Its getting plenty of media coverage today.

(ps, my hash key doesn't work )

I'd love to hear the epic, no nonsense Auntie Anne's take on this shambles.

That's a very interesting post and very insightful. He doesn't seem to be able to view her in a balanced way, which isn't healthy.

According the Lady C Buckingham Palace have to deal with a huge amount of mail requesting medical evidence (signed by a Dr, like the others Royals) that Meghan actually gave birth to those children. Perhaps another scandal if she used surrogates.

Quite! All that guff about being thrown to the wolves. Imagine how many stories they squashed on behalf of H&M. But they couldn’t catch them all with a full time staff working on it. I wonder if he’ll ever see how protected and privileged he was.

I suspect it would be short and to the point! 😂

I would imagine they get conspiracy mail from all sorts of crazies, there's always someone convinced their all lizards or that they are the secret child of one of them. Never brought into the Meghan surrogacy theroy and I'd take anything lady C said with a vat of salt, in many ways she's as big as a grifter as Sussex's.

The RF has enough to worry about closer to home and I think he's been cut loose by them to sink or swim with no interference. If the whole California Dreamin' lifestyle topples then they will let him return (if he wants to 🤔) but to play a totally different role than before. I have no knowledge of charities (apart from doing voluntary shifts in a shop) and am grateful for all the well-informed posts on here - thank you!

"Being thrown to the Wolves" is Sussex speak for having to deal with negativity. Because no-one is allowed to say anything negative about them.

Agreed. And a bully

Statement from the Exec Director of Sentebale sentebale.org/a-message-from-our-executive-director/

Agreed. It is impossible to be a public figure without some negative press. They both paleo to think that she was being unfairly targeted and this drives a lot of the split between them and their families and previous friendship groups.

Even the nicest of actors and politicians gets flack for silly things. So imagine how hard they have to work behind the scenes to spin their awful behaviour.

That’s a very balanced, well put together statement. I have to wonder how much of that founding energy was via Kensington Palace employees.

That was one of their- many - bitter complaints on Oprah, that BP never pushed back on some negative stories. BP have no time or inclination to pick up on every single tiny criticism of members of the RF.
Therefore they are martyrs and social justice warriors because BP didn't challenge a Daily Express story about their supposed yoga room..

I wonder how they’d describe the co-ordinated media campaign against Sophie Chandauka, led by Harry’s statement, the People article and Bryony Gordon’s piece last week?

The arrogance in believing that they knew better on how to handle a story than PR experts must have been infuriating for comms staff

From Vanity Fair, American Hustle

The former Spotify employee says it was challenging to engage Harry, and a person who interviewed for a job with the couple says, “I just felt like he kind of didn’t want to be there doing that at this time....

Harry’s attitude was either “Well, why should I do this?” or “Why are we doing this?” The interviewee says they wondered, “Didn’t Spotify pay you a lot of money to do this?”

When something went poorly, often due to Meghan and Harry’s own demands— Meghan would become cold and withholding toward the person she perceived to be responsible.

The source says it was “really, really, really awful. Very painful. Because she’s constantly playing checkers—I’m not even going to say chess—but she’s just very aware of where everybody is on her board. And when you are not in, you are to be thrown to the wolves at any given moment.”

In practice, they say, that manifested as “undermining. It’s talking behind your back. It’s gnawing at your sense of self. Really, like, Mean Girls teenager.”

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/story/prince-harry-meghan-markle-cover-story-2025?srsltid=AfmBOopC7HX2Or8956KlEiV6mmkO97JsoRjnfVxgC57sxJPRsqMCg4l

It really is the same playbook over and over.

I think they only see things through the lens of their own monetised victimhood.

Yes, I would agree with this. Meghan was definitely pregnant, I don't know where this nonsense comes from.

At any point of significant change in an organisation’s journey, conflict can arise. We acknowledge this openly and with a spirit of reflection and forward momentum.

We are deeply grateful for the service, time, and passion of our outgoing Trustees. We are also saddened that our Co-Founding Patrons have made the decision to step down from their duties as Patrons for the foreseeable future. Their belief in our mission and early leadership helped shape the foundation of our work, and for that, we remain thankful. They will always be the Founders of Sentebale.

Good governance is essential to the strength and credibility of any organisation. We are committed to upholding the highest standards and look forward to working with our incoming Trustees and our Chair to ensure this remains a core part of our operations.
That said, it’s important to remember that the heart of our organisation is, and always has been, the dedicated teams on the ground in Lesotho and Botswana. They are the ones working daily with young people—delivering vital programmes that support health, build economic resilience, and address the urgent challenges of climate change. Thanks to their commitment and the trust of our local partners, supporters, and donors, the work continues.
We are, as ever, focused on providing children and young people across Southern Africa with the tools they need for a brighter future.
Carmel Gaillard Executive Director

Perfect.

This situation offers a fascinating real-life example of ethical behaviour and good governance on one hand, and corruption, dishonesty, and the abuse of power on the other.

Sussex goes low.

Sentebale goes high.

That's how it's done.

The message we are seeing from their flying monkeys is that it is okay to attack anyone who is not H&M but god forbid you ever pick up a valid criticism of either of those two saints.

What is excruciating is that none of them are how it just reinforces the claim that both Harry and Meghan are malignant narcs. No one is about criticism. To claim that you are and then sling mud at other makes people look deeply unlikable. Which is how they find themselves so reviled.

Sentebale's last annual accounts list their major risks. After safeguarding and financial sustainability it states:

"Reputational Damage – Related to the risks above, we are vulnerable to negative interest from press and television in the work of the charity. Operational risks, failures of leadership, or crises involving harm to individuals or groups could cause sponsors to distance themselves from the organisation."

Yep, failures of leadership coming home to roost.

register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/en/charity-search/-/charity-details/4022923/accounts-and-annual-returns

Harry is definitely coming out of this badly, the press release, which has the potential to torpedo his own charity, alone shows him in a negative light.

I suspect that the CC investigation may ultimately decide that there are others at fault but that is for the future. In the present Harry is all over the press attacking a woman of colour which is a terrible look for him. The very fact that the defense of him on social media is either advocating for waiting until the outcome of the investigation or attacking the Chair shows what unstable ground he is standing on.

Fundamentally he is unable to grasp that his influence was vested in the monarchy not himself and when he left the institution he lost a great deal of soft power.

Classy statement considering the PR onslaught they have had to deal with.

Yes, a good statement. Putting the interests of the beneficiaries first rather than trying to score points.

The very fact that the defense of him on social media is either advocating for waiting until the outcome of the investigation or attacking the Chair shows what unstable ground he is standing on.
And don't forget the mudslinging, trying to insinuate she has mismanaged funds for nefarious reason.

She's a corporate finance lawyer, she also is (was?) head of Americas Risk Management and Intelligence at Meta.

I kind hugely doubt she mismanaged funds. She really doesn't seem the type. She come across like person with sound principles acting by a strong moral compass.

Unlike some.