Prince William, Kate & Harry hired a new director for their royal foundation

wenn30633546

Arguably, one of the greatest things Prince Charles ever did was start The Prince’s Trust. He started it when he retired from the military (using his military salary to fund it), and The Prince’s Trust is now forty years old. It’s a big part of Charles’ legacy as the Prince of Wales, and I’m actually sort of concerned about what will happen to it when Charles becomes King, because it seems like Harry and William aren’t interested in taking over. Charles serves as president of the trust, and the trust also has a “council” (like a board of directors), plus a senior management team and more than a thousand employees and volunteers. It has grown, over the years, into one of the biggest charities in the UK.

Currently, William, Harry and Kate have their own foundation too. I’m not entirely sure what the foundation does but I feel pretty confident in saying that I’m sure the foundation wastes a lot of money, all in the name of making the younger royals look busy. Well, it seems like Will, Kate and Harry now can’t even be bothered to manage their own foundation – they’ve hired a new director for the foundation and just read how the Daily Mail’s Sebastian Shakespeare frames this story:

Facing criticism after it was revealed she carried out half as many days of public engagements in 2016 as 95-year-old Prince Philip, the Duchess of Cambridge may have found the perfect woman to instill a work ethic at Kensington Palace. I can disclose that Demetra Pinsent, the wife of Olympic rowing hero Sir Matthew Pinsent, has been appointed as director of the charity run by Kate, Prince William and Prince Harry. Glamorous Demetra, 42, is chief executive of make-up company Charlotte Tilbury Beauty and has managed to pursue her business career while raising three young children.

‘It’s a very significant appointment,’ a courtier tells me. ‘Lady Pinsent has proved her credentials as a businesswoman, and it’s hoped that she will be able to lend her expertise to The Royal Foundation of The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry.’

Canada-born Demetra, whose ancestry is Greek, met Pinsent at Oxford, where she was a Rhodes Scholar, following in the footsteps of former U.S. President Bill Clinton. While Pinsent went on to win four consecutive Olympic gold medals, as well as ten world championship golds, during his distinguished career, Demetra completed her studies at America’s prestigious Harvard University. They married in 2002. Demetra became a partner at leading management consultant McKinsey & Co, before leaving in 2012 to help transform celebrity make-up artist Charlotte Tilbury into a global brand.

A Kensington Palace spokesman confirms that Lady Pinsent has become a director of the foundation.

[From The Daily Mail]

One of the biggest underreported stories of the younger royals – mostly Will and Kate – is how quickly they go through personal and professional staff. Their press office was in shambles for years because of the high turnover rate, and it’s widely believed that Will and Kate are terrible employers for household staff too. It would not surprise me at all if the royals hired Lady Prinsent – who sounds cool, and like a take-charge badass lady – to run their foundation more efficiently and to give the foundation a higher profile. It also wouldn’t surprise me if Lady Prinsent only lasts a year or two in the job because William and Kate are so work-shy, shambolic and direction-less. And I wonder how much of the donated money to the foundation will go to Lady Prinsent’s salary?

This is Lady Prinsent:

wenn20743154

wenn5714726

Photos courtesy of WENN.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

50 Responses to “Prince William, Kate & Harry hired a new director for their royal foundation”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Timbuktu says:

    They had a foundation? I thought “foundation” was a euphemism for “tax shelter”. I thought the Royals didn’t pay taxes, so what do they need a foundation for? Certainly not for making a difference.

    • notasugarhere says:

      It started as the Foundation of Princes William and Harry and didn’t do much. After the wedding, KM was added on. W&K attempted to get donations at the time of the wedding. Good will towards this couple? They couldn’t even raise a million from the 65 million people in the UK. Charles had to top it up with 250,000 from the Princes Trust to get the Foundation over a million.

      It mostly appears to give grants to some of their projects, or to receive donations from fund raisers done by other people (100 Women in Hedge Funds, etc.). I wonder if this new person is being paid for being the Director? Or if she’s taking this on as volunteer charity work in addition to her current job.

      • Megan says:

        I’ll give Harry a pass because he has built his own foundation and Invictus. But for William and Kate to employ someone to run what is essentially a small family foundation is really too much.

    • Citresse says:

      Yes, it is a tax shelter. And for those still in denial re- young Trudeau, Google : Trudeau and million dollars from Chinese billionaires. Allegedly, it went into PET’s foundation.

      • original kay says:

        That’s it? I googled it.

        This stood out to me.

        “We know the prime minister’s love for the Chinese dictatorship, so what exactly did he promise the Chinese for their million dollar donation?” asked the Red Deer-Lacombe MP.

        Of the $1 million donated to the University of Montreal and the Trudeau foundation to honour the former prime minister, $200,000 went to the foundation, $750,000 went to the University of Montreal’s law faculty for scholarships and $50,000 went to fund the statue, according to The Globe and Mail. ”

        His love for the Chinese Dictatorship! LMAO!

      • Citresse says:

        Isn’t the “donation” aka bribe limit 1500 bucks?
        Anyway young Trudeau got caught (other matter) and was forced to pay 38k back to taxpayers last month. He’s got a blind trust YUL but offshore your guess as good as mine. His wife Sophie is a total mystery- investment documents so hidden but CBC Investigates still working on it. Check back next year.

  2. perplexed says:

    Is her first name really Glamorous?

    Edited to add:

    Oh no. Sorry got it wrong. It’s really Demetra. I was reading too fast.

    • imqrious2 says:

      Sometimes, you never know! lol I actually had a principal at a school I taught at whose first/middle names are “Precious Jewel”… hand to God!

      So, someone named Glamorous wouldn’t surprise me 😊

    • burnsie says:

      perplexed, you made me LMAO!!! That is totally something I would do :D

    • Wurstbonbon says:

      Happened to me aswell :D

  3. Lucky Charm says:

    How ironic that Kate hired someone who “managed to pursue her business career while raising three young children.” Raising two young children is the reason given why Kate can’t manage to do much royal work, which is far less time consuming!

  4. Timbuktu says:

    Rather off topic, but I can’t resist: I was never into the BRF, but I’m watching the Crown now and am quite shocked by some details that they choose to represent, like a scene at the breakfast club, when a photographer presents slides from Egypt and tells of the Egyptian royal who would drive like a maniac through the streets of Cairo and shoot anyone who would not get out of the way soon enough. The entire room full of British aristocrats laughs and someone says “shooting the peasants”. And it’s 1960-s! Given that the show meticulously recreates the palace and the dresses, I am guessing that they don’t take a whole lot of liberties and what they portray is either well documented, or at least heavily gossiped? They don’t seem to be anti-Queen, so I don’t think they’d add a scene like that just to make a statement.

    Coupled with the revelations about the Queens less than stellar education and what I know of the modern royals, it makes me so angry that people could truly believe themselves to be above us just because of who they were born. I’d never ever understand people who support monarchy of any sort. For every “good” king, how many idiots did every monarchy produce?

    Also, the Queen, in the show, saying that she just wanted to be an “ordinary” (i.e. fabulously wealthy?) countrywoman kind of reminded me of William wanting all the freedoms and privileges that come with his name and money, but none of the inconveniences and obligations. I wonder if that’s why she’s so indulgent with him? I mean, clearly, the Queen has overcome those sentiments, at whatever personal cost, but it’s not that uncommon for older generations to want for the children and grandchildren what they couldn’t have.

    Sorry, I just don’t have anyone else to discuss the Crown with!

    • LAK says:

      That show takes ALOT of liberties and is using debunked salacious gossip. They also take (true) stories from earlier eras because that makes it more interesting ie the Egyptian monarchy was abolished in June 1953. Technically 1952 because the king abdicated in favour of his infant son who ruled for less than a year before they got rid of it all.

      The costumes and jewels are nearly accurate, but the rest is bunk, including production design.

      That said, aristos, British and Europeans, the 2nd world war were awful. A royal/aristo shooting the natives would have been an amusing par of the course. Read up about the Kenyan settlers – the happy valley set, which is why i side eye Jecca Craig’s family even if they claim to be doing good these days.

      This production company adores HM. Or they realised what a goldmine she could be for them. The writer and various producers gave us THE QUEEN starring Helen Mirren, The Audience, a play starring Helen Mirren as HM in conversation with all her PMs, and here we are with The Crown.

      There is an doc from the late 80s in which the Queen discusses her work/destiny and she says several times that it is about accepting your destiny. She said something along the lines of ‘once you accept your destiny, then the way forward becomes clear, but if you don’t accept it, then it is all very difficult.’

      We can only speculate on why she indulges William, but going by his actions, he can’t accept his destiny and so he struggles.

      • Clare says:

        Oh my god, you guys, speaking of awkward British Aristos….the first time I went to a family event with my husband’s family I was asked if I were ‘a colonial’ and if my hair is real. I don’t know if that counts as ‘superiority complex’, or just utter cluelesness. Whatever it was, it was kind of comedic because it all felt so…innocent…like I was speaking to a 4 year old rather than a 60 yr old.

        Also…speaking of TV shows making shit up, what is that one with Liz Hurley? I LOVE IT (but not enough to remember the name apparently).

      • imqrious2 says:

        @Clare, it’s called “The Royals”, and it is HYSTERICAL!! Hmmm… just *who* do Cyrus’ daughters remind you of… I’m wracking my brain here… uhm…(and yes, being facetious 😊 ) lololol I know it’s mean, but soooo funny!

      • LAK says:

        Clare: i have to practise my poker face when faced with a blue rinse dowager duchess or decades retired military ‘african hand’ who insists on telling me about their glorious childhood/teens/young adulthood in ‘africah’ or ‘ingjiah’. The delightful stories of their favourite native servants. The delightful games, their pet cheetah (or x exotic animal kept as a pet)

        Their age stops me being rude, but my goodness……..(major eyeroll)

      • a says:

        omg lak i just had to reply about Jecca craig. My mum is born and raised in Isiolo where lewa conservation is located and her whole family is from there. My mum knows ian craig personally and they are apparently very nice people. His family stole all of the land and the got to keep it through corruption. Yeah i can’t stand them. Sorry for grammar mistake english is my fourth language :(

      • LAK says:

        A: grammar good. I understand. When they are discussed, it gives me an eye twitch.

      • Bridget says:

        @A and LAK: you mean to say that a white family owning a vast swath of acreage in Kenya got it by unsavory means?!?

      • M4lificent says:

        This is why I love Celebitchy — somebody always has the inside scoop because their mom or their third cousin’s beautician lives in random celebrity’s hometown!

    • Sixer says:

      What LAK said.

      I binge watched The Crown over Christmas and it’s a lovely little soap opera – but really only loosely based on events. Considering they made such a play of the constitutional arrangements of the UK, they got an awful lot of details wrong. But hey ho, the big picture on that score was ok. I really enjoyed it.

      And yes: NEVER underestimate the superiority complex of British aristos and the total lack of self-awareness about the problematic attitudes held (hello, Boris Johnson).

    • Timbuktu says:

      Thank you for your thoughts, ladies! Enjoyed reading them.
      I didn’t know that production company was so Queen-centered, but I got that feeling just from watching it, which is why I sort of assumed that everything they show is somehow documented or they wouldn’t include it. I guess moving important events up or down a decade is fairly commonly done for dramatic purposes (I watched “Versailles” right before I started “The Crown”).

      @LAK, @Sixer,
      does Claire Foy speak with her natural British accent or did she have to adjust it to match the Queen’s? I have seen Claire in a movie with Cumberbatch a while back, but can’t remember what she sounded like, and I’ve never seen an interview with her, so not sure if she’s naturally posh-sounding.

    • LAK says:

      As the production company is so Queen-centred, it’s disappointing how lax they are about accuracy.

      I loved ‘Versaille’, but only because they went with a glam rock interpretation of the period. It was gloriously camp and not trying to sell itself as historically accurate even if they shot in the real places. It was easier to suspend disbelief.

      I don’t know much about Claire Foy beyond this production and WolfHall tv show in which she played Anne Bolyen.

  5. LAK says:

    That lady has done wonders for Charlotte Tilsbury make up brand. However, she was working with willing client.

    At the RF, she is going to be dealing with unwilling clients so either she accepts this fact and works around them whilst giving them all the credit or she resigns as soon as possible before her reputation is tarnished like poor Jason.

    • Indiana Joanna says:

      So W&KM realize that people are indifferent to their foundation and is seen as wasting money on overhead. Or was it someone else who realized how pointless their foundation is?

      Good luck to Demetra. I don’t think she will stay too long when she had to deal with the Cambs’ professional incomprehension and laziness.

  6. Danielle says:

    Can’t wait for the comments on Kate’s looks and how useless of a person she is. How she is a matress and trashy for wearing jeggings. Or her being accused of smoking while pregnant. Or how her husband doesn’t love her. Or how all she is good for is having kids. Or how she is mentally delayed because she enjoys Adult Coloring books.
    All of the things I usually see on the multiple KM& will threads.

    I’m sure I will be told I’m wrong and those things are all okay to say because she is hated.

    • Menlisa says:

      Bingo.

      • Mommyof3 says:

        No don’t say that here! People aren’t going to like it!
        I dislike the lazy royals as much as anyone else.
        I rarely comment but even I get a little taken aback by some of the comments that are made about her.

    • notasugarhere says:

      You must have taken a very superficial glance through the royal threads to reach that conclusion. Some of the most logical, well-informed, and fair-minded royal posters are here on CB. It is a refuge from other forums that are on the extreme ends of the spectrum.

      • original kay says:

        It’s this poster’s modus operandi. Just kidding (sort of)

        As it happens, I am a Kate apologist. I think she was in no way prepared for this life, and that Will leads and she is told to follow.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Thanks. I didn’t recognize their name and didn’t realize they’d taken this tack before.

        I think there is too much out there about their contentious relationship to think she’s is a shrinking violet. Too much evidence of her desire to do nothing for 10 years but shop, exercise, go on vacation, and land a prince. They are both lazy and entitled, feed on it, and support each others negative behavior.

        IMO she’s no workhorse being held back. She isn’t fighting to work more and make the world a better place. As long as she gets what she wants (money, position, lazy life), she and her family let William do as he pleases. When he steps out of line, they slap him publicly with PR shots of kids on vacation without him, DM fed stories about first Easter without daddy, etc.

      • original kay says:

        I know :( I know logically that everything I post is through rose coloured glasses, and that it’s just not the way it is, yet I still feel it.

        Just a sucker I guess. lol!

      • notasugarhere says:

        It is nice to be optimistic about something, given the year that was 2016 and what we’re heading in to in 2017 :)

      • Megan says:

        Kate spent her 20′s proving she has no interest in building a career of any kind. Even if paid work would have inconvenienced her relationship with William, nothing was stopping her from volunteering. She and William are perfect for each other. I sincerely hope they never divorce because I doubt they will find their like again.

  7. Hannah says:

    Lady Demetria Pinsent seems like a vilain in some Agatha Christie book.

  8. Danielle says:

    @Sugar
    Yes I did, and recognize you as one of those people who don’t go there.
    My whole point is while the Royal threads are my favorite, a lot of the comments and the articles that attack Kate personally (all the instances that I just listed out) seem obsessive and really mean.
    Call her lazy, say she isn’t fit for her job, but all of that other stuff on a site that regularly calls people out for comments that I listed is a bit hypocritical.
    So I wasn’t saying everyone does it, because more often the not you guys are very informed and fair.
    I was just saying that while the other sites are ignorant to the Royals faults, sometimes this site takes things beyond the work effort and picks her apart for every little thing she does.

    • Betsy says:

      Nope, pretty much the laziness. And even then there are a number of us who hold William as the laziest of the pair. I mean it is kind of fascinating how little they do.

  9. Alix says:

    Kate is trying to “instill a work ethic at Kensington Palace”?? Duchess, heal thyself.

  10. Danielle says:

    Nm

  11. Yup, Me says:

    Is her husband what is considered an “attractive” Englishman?

    • LAK says:

      Lol……for some reason i found your comment funny.

      He has put on weight which doesn’t suit him. Rowers tend to bevety tall, long, lanky and lean which he was until his retirement. Compare him to Hugh Laurie another Oxbridge rower. Same type of body. I think Hugh Laurie wouldn’t suit being bigger.

  12. A says:

    I’m not surprised they’ve changed management. I think I read something about the Heads Together campaign by the Royal Foundation and…the details of that were not too pretty and seemed fairly enraging. The person writing about it was trying to be nice, but, yeah. Not surprised that they’ve hired someone new.

  13. Mchas says:

    A friend of mine worked for their foundation – she is your classic hard working underpaid charity type – and worked closely with WK and H – and told me that H was pretty much how he comes across – well meaning , jolly, bit dim and relatively hard working – but that W and K were an absolute nightmare to work with and that overall the foundation was an absolute shambles.

    Even the kind of mega wealthy suckups in search of a knighthood who can usually be relied upon to donate to royal charities (the types that Charles milks incredibly effectively for his trust) didn’t want to donate because they knew the money would be wasted.

    • Timbuktu says:

      The sad part is that doing absolutely next to nothing, they are still “earning” their place in history books, whereas so many brilliant and hardworking people who made a real mark are easily forgotten…

  14. Bridget says:

    1) They shouldn’t be heading up their own charity in the first place, it should be run by a Director that knows what they’re doing
    2) She sounds expensive. Is it possible that this signals a major turnaround for the foundation? Granted she’d need to be someone empowered to actually deal with the Cambridges.

    • A says:

      They’re not “heading up their own charity.” William, Kate and Harry are Patrons of the Foundation. The Royal Foundation has a board of trustees and an executive team, which is what I’m assuming Demetra Pinsent is going to be a part of. The trustees are the ones who retain legal responsibility for the actions of a charity, and they are the ones who collectively make decisions for the charity. They also delegate some of the responsibilities of running a charity to hired staff, which is likely the purpose of the team of the executives.

      • Bridget says:

        I have the flu so I didn’t write very clearly :) . I interpreted Kaiser’s tone to mean that she expected one of the 3 royals to in fact direct their own charity, which none of the 3 would be qualified for. However, I was thinking of it in the structure that I’m used to – there’s a larger board of trustees which provide input and direction and are the ultimate overseers (especially as they typically have a large financial stake) but a Director/Executive Director heads a group/foundation and actually runs the charity. Another difference: a Trustee/Board Member is a volunteer position but a Director is paid.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Bridget, has there been confirmation that she’s being paid? The Foundation doesn’t have a big endowment (barely 1 million). It sounds to me more like she’s taking this on as charity work, but will continue to earn a living at her other job.