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/

Those pondering what specific allegations Sentabale might be making, and what their position is on them just needs to read pages 77-84 of the audited financial statements - they are all clearly laid out there.

How did they incur £67k worth of legal costs?!

Just read page 77 onwards. It’s all summarised there.

Did you really mean to be quite so racist while defending a privileged white middle aged prince?

Does this mean he helped himself to £67K to pay lawyers for the Sentebale crisis a year ago??

On the contrary, I think Sophie Chandauka IS coming out of this looking pretty good.

The rot appears to have started long before the public spat between Harry and Sophie. When Harry threw a grenade into his relationship with the RF, the pro Royal donors and sponsors started backing away from Harry and his charities. Harry then buoyed Sentebale up with a once off injection of cash from the proceeds of Spare. Harry screwed his own leverage to influence ‘strange people at boring dinners’ for donations.

Sentebale are publicly saying they have evidence Harry and his lackey coordinated a negative media and social media assault on the charity, it’s a pretty dire accusation, and appalling if it is proven.

This is my question - what did the £67k pay for and why was it deemed appropriate for Harry to use Sentebale money?

looking at page 77 i don't think it was deemed appropriate.

the charity's statement says that these costs were incurred covertly. it also says that the legal strategy, which is what the funds were presumably for, was not clearly communicated or approved through governance.

all of that sounds as if the use of this money from the charity was not above board. especially when you look at the end of that section where it says that the chair funded her own legal costs out of her own pocket.

I agree - I worded my post badly. I meant why did Harry & Co think they could use Sentebale funds for legal purposes?

This is quite possible, although it’s not fully clear what it was for as it wasn’t documented (if I were the accountant I’d start by requesting a copy of the invoice and a copy of the law firms supporting timesheets).

These latest published accounts relate to the 16 month period from 1 September 2023 to 31 December 2024. However, the report says the £67k legal fees were incurred from December 2024-March 2025, when the former patrons resigned.

The accounts which include the legal fees will be for the year ended 31 December 2025, which must be published by 30 September 2026 (9 month deadline post year end).

I wonder if there might be a post balance sheet event in the 2025 accounts noting that the £67k has been paid back as part of an agreement…

I think in so far as I remember the Tom Bower book that the story you put here is actually part of the defamation strategy!

They do in fact already have new funding, it wasn't her who pissed off the Polo crowd and I can't remember about the consultants but it's on the book IIRC.

Bower describes him as suggesting to potential Sentebale donors, at a massive fundraising event in South Africa, that they channel their donations through Archewell. The grift!

He - Harry - notb" they".

The implication is, taking legal advice on how to oust Dr S and charging it to Sentebale. That is mynamateurbtake, anyway.

oh really? Which new institutional funders are confirmed? The impression I got was that existing funders have stuck it out but no new ones.

It's astonishing that he would do this specifically at a Sentabale fundraiser that he is their to represent! This is maybe the most damning piece of info on Prince H I've ever heard. He really is just beyond. Archewell isn't even a charity.

Because he could. Because he thought he would get away with it ( he has) . Because it was "his" charity buoyed up by a recent big donation, so the money was "his" by rights to use to save "his" charity from the interloper.

In other words, gross entitlement.

Bower claims also that H persuaded one of the donors at that event to donate to Travalyst instead.

This is a grey area because if the organisation (corporate body) is looking to get rid of either a trustee or an employee then they can use organisational funds to get legal advice to do so. If a majority of the trustees were in agreement that SC should be removed then potentially the trustees could approve this expenditure, but it would depend on the charity's governing documents, and given that these were somewhat lacking......

ah ok sorry i misunderstood.

just guessing but maybe he thought he was trying to protect the charity that it would be a fair cost for the charity to cover.

just a guess as i say and could be wrong. but if i'm not then the problem is that even if it is allowed it looks really bad, because you are literally royalty and yet taking cash out of a struggling charity instead of paying the legal costs yourself. looks even worse if you haven't got it properly signed off by the charity as it smacks of royal entitlement that you think you are above the rules.

Agreed- the optics are terrible and critically, he was not a trustee, he was the patron so really should not have been involved in the decision. Most charities will have a mechanism whereby a trustee can be removed by either unanimous or majority decision of the other trustees (and I'm sure people can agree this is necessary because what if someone does something terrible but not unlawful and refuses to resign) but this seems pretty irregular, if true

If proceeds from a fundraising event for Sentebale were funnelled through Delaware incorporated Archewell, then I think in theory Archewell could have used up to 95% of that money on “expenses” and handed over just 5% to Sentebale.

Did anyone else used to watch Father Ted, when he was flustered over collection box money just “resting” in his account?

This sounds incredibly racist with your comments on her name.

According to the accounts, the expenditure was deliberately concealed from the principal senior executive. It also says the trustees were not consulted.

If the above can be substantiated with a paper trail, it’s not looking good for Harry and co.

I'm not entirely sure that these appendices are audited so I'll reserve a bit of judgement. The notes to the financial statements refer to them, but they are not themselves part of the financial statements that the auditors refer to in their statement.

But I agree it all paints a picture of a deeply dysfunctional organisation with zero processes and internal controls

sounds like someone is angry that a black woman with a good record of achievements behind her and who has been recognised for her contributions, is challenging a privileged white bloke and suggesting that he should be held to account.

the whole name spelling thing is just laughable. trying to cut sophie chandauka down to size by claiming they don't know who she is and that she is so unimportant they don't know her name, as if it's not available in 3 seconds on bloody google.