The Duke and Duchess of Sussex's Charities and Patronages

[Chimene]

Are they really relevant though or are they paying for self promotion? Those are two very different things.

 

[OwlBranch]

It looks like the link to the verification expired. Here is the 'search tool' for those who still would like to look it up for themselves.

Verification

Renewal was due on May 15 2023 (so their expiration date was a year ago!). It seems they were given several extensions. The last date of renewal was February 2 2024 - they clearly also didn't meet that deadline, which is why their registry status is now 'delinquent'.

The issue has already been fixed! If you go to the URL in the above message, the Registry Status is now "Current". Some thoughts:
-The headline story about Archewell's "delinquent" status first broke on May 13th
- The issue was fixed in 24 hours. That is fast, especially considering the forms they submitted was 40+ pages of government tax forms, which would take more than a day to prepare.
- In fact, the signature on the first page was done in Nov 2023.
- Therefore, it would be reasonable to conclude that the forms were prepared on time (7 months ago), but due to some clerical error did not get stamped by the government. (The first page has a stamp that it was received on May 14th 2024)

Kudos to the Archewell team for such a swift response!

 

[Hallo girl]

The issue has already been fixed! If you go to the URL in the above message, the Registry Status is now "Current". Some thoughts:
-The headline story about Archewell's "delinquent" status first broke on May 13th
- The issue was fixed in 24 hours. That is fast, especially considering the forms they submitted was 40+ pages of government tax forms, which would take more than a day to prepare.
- In fact, the signature on the first page was done in Nov 2023.
- Therefore, it would be reasonable to conclude that the forms were prepared on time (7 months ago), but due to some clerical error did not get stamped by the government. (The first page has a stamp that it was received on May 14th 2024)

Kudos to the Archewell team for such a swift response!

I am not up to speed on the ways of finance etc but I thought the problem was the missing payment/ cheque that nobody appeared to have noticed had not been cashed because it had been lost in the post. I assume the payment has now been sorted out as well.
Drama over then.

 

[Erin9]

The issue has already been fixed! If you go to the URL in the above message, the Registry Status is now "Current". Some thoughts:
-The headline story about Archewell's "delinquent" status first broke on May 13th
- The issue was fixed in 24 hours. That is fast, especially considering the forms they submitted was 40+ pages of government tax forms, which would take more than a day to prepare.
- In fact, the signature on the first page was done in Nov 2023.
- Therefore, it would be reasonable to conclude that the forms were prepared on time (7 months ago), but due to some clerical error did not get stamped by the government. (The first page has a stamp that it was received on May 14th 2024)

Kudos to the Archewell team for such a swift response!

One would have hoped for a swift response. Lol Seeing as they were classified as delinquent and literally unable to function. If that doesn’t get you moving…

Whatever happened- it would seem they were at a minimum unaware their check never got cashed.

Drama really follows these 2 around.

 

[Thain]

Royal defense: [Governor Gavin] Newsom also defended Prince Harry and Meghan’s Archewell Foundation, which had been called into question over registration lapses in California. “There’s been unbelievable amount of attention that has been placed on the Archewell Foundation … [which does] extraordinary work, particularly [for] women and girls, but notably around mental health, and I just want folks to know, not only are they in compliance, there’s a technical paperwork issue that was wildly overhyped.”

From the end of this article.

 

[Chimene]

Interesting…if the foundation is so above board, how on earth was it listed as delinquent? Clerical error? CA government is incompetent? It’s always someone else’s fault isn’t it. Always without fail. I find that very amusing.

 

[Somebody]

Glad to see it resolved. Hopefully they will ensure that the 2023 filing will be on time and complete. Apparently, it is due tomorrow - but I assume some 'regular' extensions will be provided - and with this experience, Archewell will make sure this won't happen again.

N.B. If this issue was solved in 'a day' because of media attention, I would be rather concerned. Hopefully/Most likely they didn't wait for a media storm but already took action when they received the letter on May 3 - which informed them of their delinquent status.

 

[Sunnystar]

N.B. If this issue was solved in 'a day' because of media attention, I would be rather concerned. Hopefully they didn't wait for a media storm but already took action when they received the letter on May 3 - which informed them of their delinquent status.

My guess is that this is, indeed, what happened. The reports surfaced yesterday morning and even if you took prompt, swift action and sent the check and paperwork overnight, bureaucracy is not going to open that mail up and get it processed the very next day, not even when you're a high-profile charity linked to members of the British Royal Family.

 

[Somebody]

In terms of the report itself, I noticed that they not only spent more than they received (but that's not a problem as they spent only about a third of what they received in 2021; so they've got quite some money on the bank) but also spent more on 'salaries, other compensations, employee benefits' and 'other expenses ' - 1.426.642 - than they spent on the purpose of their organization (covered under 'grants and similar amounts paid' - 1.252.895). The 'other expenses' included at least 428.331 to 3 consultancy agencies for strategic support - one of them created by two of their former staff members at the Palace who were tasked with 'implementation support' for UK patronage programs.

They divide their work in 3 broad topics:
- Uplifting communities (815.000 grants + 483.619 other costs; 1.298.619 in total)
- Building a better online world (175.000 grants + 367.436 other costs; 542.436 in total)
- Restoring trust in information (262.895 grants + 218.899 other costs; 481.794 in total)

Of the grants the large majority went to US-based organizations. Only 118.895 (as part of 'restoring trust in information) went to 'Europe' --> one to support research into the interconnected roles of social media, media and other content producers in effecting how democratic discourse happens in a digital age and the other to promote independent, factual information about Ukraine. All the US-based grants are listed on pages 36-41; most of them in the range of 10.000-65.000 but a few larger ones.

The report was prepared about a year ago (preparer's name is included with the date of 12 May 2023) but only signed off on 6 months later - and only fully submitted a year later (today).

Meghan and Harry are both indicated to work 1 hour a week for Archewell Foundation and receive no compensation (they still might receive direct costs reimbursed). In 2022, three employees worked full-time for the organization (it seems they didn't correctly flag the highest earning employee) with salaries varying from 92.994 to 227.405. They also receive additional non-taxable compensation ranging from 2.533 to 15.645. Compared to 2001 the executive director's salary has gone up enormously (it was 59.846 + 3.832), however, his hours did go up far more (from 1 h per week to 40 h per week). So, while this is a pretty high amount for the director of a charitable organization, it was 2021's hourly compensation that was far more concerning.

 

[soapstar]

One would have hoped for a swift response. Lol Seeing as they were classified as delinquent and literally unable to function. If that doesn’t get you moving…

Whatever happened- it would seem they were at a minimum unaware their check never got cashed.

Drama really follows these 2 around.

It would be hard for them to be unaware that their check wasn’t cashed. The California AG doesn’t just classify a foundation delinquent without first attempting to rectify the situation. There would have been notices sent to the foundation before it got to the delinquent stage. This is an issue that should have been sorted out long before it became public. This is embarrassing for them.

I don’t know who the Sussexes have taking care of Archewell finances, but they should probably find someone else to do it.

Glad to see it resolved. Hopefully they will ensure that the 2023 filing will be on time and complete. Apparently, it is due tomorrow - but I assume some 'regular' extensions will be provided - and with this experience, Archewell will make sure this won't happen again.

N.B. If this issue was solved in 'a day' because of media attention, I would be rather concerned. Hopefully/Most likely they didn't wait for a media storm but already took action when they received the letter on May 3 - which informed them of their delinquent status.

I thought they were already behind in their 2023 filings?

From the end of this article.

I don’t know why my governor had to weigh in. The status of a celebrity foundation is the last thing he should be focused on.

 

[Somebody]

It would be hard for them to be unaware that their check wasn’t cashed. The California AG doesn’t just classify a foundation delinquent without first attempting to rectify the situation. There would have been notices sent to the foundation before it got to the delinquent stage. This is an issue that should have been sorted out long before it became public. This is embarrassing for them.

I don’t know who the Sussexes have taking care of Archewell finances, but they should probably find someone else to do it.

Their co-exec. director/treasurer/secretary is (or was in 2022) Shauna Nep. The preparation of the report was done externally by ms Navarez of Green Hasson & Janks LLP well in time (signed off on May 12, 2023) but for some reason James Holt only signed off on it on November 15, 2023; and the completed paperwork was only fully received today.

 

[CrownPrincessJava]

Does the US have Postal rule, i.e. as soon as something is sent via Federal mail, it is as good as the recipient receiving it. In Australia, if I had sent a cheque, via registered or even normal post through Australia Post, the burden is on the recipient proving they never received it and not on me. Especially as this was through registered mail, Archewell are not responsible at all - the State of California would be at fault. If Archewell showed receipt of sending (and thus delivery) of all documentation before the date of submission, again, State of California is at fault.

 

[Lady Daly]

Their co-exec. director/treasurer/secretary is (or was in 2022) Shauna Nep. The preparation of the report was done externally by ms Navarez of Green Hasson & Janks LLP well in time (signed off on May 12, 2023) but for some reason James Holt only signed off on it on November 15, 2023; and the completed paperwork was only fully received today.

Something seems fishy about this entire charity debacle. Firstly the timeline appears to be off. Where is the documentation the check and paperwork were sent. Did they?? use USPS registered or certified mail? FedEx? There should be definitive tracking, no "lost in the mail". The Sussexes appear to have dodged one more drama.

 

[shady lady]

So as their status was Delinquent yesterday and Current today, does that mean they sent the missing items electronically or somebody was despatched to address the matter in person?

If I were H&M I'd get Alexa to set a reminder next time

 

[shady lady]

Interesting…if the foundation is so above board, how on earth was it listed as delinquent? Clerical error? CA government is incompetent? It’s always someone else’s fault isn’t it. Always without fail. I find that very amusing.

Oh, it's never H&M's fault! Even when it is

I see this incident as an indicator of the chaos going on behind the scenes, it's obvious IMO.

P.S. I love your signature quote.

 

[Chimene]

So as their status was Delinquent yesterday and Current today, does that mean they sent the missing items electronically or somebody was despatched to address the matter in person?

If I were H&M I'd get Alexa to set a reminder next time

They paid for 2022 apparently and 2023 is due today. Let’s see how “incompetent” the state of California is this time. Although, I’m really curious why a governor would be willing to embarrass himself this way. I’ll say it again, lots of nefarious activities by or for two people who are only good at getting other people to take the blame for their actions/mistakes.

 

[shady lady]

They paid for 2022 apparently and 2023 is due today. Let’s see how “incompetent” the state of California is this time. Although, I’m really curious why a governor would be willing to embarrass himself this way. I’ll say it again, lots of nefarious activities by or for two people who are only good at getting other people to take the blame for their actions/mistakes.

Well if I worked for the state of California and in particular their finance department I would not be voting for him again. I watched the footage and frankly he just presents as a puppet spokesman for H&M; he choose to comment on it, and my impression is either he was leaned on or he has some sort of ongoing friendship or business with them. If it's the latter then he's not there to defend his wealthy mates, he's there to serve the people of California and deal with much more important issues! It reminds me of Bill Clinton's impromptu comments about Monica Lewinsky. Not a great move in either case.

A good boss should know what is going on and what needs to be done. That's what made Sir Alex Ferguson such a huge success at Manchester United back in the day; he knew everything about everything - and everyone - at the club. It may be an apocryphal story, but I read somewhere he even ordered the club's toilet rolls - but you get the picture. He was fully involved, and nothing of importance missed his attention.

Throwing lots of money at people to do all the hard work but showing no interest in or paying attention to the business itself, isn't really going to work in the long term. Perhaps if you're an incredibly rich mega superstar like Elton John, it can be done; but H&M aren't in that league (much to their frustration) and IMO they are desperate for money.

If they took more interest in how their companies are run, and less about appearances; if they took responsibility instead of blaming everyone else for everything - they might not have been in this situation in the first place.

 

[Erin9]

Something seems fishy about this entire charity debacle. Firstly the timeline appears to be off. Where is the documentation the check and paperwork were sent. Did they?? use USPS registered or certified mail? FedEx? There should be definitive tracking, no "lost in the mail". The Sussexes appear to have dodged one more drama.

I’m not sure they dodged much. It’s pretty embarrassing to have been classed as delinquent world wide. For any reason. Especially with their history imo. They didn’t need this kind of PR. Which leads me to….

I think the biggest problems they have are:

a lot of people see them as liars (or exaggerators) who when they speak people think: prove it. They don’t get the benefit of the doubt. They earned that though.

They’re also seen as people who have squandered professional opportunities because they didn’t know what they were doing. They’ve really done very little successfully over nearly 5 years.

This doesn’t help that perception. They’re just not given the benefit of the doubt by a large section of the public.

Hopefully- they’ll do everything they can to ensure this doesn’t happen again. I would think that the minute they found out they were classed as delinquent, they would have been looking for resolutions. It should have moved to the absolute top of the priority list.

And I’d suggest working on their reconciliation process at a minimum.

 

[Chimene]

It’s not just a simple matter of hiring the right people to do the work, although that’s 90% of it, but you have to a) respect them and b) you have to listen (and as you say pay attention to what needs to be done).

The governor not only embarrassed himself yesterday, but by trying to put out fires for them, he’s amplified the situation. If it’s just a matter of “minor technical error”, why the need to comment at all?

I'm a curious person, when a politician is elected to govern a rich state like California where people pay high taxes and the challenges are immense, it’s concerning that he’s being a lackey for people running an operation that spends more than it brings in. Edit to clarify: spending more but not on the “good work” as far as I can tell. Even worse show me the evidence of this “good work”?

The unfortunate thing is we don’t have journalists anymore. A real reporter would start asking questions and examine the WHOLE situation here.

 

[Sunnystar]

I'm amused that people are criticizing Gov Newsom for this. I mean, it's Gavin Newsom, nepo-baby politician himself, friend to all the beautiful, famous, fabulously wealthy and far-too-influential-for-their-own-good folks of his state. Having said that, did he issue an actual statement or was this just a question tossed out by someone in the media at an event which he answered? I can't fault him if he gives a sort of vague, non-specific "technical error" comment that maybe throws the monolith that is government bureaucracy under the bus rather than a hard-nosed "they screwed up" direct comment about the Sussexes.

 

[Chimene]

That may be so and two things or even three can be true at once.
Yes, he was asked a question and he answered. Fair enough. But the whole "the media should correct the record and they do good work" was completely unnecessary. The fact remains they were listed as delinquent. All this Monday morning quarterbacking is not making any of the parties look good.

 

[OwlBranch]

It’s not just a simple matter of hiring the right people to do the work, although that’s 90% of it, but you have to a) respect them and b) you have to listen (and as you say pay attention to what needs to be done).

The governor not only embarrassed himself yesterday, but by trying to put out fires for them, he’s amplified the situation. If it’s just a matter of “minor technical error”, why the need to comment at all?

I'm a curious person, when a politician is elected to govern a rich state like California where people pay high taxes and the challenges are immense, it’s concerning that he’s being a lackey for people running an operation that spends more than it brings in. Edit to clarify: spending more but not on the “good work” as far as I can tell. Even worse show me the evidence of this “good work”?

The unfortunate thing is we don’t have journalists anymore. A real reporter would start asking questions and examine the WHOLE situation here.

The governor did not amplify the situation. The situation was amplified by social media and message board such as this one that is turning a mole hill into a mountain. The registry office is probably some sleepy job that is suddenly getting a lot of calls and emails about this. People who work there are probably flabbergasted at the attention they are getting.

People's opinion of H&M seems to be very much set in stone. They are also easily triggered by click-bait headlines. Multiple media outlet such as Independent are reporting that there is evidence the paperwork and payment were sent last year, so the delay is very much on the government side.

Let me say that again, the delay is caused by government Bureaucracy.

This does not support the narrative that people want to perpetuate about H&M so it is actively being ignored.

 

[Chimene]

And the opposite can be said of the people who will downplay anything because they view them favorably. We can at least agree to disagree!

 

[soapstar]

In terms of the report itself, I noticed that they not only spent more than they received (but that's not a problem as they spent only about a third of what they received in 2021; so they've got quite some money on the bank) but also spent more on 'salaries, other compensations, employee benefits' and 'other expenses ' - 1.426.642 - than they spent on the purpose of their organization (covered under 'grants and similar amounts paid' - 1.252.895). The 'other expenses' included at least 428.331 to 3 consultancy agencies for strategic support - one of them created by two of their former staff members at the Palace who were tasked with 'implementation support' for UK patronage programs.

Thank you for all of the information, Somebody. It will be interesting to see if they continue to spend more on salaries than on grants, etc.

Multiple media outlet such as Independent are reporting that there is evidence the paperwork and payment were sent last year, so the delay is very much on the government side.

Let me say that again, the delay is caused by government Bureaucracy.

Even if they sent the paperwork last year, how did they not know they were in danger of being delinquent? It’s not like the state doesn’t give you a chance to rectify the situation. The foundation would have been sent numerous notices letting them know that they were over 6 months late filing. So did they ignore the notices? How did they not know the check hadn’t cleared until they were classified as delinquent?

Having said that, did he issue an actual statement or was this just a question tossed out by someone in the media at an event which he answered? I can't fault him if he gives a sort of vague, non-specific "technical error" comment that maybe throws the monolith that is government bureaucracy under the bus rather than a hard-nosed "they screwed up" direct comment about the Sussexes.

I watched the presser. None of the reporters asked about Archewell, or the Sussexes. A reporter asked about the reopening of Highway 1, and then Newsom said he wanted to say one thing first and started talking about Archewell. It was really bizarre. I don’t know why he felt the need to make a statement. Especially since he’s never commented about the status of other foundations.

 

[OwlBranch]

Even if they sent the paperwork last year, how did they not know they were in danger of being delinquent? It’s not like the state doesn’t give you a chance to rectify the situation. The foundation would have been sent numerous notices letting them know that they were over 6 months late filing. So did they ignore the notices? How did they not know the check hadn’t cleared until they were classified as delinquent?

The May 3rd letter was the only notice sent. As you can see, the foundation responded in a very timely manner.

 

[shady lady]

I might be reading it wrong, but according to this website, they would have had 60 days' notice of delinquency?

Frequently Asked Questions :: California Secretary of State

Find answers to the most frequently asked questions regarding business entities here.

www.sos.ca.gov

"Penalties are assessed by the Franchise Tax Board when a business entity has not filed the required Statement of Information with the Secretary of State’s office. If the statement has not been filed timely, the entity is provided a notice of delinquency, and after 60 days from that notice, if no statement has been filed, the Secretary of State’s office notifies the Franchise Tax Board, who assesses and collects the penalty. Statements of Information can be filed online at bizfileOnline.sos.ca.gov."

 

[caethi]

I don’t know why my governor had to weigh in. The status of a celebrity foundation is the last thing he should be focused on.

I think you have answered your own question. It's a celebrity foundation and perhaps he wanted to be seen to be helping out friends (Harry, Meghan, CEO of Archewell, WME, Tyler Perry, Oprah --- the possibilities are endless)?

 

[shady lady]

In terms of the report itself, I noticed that they not only spent more than they received (but that's not a problem as they spent only about a third of what they received in 2021; so they've got quite some money on the bank) but also spent more on 'salaries, other compensations, employee benefits' and 'other expenses ' - 1.426.642 - than they spent on the purpose of their organization (covered under 'grants and similar amounts paid' - 1.252.895). The 'other expenses' included at least 428.331 to 3 consultancy agencies for strategic support - one of them created by two of their former staff members at the Palace who were tasked with 'implementation support' for UK patronage programs.

They divide their work in 3 broad topics:
- Uplifting communities (815.000 grants + 483.619 other costs; 1.298.619 in total)
- Building a better online world (175.000 grants + 367.436 other costs; 542.436 in total)
- Restoring trust in information (262.895 grants + 218.899 other costs; 481.794 in total)

Of the grants the large majority went to US-based organizations. Only 118.895 (as part of 'restoring trust in information) went to 'Europe' --> one to support research into the interconnected roles of social media, media and other content producers in effecting how democratic discourse happens in a digital age and the other to promote independent, factual information about Ukraine. All the US-based grants are listed on pages 36-41; most of them in the range of 10.000-65.000 but a few larger ones.

The report was prepared about a year ago (preparer's name is included with the date of 12 May 2023) but only signed off on 6 months later - and only fully submitted a year later (today).

Meghan and Harry are both indicated to work 1 hour a week for Archewell Foundation and receive no compensation (they still might receive direct costs reimbursed). In 2022, three employees worked full-time for the organization (it seems they didn't correctly flag the highest earning employee) with salaries varying from 92.994 to 227.405. They also receive additional non-taxable compensation ranging from 2.533 to 15.645. Compared to 2001 the executive director's salary has gone up enormously (it was 59.846 + 3.832), however, his hours did go up far more (from 1 h per week to 40 h per week). So, while this is a pretty high amount for the director of a charitable organization, it was 2021's hourly compensation that was far more concerning.

Is this the same report? I did look, but may have missed a link if already posted - my apologies! This one is dated 2nd February 2024 and is from CharityWatch, a US organisation founded in 1992.

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

I don't want to post too much info from it here for copyright reasons, but there is a lot of interesting info, including:

No money was spent on fundraising (year ending 2022)​

Archewell did not respond to CharityWatch's request for information made on 22nd January 2024 (I'm not sure if they are obliged to, in fairness, but transparency is always a good thing).​

I will quote this part which relates to Archewell's board:

Though the charity reports a total of five “Officers, Directors, Trustees, Key Employees, and Highest Compensated Employees” (IRS Form 990, Part VII), it reports only two board members—“Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex” and “Prince Harry, The Duke of Sussex.” This in not in keeping with widely accepted best practices in the United States for nonprofit boards of directors, which generally advise a minimum board size of five to seven members. According to the IRS, “Small boards run the risk of not representing a sufficiently broad public interest and of lacking the required skills and other resources required to effectively govern the organization.”

And on a separate "ratings and metrics" page (CharityWatch are unable to rate Archewell yet due to its short history of financial activity) there is further info, including ticks and crosses against certain criteria:

Archewell Foundation

www.charitywatch.org

For balance, most of the criteria get ticks, but there are three crosses for "Provides Financial Information", "Audit Accessibility", and "Reports At Least 5 Board Members", and CharityWatch states Archewell does not meet "governance" and "transparency" benchmarks, advising:

"Donors may want to consider a charity's willingness to be open and transparent with CharityWatch to be a good litmus test for determining its commitment to public accountability."

 

[Hallo girl]

The May 3rd letter was the only notice sent. As you can see, the foundation responded in a very timely manner.

And you know this how?

 

[Somebody]

Is this the same report? I did look, but may have missed a link if already posted - my apologies! This one is dated 2nd February 2024 and is from CharityWatch, a US organisation founded in 1992.

The report I used was the one about 2022 (prepared on May 12 2023) received by the AG office yesterday. The numbers should match between different formats. See my previous posts for the link to the AG office website - if you'll go to the page on Archewell you will find links to the report - also the 2021 report can be found there (you'll have to download it, which is why I didn't link it directly).