Prince William spent £12.1 million on Earthshot, only £5 million was prize money

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have operated The Royal Foundation without the Sussexes since 2019. That’s the year that Meghan and Harry left the foundation to start their own. I’ve always believed that Meghan took one look at the Royal Foundation’s operations and she was severely unimpressed. She reportedly only agreed to do her cookbook through the Royal Foundation if the money could be walled off from other foundation money and given directly to the Hubb Community Kitchen. Well, even though the Sussexes quit the foundation in 2019, the British papers still think they deserve a mention when discussing the foundation’s finances. From the Sun’s new article, “William and Kate’s charity thrives since split from Harry and Meghan.”

Royal couple William and Kate’s charity has gone from strength to strength since they split with Harry and Meghan, new figures show. Income for The Royal Foundation of the Duke and Duchess of ­Cambridge leapt from £6.7million in 2019 to £20.4million in 2021.

It comes after Meghan and Harry left the ­charity in September 2019 and set up their own Archewell foundation. The Sussexes’ charity received less than $50,000 in “gross receipts” in 2020, according to the US Internal Revenue Service. Yesterday their UK charity, Sussex Royal, was finally dissolved. It changed its name to MWX Foundation when they lost their royal titles.

The financial boost for the Cambridge’s charity allowed it to almost double its charitable expenditure to £16.4m. Three-quarters of the total, £12.1m, was spent on their environmental awards The Earthshot Prize, which handed out five £1m grants to the winners.

[From The Sun]

I’m sorry, the Royal Foundation spent £12.1 million on Earthshot… and yet only £5 million of that was the actual “prize money” to the Earthshot Prize winners? Which means the Royal Foundation spent £7.1 million on… vague Earthshot keenery? On making a big, fancy, boring Earthshot Prize ceremony in London last year? And people think this makes William and Kate sound good? What it says to me is that William was given millions from corporate sponsors/partners specifically for Earthshot and he misused the funds.

Additionally, William and Kate were able to “raise” so much money for The Royal Foundation because they were hijacking charitable donations and filtering them through the foundation. When they got access to the National Emergencies Trust donor list, they used the list to raise money and direct donations to the Royal Foundation. They set up the foundation’s COVID-19 Response Fund, which acted as a middleman to “give money” to other charities.

PS… the reason the Sun is using numbers for the “Sussex Royal” foundation and MWX is because Meghan and Harry were forced to abandon them when they left the UK in 2020. They don’t have to release their Archewell numbers publicly, but I would imagine that the Sussexes have raised a good deal of money from corporate sponsors as well.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Instar and Cover Images.

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

94 Responses to “Prince William spent £12.1 million on Earthshot, only £5 million was prize money”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Seaflower says:

    Like father, like son….

    • SarahCS says:

      You beat me to it!

    • Maxine Branch says:

      @seaflower exactly. The apple does not fall far from the tree. Just as we are now hearing about the father’s dirty dealings soon we will hear of Williams. These folks have no moral compass and because they can grift with ease they do and will continue to blame others for what they set up for themselves. There is zero difference between them and the US Trumps. This is probably why the Trump base support them.

      • DouchesOfCambridge says:

        They are incredibly stupid. From a business standpoint, anything that goes skyrocketing over 300% like from 6M to 20M in a short amount of time without really having done anything really significant to change the situation is a RED FLAG to me. Watch in a few years when we breakdown how they got the funds: i think somebody else has been taking the cash suitcases besides PC. American cash??… Extremely fishy.

    • AnnaKist says:

      Well, Maxine, YOU beat ME to it: there is no difference between these shonky bastards and the Trumps. Okay, these knobs get to wear real tiaras and crowns, but that’s it. Just goes to show you can roll a turd in gold, but it doesn’t change the fact that it is still a turd.

    • Lady Esther says:

      And it’s interesting that this comes after the drip, drip, drip of Charles’ money-for-access stories, plus the story in today’s Guardian about the latest on the Conservative Party’s own cash-for-access scandal starring…Ben Eliot, otherwise known as Camilla’s nephew…

      Interesting who gets protected (the Cambridges) and who does not!

    • Geegee says:

      God this entire family are just a pack of grifters and scam artists. Abolish the monarchy!

  2. Dee says:

    Everything is shady in the Cambridge Keendom.

  3. Aurora says:

    “ They don’t have to release their Archewell numbers publicly”

    How did the tabloid get the $50,000 total if Archewell does not have to publicly disclose figures?

    • Emily says:

      That figure is from the 2020 tax return which the Sun must have accessed online. Archewell was only set up at the end of 2020 as they were still winding down Sussex Royal. They didn’t officially open its bank account for donations till the beginning of 2021 so the figure is highly misleading but when has that stopped the Sun running a story!

    • TheOtherOne says:

      It will all be public once the IRS catches up on uploading Form 990s. All 990s are available on the IRS website.

      • BeanieBean says:

        Ooh, does this mean we’ll also get to see the American branch of Charles’ Princes Trust? That’ll be cool. And I’m guessing William will set up something similar for his Earthsh*t prize. I’d like to see those numbers. And why oh why did the Sun not ask where that extra 7.1 mil go? How can you say they ‘spent’ 12.1 million by handing out five million-pound grants and not say something about that other 7.1 million?

  4. Snuffles says:

    “The financial boost for the Cambridge’s charity allowed it to almost double its charitable expenditure to £16.4m.”

    Spent on WHAT!? So $5 mil was Keenshot prize money. What else did they do !? What other charities did they fund or support!?

    Archewell regularly updates their website to announce what charities and organizations they are supporting. And these organizations frequently confirm that and express their gratitude.

    We never hear ANYTHING about who the Royal Foundation is allegedly supporting.

    • LeaTheFrench says:

      Absolutely not. Funders typically (and rightly) do not accept overheads above 15%. You’ll have a very, very hard time finding a philanthropy that will accept a higher pc than that (needless to say, Earthshot – as reported here – is way above what’s established best practice.)

      (Posted in wrong place – this was meant in response to NOKI below.)

      • MeganC says:

        I work in the nonprofit space and I can assure you funders don’t limit overhead to 15%. Organizations needs a functioning infrastructure and donors get that.

    • Eurydice says:

      The auditor’s report is online – I just googled it. 45 pages long, but the treasurers report outlines the expenditures of all the foundation activities and it says that the Earthshot money, apart from the prizes, was used for the spectacular October event.

      • Startup Spouse says:

        So 0% impact, 100% optics. That tracks.

      • Aj2 says:

        Oh, I can’t wait to read an Omid Scobie article on that expenditure vs grant gap.

      • Harper says:

        Is there a line item for a men’s green velvet suit jacket?

      • Eurydice says:

        If you’re into reading financial reports – this one is kind of interesting. Most of the income came from grants for Earthshot and most of the expenditures were for Earthshot. In fact, if you take that out of consideration, the rest of the charitable activity seems to have fallen by 2/3’s from 2020. And part of that “charitable activity” was the Christmas concert where Kate showed off her musical skills. Once everything is moved to the separate Earthshot foundation, the Royal Foundation is going to look like pretty small beans.

      • Agreatreckoning says:

        Ahh! That explains some things. Richard Eden was crowing in a piece about the Royal Foundation donations soaring in 2020 after the Sussexes left. Then he went on to say how the Royal Foundation received a 2.59#/million? grant from the American Friends of The Royal Foundation of the D&D of Cambridge and blah blah

        What he intentionally didn’t share was that 90% of the donations to the American Friends extension most likely came in the form of monies from the Americans that are considered founding partners of E@rthshite(which Will announced on December 31, 2019)-like Bloomberg, Mark Benioff and the Allen Foundation. The general population of the US were not donating to the Royal Foundations American extension.imo

        Agree. The annual reports/report are interesting reads. That was one expensive ceremony.

    • Startup Spouse says:

      @Snuffles “Spent on WHAT?!”

      Exactly this. All that money and WHAT IS THEIR IMPACT? How many lives have they improved?
      We never hear anything about that because… they don’t actually DO anything and they don’t care. It’s all optics.

      • Green girl says:

        I couldn’t tell you about the recent winners or what the award recognizes without a Google search. This sounds so suspicious!

      • Lorelei says:

        Oooh I hope Omid rips them to shreds for this in his next column. (And by “rips them to shreds,” I mean “actually report the facts.”)

  5. Digital Unicorn says:

    The RF is a money laundering scheme plain and simple – am sure they got loads of advice on how to do that from Chuck and Carol(e)/Uncle Gary.

    Its only a matter of time until the press start actually reporting on WIlliams financial shenanigans instead of Chucks – I know he has at least one super injunction on his keen pegging but I think there is another to cover the shadiness with the RF.

    • Alexandria says:

      The British Press can (look like they) try but the royal family still escapes everything and claims everything was above board/approved by the board and nobody pursues it. Even Andrew is still there. I think TOB reputation will still be fine in England at least.

  6. Smart&Messy says:

    I’m sure those corporate sponsors Egg badgered for Earshot knew exactly how it went right down the drain. But they got their tax breaks and don’t give a shxt, I guess.
    Alhough, it would be hilarious if one of his big name donors called him out.

  7. Scorpion says:

    It’s giving money laundering!

  8. Shawna says:

    IMO Earthshot is an excuse for nepotism jobs. It’s why the people around the Cambridges prop up their keenery so hard: cushy jobs.

    • Sue E Generis says:

      and tax deductions.

    • PunkPrincessPhD says:

      “nepotism jobs”: see, for example Knauf, Jason.

      • Queenmumanne says:

        I don’t understand everything that goes into the charitable activities line item on the report. It sounds like it’s a hodge podge of everything they basically want to hide..salaries, travel expenses, clothes, etc.. and that line item is higher than the actual expenditures to the charities.

  9. Noki says:

    Most charities,foundations,NGOs notoriuosly use 90% of their funds on administration and operational runnings. Its best to donate actual resourceful items where you can.

      • Liz says:

        Just want to say thanks for the comment on “overheads”. I work for a humanitarian NGO, and it drives me nuts when people act like some overheads aren’t necessary for effective service delivery.

        That being said, things like Earthshot are the reason the stereotype exists (headbang).

      • Christine says:

        Thanks for the link, equality, great article!

    • nutella toast says:

      @noki While that certainly can be true, I’ve worked for non-profits for most of my adult life, and it’s not true for nearly all small, local non-profits which unfortunately get lumped-in with others that take advantage (ahem….looking at you Samaritan’s Purse). You can look at their efficacy on Charity Navigator or other sites that require that 990’s are made public (required filings for all non-profits except churches basically). While the staffing where I work (a Sexual Assault Response Agency and Child Advocacy Center) looks administration heavy from the outside if you only consider personnel, it’s because our staff (therapists, advocates, crisis response coordinators) are our largest expense. When you breakdown actual administrative costs (including the Executive Director and the grants person), it’s less than 14% of our expenditures. I know it’s easy to get jaded, but MOST non-profit people I know are living on shoestrings and passion and making a fraction of what they could make in the for-profit realm. It’s a tough world…which makes me all the angrier at these two.

      • Isabella says:

        Earthshot is “unrated” on Charity Navigator. So are many other charities. Is there a better source?

      • Both Sides Nowt says:

        @ nutella toast, I always look up charities on the Charity Navigator before I make any donations. I look at the pay percentages, the over head and the percentage of the donations go to the actual cause. It’s informative as well as they grade the charities as well.

        I am appreciative of their over view as there are too many “charities” that are not above board, so to speak.

    • OriginalMich says:

      That’s not true.

    • Danbury says:

      Wrong wrong wrong. While there are non profits that do that, many are very transparent with how funds are used. Much like Nutella Toast I’ve spent most of my working life working with non profits and what you state here is insulting to those of us that have spent our time and energy working in this sector. Now I’m not saying that only 5% go to overhead, that’s impossible, but I think a 70-30 split (30 going to OH and 70 towards the “social mission”) is much more common.

      And donating items is a waste of time, often people donate stupid things that are of no use to the people in need. Like after earthquake in Haiti, idiots donated yoga mats and winter jackets. Better to donate money to reputable organisations who will spend it responsibly on what the population requires.

    • salmonpuff says:

      As others have said, this is untrue. I consult for several large nonprofits, and overhead is usually more in the range of 20-30% if they are paying their staff appropriately. Extremely low overhead is often indicative of completely underpaying staff and relying on volunteers to do work that should be paid. Although there are some NPs that use an endowment or other funding source for operating expenses so that all charitable donations go directly toward mission. “Operating expenses” has become a bogeyman in the sector, with the result (intended or otherwise) of pushing NPs to strive toward substandard wages and working conditions for the dedicated professionals making sure the work gets done.

      • Lorelei says:

        Yes, it depends a lot on the type of organization and the sophistication of the donors. I was the Director of the Annual Fund for a private school for a long time, and while I can’t remember exactly how much our overhead was, we had a board who understood that in order to raise money year after year, they needed to be able to pay competent fundraisers (and this was in NYC, so salaries tended to be higher even in non-profits), give us access to the latest technology, and entrust us with discretionary funds for events like auctions and golf outings, plus all of our printed materials, etc. (Not to mention an office, and NYC rent is out of control.)

        We had tons of volunteers who were great, but a staff was still needed to work in conjunction with the administration and communications office to guide and plan everything, and we certainly couldn’t just hand out other parents’ financial information to the parent volunteers; that kind of thing obviously needed to be kept strictly confidential.

        When something catastrophic happens and I just want to get help to people whose homes have been destroyed overnight or something like that, I pay much more attention to how the money is spent and how much goes directly to the people in need. But even in those cases, organizations on the ground need money to operate in order to turn those checks into the kind of actual items the people need. They still need to pay staff, etc. So expecting zero overhead is just unreasonable.

        I don’t remember the details but I do remember some sort of scandal (not sure if “scandal” is the right word? Maybe “issue”) with the American Red Cross a few years back, and being encouraged to *not* give through them during emergencies, but I’m not sure if their practices have changed since they received that criticism.

        In this case, William spending $12M+ on Earthsh!t when only $5M was actual prize money is SO BAD. JFC. So this means they spent more than $7M on soliciting donations (campaign materials and fundraising trips for Will, I guess?), and advertising & planning the award ceremony? That is obscene.

        IDK what the laws in the UK are, but aren’t quite a few of Will’s donors American, like Jeff Bezos? Because I feel like Americans would see those numbers and never donate a penny to that sham again. Although in this particular case, they probably don’t care if they’re getting involved with the Royal Foundation in the first place because they want the “access” and a possibly a knighthood down the road or some nonsense. Which means William will be able to keep up this bullsh!t indefinitely. Just like Dad!

        Also, if it cost him that much when the award ceremony WAS IN LONDON, how much more will it cost to constantly be moving it around to a different country each year??

        I still can’t get over the fact that he (nor any of the gold-plated advisors) doesn’t realize that flying his entire entourage/event planning people/security across the Atlantic to give out prizes to people trying to help with climate change is literally insane. And his team will likely need to go at least once ahead of time — possibly more than once— to do recon, since running an event is a *lot* of work, much of it detail-oriented. So add up however many air miles that is, and then consider that he could have the ceremony AT KENSINGTON PALACE FFS.

        Whatever happened to Heads Together, btw? Is that even still a thing? W&K are a joke and should really not be taken seriously in fundraising circles, honestly.

    • Agreatreckoning says:

      @Noki, disagree. It’s only best to donate items when being asked to donate items (from legit organizations). And, if you donate items, they should be new or gently used clean items. Like when Team Rubicon (my area) had the wish lists. I donated $$$ to the WCK fundraiser for the Squad’s fundraiser. I wasn’t concerned with how that money was being spent. WCK isn’t questionable to me at all.

      We donate to different food pantries in our area/surrounding area. Sometimes a financial donation, gift cards or food items/sundries. We’ve been told our food items are in the minority and move fast. We donate things we like & would use(no canned peas ever). Snacks, jar dips, different varieties/flavors of rice, canned diced tomatoes, spices/oils, cookie/cake mixes and assorted broths.

      Moyes is a questionable journalist-look up his article regarding the Chelsea woman’s team. Gross. Hope that Brits see the math isn’t mathing with the Royal Foundation.

  10. Cerys says:

    It’s about time that all royal foundations and charities were investigated. Their funding has always seemed very suspicious. It will never happen though. Members of the British establishment always cover for each other 😡

  11. C-Shell says:

    These morons do not understand finance, corporate or nonprofit structures, operations or even terminology. To refer to donations as “income” makes my teeth ache. They have NO insight into Archewell’s finances, and they spin the fiduciary grift and malfeasance of the Lamebridges’ foundation into elaborate pretzels — all to bash the Sussexes and embiggen Cain and Unable. It’s exhausting.

    • Lorelei says:

      @C-Shell, exactly. And they will FOR SURE bitch when Archewell’s true numbers become public, because they do not understand how things work in the real world.

      I mean, look at all of Archewell’s hires so far— they’re hiring excellent, qualified people, so freaking of COURSE they need to offer competitive salaries in order to get people of that caliber to come work for Archewell. In theory, this will end up paying dividends down the road because they’ll have a top-notch staff who knows WTF they’re doing.

      Compare that to the way the BRF hires— *very* low salaries (to be made up for with the ‘cache’ of working for the BRF 🙄, and for some employees, room & board included), and in many cases, people who go there just to get it on their resumes, knowing it’s temporary, and just a stepping-stone to a better-paying job once they leave. And as a result, they end up with CRAZY high turnover, and people like Knauf, who worship the ground the royals walk on, not competent professionals.

      It’s just an entirely different universe from how most legitimate NPs operate, but I’m sure we’ll hear all sorts of bloviating about “why are Harry and Meghan paying their staff so much? They’re such awful bullies to work for, they need to offer huge salaries if they want anyone to work for them!” blah blah blah. I’m already pre-annoyed about it, lol.

      • Mary S says:

        Good point. If the Royal Foundation was hiring heavy hitters in the inaugural year of their program, there might be a logical explanation for the hefty overhead. But, I’m aware of no notable hires. If spending more than 50% of the charities donations on overhead continues, that will look really bad.

  12. equality says:

    What they don’t point out is that Archewell has given more than that 50,000 they claim as the only donations. That would mean that they are using their own money for charity and not sponging off others. Does it make W&K wonderful that they solicit and give away other people’s money? How many bags of cash was that? We have PC’s sources of cash, let’s get theirs.

    • Eurydice says:

      The $50,000 is listed as income, not donations. But Archewell was only founded in October of 2020, so I don’t imagine there was time to do anything other than file paperwork.

    • Agreatreckoning says:

      @equality, I have no idea for sure. I suspect the initial donation of $50k came from the Sussexes. This is not an unusual practice. People everywhere do this. Well, except for current “working members of the royal family”. Other people’s money seems to work best.

      The Sussexes were establishing something. They would be the first people to donate.imo

  13. Eurydice says:

    As a non-profit in the US, Archewell has to file a 990 tax return – these returns are public information. The receipts from 2020 are old news, they were reported in the news last year and everyone knows that the foundation was just getting started.

    The due date for 2021 filing was May 15th (if its taxable year ends in December) but they could have filed for a 6 month extension. So we probably won’t know how operations are going until the end of this year.

  14. Lolo86lf says:

    Maybe some of 7.1 pounds deficit was spent on Kate’s wardrobe and accessories.

  15. Osty says:

    He is a grifter like his dad so I’m not surprised

  16. Slippers4life says:

    I’m not a journalist so bare with me, but these reporters HAVE to be getting sick and tired of being forced to write all this biased fluff about the Cambridges! If i spent all that time in journalism school, only to be forced to write BS PR for the D and D of C, I’d be all FML, and may get to writing these pieces with the hidden agenda of showing these fake, lazy, shady racists for who they are, albeit subtly so my editor, a PW sycophant, won’t notice. Again, not a journalist, but any journalists here who would just find this ridiculous? When do we think they’ll all snap?

    • Snuffles says:

      That’s cute you think any of them studied journalism.

    • UNCDANCER says:

      As a former journalist (20 years in daily newspapers across the US) who now works in corporate public relations, I am pretty confident in saying these aren’t journalist. They are corporate PR. This is exactly what they are paid to do.

      • Slippers4life says:

        Thanks! Your answer from experience helps. That’s all the coverage of the BRF seems to be, PR. Do you think, from your experience, that we’ll ever see proper journalism covering PW? Are there any reliable sources you would recommend?

      • UNCDancer says:

        Coverage of the royal family reminds me a lot of the sports coverage I saw in newsrooms. Access is the coin of the realm. I think a lot of these writers cover the royal family with the expectation that they will get access in the form of getting the nod to write biographies/books that will really get them paid. In newsrooms, sports reporters were always very cautious of getting on the wrong side of college or professional coaches because they knew they would get cut off. It is a very symbiotic relationship that prevents people from being neutral to critical in their reporting. The only newspaper that I know that has come close to it is The Independent and The Guardian. But because the royal family is treated as entertainment I don’t think you will see much in terms of truly critical reporting. At least not until a republican movement takes hold in the UK but maybe not even then. These tabloid owners have vested interest in the status quo … which is exactly why we see the coverage we do.

      • Slippers4life says:

        Thank you so much! You’ve really done a great job helping me understand better. Interesting this goes on in sports as well. Appreciate you taking the time.

      • Lorelei says:

        I think it’s actually a really interesting question— I’ve never bothered to look into the background of any of the “royal reporters,” but it’s likely that at least some of them did study journalism at some point, took whatever job they could get at the time, and somehow ended up doing this bullsh!it. For example, I think that Chris Ship considers himself a legitimate “journalist” since he only started covering the royals within the past few years, and I think (?) he did *actual* work before that.

        I don’t think anyone except the self-appointed “royal experts” themselves consider any of the “royal experts” like Lady Colin Campbell and the rest of that trash group to be journalists, but it would be interesting to look at the educational backgrounds of those of them who are actually employed by newspapers, not just running their mouths as guests on morning shows and podcasts or whatever. (Although we need to use the term “newspapers” loosely when referring to the UK!)

        But I agree with @Slippers4Life’s original point— there must be at least a few of them who dreamed of a life in journalism, were inspired by Woodward & Bernstein back in the day, and now find themselves turning out this utter dreck about people they likely can’t stand IRL. Sucks for them :/

      • Agreatreckoning says:

        Exactly @UNCDancer. They are being paid to do/write a thing and unfortunately, it’s not the right thing. So, I am the @sshole who has looked into the educations of “royal experts, journalists”. Most of them do not have a journalism degree. It appears the degrees (that those that have them) are in history or English Lit. Camilla T., may have a degree in journalism. Apparently that didn’t include truth in journalism(she’s put the blame on her targets for not defending themselves instead of actually investigating anything). Tom Bower does not have a degree in journalism. His apparent degree is in law. Nothing to suggest he was successful in that area since his experience is very limited. Don’t believe Angela Levin has a degree in anything-except for lying.

        Excellent point @Slippers4Life. Who are these people and why should anyone trust what they say? They are royal sycophants who don’t deserve the public’s trust.I know some of us here are avid readers of Mic Wright & Byline Investigates. They report on the awfulness of the British Media quite well. Not about the royals-a good insight into how things work. The BM, overall, is the worst character in Game of Thrones.

  17. SueBarbri says:

    Oooooh “Strength to Strength” as a descriptive phrase is something I haven’t heard from the RR in a long time. Remember the early aughts? It was always “William and Kate are going from strength to strength,” and “Charles and Camilla are going from strength to strength,” and “Harry and Chelsea are going from strength to strength.” It stuck out in my head because it’s not a phrase I’d ever heard before I started reading the British tabloids. Other than that, I don’t have much to to say about this Royal Foundation money stuff. After all, every allegation against Charles exits the news cycle within two hours, so I’m sure Will and Kate won’t get caught up or blamed for financial discrepancies. They could come out with a report tomorrow showing that the RF money is being used for the helicopter rides, and that wouldn’t move the needle.

    • Sophie says:

      Hahaha, the company I was working for previously described itself as going from strength to strength! Well, guess what? The environment was uber toxic, while the management was terribly abusive to all of us! Family business, my a$s! In my time in the UK, I can never associate “going from strength to strength” with anything remotely positive 🤷‍♀️

      • Lorelei says:

        @SueBarBri, I HATE IT! “Strength to strength” has annoyed me since the first time I ever read it, for some reason. I see it used a lot about Kate, along with “never putting a foot wrong” and a few other phrases that I wasn’t familiar with before following the royals and now drive me bonkers.

        ETA: another one that inexplicably irritates me is when they say they’ll be releasing more information “in due course.” I have no idea why, but it comes across as so smug to me. Like they’ll be parceling out all of their valuable information to the peasants as they please, lol.

  18. Jaz says:

    Baldimort with his ego as huge as his incapacity is going to be worst than Charles and his cash for honor debacle.

    • Both Sides Nowt says:

      @ Jaz, absolutely!! The Other Brother isn’t smart enough or cunning as well, to be able to “hide” his cash for access schemes. Charles has spent decades refining his grift whereas TOB hasn’t given one thought as to how to properly use his position to launder the copious amounts of cash he will accept.

      We have to acknowledge that the Other Brother can’t even be bothered to learn what his actual duties as king will involve. He is betting on just sitting around doing absolutely nothing while he lives his lifestyle, as he sees fit, once he ascends to the throne all of the backs of taxpayers.

  19. NCWoman says:

    Archewell will never raise as much money as the Royal Foundation because direct fundraising isn’t their focus. Instead, they primarily link corporations and other donors to worthwhile organizations, which means they never actually touch most of the money they funnel to them. For example, the money that Netflix has paid to Invictus went directly to Invictus even though it was made possible because of Archewell. None of this outside funding goes to their overhead, so you’re never going to see Archewell spend more money on itself than on the organizations they help support.

    • Well Wisher says:

      Excellent observation. There will not be any comparable results and/or situation with the Cambridges Royal Foundation.

      • Both Sides Nowt says:

        In addition to the donations made directly to their supporting charities, it creates the inability for those on the Island of Salty and Petty to create narratives of “stealing” from Archwel.

        Given how Harry has seen the unscrupulous actions of his father, he has created no association of Archwell involvement of donations. They have created the system perfectly to keep them from being used as future ammunition against Archwell.

  20. Nic919 says:

    What was that 7 million used for? That’s the question isn’t it?

    • windyriver says:

      Well, Jason Knauf was CEO of the foundation at that time, so I’m sure whatever it was used for was all above board (/s).

      Interestingly, JK was recently appointed as one of the now 7 member Earthshot Board of Trustees. His new job is apparently Global Leadership Fellow at Conservation International. The CEO of CI was also appointed as an Earthshot trustee. This has had the impact of making me look askance at CI. Meanwhile, the Earthshot tv program won a BAFTA award last year, and the former CEO of BAFTA is now CEO of the Foundation. I doubt either she or JK came cheap. Perhaps I’m overly cynical, but this all sounds awfully cozy…

      I hope that Earthshot at least is doing some good, somewhere. The foundation’s website is not very impressive; it’s impossible to tell what they’ve really accomplished. A lot of it looks like facilitating meetings and task forces, and I question whether the items under “Our Impact” isn’t co-opting the work of other organizations, as is the Cambridge Way. And the Center for Early Childhood still has a prominent place…

      • Well Wisher says:

        When Charles demanded that Jason Knauf leave his position in the KP household, he moved to the Royal Foundation until leaving eventually. This was a recurring issue with at least 2 other staff members, all in communications.
        It will be safe to assume that part of the £7 million paid the salaries of KP staff made redundant due to continuous leaks to tabloids.

      • Both Sides Nowt says:

        @ Well Wisher, I didn’t know that!! How could I have missed this glorious push from Charles? Damn, even sketchy Charles is smart enough to know how damaging JK is.

    • Lorelei says:

      @Nic, it was used to buy bots. And coatdresses, probably.

  21. theothermadeline says:

    Well, it’s not that Archewell isn’t required to disclose their financials publicly, it’s more likely that the ruling year on their status is so recent that they haven’t had to file a 990-PF yet. Usually 990s and 990-PFs, which are typically public record (and available on sites like Guidestar or on the charity’s website itself along with its annual reports/audited financials statements), appear around 1 fiscal year following when they were filed. Looking at Archewell on Guidestar today it looks as though that is the case.

    • Eurydice says:

      Yes, if they filed an extension for 2021, they wouldn’t have to send in the return until November of this year.

  22. Emme says:

    @NCWoman, well said! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

  23. Amy Bee says:

    Most of their foundation’s revenue is from funds received for Earthshot. The annual report admits that next year’s revenue is going to be lower because Earthshot has separated from the Royal Foundation.

  24. W says:

    So instead of spending more charity money on the actual cause, they spent it on PR and that hideous green carpet event that managed to lose more viewers than gain. Btw, WHO even were the keenshot winners from last year? How can they hype this vanity project as the “most prestigious” environmental award the Earth has ever seen if most people don’t even know the names of these winners. Shouldn’t that have been the focus of this award? Highlighting the work others have done? If William actually cared about the environment he would… 1) Stop using his helicopter like a car and 2) Use the leftover 7.1 mil to help and assist current environment issues (UK Heat waves, etc)
    Like how hard is to make this obvious vanity project look less than a vanity project?

    • Eurydice says:

      My tin foil tiara imagines that this is the reason why Earthshot has become a separate entity. People like Bloomberg and Bezos will want want their donations/grants to be managed in a professional way, not like a vanity project.

      • Lorelei says:

        @Eurydice, I was speculating about this above, before I saw your comment. My initial reaction was the same— donors in that stratosphere are not going to continue giving enormous sums to what is clearly such a haphazard sham.

        But then I remembered that they’re probably doing it for the access and “honors,” so they don’t care. Like Amal Clooney with Charles. Bloomberg and Bezos both have enough money to throw away if what they really want is to hobnob with royals and eventually end up with knighthoods. Sigh.

  25. matthew says:

    that M for Meghan dress is very scary

  26. Lynn says:

    Having worked in the non profit industry here in the US for a significant part of my career the standard for fundraising expenses should be approximately 10-20% that goes to the foundations overhead and about 60% should go to the deserving recipients. Clearly the reverse is true for this foundation.

  27. Diana Duong says:

    The other 7 million pounds went to his velvet jacket and trying to make evil fashion William happen.

  28. L4Frimaire says:

    Why are they even comparing the Royal Foundation to a 2year old US based organization? The goals and mission are completely different and the Royals will always have access to cash and protection that Archewell won’t. I don’t know about expenditures in the charity sector so maybe costs are related to salaries and launching the prize, but that still seems weird that so little goes to the recipients. The fact that he keeps that weasel Knauf around shows the rot at the core. Meanwhile, Archewell understands their scale and are making positive impacts while still getting off the ground. They have a different business model because they are self financed.

  29. CourtneyB says:

    When my hubby was in the Air Force they had annual charity drives. You could get a book which not only broke charities down by national/state and focus but broke down their percentages. We have throughout the year separate from the sign up (it came out of your pay) and I loved having that guide as a reference.

  30. Agreatreckoning says:

    @equality, I have no idea for sure. I suspect the initial donation of $50k came from the Sussexes. This is not an unusual practice. People everywhere do this. Well, except for current “working members of the royal family”. Other people’s money seems to work best.

    The Sussexes were establishing something. They would be the first people to donate.imo

    If this duplicates I apologize.

  31. Noor says:

    Does the report shows the breakdown of the $7.1 m administration and operational cost. It should be open to public scrutiny.

    It is a huge embarrassment that only $5 m goes to the awardees.

  32. Robin Samuels says:

    Thank you to those who share the fantastic information concerning the non-profits. Meghan and Harry have some experience dealing with non-profit charitable organizations, which probably accounts for their ease of establishing Archewell. I agree that Meghan looked at KP’s financial statements and saw all the red flags, so she protected the Hubb Community funding. The beginning of William’s incandescence.
    The Windsors are not cash-rich and sustain themselves by soliciting funds in the name of charity. In return, they give knighthoods, shiny medals, colorful sashes, etc. Sadly they have duped their subjects into believing they are superior and deserving. They love the Queen even though she has done nothing phenomenal throughout her seventy-year reign. Even though they know Charles has accepted suitcases of dark money, he will ascend the throne in a ritualistic ceremony that will cost the British taxpayer millions. Look at the money earned on Harry and Meghan’s wedding and the amount spent promoting the Jubilee. For them, it’s always been about money and optics while all others bow, curtsy, accept hush payments, and barely survive. I have no sympathy. It’s time to wake up. Hating Princess Meghan will not heat their homes this winter.
    William is preparing to become the Prince of Wales and doing what Charles does. The problem is their relationship is not sincere. Unlike William, Charles has long-term loyal couriers in his camp, and William doesn’t have loyal friends, only a Stepford wife, political hacks, and hungry journos.
    Elon Musk may desire a knighthood, but I don’t visualize Bloomberg seeing it as an honor. He is a snob in a particular class, but I could be grossly mistaken.
    I feel eerie about the glitz surrounding the upcoming Earth Shot venture. With the political climate in the UK and America, it just doesn’t seem like the right time to spend millions to award 5 million. Present the prizes, recognize the recipients and focus on the hardships citizens are enduring due to our failure to acknowledge climate change and its impact on daily living sooner.