Page 11 | Sentebale #4

LemonLeaves · 01/04/2025 21:26

vera99 · 01/04/2025 21:25

Well we are all probably grinding axes here surely the reasonable position would be to suspend judegment and hand wring with sadness about the whole affair unseemly as it is. I didn't flounce I had a 7 day suspension that lasted 2 years but I did lurk and saw how this board turned into a Harry and Meghan pile on in the interim. They are no saints nor are they the devil incarnates either.

Show quote history

I wasn't referring to you - I was referring to the former Sentebale board members who have flounced.

PrettyFlyforaMaiTai · 01/04/2025 21:27

vera99 · 01/04/2025 21:08

Sorry for being late to the party, but from what I can tell, two British mainstream newspapers have published articles pushing back against the "H&M are evil" narrative. I understand that many are eager to see their downfall and will seize on any story that appears to confirm their biases. However, I hope most reasonable people will wait for a more measured and accurate account to emerge.

Harry has fearlessly taken on the tabloids and others in court, and it's no surprise that these forces are impatient to see him fail. To be clear, H&M are no saints—but now that they are fully independent, they must work to sustain themselves. Meanwhile, some seem all too eager to bury them based on hearsay rather than waiting for a more substantiated version of events.

Wikipedia is a red herring as others have pointed out easily maliciously edited. Though malicous edits on a high profile story rarely last long.

The Telegraph – https://archive.ph/LijV4#selection-3467.0-3471.84

"When the board urged Ms Chandauka to resign, she launched legal proceedings in the High Court, prompting mass resignations. 'She’s a very poisonous woman and it’s very sad it’s come to this,' a source said."

The Times – https://archive.ph/027Md#selection-1623.0-1623.274

"Baroness Chalker of Wallasey, who served as a trustee of Prince Harry’s African charity for nearly 20 years, has described its chairwoman’s 'almost dictatorial' style, which led to clashes and ultimately prompted her, the prince, and other trustees to leave the organisation."

Yet Harry is happy for his friends to clap back with the same tabloids that he took to court to defend himself 🤔

Uricon2 · 01/04/2025 21:28

User450707 · 01/04/2025 21:16

Just as predicted, DM have taken another massive shot at Harry. It's hilarious. People were surprised they planted a statement (Alex Rayner "like losing a finger" article from earlier today) when they have such an acrimonious relationship with the paper. Not surprisingly, DM put that article behind a paywall and pushed it down the page extremely quickly. It barely got any traction aside from the outrageous accusation of SC being jealous of Meghan because she wasn't the most important WOC on stage.

Then the DM rolls out an article on SC closing her social media due to racist trolling from the Sussex Squad. And now full headlines on how Harry tried to force SC to apologise for causing Meghan to be upset on stage. This article includes the worst quote from Alex Rayner's statement without any paywall. It literally paints Harry and his rich white mates in the worst possible light.

It also dropped at prime USA time, which means H&M and all their mates are being sent into a frenzy now. Their PR team is probably in meltdown.

They are going for it.

We could have told Harry that they would.

Lord he is dim.

BasiliskStare · 01/04/2025 21:28

Onestopshop11 · 01/04/2025 20:36

As far as I can work out Sentebale does not organise the polo matches itself nor does it seem to have a fundraising contract with the polo organisers. Hence it has likely been entirely reliant on the good will of the organisers and on PH’s ability to draw in sponsors and donors. Understandably the precarious fundraising situation needed to be addressed. Surely bringing on other more reliable funding streams alongside the polo until they were well established was the best way forward. Spending $500,000 on consultancy (as reported) for a new apparently unsuccessful strategy whilst alienating all those responsible for the old one is quite an extraordinary move. I’m assuming that in future the polo matches will not go ahead or another charity will benefit. So let’s see what the income level has been and if the consultancy costs meant less was spent on the charitable activity. Can’t wait for that.

There was a very interesting post by someone who knows about charities is that attracting different types of donors / sponsors etc is not quite so straightforward as might be thought. They often want to know who the other big donors are and a few people being prepared to pay £££££££££s to play polo with Prince Harry doesn't afford the same comfort as other large sponsors, donors etc or indeed might put them off . I am paraphrasing wildly here & may not be correct in what the poster said but it was a very interesting point about moving the focus of fundraising . If you can find the post it is well worth a read. Because on the face of it I agree running the polo in tandem with attracting other donors sounds great but I didn't get the impression it was quite so simple as that.

vera99 · 01/04/2025 21:29

LemonLeaves · 01/04/2025 21:24

@vera99 As someone with such "irreproachable integrity" you would expect Baroness Chaulker to A) be cognisant of the good governance requirements when working as a trustee, and B) abide by them even if others do not. Given this, why did she stay in place for almost 20 years? As a trustee term this is manifestly excessive.

Well we can speculate til the cows come home - she no doubt regarded it as a good thing and probably felt she was making a difference. There is nothing in her bio as I see it to suggest a grifter or someone seeking reflected glory from what I have superficially read, clearly the opposite.

AtIusvue · 01/04/2025 21:29

PullTheBricksDown · 01/04/2025 21:03

One of the major misfortunes of Diana's unexpected and early death was a real nervousness about how to handle her sons. In part understandable as it is clearly traumatic to lose a parent in that way and so young. But it must have made it really hard to take a firmer line with them that might have looked harsh to the public.

Show quote history

I agree, they thought they were doing right by them at the time. There was also the issue of the public, that wanted them protected at that time from the press. I remember the newspapers agreeing not to report on them while they were still kids. But it’s brought problems further down the road.

There seems to have been a sort of arrested royal development. Both William and Harry, not finding their path until their 30s (although Harry clearly still hasn’t found his way).

I don’t think it makes William any more rounded as a person. I’d argue that William seems to believe that we should be interested in his pet projects. I’m not. Don’t care about earthshot or anything else. With KC needing more support, I’m hoping William comes to realise that it’s the role that’s important, not him.

Onestopshop11 · 01/04/2025 21:29

Anyway those were my thoughts, heading off for long life popcorn and I will be watching with interest the ‘trial by media’ vs scrutiny of legal and regulatory standards. Fascinating stuff.

BemusedAmerican · 01/04/2025 21:29

Onestopshop11 · 01/04/2025 21:04

A lot of accusations are being made and concerns raised by Dr C, none of them related to matters the CC would likely be investigating. So it would be interesting to know what the other matters they are investigating are.

Show quote history

Did they receive USAID funds? Who hired the consultants? Who were they? How much were they paid? What did they report? What steps were taken on their recommendation?

Also SC described some horrible meetings. The articles posted in the past few days seem to bear out her observations. To me at least. 😊

TheSecondMrsCampbellBlack · 01/04/2025 21:31

I am loving some of the typos on this thread:

Travalyst ————-> Travesty 😂 (and fair enough!)
Audi ——————> Aldi 😂

CathyorClaire · 01/04/2025 21:31

Yet Harry is happy for his friends to clap back with the same tabloids that he took to court to defend himself

Dragon appeaser 🤓🐲

LemonLeaves · 01/04/2025 21:32

vera99 · 01/04/2025 21:29

Well we can speculate til the cows come home - she no doubt regarded it as a good thing and probably felt she was making a difference. There is nothing in her bio as I see it to suggest a grifter or someone seeking reflected glory from what I have superficially read, clearly the opposite.

Show quote history

Very odd that she would regard it as a good thing. It's one of the first things you learn when you become a trustee, and it's a standing agenda item for annual meetings - refreshing the board. I'd expect someone with "irreproachable integrity" to have stepped down years ago.

AtIusvue · 01/04/2025 21:32

Looks like the launch for As ever is tomorrow.

I can’t get my head around her pretending nothing is going on.

vera99 · 01/04/2025 21:32

This reply has been deleted

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

LemonLeaves · 01/04/2025 21:34

BasiliskStare · 01/04/2025 21:28

There was a very interesting post by someone who knows about charities is that attracting different types of donors / sponsors etc is not quite so straightforward as might be thought. They often want to know who the other big donors are and a few people being prepared to pay £££££££££s to play polo with Prince Harry doesn't afford the same comfort as other large sponsors, donors etc or indeed might put them off . I am paraphrasing wildly here & may not be correct in what the poster said but it was a very interesting point about moving the focus of fundraising . If you can find the post it is well worth a read. Because on the face of it I agree running the polo in tandem with attracting other donors sounds great but I didn't get the impression it was quite so simple as that.

Show quote history

It wasn't me that posted it but I would agree. I have supported with grant and sponsorship applications and for bigger sponsors (especially corporates) the applications are pretty onerous. They want to know who else's money you are asking for/receiving, as reputation risk and brand is a critical element for would-be sponsors.

Original poster

glitterturd · 01/04/2025 21:35

The Sussexes using charitable events for their own advantage is nothing new to anyone with half a brain . Whatever the outcome mud sticks , there's no smoke without fire blah blah and this merely adds to the disaster of Harry and Beghan. People tend to believe this because of what they have seen with their own eyes in videos and images. We have seen Meghan push her way about in line ups and remove chairs in Westminster Abbey. We have seen her smirking at serious events . The future for the Sussexes is always going to be one of suspicion, gossip and distrust. It doesn't bode well.

OP posts:

Original poster

glitterturd · 01/04/2025 21:36

Sorry - Meghan not Beghan.

OP posts:

AtIusvue · 01/04/2025 21:36

She’s also pretending to proof read

vera99 · 01/04/2025 21:38

LemonLeaves · 01/04/2025 21:32

Very odd that she would regard it as a good thing. It's one of the first things you learn when you become a trustee, and it's a standing agenda item for annual meetings - refreshing the board. I'd expect someone with "irreproachable integrity" to have stepped down years ago.

Show quote history

That's my hot take rather than fact - she is 83 and her own charity appears to be moribund but she has been an active player in that sector post retirement from government.

register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/en/about-the-register-of-charities/-/charity-details/4011403/contact-information

Onestopshop11 · 01/04/2025 21:39

BemusedAmerican · 01/04/2025 21:29

Did they receive USAID funds? Who hired the consultants? Who were they? How much were they paid? What did they report? What steps were taken on their recommendation?

Also SC described some horrible meetings. The articles posted in the past few days seem to bear out her observations. To me at least. 😊

Show quote history

The consultants were Lebec I believe - ‘female led advisers to visionary entrepreneurs’ (per their website). The consultants reportedly paid $500,000 or £350,000 so more than 10% of Sentebale’s annual income. They reportedly recommended fundraising in the West Coast of America and Africa which has apparently not been a success. All this information from either Dr C interviews or some specific charity sector articles. I’m sure the Trustee meetings have been very difficult for all but the most senior people in an organisation often have to deal with difficult things, it’s part of the role and should be done on a business like and professional manner.

LemonLeaves · 01/04/2025 21:40

TheSecondMrsCampbellBlack · 01/04/2025 21:31

I am loving some of the typos on this thread:

Travalyst ————-> Travesty 😂 (and fair enough!)
Audi ——————> Aldi 😂

I did lol at the Aldi one. I suspect the Sussexes wouldn't want Aldi's PR team anywhere near, as they are quite sharp with their commentary.

bluegreygreen · 01/04/2025 21:41

BasiliskStare · 01/04/2025 21:28

There was a very interesting post by someone who knows about charities is that attracting different types of donors / sponsors etc is not quite so straightforward as might be thought. They often want to know who the other big donors are and a few people being prepared to pay £££££££££s to play polo with Prince Harry doesn't afford the same comfort as other large sponsors, donors etc or indeed might put them off . I am paraphrasing wildly here & may not be correct in what the poster said but it was a very interesting point about moving the focus of fundraising . If you can find the post it is well worth a read. Because on the face of it I agree running the polo in tandem with attracting other donors sounds great but I didn't get the impression it was quite so simple as that.

Show quote history

Yes, I found that post very interesting and unfortunately can't remember who it was who posted. It would be great if they could post again.

If I remember correctly the gist was that there are different groups of donors: wealthy individuals (such as polo players) who will gain a certain amount (kudos, social credit) from donation, and others such as organisations/trusts/foundations who will ask about outcome measures for their donations. The difficulty when trying to move from the first to the second group is that the second group want to see others like them already there.

AtIusvue · 01/04/2025 21:49

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-14560353/Prince-Harry-unpleasant-message-Sentebale-boss-revealed.html

The Mail understands that the royal sent the 'extraordinary' text message to Sophie Chandauka demanding to know how she was going to deal with the public debacle involving his wife Meghan, who was being accused of snubbing her at a fundraising polo match.
Sources have described the message as 'basically very unpleasant', 'imperious' and 'fairly extraordinary' in tone, and asking her 'how are you going to deal with this?'
It is understood the message 'would reinforce others people's ideas that he is used to people being subservient to him'.

So it was a text message he sent

Prince Harry's 'unpleasant' message to Sentebale boss 'revealed'

EXCLUSIVE: The Mail understands Prince Harry sent a ' text message to Sophie Chandauka demanding to know how she was going to deal with the public debacle involving his wife Meghan.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-14560353/Prince-Harry-unpleasant-message-Sentebale-boss-revealed.html

CorrectionCentre · 01/04/2025 21:50

Can someone clarify for me, how the chair of a board of trustees could act unilaterally?

If former trustees are saying there were failings in governance surely that would be a joint responsibility?

For arguments sake, let's say SC really is "poisonous" and "difficult ", how does that translate into her being able to implement policies, or make strategic decisions, or operational changes that all 5 of the other trustees disagreed with?

We know the trustees didn't like her and tried to get her to resign. She refused and threatened legal action to block them from ousting her. But why did that then result in the trustees resigning?

If she was acting contrary to the rules of governance then they could have accepted her remaining in position so as not to face legal bills, and at the same time referred her to the CC.

The mass resignation just doesn't make sense to me if their objection was about her mismanagement given there were 5 trustees and 1 chair? It only makes sense if was personal.

ViolasandViolets · 01/04/2025 21:50

Profhilodisaster · 01/04/2025 19:41

If the former board had any integrity and really believed Sophie was unfit to chair the charity, then surely they would report their concerns, and provide evidence to the CC .

Show quote history

Why would they do that rather than vote her off?

Onestopshop11 · 01/04/2025 21:50

bluegreygreen · 01/04/2025 21:41

Yes, I found that post very interesting and unfortunately can't remember who it was who posted. It would be great if they could post again.

If I remember correctly the gist was that there are different groups of donors: wealthy individuals (such as polo players) who will gain a certain amount (kudos, social credit) from donation, and others such as organisations/trusts/foundations who will ask about outcome measures for their donations. The difficulty when trying to move from the first to the second group is that the second group want to see others like them already there.

Show quote history

Yes it would be good to see that post again. Unfortunately Trusts and Foundations are overwhelmed with applications. Trusts of any size now have strict criteria for application, panel reviews and a considerable hoop jumping process to get through. Corporate sponsors will have commercial metrics relating to aligning with and enhancing their brands. Individual one off donor / philanthropists are very hard to target unless you move in their circles.