PR Disasters ….part 7

[AtIusvue]

Meg and Harry PR shenanigans

As an aside: in Harry’s grandiose shenanigans around his flounce from Sentebale in March last year - so over a year ago - he made an announcement about a new focus in Lesotho and Botswana.

[A spokesperson for Prince Harry] said the prince will "now focus on finding new ways to continue supporting the children of Lesotho and Botswana".

Any clue anyone about what he has actually done?

https://news.sky.com/story/prince-harrys-charity-row-explained-why-he-left-sentebale-and-whats-happened-since-13339632

Prince Seeiso of Lesotho.

Harry isn't a trustee and therefore has no legal or fiduciary responsibility. He needs to understand his role as patron, which is to be the public face of the charity and to be supportive of the board.

The statement put out by the trustees and executive director suggests that there is a case for defamation, based on a malicious media campaign orchestrated by Harry and Mark Dyer. Sophie is a lawyer and would not have brought the case without solid evidence. The benefit to the charity is providing clarity about its behaviour so it is able to attract funders currently put off by all the drama.

Sophie is a smart operator. She has already started to implement the strategy she proposed via consultants of the charity becoming Africa-led and broadening its remit out from supporting young employees affected by HIV to the health of young people more generally.

As we saw from previous indiscretions and the current ANL case and Charlotte Griffiths’s submitted evidence, Harry seems somewhat prone to sending unguarded Facebook messages and emails

Indeed, @TheAutumnCrow, and that's why I suggested the evidence will be interesting, whether from another Jason Knauf or direct from the charity themselves

As for what "new ways" Harry may have found to support the local children, I'm very happy to be corrected but would be amazed if he's done anything at all.
It's surely obvious by now that charities exist for H&M mainly as a PR opportunity, and past behaviour indicates Harry's unlikely to prioritise anything above his own interests

There was an interesting sentence in the Charity Commission's findings:

Separately, the Commission expects that in future, the charity should have a clearly defined patron role set out in writing.

You’re right, Harry isn’t a trustee of Sentebale (though he is of African Parks) and doesn’t have the responsibilities that bona fide trustees do. All the more reason for his role as Founder and Patron to be much more clearly defined.

People don’t realise that UK charities don’t - can’t - belong to an individual. They are public entities and exist for the public benefit. Just because a celebrity sets up a charity and gives it their name doesn’t make it their property.

I do find it frustrating that with all the expensive legal advice H has at his disposal someone hasn’t had the balls to explain this to him.

It's alarming that Harry is a trustee of African Parks. I find it hard to believe he understands that makes him legally liable.

Dr Sophie's specialty in law is risk management. She will have risk managed this.
She knows exactly what she is dealing with, a man baby who has no control over himself or his behaviour. She knew those interviews were just lighting the blue touch paper, stand back and let him bury himself. She was incredibly controlled and reserved in interview she knew what she was saying. He will have fired off emails, messages to everyone in anger, how dare she. Her allegations of bullying and misogyny will have receipts and will probably be in evidence. It won't just be her he has belittled, insulted or bullied so it is the charity bringing the deformation.
Wasn't the new chap on the interviews a close friend and supporter of William and his charities. Harry doesn't have the brains to fight this, he thought he won last year after flouncing and smearing her publicly, he didn't count on her just getting started! She has played him, step forward Sophie dragon slayer.

The chap is Iain Rawlinson. Predictably, Harry supporters are shouting on social media that his involvement as a Sentebale trustee is all part of a William-driven plot because William says Africa is his, not Harry's.

We really don't know what case SC has against H yet. Just because she's a lawyer doesn't mean she won't pursue personal emotionally led cases. There are many unstable lawyers with delusions about their own ability to weaponise the law!!

She seems to have it in for Harry and it's not clear to what extent that is justified.

I found her misogynoir claim ridiculous (but also hilarious H was accused of this!). Whatever has gone on I don't think it's because H hates black women. So that suggested to me some unsubstantiated victim narrative she's playing.

We'll see, maybe she has the receipts to back this up. Either way this is just a delicious never ending soap opera.

It's also hard to balance this professional charity reputation based claim alongside Meghans personal public rudeness to Sophie.

Is the fact these both occurred just coincidence? Or are they linked?

Did H bully Sophie following this because she refused to defend M?

Or was Sophie really pissed off with the public disrespect and it partly motivated decisions against H?

Or are they going to pretend it was irrelevant and just talk about the board etc?

Thank you, I couldn't for the life of me remember his name. Again another very clever chap who knew exactly what they were doing, giving Harry the rope to hang himself. I can't wait to see the fall out, I am willing to bet there is some truly disgusting stuff in writing. Sophie sat quietly back logging everything, the lack of push back will have emboldened him. Naming Mark Dwyer is genius as I bet he is willing to sell harry out to save himself, I know I would.

We really don't know what case SC has against H yet. Just because she's a lawyer doesn't mean she won't pursue personal emotionally led cases. There are many unstable lawyers with delusions about their own ability to weaponise the law!!

I do agree that there’s lots we don’t know about this, but one thing we do know is that SC was concerned to ensure that Sentable was operated in accordance with proper governance principles - that was one of the root causes behind the falling out. And this is an action bought by Sentabale, not SC personally. So the charity’s board will have had to formally approve commencing the litigation. Most boards would want clear advice from the external lawyers of the prospects of success and the downside risks of bringing a significant piece of litigation before making that decision.

I found her misogynoir claim ridiculous (but also hilarious H was accused of this!)

Why do you find this ridiculous? And do you mean you find it hilarious that Harry can’t possibly be racist? He has been racist on several occasions and in public as well.

I found her misogynoir claim ridiculous (but also hilarious H was accused of this!). Whatever has gone on I don't think it's because H hates black women. So that suggested to me some unsubstantiated victim narrative she's playing.

My impression was that the alleged misogynoir was about his attitude toward her because she was specifically African and Black, and female. Harry is the ultimate colonialist deep down. He just doesn’t know it. He and his chum may well have expected Sophie Chandauka to ‘know her place’. I certainly saw that playing out, and I’m not surprised that Seeiso has gone quiet on the whole debacle.

I reckon that Harry's doing a bit of Seeiso-bothering right about now, bugging him for a ‘statement of support’ …

You'd think so, but even boards can be irrational, and lawyers often give bad advice (as H knows.)

We don't know how much influence SC may have over the board or any other personal motivations influencing the board.

Also the fact it's being privately funded suggests, someone wants to take Harry down. Who? And why?

Well I can think of lots of whys 🤣, but whether it's legally robust...we'll see.

Anyone else rather bemused to see the suggestion that this Black women might be irrational and unstable?

Also the fact it's being privately funded suggests, someone wants to take Harry down. Who? And why?

Well, knowing litigation funders, who are businesses and not an emotional lot, I’d suspect this just means they think this case has good enough prospects of success to be worth their investment…

Yes, it would suggest they have seen some very damning evidence with which to skewer private citizens Harry & chum.

I see this legal action as part of a carefully planned strategy by Sophie and Iain Rawlinson to clean up Sentebale so it can attract new funding and continue to operate. It's reasonable to assume that the trustees have evidence of Harry and Mark Dwyer being behind the malicious online campaign.

Looking at the bigger picture, it's another illustration that Harry is not able to operate without the palace behind him.

@TheAutumnCrow I love the phrase Seeiso bothering. I suspect you are absolutely right though .

If you're going to accuse someone of racism you should be prepared to back it up with evidence.

Maybe she's going to do that now. Good. If he was racist expose him.

If she doesn't then I put this in the same camp as Ms claims the RF were racist. Just because you don't like how someone is treating you doesn't mean it's racism, there are likely many other reasons to consider and if you're going to call racism, explain why beyond, I'm black and they don't like me.

Maybe SC will demonstrate this now. We'll see. I hope so because I loathe victim narratives being tossed around lightly.

It's certainly delicious that H&M have had their own playbook used against them.

Oh get lost.

Am I a racist too now?

My point is we don't know, in response to all the she's a lawyer and knows what she's doing posts.

I think my posts are clearly lawyerist rather than racist.

Maybe. I think it's less clear than that right now, but I'm going to enjoy watching it play out and I hope you're right.

I hope so.