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/

we’re yet to see any evidence of that claim, she on the other hand has openly made damaging statements. in print and on tv. her statements against Harry triggered some of the ugliest abuse I’ve ever seen about Harry and Meghan and I’ve seen plenty.

Agree. Its time Harold was held accountable for his actions. Glad someone's finally doing it.

Dr Chandauka reported the charity of which she was board chair to the Charities Commission due to concerns about its governance, among other things. The Commission’s report upheld her governance concerns. In taking this action she is regarded as a whistleblower under the Public Interest Disclosure Act and is completely protected from retaliatory actions.

In response the charity’s board, and Harry tried to force her to resign (illegally) and when she was able to block that via court action (because as a whistleblower her position is legally protected) they decided to resign en masse. None of the previous actions had been public to that point. Yet suddenly there was a concerted media plan to make this global news and trash both Dr Chandauka’s and the charity’s reputation.

I think the ugly side here is the people abusing their positions and acting illegally, personally.

and did the notoriously court-room shy Harry not take any action? how curious @YourBreezyPanda

Correct, we haven’t any evidence so it will be very interesting so see what is held by the Charity. I suspect PH and MD will settle before it gets to court.

It’s naive though if you think that just because the toxic person steps away then that’s the end of the toxic behaviour.

PH, as we know, is very litigious so if he believes any statements (?) made by SC have been damaging to him then he was/is free to bring his own defamation case or he can counter-sue this one 🤷‍♀️

Well I imagine supporters of both sides have been absolutely vitriolic on social media but whether it's provable that that was "orchestrated" seems a bit unlikely. Just because Joan from Coventry who loves Prince Harry wrote something mean on the Sentebale FB page doesn't make it an organised bullying/ smear campaign. My understanding of defamation is that the defendant (H) has to show that what he said was substantially true or an honestly held opinion - like had H said something like "SC stole money from the charity" when there's zero evidence and he had no basis for thinking that, that would be defamation, vs H going round saying "SC alienated existing donors and wasted $500k on fundraising consultants who didn't get any new donors" would be an honestly held opinion since whilst it's open to debate, a reasonable person could come to that conclusion.

Anyway, I've got my popcorn ready for "professional victim vs professional victim in the ready money round".

I do think though that it's interesting that people aren't picking up on the $500k consultancy bill which is absolutely outrageous. I have not met anyone in the sector who can justify that in terms of a likely scope with no success fee (i.e. basically paying for donor identification and warm intros/ application support). I do think that it's easy to fall into a trap of "H is a twat and therefore he's wrong about everything and anyone who disagrees with him is right about everything". I totally admit I wanted to come to that conclusion but I'm not sure that I have.

Just a reminder what the Charities Commission actually found in relation to the governance issues referred to it by Dr Chandaka:

They found that Sentabale had a confusing, convoluted and poorly governed process of delegation of powers to the chair/Executive chair role with a lack of clearly defined delegation. The trustees did not have appropriate processes to investigate internal complaints, and a lack of clear processes and policies generally. These failings were held to amount to mismanagement in the administration of the charity.

The Commission found that there wasn’t over-reach by Prince Harry as patron/chair but was critical of the above governance failings around his roles.

It’s conclusion was that Dr Chandauka should remain in role with a regulatory action plan to improve the charity’s policies and procedures.

(So, having tried to remedy the mismanagement of the charity internally, and being completely blocked, the chair blew the whistle to the appropriate regulator, and was vindicated. It seems fairly clear that the rest of the charity and its patrons were trying to thwart this all the way along).

His name is Henry. If you don’t want to use the diminutive Harry then at least use his actual name. Why are you calling him Harold?

oh people have picked up on seeming mismanagement of $500K alright, they just dislike Harry too much to care lol

Harold is Prince William's nickname for Harry. It is common practice on the internet to use slightly ridiculous nicknames as subtle digs and Harold fits the bill very well.
If Harry did similar, I'm sure there would be cries of online bullying.

(Sophie) is regarded as a whistleblower under the Public Interest Disclosure Act and is completely protected from retaliatory actions

I don't doubt it, @Serenster, but while we don't yet know the details I can't imagine anyone else's legal protection would matter a damn to Harry once he'd got them in his sights

Fundamentally, to me at least, he appears completely out of control

I do think though that it's interesting that people aren't picking up on the $500k consultancy bill which is absolutely outrageous

I don't disagree, @AllJoyAndNoFun, but then I know nothing about Sophie's integrity which is why I've always kept an open mind on the subject

That said, wouldn't the regulator have picked this up if there were any discrepancies around it? They may not concern themselves within internal rows but I'd have thought this well within their remit?

The Charity Commission found the claims of mismanagement of funds (inc consultancy fees) could not be substantiated

It's not the regulator's job to have an opinion on a charity's operating decisions, good or bad. Providing it was an arms length transaction (i.e. there's no conflict of interest concerns or implications of embezzlement) then making bad commercial decisions is not something the CC would involve itself in.

and no bullying etc

he’s out of control, these claims are so funny - you don’t know these people

Absolutely this

But that doesn't mean it wasn't an absolutely terrible commercial decision. There is no scope that can justify that sort of investment when you consider day rates for this sort of exercise. I can totally understand why the board fell out over that. An experienced fundraising consultant could identify and profile all the likely funders and produce a report within a month. What was the rest for?

Providing it was an arms length transaction (i.e. there's no conflict of interest concerns or implications of embezzlement) then making bad commercial decisions is not something the CC would involve itself in

I know, @AllJoyAndNoFun, but unfortunately the SM did include accusations of financial misconduct - the very ones which IAmATorturedPoet just pointed out couldn't be substantiated

I see, though, that once again it's being claimed that the regulator found no bullying, when it's already been amply explained that they found no widespread or institutional bullying and that individual behaviour of this sort is beyond their remit

The spin's to be expected though, and doubtless there'll be a lot more of it

When would Harry have found out about this? Always fun to see how PR activity around them waxes and wanes and tries to get ahead of whenever the latest fuck up might reach the public domain.

No systemic bullying.

The Commission did not find evidence of widespread bullying, harassment or misogynoir. (Although it should be noted this is not the role of the Charity Commisison - it’s not a conduct regulator - and they also recognised that there was a strong perception of ill-treatment by a number of parties to the dispute, which may have had a personal impact on them. I think this suggests the Commisison recognised feelings were very high on both sides).

Generally the law looks at their actions, not their personalities.

There is a pre-action protocol for defamation claims in the UK courts which a reputable law firm like that engaged by Sentable would almost certainly have followed. This mandates an exchange of letters setting out the claims and giving the intended defendants the right to reply. So Harry and the other defendant would have known this was coming.

Also, there is a strict one year time limit for a defamation claims. Having gone to the press with his resignation on 25 March 2025, Harry’s lawyers would have known that 25 March 2026 was the last date on which a claim could be filed (and it was in fact filed on 23 March). So they would have known when it was likely to come.

(That’s the counter to some of the outlandish claims I’ve seen on twitter, that William has deliberately orchestrated this to try to subvert Harry and Meghan’s Australian trip. 🙄 Ironically, the timing of the lawsuit actually hangs off Harry’s own actions last tear…)

Ah that’s interesting, thank you. I’ve been wondering if something was brewing, due to the slightly more desperate than usual PR activity lately.

Yet suddenly there was a concerted media plan to make this global news and trash both Dr Chandauka’s and the charity’s reputation

As far as I know that is not at proven fact at this stage, only Dr Chandauka's allegation

It would be interesting to have the full details about the £500k consultancy bill: who were the consultants, what other work have they done in the sector, what the hourly our daily rate worked out as, how does that compare with industry standards, was the full expenditure agreed in advance or did the bill grow unexpectedly, what was the expectation of donations growth following implementation of the recommendations...

I'd also like to know who is funding the case. Hopefully the charity have considered this legal action calmly and decided that it's in the charity's interest to pursue this. It's certainly not helping Sentebale to distance themselves from the previous administration.

Personally I think this is likely to put off investors and donors even more.