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/

And it was a cracker of an interview !

Meghan shouldn’t have been on the stage at all, let alone try and organise the position of SC, this event was nothing to do with Meghan who wasn’t expected to be there with Serena Williams in tow, so her pushing the Chair around on stage was completely out of order and disrespectful to SC.

This will be very interesting, and I imagine the email trails will be epic.

I see the spin has started. 🍿

Hasn’t it just.

That's what some of us are waiting to see, Lockupyourbiscuits

Clearly Harry hasn't the judgement to avoid lashing out inappropriately; his only approach seems to be yet more lies in pursuit of whatever he wants, and whether he's been behind SM attacks is something we can't yet know

What we really need is another Jason Knauf to disclose emails similar to "We have to be able to say we had nothing to do with it", but if Sentebale have receipts that may do the job just as well

que a disastrous TV interview like his Uncle Andrew did I’d say!

But why was Meghan there, in the first place? Did she have an official role or was she muscling in, genuine question btw.

No she was moving her away from Harry ! She had no business telling her where to stand and it was extremely awkward as Sophie had to duck down under the trophy .

I just re-watched the footage. Given that Meghan wasn't supposed to be there at all, it's remarkable the way she inserts herself into the centre of things and will not budge for anyone, including physically hanging on to and clawing at Harry the entire time. I don't like the woman, so perhaps I've misinterpreted, but it looks very much to me like she is appropriating the charity event to promote herself.

You are spot on @PigglyWigglyOhYeah

She wouldn’t have those funds for anything else. People who back litigation (in the hopes of making a profit when they get a cut of the winnings) aren’t going to donate the money for something else. It’s literally only for litigation, it’s an investment. Those funds don’t exist for anything else and the charity cannot use it for anything else.

They’ve found someone to back the litigation and finance it. If they win, that person gets their money back plus a profit.

They’ve found someone to back the litigation and finance it. If they win, that person gets their money back plus a profit.

And if they lose, they will have taken out insurance that pays back the funder and any of the other side’s costs that they have to pay, so the charity won’t be out of pocket either way.

well have to see the evidence, surprised it was kept quiet for a month

Normally court cases are discovered because journalists regularly search the court files, which list all new claims filed. That isn’t updated live though, there’s a time lag between a claim being filed and the court staff publishing the information on their online register.

Given this was filed on the 23rd and only just in the press now, it would seem that it took a good two weeks to make it to the public register (as Easter intervened, that sounds about normal).

if it was in the public register the filing would be out as well, was it not briefed to reuters?

Honestly, looking at the Dec 2024 accounts I'm surprised they're still solvent. They had NCA/ unrestricted reserves of £200k vs spend of £4m and income of £3m - likely deficit in 2025. And this was before the board resigned in the Feb.

Also v odd for a charity of this size to only have 3 trustees. I'd have expected them to have added a couple more by now to add credibility and balance/ independence to the board (currently SC and two people she directly recruited following resignation of entire former board).

my issue is that she claimed Harry was toxic for the charity etc now Harry is gone and publicly announced it along with the rest of the board back then - I’d expect for them to be flying high now that said toxic person has fully separated himself from the brand.

those moneys were brought in by proceeds from Harry’s book and the polo matches - Sophie said sentebale was too reliant on these avenues.

Clearly, Sentabale did not proactively brief the media about filing their claim - if they had done so it would have been when they filed it, on 23 March. Also, the Reuters report specifically states their source for the information: “According to a record made public on Friday, Sentebale lodged a defamation claim last month at the High Court against Harry and one of his close friends, Mark Dyer, who was also a trustee of the charity”

And did you not read my earlier post? The document Sentabale have filed at this stage is likely just a claim form which gives very limited details of the claim.

my understanding is limited but I know claim forms to be for money disputes not full on lawsuits

You are right, your understanding is limited!

maybe this is a way for sentebale to raise money because they can’t get any otherwise:

i don’t know what Sophie thought going on tv to call Harry toxic would do to support the charity 🤷🏽‍♀️

especially after the charity commission found nothing.

So I agree with her on that and I've been a trustee of a charity that has successfully transitioned from a "hit up your high net worth friends" funding model to an institutional model, as the former ends up limiting growth as you run out of rich friends. What you don't do is slag off/ ditch the former before you've secured the latter (or even after). It seems like SC saw the polo event as an insurmountable barrier to attracting foundation funding (bad optics) but that hasn't been my experience- you just need to be transparent with funders that you're looking to evolve the model. There is always a place for event/ HNW funders. It doesn't have to be all one or the other and now this situation is so so toxic that they wont be able to get new institutional funders. Those guys hate drama and there are other charities they can fund. There is also the question of whether they have the impact data for institutional funding- it all seems very output focused on the website (how many kids) rather than Impact (tangible difference made).

for what it’s worth, I don’t see how this laws suit doesn’t make things more toxic for the charity - on the year they should be celebrating their 20th anniversary- what a shame.

The statement says:

"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."

A campaign conducted since 2025 with evidence identifying the architects of that campaign to be PH and MD.