The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 10: August 2024 -


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
I really will be curious to see what comes of all of this. The Guardian article made an interesting point that Sentebale relied heavily on polo matches and fundraising from the type of people inclined to give to Royal-associated charities. That funding path probably got less viable after Harry left being a working member of the royal family and became so publicly estranged, so a shift to fundraising on the west coast from technology companies probably did seem like the right path forward for a time. Harry was based there and working, theoretically, for a technology company.

The interest/deep backing didn’t come though, and blame started to go around, creating some acrimonious working relationships. That’s at least what I’m getting out of the story so far, without more detail available.
 
Maybe time to move it entirely within Southern Africa and do away with the funding model as was, which isn't sustainable once it wasn't a 'royal' charity. The 'white saviour' is surely problematic anyway. Change is the only common thread in life. It will happen to Invictus as well. It will need to be handed over and evolve. We all need too.

Keeping it going by asking a mate to do a concert and inviting all your rich mates to give money to go to it is not the way to run a charity. It's almost treating it like a pet project.
 
Point taken, but there are a lot of charities out there, and they're all supporting good causes but there's only so much money that the man or woman in the street can afford to give. It's very difficult to raise large amounts unless you can either get government funding, stage big events, or open charity shops.

And, yes, you would think that an internal dispute could have been settled without involving the Charity Commission and the press. Whistleblowing to the Charity Commission usually involves misuse of funds, not something that's effectively an HR issue.
 
Alison H said:
Point taken, but there are a lot of charities out there, and they're all supporting good causes but there's only so much money that the man or woman in the street can afford to give. It's very difficult to raise large amounts unless you can either get government funding, stage big events, or open charity shops.

And, yes, you would think that an internal dispute could have been settled without involving the Charity Commission and the press. Whistleblowing to the Charity Commission usually involves misuse of funds, not something that's effectively an HR issue.
Click to expand...
I would agree, the stories being drip fed are that the trustees did not agree with the chairs methods, surely that is what a board is all about, discussion , bouncing ideas, maybe even try something different, then finding mutual ground.
The days of the 'toffs' giving up a day to play polo, make a donation then write it off as a charity donation have all gone. I think that was alright in the early days to get it up and running, and probably still has a place for an injection of cash every so often, but fund raising for charities is a professional game now. They need really big bucks all of the time. a guaranteed income stream for an agreed amount of time.
 
Alison H said:
Point taken, but there are a lot of charities out there, and they're all supporting good causes but there's only so much money that the man or woman in the street can afford to give. It's very difficult to raise large amounts unless you can either get government funding, stage big events, or open charity shops.

And, yes, you would think that an internal dispute could have been settled without involving the Charity Commission and the press. Whistleblowing to the Charity Commission usually involves misuse of funds, not something that's effectively an HR issue.
Click to expand...
There may be more than an HR issue, or else the Charity Commission would have simply dismissed the complaint and the trustees would not have stepped down.
 
yukari said:
Accusations and resignations mark remarkable 24 hours at charity founded by Prince Harry



What a mess. Surely both sides could have handled this more professionally instead of this media war because in the end, it's the charity (and whoever they potentially can help) who will suffer.
Click to expand...
Media war initiated by Harry, Sophie was professional and used professional avenues to sort things out. No one knew anything about this before Harry tried to take her down very publicly. Reminds me of the whole Lively vs Baldoni issue. Harry knew very well what he was doing.

She is a high ranking executive at Meta whose voluntary unpaid and time consuming position is now causing massive headache and online bullying. She is very strong for not resigning but she has worked with Sentebale since 2008. What heartache this must cause!
 
The ‘racism’ legal threat that forced Harry to quit his charity


(...)

The Telegraph can now reveal that the board, including Army Captain Mark Dyer, who has long been a father figure to Prince Harry, stepped back in an attempt to save Sentebale from collapse as a result of huge legal bills. On Tuesday night, the Prince could barely contain his shock as he revealed he had resigned from his role as patron of the charity he co-founded, following an “unthinkable” breakdown in relations with Dr Chandauka.

(...)

The charity was plunged into chaos following Dr Chandauka’s arrival, sources claimed, as she took “a wrecking ball” to the organisation and “decimated” it beyond recognition. The board was aghast when their efforts to remove Dr Chandauka from her position resulted in her lodging a High Court claim against Sentebale earlier this month, and feared the mammoth cost of such action would prove its final nail in the coffin.

(...)

Crucially, however, Dr Chandauka had served on Sentebale’s board for six years from 2009 and so rejoined with an inbuilt, inherent understanding of the charity’s mission.

(...)

It was never quite explained why Johnny Hornby, Dr Chandauka’s predecessor, had suddenly quit after 11 years on the board, five of those as chairman. It was this shift of power that was the catalyst for the charity’s gradual implosion, sources claimed.

(...)

Then, last November came the first notable signs of trouble when Baroness Chalker, the former Conservative overseas development minister, who had been a trustee for 18 years, stepped down. Harry’s close friend Andrew Tucker, otherwise known as Tucks, quit his decade-long role as a consultant in the same month.

Then, in December, came the “strategic shift” that spelt the beginning of the end for Prince Harry and its long serving board. Sentebale announced its “first move” in its plan to restructure the organisation by locating its most senior leaders in southern Africa. Richard Miller, who had been its London-based chief executive for five years, appears to have been collateral damage, stepping down to make way for Carmel Gaillard, who is based in Johannesburg.

(...)
Click to expand...

Something's fishy ...

So she's not really newbie since she's previously served on the board for 6 years and even before this mass resignations, couple of long-timers left Sentebale. I wonder, with her credential and experience surely this lady chairman wouldn't find it hard to snatch a new job if she's to leave Sentebale, so why would she need to sue? And then, if this is about different opinion of fundraising between one chairwoman and a group of trustees, it seems like a bit over the top that it leads to resignation of the whole trustee. Was it just an ego clash between one proud woman and bunch of privileged men or there's something bigger than opinion clash happening behind the scene?
 
Rael said:
Agreed on taking her statement with caution.

I too thought her statement was interesting but while it is just her view, it is noteworthy that Harry and the other trustees first syndicated their view knowing they can control the narrative with Harry's profile. It was an intimidation tactic that backfired. I find it sketchy that they didn't publish their statement nor send their resignation notices to the charity. They went straight to the Times who framed the issue positively for Harry and the other trustees. She obviously moved quickly, formed a new Board then provided her statement to the Sun and the Guardian. I don't think that what was Harry and the other Trustees were expecting. They first provided their side and she has countered with her own version.

I'm team no one till all the facts are revealed. Even then, not really my cup of tea. Still, I'm enjoying a group of powerful old boy network cronies being outsmarted by a strong, capable and accomplished woman who is not prepared to take any crap from them or be cowed by 'royalty'. Harry and his mates are getting a taste of what an 'empowered woman with a voice' can do. The very constituents he claims to be committed to championing.
Click to expand...
I agree that until we hear more of the facts from the investigator the Charity Commission, we don’t know the whole story. Two things that caught my eye: she served on the board years earlier - did she not notice these same things she accuses now back then? Also that she called it a “vanity project” - ouch!
 
yukari said:
The ‘racism’ legal threat that forced Harry to quit his charity




Something's fishy ...

So she's not really newbie since she's previously served on the board for 6 years and even before this mass resignations, couple of long-timers left Sentebale. I wonder, with her credential and experience surely this lady chairman wouldn't find it hard to snatch a new job if she's to leave Sentebale, so why would she need to sue? And then, if this is about different opinion of fundraising between one chairwoman and a group of trustees, it seems like a bit over the top that it leads to resignation of the whole trustee. Was it just an ego clash between one proud woman and bunch of privileged men or there's something bigger than opinion clash happening behind the scene?
Click to expand...
Clearly the version fed to The Telegraph is Harry's (and the Board's) version of the events that transpired. Dr Chandauka's account of the facts is considerably different.

Without detailed knowledge of all the facts, it is impossible to judge, but the mainstream British press (The Times, The Telegraph, etc.) seems to be siding with Harry and his friends in the Board. Probably that is also linked to Harry still having direct access to the mainstream media as Dr Chandauka has implied.
 
Curryong said:
Whatever the ins and outs of this fighting in the boardroom and now out of it, this is undoubtedly a sad day for Harry and for Prince Seeiso, who, let’s not forget, co-founded Sentebale in memory of their dead mothers. They have both worked and donated to this charity for a very long time, since Harry was 19 in fact. They wouldn’t have resigned for nothing but they BOTH felt that it was impossible in the current circumstances for them to stay.

Why is Sophie describing herself in her statement as ‘a proud African’? Isn’t Prince Seeiso also a ‘proud African’? Surely she doesn’t have to bring her race into this debate.

Harry co-founded this charity with the very best of intentions and Sentebale has helped countless children and adults on the African continent with AIDS treatments, education and other issues.
Click to expand...
I don’t see “proud African” as a racial statement. I see it the same way I would say “proud American.” Except, unfortunately, I am no longer proud to be an American like I used to be.:sad:
 
yukari said:
\



Something's fishy ...

So she's not really newbie since she's previously served on the board for 6 years and even before this mass resignations, couple of long-timers left Sentebale. I wonder, with her credential and experience surely this lady chairman wouldn't find it hard to snatch a new job if she's to leave Sentebale, so why would she need to sue? And then, if this is about different opinion of fundraising between one chairwoman and a group of trustees, it seems like a bit over the top that it leads to resignation of the whole trustee. Was it just an ego clash between one proud woman and bunch of privileged men or there's something bigger than opinion clash happening behind the scene?
Click to expand...
I'm willing to bet it'll turn out to be the usual misappropriation of funds. These things always come down to money.
 
Sophie Chandauka claimed she had reported the trustees to the UK’s Charity Commission and that a UK court had issued an injunction to stop her dismissal. CNN has not seen a copy of the alleged injunction from the UK’s High Court. A source familiar with the matter told CNN that no such order had been issued.

Loading…

www.cnn.com
 
OwlBranch said:
Sophie Chandauka claimed she had reported the trustees to the UK’s Charity Commission and that a UK court had issued an injunction to stop her dismissal. CNN has not seen a copy of the alleged injunction from the UK’s High Court. A source familiar with the matter told CNN that no such order had been issued.

Loading…

www.cnn.com
Click to expand...
To follow up on Alison H's previous point (thank her for mentioning it!), it is not the "UK's Charity Commission", but rather the Charity Commission for England and Wales. I would also add that it is not the "UK's High Court" either, but the "High Court of Justice in England", which nonetheless has jurisdiction over both England and Wales.

Within the UK, lots of subject matters are handled separately, including at the institutional level, in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

CNN should know better.
 
OwlBranch said:
Sophie Chandauka claimed she had reported the trustees to the UK’s Charity Commission and that a UK court had issued an injunction to stop her dismissal. CNN has not seen a copy of the alleged injunction from the UK’s High Court. A source familiar with the matter told CNN that no such order had been issued.

Loading…

www.cnn.com
Click to expand...
From the article I read yes you are correct an injunction was not raised, the proceedings were started but the trustees all resigned , the meeting to vote her out was cancelled therefore there was no longer a requirement for an injunction. I am not sure if it was a direct quote from Harry or a ' source' that the charity could not afford to become involved in legal wranglings.
 
Interesting article in the Financial Times

archive.ph

Prince Harry tried to ‘force a failure’ of charity he founded, claims…

archived 29 Mar 2025 05:10:41 UTC
archive.ph archive.ph

"Chandauka said she had refused what she described as a request by the royal’s team to defend his wife, Meghan, in the media after negative coverage of her. “I said no, we’re not setting a precedent by which we become an extension of the Sussex PR machine,” she said.

She argued that the volatile public sentiment around Prince Harry since his move to the US and media fallout after the release of a Netflix documentary in 2022 and his book in 2023 had an impact on the charity’s ability to diversify its donor pool and make senior hires.

“When you start to interview people, they’re asking questions about, well, these mixed messages around the patron,” she said."
 
:previous: I read the full article and my reaction is "wow!".

In Sophie Chandauka's statement from a few days ago, I characterized one of her comments as "tell me you are referring to Prince Harry without referring to Prince Harry," but now she has fleshed it out to show that she was also referring to Harry in some of the other grievances she itemized.

I don't know how I feel about this. The part of me that likes "mess" is lapping this up, but it also looks like Chandauka is pulling from the early 2020s Sussex playbook. She is not as high profile as Harry but she mentions that applicants ask questions about "mixed messages around the patron", could similar questions be asked about her in the future about her if she is still with Sentebale?

Another point I am trying to understand is CNN reporting that they have not seen "the injunction" but FT has seen "the complaint", I don't know if it is simply that they are documents associated with different steps in the process?
 
shady lady said:
"Chandauka said she had refused what she described as a request by the royal’s team...
Click to expand...

This seems to be a classical "principal-agent problem", which is well studied in economical and political science.

Further reading: Wikipedia (en)

And of course things like foundations tend to become independent from their founders and their original ideas! Mrs. Candauka, the manager on the ground, seems to be under the impression, that the name of the Sussex founder of the trust has become a liability...

Or so it seems... I aggree with commentator Mirabel her in the the thread: Follow the money!
 
shady lady said:
Interesting article in the Financial Times

archive.ph

Prince Harry tried to ‘force a failure’ of charity he founded, claims…

archived 29 Mar 2025 05:10:41 UTC
archive.ph archive.ph

"Chandauka said she had refused what she described as a request by the royal’s team to defend his wife, Meghan, in the media after negative coverage of her. “I said no, we’re not setting a precedent by which we become an extension of the Sussex PR machine,” she said.

She argued that the volatile public sentiment around Prince Harry since his move to the US and media fallout after the release of a Netflix documentary in 2022 and his book in 2023 had an impact on the charity’s ability to diversify its donor pool and make senior hires.

“When you start to interview people, they’re asking questions about, well, these mixed messages around the patron,” she said."
Click to expand...


May it be a case of “pot, meet kettle”? On one hand, that request from the Sussexes’ team for a positive pr is… SMH, on the other hand, 1,5 m out of 3,4 is from the sales of Spare.
 
Well, in this article a former trustee claims that she's a dictator.

www.thetimes.com

Sentebale: inside the dysfunctional charity Prince Harry has quit

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey, a trustee for nearly 20 years, described the ‘almost dictatorial’ style of its chairwoman, Sophie Chandauka
www.thetimes.com www.thetimes.com

I wonder though, was this 'dictatorial' character not known when she was on the board of trustee? Then again, many things can happen within 10 years after she's leaving the board that might change her.

And what else change within those 10 years between 2014 and 2024? Harry's royal status.

Say, in 2014 Harry played Polo fundraising for Sentebale outside the UK. Most likely travel, accommodation, etc would be covered by Charles while with his ipp status, security would be by RPO.

But he no longer has it now. Take for example his Polo trip to Singapore in 2023. Who covered his flight, security, etc? Why it had to be game of Polo for fundraising there? If Polo even a thing in Singapore that everything would be available there or the organizer had to procure the equipment, the horses and everything from somewhere else? If it's the latter, again, who covering the cost? Or let's say, Harry wants to make Sentebale related visit to Lesotho, maybe with Meghan similar to Nigeria and Colombia, then who would cover the trip and security in this case? If the money had to come from the charity's pocket, it's no wonder that the chairlady isn't happy particularly if the charity is facing decrease of donation (Trump stopping the USAid must have really affected them). Sure, Harry had made considerable donation to Sentebale, but she also did mention something about "PR machine" ....
 
TBH they all sound as bad as each other, and no one sounds like their focus is really on the people the charity is meant to help.

I don't particularly like many of her comments but it seems very much a version of "my truth" that Harry and Meghan played to explain away inconsistencies and lack of reasonable thought.

As sad as it is maybe Sentebale is no longer viable - its work mainly in Africa, a board based in the UK, a founder based in California on a completely different time zone. Yes that works for large multinational NGOs but for a relatively small charity? Not sure it makes the best working environment.
 
Ghost said:
May it be a case of “pot, meet kettle”? On one hand, that request from the Sussexes’ team for a positive pr is… SMH, on the other hand, 1,5 m out of 3,4 is from the sales of Spare.
Click to expand...
I take your point re the money via Harry but surely that itself explains that they require a bigger pool of donors.
 
Alison H said:
www.bbc.co.uk

Sentebale: Head of Africa charity brands Prince Harry's brand 'toxic'

Sentebale: Head of Africa charity brands Prince Harry's brand 'toxic'
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk

She really doesn't like Harry! And why is everything now a "brand"?
Click to expand...
She accuses him of "harassment and bullying at scale". Gosh, that's pretty damning.

Maybe Oprah could interview her? Get her truth. Oprah could pull a few more whaaaaaat's out of it I'm sure. Not to mention some "WHO was having that conversation? Entertaining tv if nothing else.

And so the Sussex circus goes on its merry way.
 
Last edited:
I think that no matter what the truth is here and who was at fault (or to what degree both sides are at fault), that it demonstrates the pitfalls of setting the precedent that going to the media is the way to handle disputes.
 
Durham said:
She accuses him of "harassment and bullying at scale". Gosh, that's pretty damning.

Maybe Oprah could interview her? Get her truth. Oprah could pull a few more whaaaaaat's out of it I'm sure. Not to mention some "WHO was having that conversation? Entertaining tv if nothing else.

And so the Sussex circus goes on its merry way.
Click to expand...
And here's the interview!

Prince Harry accused of 'harassment and bullying at scale' by Sentebale chair Sophie Chandauka

https://twitter.com/x/status/1906096485441356154

I don't think any of them care about Sentebale because whether there's really a misconduct or this is just an ego-clash, no matter which side 'wins' this media mud-slinging, they only hurt Sentebale.
 
She has a point in that it was Harry using his connections to making it a media circus. He didn't send in his resignation but just sent out a press release declaring his resignation as patron 'for now' (so keeping his options open) blaming the chair of his board of trustees, knowing full well what the impact would be on both her and the organization.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Marengo
Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh and Family News and Events 12: March 2025 -
Replies
13
Views
1K
Blog Real
Blog Real
Marengo
The Duke and Duchess of Bragança and Family 3: March 2025 -
Replies
14
Views
1K
tihkon2
tihkon2
Marengo
Earl and Countess of St Andrews and Family News and Events 2, Dec 2024-
Replies
2
Views
1K
iceflower
iceflower
Marengo
Nicholas & Alina Maria de Roumanie Medforth Mills and Family, News & Events 3: March 2025 -
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
Blog Real
Blog Real
Marengo
Titles of the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh and Children
Replies
0
Views
507
Marengo
Marengo

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom