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

[Mirabel]

Thank goodness they aren't updating it is all I can say.

I'm not sure what they would update it with, since they no longer have a great amount of interaction with the RF.
I suppose they could cover their trips to other countries, but how much additional interest could be drummed up for that?

 

[Ghost]

I'm not sure what they would update it with, since they no longer have a great amount of interaction with the RF.
I suppose they could cover their trips to other countries, but how much additional interest could be drummed up for that?

Harry talked at some moment about 400 pages that didn’t make it into the hardcover edition.

 

[Marengo]

400 pages?! It seems we have been missing out .

Is it known if he was paid a fixed sum or does his income from the book partly depends on the sales ? If so, this new edition is good news to him and his accountant too.

 

[HRHHermione]

Is it known if he was paid a fixed sum or does his income from the book partly depends on the sales ? If so, this new edition is good news to him and his accountant too

He is probably earning royalties, but in not adding new material, he’s declining to add value that would help the paperback edition sell. The hardback has been available at paper back prices for so long that I’d be surprised if it generated a huge amount of sales, but who knows.

 

[GondorHasNoPants]

People magazine is reporting that Prince Harry will make a solo trip to New York City during the UN General Assembly High-Level Week, which runs from September 23-27.

He will be in New York to 'advance a number of patronages and philanthropic initiatives', and 'to further the work of The Archewell Foundation'.

Interestingly, his visit will coincide with the Earthshot Prize Innovation Summit, due to take place in New York on September 24th. There is no clarity yet on whether William will attend the event.

Prince Harry Announces Power-Packed Solo Trip to N.Y.C. in September

Prince Harry will be in N.Y.C. in September to support his patronages and philanthropic initiatives during the UN General Assembly High-level Week and Climate Week.

people.com

 

[HRHHermione]

People magazine is reporting that Prince Harry will make a solo trip to New York City during the UN General Assembly High-Level Week, which runs from September 23-27

People almost never runs anything that isn’t publicist confirmed so it’s probably true.

I do wonder how long they will be able to present Archewell as a real organization in the absence of critical infrastructure, timely annual reporting, and fundraising.

 

[Hallo girl]

Do Harry and Meghan do fundraisers for Archewell, or it it mainly donations, I know he has been involved with polo matches but I thought they were specifically for Sentebale. Do they use other means for fundraisers for Archewell?

 

[shady lady]

Do Harry and Meghan do fundraisers for Archewell, or it it mainly donations, I know he has been involved with polo matches but I thought they were specifically for Sentebale. Do they use other means for fundraisers for Archewell?

In 2022 they spent the princely sum of £0 on fundraising. As per this report:

Archewell Foundation: CharityWatch Rating

CharityWatch CEO and Executive Director, Laurie Styron, spoke with USA Today about Archewell Foundation, the charity of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

www.charitywatch.org

 

[muriel]

This is a good decision on Harry’s part.

He hasn't made many good decisions in recent years, so this is a good start. Meghan had better watch out. Who knows which other good decisions he may end up making in the coming years!

 

[Hallo girl]

In 2022 they spent the princely sum of £0 on fundraising. As per this report:

Archewell Foundation: CharityWatch Rating

CharityWatch CEO and Executive Director, Laurie Styron, spoke with USA Today about Archewell Foundation, the charity of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

www.charitywatch.org

So we do not actually know who made the original donation to set it up, how transparent is that?
Not just for Archewell but any charity, surely it should be transparent who is making donations to ensure no conflict of interest.

 

[Elenath]

This is the financial report. I'm sure people who know a lot more about this can figure out if it says anything about donations.
https://archewell.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/the-archewell-foundation-2022-public-disclosure.pdf
I didn't see any names though. So perhaps the few donations they did receive are anonymous?

 

[HRHHermione]

This is the financial report. I'm sure people who know a lot more about this can figure out if it says anything about donations.
https://archewell.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/the-archewell-foundation-2022-public-disclosure.pdf
I didn't see any names though. So perhaps the few donations they did receive are anonymous?

That one is from 2022. It’s their 2023 that has yet to be shared, though we are at almost the end of Q3 in 2024.

From what I recall, the large donation that they set up the foundation with was and remains anonymous.

 

[Alison H]

I don't know what the law is in the US, but there's no obligation in the UK for charities to disclose the names of donors.

 

[Hallo girl]

I don't know what the law is in the US, but there's no obligation in the UK for charities to disclose the names of donors.

That is really interesting, if you try to open a bank account in the UK, you are asked to prove how you came by it.

 

[Toledo]

I don't know what the law is in the US, but there's no obligation in the UK for charities to disclose the names of donors.

Hope this helps, is from Forbes Magazine USA Sept 2019:

Should Nonprofits Be Required to Publicly Disclose Their Donors?

Excerpt:
"...Recent scandals surrounding nonprofit organizations’ acceptance of financial contributions from controversial donors have placed a spotlight on when and how these organizations disclose their financial backers to the public as well as the tension in the nonprofit community between the privacy of valuable donors and the public’s need for transparency.

With rare exceptions, nonprofit organizations are not required to disclose the names of their donors to the public. It’s true that most nonprofit, tax-exempt organizations in the United States are required to file tax returns annually, which include a list of all donors who contribute more than $5,000 in a tax year, but this listing is not made public by the Internal Revenue Service..."


And more recently, as of 2021 Behind The Supreme Court's Ruling That Non-Profits Don't Need to Name Large Donors

Excerpt:
...at issue here was a California law. It's similar to laws in other states. It requires tax-exempt charities or nonprofits to file a list of their large donors, anyone who gives over $5,000. It's the same as what these groups would provide to the IRS every year... California at one point inadvertently made the names public, and that led the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, a group founded by the billionaire Koch brothers, to bring the case to court, and others joined them. They said that the risk of a leak, intentional or not, would create a, quote, "chilling effect" on donors and has subjected them to threats and harassment...

...is in the states and how they regulate charities and nonprofits to try to root out wrongdoing, self-dealing and other problems. It was already a pretty tough task. California alone has about 115,000 of these kinds of groups*, and this decision makes it even harder."

*Archwell is part of the 115,000 plus non-profits home-based in the state of California. When they are just one of 115,000 groups in a single state, I don't think they are that special.

 

[Alison H]

That is really interesting, if you try to open a bank account in the UK, you are asked to prove how you came by it.

I work in accounts, and we have to ask people how they came by their money. It's quite embarrassing, because it feels as if you're accusing someone of being a bank robber or something. And, for major audits, we're supposed to ask people if their companies are involved in money laundering or terrorism - as if they'd tell us if they were! But, although political parties have to disclose the names of major donors, charities don't.

 

[Hallo girl]

Hope this helps, is from Forbes Magazine USA Sept 2019:

Should Nonprofits Be Required to Publicly Disclose Their Donors?

Excerpt:
"...Recent scandals surrounding nonprofit organizations’ acceptance of financial contributions from controversial donors have placed a spotlight on when and how these organizations disclose their financial backers to the public as well as the tension in the nonprofit community between the privacy of valuable donors and the public’s need for transparency.

With rare exceptions, nonprofit organizations are not required to disclose the names of their donors to the public. It’s true that most nonprofit, tax-exempt organizations in the United States are required to file tax returns annually, which include a list of all donors who contribute more than $5,000 in a tax year, but this listing is not made public by the Internal Revenue Service..."


And more recently, as of 2021 Behind The Supreme Court's Ruling That Non-Profits Don't Need to Name Large Donors

Excerpt:
...at issue here was a California law. It's similar to laws in other states. It requires tax-exempt charities or nonprofits to file a list of their large donors, anyone who gives over $5,000. It's the same as what these groups would provide to the IRS every year... California at one point inadvertently made the names public, and that led the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, a group founded by the billionaire Koch brothers, to bring the case to court, and others joined them. They said that the risk of a leak, intentional or not, would create a, quote, "chilling effect" on donors and has subjected them to threats and harassment...

...is in the states and how they regulate charities and nonprofits to try to root out wrongdoing, self-dealing and other problems. It was already a pretty tough task. California alone has about 115,000 of these kinds of groups*, and this decision makes it even harder."

*Archwell is part of the 115,000 plus non-profits home-based in the state of California. When they are just one of 115,000 groups in a single state, I don't think they are that special.

So my understanding is that the information is not ‘secret’ just not in the public domain.

 

[Asteria12]

Seeing some news reports that Harry did attend his uncle's funeral after all. If its true then I'm glad he made the effort, I'm sure his aunt would have appreciated it (and his discreetness).

 

[HRHHermione]

Seeing some news reports that Harry did attend his uncle's funeral after all. If its true then I'm glad he made the effort, I'm sure his aunt would have appreciated it (and his discreetness).

Yes, this is being run as a story by The Sun and The Express, which are semi-reliable sources and can be shared, with the caution that we do not know if this is true.

Here is The Sun’s story: Warring Wills & Harry REUNITE at uncle's funeral after Duke's secret dash to UK

Here is The Express: Prince Harry and Prince William reunite after Duke of Sussex's 'trip to UK'

If true, I am glad Harry was able to be with his family for this funeral and also that he was discreet about how he handled it.

 

[Hallo girl]

If correct it shows where there is a will there is a way.

 

[Curryong]

I believe the reports. I think that Harry attended for the sake of his mother, and his aunt Jane, who was present at the St Paul’s Invictus Games ceremony this year. Harry has always been close to the Spencers. It was good to read this.

 

[shady lady]

I'm glad he went and did it without fanfare or fuss. With the paperback edition of Spare apparently not having any updates, perhaps PH has learned the lesson that telling tales about the BRF, however profitable and record breaking, has done him much more harm than good.

 

[Hallo girl]

I read that Meghan is now aligned with some small designer companies. Her profile is priceless to them. Let us hope this is a successful road for her and the companies concerned. This could be a good link up with ARO. Let us hope for success .

 

[muriel]

I'm glad he went and did it without fanfare or fuss. With the paperback edition of Spare apparently not having any updates, perhaps PH has learned the lesson that telling tales about the BRF, however profitable and record breaking, has done him much more harm than good.

Only time will tell. Based on the evidence of the last few years, IMO, good judgement and self reflection are not Harry's strong points.

 

[Ghost]

I read that Meghan is now aligned with some small designer companies. Her profile is priceless to them. Let us hope this is a successful road for her and the companies concerned. This could be a good link up with ARO. Let us hope for success .

In which “align” means that she’s invested in the company and wearing the products. It’s advertising, isn’t it? I read this about that handbag company.

 

[muriel]

I read that Meghan is now aligned with some small designer companies. Her profile is priceless to them. Let us hope this is a successful road for her and the companies concerned. This could be a good link up with ARO. Let us hope for success .

Yes, I, too, read that she is back to being an influencer. But is now taking a stake in some of the businesses she might try and promote / place.

This could well be the model for ARO, but as of now, we know little of what ARO is about. All I have read on the topic is that she appears to be struggling to find a CEO for the business.

 

[maria-olivia]

I just read that Prince Harry came to Great britain for the Funerals of Lord Fellowes , his Uncle. Prince William was there too. So he remains faithtful to his late Mother's family .

 

[Hallo girl]

I just read that Prince Harry came to Great britain for the Funerals of Lord Fellowes , his Uncle. Prince William was there too. So he remains faithtful to his late Mother's family .

Yes low key below the radar ,

 

[muriel]

So he remains faithtful to his late Mother's family .

Yes, I too have read that he made an appearance at the funeral of Robert Fellowes. But we don't really know what goes on behind closed doors. We have no idea what his relationship with the Spencer's is really like, and how it may have evolved in time. We don't quite know why Charles Spencer was not at the christening for Archie.

 

[Maryrose]

I think it’s smart for her to invest in these smaller brands that she enjoys using. It’s a win win situation. She’s taken to wearing little known designers and because of the media detailing every thing she wears it takes off. Same goes for other royal women,( who they are wearing and the price). It definitely puts brands in the spotlight.