Prince Harry and Meghan’s charity loses 3 more employees
  • 1 points AutoModerator

    No health speculation or speculation about divorce (these are longstanding sub rules).

    You can help out the mod team by reading the rules in the sidebar and reporting rule-breaking comments!


    This sub is frequently targeted by downvote bots and brigaders. Reddit also 'fuzzes', aka randomly alters, vote counts to confuse spam bots. Please don't feed the trolls by commenting on vote counts.

    I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

    parent
  • 19 points tiredhobbit78

    The charity sector has high turnover. It doesn't mean a whole lot

    parent
  • 33 points Oldsoldierbear

    is anyone surprised at another story about staff turnover and drop in revenue?

    parent
  • -1 points Character_Switch7317

    Meh, every couple years I’m ready for a new job. At what point is staff turnover considered reasonable and not controversial.

    parent
    26 points thoughtful_human

    Reporting suggests the three were let go as part of a reorganization

    parent root
  • -17 points Dragonfly_Peace

    Oh FFS. People switch careers / jobs all the time. What’s with you guys glorifying hate?

    parent
  • 17 points Opening_Jello2357

    Their spokesperson just denied this but it sounds like it’s just not happened yet

    Currently, the same full team remain in place.

    'This move does mean that some staff redundancies are inevitable, particularly with junior admin roles.

    'We will not be discussing these personnel details further, other than to say that we are honoured to have worked with incredibly talented and caring people who dedicate themselves to helping others.'

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15401775/Meghan-Prince-Harry-Archewell-Foundation-expenses-revenue-plummeted.html

    parent
    39 points Miss_Marple_24

    Their spokesperson just denied this but it sounds like it’s just not happened yet

    Currently, the same full team remain in place.

    Lol, a very sussex method, words games
    The full team remains in place with the unsaid part being that they were handed their notice last week and will be gone shortly

    parent root
    24 points MessSince99

    I think some soon to be ex staff leaked:

    The Sussexes office denied repeatedly all of last week that there were any changes in their staffing, although the team were told that they were being let go 'because the charity was closing.'

    Allison had a piece like two days before this prior to them announcing the rebrand to “Archewell Philanthropies”

    Meanwhile, sources reveal change is afoot at the Archewell Foundation, with talk of staff 'restructuring'.

    The spokesman commented: 'Yes, we are making some Archewell changes, and we'll be sharing exciting developments regarding how we will deliver our philanthropic work moving forward, when we choose to. We look forward to communicating more in due course.'

    The first article: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-15397271/Fancy-dinner-Harry-Meghan-100-000-writes-ALISON-BOSHOFF.html

    parent root
    6 points MaximumStatus3

    when we choose to lol

    parent root
  • 105 points thoughtful_human

    Last year they had 5.1M of expenses through Archwell but only gave out 1.5M in donations. That’s the least efficient charity I’ve ever heard of.

    parent
    -10 points JustGotOffOfTheTrain

    They have a pretty high rating on charity navigator.

    parent root
    17 points thoughtful_human

    In 2023 they had a much better expense ratio. Is charity navigator updated for the new disclosures?

    parent root
    28 points inesffwm

    It’s a tax loophole. They’re very common.

    parent root
    18 points susandeyvyjones

    I've heard of worse but only about Sarah Ferguson.

    parent root
    12 points thoughtful_human

    I mean I assume any “charity” money funnelled to Sarah Ferguson had a 0% usage rate so that doesn’t surprise me

    parent root
  • 89 points seele1986

    Think about it. If you are a centa-millionaire, what do you gain by donating to archewell, other than a tax write-off. The donation game is a thing - you donate, get tax benefits, and you often get some soft influence and political power. You also generally get invited to lavish banquets and can meet other influential donors.

    With archewell, you get a huge amount of drama. Harry & Megan are drama magnets. You are probably being black-listed by the actual royal family. God knows where your money goes that you invest into archewell. And Harry & Megan don’t really give you any soft influence. You’re not going to meet Jeff Bezos at a archewell charity function. They are B-list. And then there are stories like this one where the charity is being restructured and people being let go - not a thriving foundation.

    The reason why people would donate to the Bill & Melinda Gates or the Clinton Foundations was because you saw good being done with your money (allegedly) and you got to meet people. With Harry & Megan, you get NOTHING. NOTHING AT ALL.

    parent
  • -3 points New-Biscotti-9155

    Great news

    parent
  • 128 points GirlieGirl81

    Constant staff turnover seems par for the course with these two.

    parent
  • 78 points vigya16

    Prince Harry seems increasingly caught in circumstances that have eroded both judgment and proportion. The influence of the woman beside him appears central to this shift. There is a persistent impression that she overestimates her own reach and significance, mistaking visibility for influence and publicity for authority. Issues that once called for quiet diplomacy have instead been handled with unnecessary spectacle, resulting in outcomes that feel disproportionate and, at times, self-defeating. In attempting to challenge an institution far larger than any one individual, the approach has generated more embarrassment than reform, leaving Harry himself looking diminished rather than vindicated.

    parent
    9 points Tintinabulation114

    Not a Meghan fan, but dang, blaming her or her influence for Harry’s own choices… He’s a grown man who is just as responsible as her for the decisions they have made together.

    parent root
    4 points Elephants-are-mine

    This AI slop literally says nothing. Blame the woman for the hapless man who has no control over his own life. Blah blah blah but no examples given of anything your ChatGPT is claiming

    parent root
    24 points susandeyvyjones

    Honestly, I think Harry's the bum in that relationship. Meghan didn't change him, he just doesn't have the Palace aids telling him what to do anymore.

    parent root
    8 points vigya16

    While Harry has always had his own shortcomings, it’s difficult to ignore the extent to which his trajectory appears to have shifted after this relationship began. The influence Meghan exerts seems significant not in removing his agency, but in shaping the choices, tone, and strategies that have followed. The absence of palace structures alone doesn’t fully explain the pattern; the direction he has taken suggests a partnership dynamic that has materially altered how those traits now manifest.

    parent root
    3 points [deleted]

    [removed]

    parent root
    42 points Dizzy-Pollution6466

    Blaming Meghan for Harry’s faults when Harry himself has always been problematic is crazy.

    parent root
    30 points vigya16

    Both things can be true at the same time.

    parent root
    18 points Empty_Soup_4412

    Such an oddly worded and generic comment.

    parent root
    1 points 2ManyCooksInTheKitch

    Word salad like that, in an attempt to sound smart, is hilarious. Like, sir, this is a Wendy's.

    parent root
    3 points ms_plushy_kitten

    just say you don't understand and pick up a dictionary, it's not brain science

    parent root
    22 points vigya16

    If reading a complete sentence feels like “word salad,” that’s not a writing problem.

    parent root
    -2 points Empty_Soup_4412

    I just picture a dude wearing a fedora lol

    parent root
    -4 points 2ManyCooksInTheKitch

    Exactly. Lol So many edge lords are blocked on this platform.

    parent root
    19 points vigya16

    Mockery usually replaces argument when there isn’t one.

    parent root
    50 points New-Seaworthiness572

    That’s actually what good, skilled writing by humans capable of complex thought sounds like. It’s not oddly worded or generic; it’s the opposite. You can disagree with it, but the writing is sound and of the quality that will disappear soon, and your comment points to why.

    parent root
    -21 points [deleted]

    [removed]

    parent root
    30 points [deleted]

    [removed]

    parent root
    23 points [deleted]

    [removed]

    parent root
    39 points vigya16

    Calling something “generic” is usually what happens when engaging with it feels inconvenient.

    parent root
    -18 points Empty_Soup_4412

    Your comment had nothing to do with the article. That's what made it generic.

    parent root
    18 points New-Seaworthiness572

    Ooof that is not the definition of generic. I think what you’re reaching for is “irrelevant.” I don’t agree, but no one has any idea what you mean by “generic.” Look it up, in a dictionary. (Really! I have to do it all the time to aid understanding.)

    For someone who processes and uses language so poorly, you are curiously overconfident. You must love living in 2025!

    parent root
    0 points Empty_Soup_4412

    Generic as in not specific, as in the long winded comment that had nothing to do with the article it replied to.

    parent root
    11 points redbeansupe

    that's....not the meaning of generic. the more appropriate word here is "irrelevant".

    parent root
    2 points Empty_Soup_4412

    https://preview.redd.it/qd26hiv01s8g1.png?width=1080&format=png&auto=webp&s=c3987b67ba62eff3237cd66cad4c42ecd6e43131

    parent root
    12 points New-Seaworthiness572

    “Not specific” and “not relevant” do not mean the same thing. They don’t even mean similar things.

    You’ve said you wanted to communicate that one thing “had nothing to do” with something else.

    “Generic” is patently the wrong word to use. “Irrelevant” is the right word.

    parent root
    0 points Empty_Soup_4412

    It's generic because it could be posted on any thread that mentions Harry and Meghan.

    parent root
    11 points stanleyscrossword

    It sounds like AI

    parent root
    6 points redbeansupe

    AI coherency would be a lot more obvious. It typically takes a much windier road to get to the point. I see no wasted words or sentences here.

    parent root
    9 points Empty_Soup_4412

    Cheap AI.

    parent root
    3 points New-Seaworthiness572

    It may have been influenced by AI. But if so, a human had a hand in thinking and constructing and editing those thoughts to construct a solid paragraph of interesting and articulate observations.

    parent root
    6 points vigya16

    Even “cheap” seems to be doing more thinking here.

    parent root
    20 points vigya16

    Weird how coherence is suspicious now.

    parent root
    27 points vigya16

    Not every comment exists to echo the headline.

    parent root
    4 points Empty_Soup_4412

    So you were just having random deep thoughts?

    parent root
    27 points vigya16

    Contextual observations, actually. Easy to miss if you’re skimming.

    parent root
    -7 points [deleted]

    [deleted]

    parent root
    19 points vigya16

    Bold of you to think you issue instructions.

    parent root
  • 40 points UnavailableName864

    The Daily Mail story reports 3 people were let go due to the restructuring of Archewell. It’s an interesting choice by the Post to phrase it using language customary for when people leave on their own.

    parent
    36 points badoopidoo

    "restructuring" is one way to explain away the departure of so many employees at once. 

    parent root
    22 points UnavailableName864

    They literally announced a change in format a few days ago with a press release. It was posted and discussed here. I suggest checking it out.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/RoyalsGossip/s/0R7LquGifl

    If they’re trying to cover up a personality conflict, reregistering as a different kind of legal entity seems an awfully expensive way to do that.

    parent root
  • Hacker News
    • Top
    • Best
    • New
    • Ask
    • Show
    • Jobs
  • beta Hugging Face
    • Posts
  • Reddit
    • r/programming
    • r/technology
    • r/science
    • r/news
    • r/gaming