Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
The royal family
Thread gallery
7
Cochinn · 18/09/2026 14:33

AllJoyAndNoFun · 18/09/2026 10:50

The problem is that Sentebale have to prove that the funding losses were directly due to the adverse press that was (allegedly) orchestrated by Prince H (so 2 burdens of proof- basically need paper trail from Prince H to that journalist plus paper trail from funder showing rationale for decision). The problem with that is that the CC investigation (which was instigated by SC) is usually enough in itself to get a charity put on a "not for 3 years" list by institutional funders- i.e. too risky, too much infighting, let them sort themselves out and then we'll revisit. Therefore H can argue that it was that that caused the financial problems. Either side can call the funders as witnesses to say why they declined to fund but that will make them total pariahs so it would be a really bad idea.

I don't really understand why they've taken this route. Until it's settled they will not get any new institutional funders - funders hate drama and uncertainty- and so it could actually become self-fulfilling given if it goes to court it's unlikely until late 2027. It feels very personal and not in the interests of the charity.

2025 accounts will be filed by end of next month which will be interesting.

That’s interesting the timescale - late 2027 - had no idea. Agree it cannot be a personal battleground for SC - the charity reputation, funding, finances and functioning are the priorities.

binkie163 · 18/09/2026 15:18

SC is/was a high flying corporate lawyer for top tier companies, she specialised in risk assessment. I am sure she has it covered and has the evidence to bring a case.
Let's not forget that at a polo match and another fund raiser h was trying to divert funds to archwell his personal charity meaning he only had to give 5% of donation to sentabale, if that is proved and someone as precise as SC I am guessing that is in writing.
H also understandably pulled Diana's foundation donation, he put that in public domain himself iirc but if it was pledged to sentabale that is easily proved.
H underestimated sc because he is rather thick and an arrogant, bullying, misogynistic twit. Even the board flounce letter was laughable.
Look at the quality of the now board as posted by pp professionals compared to a bunch of h's mates. I don't fancy h's chances.

ETA: SC family were large donors to sentabale I wonder if he tried getting them to donate through archwell because he is a prince and all.

AllJoyAndNoFun · 20/09/2026 11:51

SC is/was a high flying corporate lawyer for top tier companies, she specialised in risk assessment. I am sure she has it covered and has the evidence to bring a case.

Corporate litigation is littered with intelligent, high flying people (both clients and lawyers). Half of them lose their cases. Intelligent people also have lapses of judgement / make bad decisions, especially when they feel slighted/ disrespected and want to dish up a steaming cup of "fuck you" to their nemesis. She may win, but it will still be a pyrrhic victory if her genuine objective is to safeguard the future of Sentebale. This makes zero sense from that perspective.

Interesting about SC's family being big donors to Sentebale. Are they also the litigation funder I wonder? It would have to be an individual as no institutional funder would write a cheque for that - could be a new board member I guess but they'd need v deep pockets and really really care about it.

bluegreygreen · 20/09/2026 13:26

The case is not Sophie Chandauka's, but Sentebale's.

The statement that Sentebale put out after filing the case is here
Sentebale April 2026

The first 3 paragraphs read:
Sentebale has commenced legal proceedings in the High Court of England and Wales. The charity seeks the court’s intervention, protection, and restitution following a coordinated adverse media campaign conducted since 25 March 2025 that has caused operational disruption and reputational harm to the charity, its leadership, and its strategic partners.
The proceedings have been brought against Prince Harry and Mark Dyer, identified through evidence as the architects of that adverse media campaign, which has had significant viral impact and triggered an onslaught of cyber-bullying directed at the charity and its leadership.
Sentebale has experienced the adverse media campaign as false narratives circulated through the media about the charity and its leadership, attempts to undermine its relationships with staff, existing and prospective partners, and the forced diversion of leadership time and resources into managing a reputational crisis not of the charity’s making.

The case was filed on 24th March 2026, so refers to a year of coordinated activity. Presumably Sentebale believe the evidence they refer to will stand up in court.

The 2024 accounts were interesting to read. They included at the end a report from the trustees on their Transformation Agenda, and also a Public Interest Disclosure addressing Disinformation.
Sentebale Annual Report 2024

I see from their website that they now have a full complement of trustees, which completes their undertakings to the Charity Commission, and are planning local boards in Botswana and Lesotho.
It sounds like they have now successfully moved towards more African-centred leadership.

binkie163 · 20/09/2026 17:42

The cyber bullying is easy to prove, the onslaught was so bad SC had to come off social media. It will be interesting if the Sussex squad deplorables can be directly linked to h.
The media campaign led by h on every front page is a matter of public record so can't be denied, he was happy to be interviewed on TV and unlike sc wasn't careful in what he said. SC on the other hand was very measured, noticeably so. She also has Williams best charity mate on board, I don't think he would get involved if it's just a slanging match.
SC doesn't strike me as a hot headed rash person. I suspect h handed her plenty of ammunition because he is stupid.
However I personally think employing a specialist company for 500k was not in charity best interest as could do so much for local children but then I don't work in a corporate environment and maybe it recouped 5x.

bluegreygreen · 20/09/2026 18:15

Sentebale also had to shut its public-facing social media sites for some time in 2025 - not good for a charity.

I find the phrase 'identified through evidence as the architects of that adverse media campaign' interesting.

Re employing specialist advisers - it's well outside my world but is discussed in the Disclosure addressing Disinformation section of the link above (page 80). What does seem clear from there is that the advisers were appointed with approval of the board.

binkie163 · 20/09/2026 19:32

Yes the 500k was for identifying new income streams as opposed to relying on h and his hooray Henry friends and polo matches. I am surprised that the Lesotho prince couldn't see the white saviour aspect of the way things had been run up until then.

HoldMyWine · Today 08:29

This has gone very quiet, could Sophie have settled and NDA’s been agreed?

New posts on this thread. Refresh page