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/

.

Is that the one who’s been to Invictus events and attended court during the hacking trial?

Granted anyone can attend a court hearing but at the Invictus event she’d been invited and sat behind Harry. Also, I seem to recall one of them being rewarded by Meghan with a basket of her products - just after there had been something adverse in the press and the squad had come out with their talons on fire

Yes, that sounds familiar. I do hope these things get a good airing during the Sentebale case.

Then report them 🤷‍♀️

Or, just a thought, how about posters not engaging in rude behaviour in the first place?
🤷‍♀️

Yes but your interpretation of " rude" may not be accurate . Run it by the mods 😉

Mmm. I do report sometimes depending on the context and I think Mumsnet HQ do a good job considering the number of posts and the strength of feeling on here.

But most posters on this board know that there’s a space between transgressing talk guidelines and robust but respectful argument which some posters are exploiting regularly.

I’ve been following this thread (and others) since the start but I’m normally just lurking on catch-up.

Nothing will ever convince me that HAM aren’t behind the online attacks. We know M in particular likes her sly little nods, like the swan emoji. I believe that the pair of them truly believe they are the innocent victims and therefore the behaviour of the SS is warranted.

What I’ve worried about since the start is whether there’s the irrevocable proof needed to definitively show the link. I mean it’s bloody obvious because otherwise it’s just enormous coincidence after coincidence, combined with HAM refusing to speak out and publicly condemn any of it. Even when it was aimed at their sister-in-law who was having cancer treatment. You’d have to be a fool not to believe HAM are pulling the strings.

But proving it in court requires a higher threshold of proof beyond what we can all see is bloody obvious. And we don’t know what Sentabale have because it’s not been made public.

SC is a formidable woman who has a wealth of knowledge and experience. You don’t need to like her to acknowledge that. So when she says that they can prove Harry et al were the architects of the campaign, I believe that she must have strong evidence to show that, beyond circumstantial coincidences. That’s a strong statement and she’s not an idiot.

That’s why I really hope this case gets heard. We’ve seen the arrogance of Harry in the recent ANL case where the judge was heavily critical of his “evidence”. I think it would be useful for the world to hear what HAM, or even just one of them, does behind closed doors to coordinate online bullying while simultaneously being the public face of an anti cyber bullying campaign. That would remove any lingering doubts that people may have although I’m sure there will be those who continue to contort themselves into impossible knots to excuse HAM’s behaviour!

I have only read bits if this thread, but if I recall correctly the naive one starts off asking us to explain who the Sussex Squad are. But by the last thread of hers that I read, she's telling what they are and aren't.

I wonder if this is the latest script point, developed since AdventCalendarGate dropped the Sussex Squad into MSM - deny that they are organised, so that HAM can't be accused of directing them.

Typos

🤔

And the hypocrisy of not only setting themselves up as champions of MH and exploiting families who have lost a child to suicide due to online bullying by fronting a campaign (and then quickly dumping it - Parents Network) but actually being the direct orchestrators and encouragers as well as turning a blind eye to online hate campaigns done in their name - as well as the multiple face to face bullying investigations conducted and published by independent, legally watertight publications.

We have seen them bully their families and professionals ourselves direct from the horses mouth repeatedly on OW, NF, Spare, interviews etc.

We know who this couple are and no doubt what they do behind closed doors to colleagues and staff is just as bad.

Perhaps you’ll be enlightened if you address “the naive one” directly and be polite enough to use their nn?

I wonder if this is the latest script point, developed since AdventCalendarGate dropped the Sussex Squad into MSM - deny that they are organised, so that HAM can't be accused of directing them.

I think you're absolutely bang on with this. The dates fit with respect to Sentebale. Throughout 2025, there was a crisis, with accusations and statenents issued, Harry (and Seeiso) resigning, and lawyers being consulted.

By Jan 2026, we know that Harry's 'private security team' was compiling a list of individuals they had decided were 'fixated' on HaM. We also know from the many news reports and footage of the ANL/Mail court hearing circa 25th Jan that the list included a well-known member of the Sussex Squad. (Harry's supposed 'stalker' in court.)

This would appear to tie in with word reaching the HaM camp that Sentebale, under the leadership of Sophie Chandauka, were gathering evidence and looking at legal action against Harry (and Dyer), which was indeed filed in late March 2026.

HaM are throwing the Sussex Squad under the bus. The Squad just don't see it yet.

There are a core group of people who refer to themselves as the Sussex squad and actively organize their online social media content together.

We were able to watch it in real time many times when they were doing it on Twitter.

They had set talking points and would flood social media and online forums including Mumsnet with whatever their ‘campaign agenda’ of the day was.

They were particularly successful during Kate and William’s platinum jubilee tour to the Caribbean.

They were driving the bulk of the ‘colonialist vibe’ comments to the extent that it eventually got picked up by the main stream media. It was absolutely fascinating to watch in real time.

I partly agree with your analysis.

I think H is distancing himself from them, but I think M is leaning in.

Also, I think the Sussex Squad - the unpaid ones - are the bus, and H and M need to both watch out.

Typo

Now that is a fascinating thought, and it makes sense of a lot of the evidence.

Hopefully the Sentable court case will shine a light on the Sussex squad organisation.

Having watched documentaries I’m amazed how some side characters give themselves leading roles and like to imagine they are at the centre of the action.

I get those vibes from the Sussex Squa. They think Harry and Meghan sit around saying how wonderful they are. That’s why any attention spurs them on, as Harry is flattered to have anyone to direct, and Meghan is quite happy to have someone to set on her perceived enemies

I know someone will be able to elaborate on this - Harry is on record for saying during one particular incident “ we have to make sure none of this leads back to us”

eta - there is also the woman who styles herself as a top dog in the Squad who was invited to an Invictus event by Harry, she sat right behind him.

Then there’s the woman who attended the recent court case almost daily and also shouted out at one stage. Now, if Harry wasn’t afraid of peeing her off why didn’t he ask for her not to be allowed to enter the court room based on her outburst?

I know someone will be able to elaborate on this - Harry is on record for saying during one particular incident “ we have to make sure none of this leads back to us”

That was in relation to providing information for the Finding Freedom book. It was the case where Meghan. Had to apologise for misleading the court.

The 2025 annual report has been published. It's kind of squeaky bum time - at end of 2025 they had negative reserves and about 1 month's cash on hand (this has since reduced). The auditors did give them a clean opinion (going concern) but that just means that the board have projections that show that they won't go insolvent, not that they can continue on the same scale. Given the assumptions that they state around 2027 revenues (read note 1C for details) I suspect that they've already significantly further wound down some programmes/ their cost base during 2026 or the opinion doesn't make any sense. Possibly I'm misinterpreting what they mean by "fundraising" though.

A note to the accounts states that they filed in March 2026 to "preserve the limitation period for certain courses of action"- the limitation period for defamation is 12 months, so seems likely that the case is in regard to something that was said/ written around the time that all the trustees resigned (March 2025). I don't know how long they have after that to produce the evidence though. The notes also indicated a willingness to settle.

Isnt part of the complaint that H affected their donations and reputation? in which case it will look bad financially the 12 months following the flounce 2025. Reputational damage can be financial and defamation. However the damage only appears to be 2025 year of the flounce.

Dr Sophie, managed to pull in £342,000 in donations in the last financial year, according to Daily Mail’s Richard Eden. This is nearly £50,000 more than in 2024.
Eden noted that “money bequeathed to Sentebale more than trebled from £47,000 to £189,000” after Harry and Seeiso's departure.

I have to admire Sophie because if I had a career like hers I would have walked away and continued being brilliant where I was not only appreciated but financially rewarded at that level.
Clearly I do not have principles. It has always been expected to settle but if h and dwyer show their usual bravado it could yet end up in court. Considering the good years a few million down to half a million, would we expect settlement to be the difference say 2.5m

I am intrigued that one superfan shown on the X photo posted by a PP showed her handwritten letter from Meghan. I wonder how many of these are floating around.

The Telegraph is reporting this evening that Sentebale has paused its action against Prince Harry, due to fears about the costs.

https://archive.is/yhuCy

Having read it through a couple of times, my initial thoughts are:

It's written by Victoria Ward, who is a member of the Sussex WhatsApp group.

The article does not include any comment from Sentebale, despite putting them in the headline, and does not mention asking them for comment.

The only solid piece of news in the article is this Both parties have agreed an extension of time for the filing of both the acknowledgement of service and the defence, meaning that for now, the particulars of claim cannot be made public.

The article doesn't mention that Mark Dyer is a co-defendant.

We know that Sentebale was not using charity money for the case. This is not mentioned anywhere in the article, but is relevant when discussing risks to the charity.

The rest of the article is a review of the numbers from the recent 2025 accounts.

Interesting reporting! It would be a massive climb down for Sentable if true, and would leave them exposed to having to pay the costs of Prince Harry and Mark Dyer.

@bluegreygreen That's interesting - I suspect their third party funder is Nandi Life Sciences. It has to be either them or another deep pocketed individual who hates the Sussexes.

The 2025 income held up pretty well (similar to 2024 if you adjust for the polo tournament and the longer accounting period in 2024) but they just haven't managed to bring their costs down enough, although they've restructured pretty aggressively so haven't rested on their laurels. What I dont really understand was why costs suddenly got that high as there was seemingly no basis for believing that they'd be able to support programme costs ( ie costs ex fundraising and events) of £3m per year sustainably. On the income, there is always a lag effect with charitable funding, because most foundation and institutional funding will be multi year agreements (2/3 years) which are likely still rolling through. What the charity needs to do is replace those contracts with new ones during that time, and this is probably what they haven't been able to do, hence court case.

My opinion FWIW: They can likely prove the PH and MD slagged them off big time (although question mark over what constitutes orchestrated and what is defamation vs "this is my truth- now show me yours") but I don't think they will be able to prove a direct link between that and failure to attract new institutional funding because there are too many other variables/ factors that would have impacted their ability to raise funds from new sources:

-Their financial pressures pre-dated the split/ CC case (too high a cost base for predictable revenue- big 2024 deficit) and institutional funders are usually looking to add new programmes not plug holes in existing cost structure.

-With the closure of USAID in early 2025, other development focused funders which co-funded alongside USAID are choosing to support those investments over new ones. It's generally a shitty environment to be looking for new funding as many funds are (officially or unofficially) closed to new applications.

-The filing of the CC case/ subsequent resignation of the entire board would have been enough to get Sentebale put on hold with most institutional funders for a few years - would be flagged during due diligence. Even having a new CEO can trigger a 12 month "wait and see" period on an application because funders want to see what the new strategy is before committing.

I don't honestly think institutional funders are going to be swayed by (badly researched and cherry picked ) blogs and hate tweets by unhinged SS maniacs, and Sentebale's public donations, which are more likely to have been affected by that, have held up well (no lag effect on these and 2025 is up on 2024).

Also I see GB News has excelled itself by not understanding that the numbers in the 2025 annual report (clue's in the title guys) pre-dates the court case

"Yet the lawsuit appears to have compounded Sentebale's difficulties rather than resolved them. In the months following the filing of its claim, the charity recorded a fifth less income than the previous year, while its net assets shrank to just £250,000 and general reserves slipped into a £10,000 deficit."

Jesus wept. Someone bring back editors.