Sentebale is suing Harry for defamation

[QueenOfHertz]

The boot is on the other foot. Hope he knows a good litigation lawyer.

https://variety.com/2026/biz/news/prince-harry-sued-defamation-charity-sentebale-1236714614/

the wording sounds fluffy to me. like it's a fancy way of saying that there's an optional thing and they chose not to do it.

or are you saying that the charity has failed to do a formal thing which is a requirement?

.

I think that if the commission isn’t happy with the charity’s answers on how this lawsuit would further the charity’s purposes - they will go ahead and request details of funding and records of trustees’ decision-making or open a statutory inquiry.

as someone who regularly speaks up in support for H&M, I hope there is a smoking gun and serious evidence - otherwise this lawsuit is more about Sophie’s ego and their refusal to pay her the six figure salary she was after.

its one thing for her to sue Harry for libel personally etc but to do so in the charity’s name, disgusting.

I mean, we’re still waiting to see what the filing is about 🤷🏽‍♀️

Well he would say that wouldn’t he? Harry has a very loose relationship with the truth.

I am sure H and M appreciate your loyalty !!

that's not what i asked. the words you quoted said that the charity didn't ask for formal advice before it started this lawsuit.

my question is that the wording reads odd to me. as in - they didn't do a thing, but it's not clear whether the thing was actually a rule and they broke it by not asking for advice.

like at my work they close for an hour at lunchtime. they lock the doors and put a sign on saying what time we'll open again but they don't have to put the security shutters down because we're still in there in the back having lunch.

so this would be like saying that work don't put the security shutters down at lunchtime close which sounds bad. but the meaning changes if you add in the missing point, that they don't have to put the shutters down - they could do but it's not necessary.

that's what it sounds like to me.

Can anyone tell me why Harry objected to Sentebale’s main leadership based in Africa rather than the U.K. ?

The Regulator did not proactively say or imply that such guidance should have been requested. They just said no when the Times asked if that had happened. The Times points out it’s not mandatory.

(I suspect it’s intended as a mechanism to assist small charities with an inexperienced board of trustees - not applicable to Sentabale)

Even the government website says the Charity Commission are a regulatory body and not there to mediate internal disputes. If Sentebale needed to 'ask for formal advice' to sue, then they would have. It sounds like it's just advisory and informing them is sufficient, otherwise the Charity Commission would have said it was mandatory.

There is no 'regulatory stuff'.

The Charity Commission doesn't get to tell trustees what to do. It checks that trustees are fulfilling their legal commitments and following due process.

It is for the trustees to decide if legislation is necessary, after getting proper legal advice, balancing up the pros and cons, considering financial and reputational issues etc etc

Basically, due diligence. If they have done that, and as a Board decided to go ahead, then it is nothing to do with the CC.

Because they don't need formal regulatory advice.

If they had asked for advice, the CC could have advised on the process of making a decision (getting legal advice, making sure all the Board are involved etc etc) but they wouldn't have advised whether to take legal action or not. That is the responsibility of the Trustees, and would be a massive over reach of the regulatory role.

It's quite striking how the Charity Commission, which is supposedly submerged with overwork has managed to get it's statement into the Times, on a weekend, just a few hours after the story broke.

The actual establishment in action and still sticking up for the Royals even when they're self-exiled ones.

It’s not that striking. This is high profile, high risk, potential to damage public confidence in charity, all things that the Commission will be risk assessing. There will have been much scurrying over the weekend.

The Charity Commission hasn’t made a statement. The journalist at the Times rang up their press office team, asked them some questions and published the answers. Dealing with those kind of day to day queries is literally the press office’s job.

Oh please. Dr Sophie had every right to defend herself

Ah yes, that'll teach me to skim read articles.

I do still think that's what it looks like even if when you read it closely or doesn't say that

I’m sorry but comment has made me laugh out loud

she’s not defending herself though lol she’s using sentebale to settle grievances, she’s free to sue Harry lol

Newspapers often rely on people not really understanding what goes on with stories they want to concoct, to be fair. I just happen to know how journalists and press offices work, and there were certain clues in the Times article like “in response to a question”. That means the journalist asked ”Did Sentable apply for formal guidance?”, and the charity commission press officer says “No”. That then gets written up as “The charity commission say Sentabale has not applied for formal guidance” with most people not appreciating that’s not quite what happened!

(At least the Times still makes it clear this was an answer to their question, not a proactive statement! The Mail or tabloids would just write it up as a quote…P)

how do you know if it's for her own grievances? the specifics haven't been released yet.

It doesn’t sound like that to me. The statements that have been made so far seem to imply that Sentabale’s reputation has continued to sustain damage since March 2025. One of SC’s issues was the charity relying heavily on Harry’s network - so if he was going around quietly badmouthing Sentabale, it would have had an impact.

Either way, we’ll soon see what receipts Sentabale has. SC was proven right to whistle-blow over the governance issues so she certainly seems to be a woman who’s diligent and thorough. It seems unlikely that she’d issue legal proceedings on a whim.

I appreciate you saying that you typically side with H&M but if the case is proven against him, I’d hope you would be fair enough to acknowledge when Harry has behaved poorly rather than continuing to back them up when it’s not warranted.

I think Harry's view of 'charity in Africa ', being you get a few school mates, play some polo, pop into a meeting, and then spend 20 minutes kicking a football with cute kids in a village, is thankfully a couple of decades out of date.

Tho this isn’t far off his itinerary for his Australia trip this week.

Well if I've ever seen a 'confidential ' letter designed for publication it's this one.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/43685398-84e7-42db-a032-5f2ae42456be?shareToken=cef7fbe81cab9f43caa2210f234d2ff9