NEED TO KNOW

  • Sophie Chandauka accused Prince Harry of driving away donors and sabotaging Sentebale—but financial data shows revenues recovered after his move and contradict her claims.
  • Chandauka’s Netflix claim about Harry disrupting a fundraiser is undermined by her own past praise of the event, revealing contradictions in her narrative.
  • Her claim that Harry made the brand “toxic” is disproven by continued support from major sponsors like ISPS Handa, who still back Harry-led initiatives like the Invictus Games.
  • Evidence shows Chandauka prioritized personal connections, paid over £500,000 in consultancy fees to close associates, and exaggerated staffing figures—all while blaming others for failed fundraising.

In her March 2025 Sky News interview, Sophie Chandauka accused Prince Harry of sabotaging Sentebale—claiming his ‘toxic’ brand drove donors away, disrupted events, and even led to ‘bullying at scale.’ But financial records, public statements, and rebuttals from former trustees reveal a pattern of misrepresentation. From exaggerated claims about donor flight to contradictions in her own past praise of Harry, Chandauka’s narrative unravels under scrutiny. This investigation examines each allegation—exposing how the data, not the Duke, indicts her leadership.

Related | Nandi Life Sciences Disappears as Scrutiny Grows Over Sentebale’s Financial Ties

Allegation: Harry’s Move to the US Caused Loss of Major Donors

Sophie Chandauka claimed that Sentebale experienced a significant decline in corporate and individual donors after Prince Harry moved to the U.S., suggesting his departure caused reputational damage and made donors hesitant to remain involved with the charity.

When Prince Harry moved to California and stepped back from royal duties, many of our individual and corporate donors disappeared. People didn’t want to be associated. The brand became risky. -Sophie Chandauka

Claim Rating: False

Reality Check: The Data Tells A Different Story

Financial data from Sentebale’s annual reports reveals a more complex and contradictory picture. While the charity did experience a dip in revenue in 2020—falling to £2.39M—that was not unique to Sentebale. The sharp decline coincides with the global COVID-19 pandemic, which disrupted fundraising, events, and international donor pipelines for thousands of charities worldwide.

However, Sentebale’s income steadily rebounded in the years that followed:


In 2021, Sentebale’s revenue rose to £3.13 million and climbed further to £4.45 million in 2022. This shows a clear recovery trend, undermining Chandauka’s claim that the Duke’s exit led to lasting financial damage.

Wider Forces Drove Financial Strain, Not Prince Harry

Sentebale’s own financial reports attribute its revenue shifts to global events—not internal personalities. The charity specifically cited “necessary reduction of programme activities” due to national lockdowns in Lesotho and Botswana. Fundraising costs also fluctuated based on sponsor behavior and logistical restrictions, not reputational damage tied to Prince Harry.

The charity cut fundraising costs by over £1 million in 2020 after it canceled or scaled down events. In contrast, 2022 saw a £300,000 rise in event costs because Sentebale resumed in-person activities—something only possible after COVID restrictions eased. These fluctuations align with international nonprofit trends, where program delivery, not donor perception, shaped financial performance.

Chandauka’s narrative conveniently ignores this operational context. Instead of acknowledging a recovery aligned with global reopening, she singles out Prince Harry—misrepresenting a systemic challenge as a personal liability. But the financial language tells the real story: Sentebale adapted to a changing world, not a damaged brand.

Related | Termination Letters Reveal Financial Struggles at Sentebale

Allegation: Harry Disrupted Polo Fundraiser With Netflix Filming

Chandauka claimed that Harry requested to film the 2024 polo fundraiser for Netflix, turning the charity event into a commercial activity. She said the venue owners became upset, forced a relocation, and triggered internal disarray.

And then, about a month before the event was about to take place, Prince Harry called the team and said, I’m doing a Netflix show, and I would love to bring a camera crew so that I can include some footage in this show… The venue owner says this is now a commercial undertaking, so here are my terms. We couldn’t afford it, so now we lost the venue. So we went to another venue… -Sophie Chandauka

Claim Rating: Contradicted

Reality Check: Sophie Previously Celebrated The Netflix Filming As A Great Opportunity

Chandauka’s response to Netflix filming at the polo fundraiser shows a clear contradiction. In the video, she seems happy and excited about Netflix being there. She talks about how good it is for the charity and how it helps tell Sentebale’s story to a bigger audience. But later, in her Sky News interview, she blames the filming for problems with the event and says it caused trouble.

Video Credit: Coyoteband2

This contradiction makes it hard to trust her story and shows a pattern of changing the facts to fit what she’s now saying. It seems like Chandauka is trying to rewrite what happened to make herself look like a victim of Prince Harry’s actions, even though she was clearly excited and involved when the event took place.

Allegation: Harry’s Association Made Sentebale ‘Toxic’ and Lost Sponsors

Sophie Chandauka said that when Prince Harry left the UK, many of Sentebale’s big sponsors and donors also left. She called his name the charity’s “biggest risk” and said his public image was hurting the charity instead of helping it. She used this claim to explain why she wanted to change how the charity worked and presented itself.

“It was pretty obvious to me that we had lost quite a number of corporate sponsors. We’d lost some families, and we’d lost individuals who were donating to the organization. And there was quite a significant correlation between the time the organization started to see a departure of… major organizations and Prince Harry’s departure from the UK itself…” Sophie Chandauka

Claim Rating: Disproven

Reality Check: Major Sponsors Continue To Publicly Support Prince Harry-Led Initiatives

Sophie Chandauka said Prince Harry’s name was driving sponsors away, but ISPS Handa proves otherwise. While she led Sentebale, the charity’s 2024 polo fundraiser lost its venue and ISPS Handa didn’t sponsor the event. She blamed Harry’s Netflix filming for the issue. But in 2025, ISPS Handa proudly partnered with the Invictus Games—a project Harry leads. The brand is still listed as a key sponsor, showing strong support for his work.

Bigger Picture

If Prince Harry’s name were really a problem, big brands like ISPS Handa wouldn’t keep working with him on major global events. The fact that ISPS Handa skipped Sentebale’s polo event in 2024—but still backs Harry’s Invictus Games in 2025—shows the real issue wasn’t Harry. It was Sentebale’s leadership under Sophie Chandauka. Instead of owning the problem, she blamed others. But the facts are clear: sponsors still trust Harry. They didn’t trust her.

Allegation: Chandauka‘s Fundraising Efforts Was Sabotaged

Sophie Chandauka suggested that her efforts to overhaul Sentebale’s fundraising strategy—particularly her push to target U.S. donors and shift the charity’s mission—were actively blocked. She implied that Prince Harry and certain trustees deliberately worked to undermine her leadership, spreading negative information about her and creating resistance to change.

Really, what Prince Harry wanted to do was to eject me from the organization, and this went on for months. It went on for months through bullying, harassment… When that failed, Prince Harry started to brief—and his team—sponsors that I’d been speaking to against me and the charity, because that is a sure way of getting me out if it’s seen as though I’m not being successful in my fundraising efforts. – Sophie Chandauka

Claim Rating: Projection

Reality Check: Consultants Were Paid, But Results Fell Short

There is no solid evidence to support Chandauka’s claim that sabotage was at play. In fact, the financial and operational data paints a very different picture. Reports show that during her tenure as chair, Chandauka authorized over £500,000 in consultancy fees, including payments to close associates and external advisors, yet failed to secure new U.S. donors or provide the returns she promised. For example, one of her key hires, Alix Lebec of Lebec Consultancy, claimed to be helping Sentebale shift to a “lean” business model. However, just after controversy erupted, Lebec’s consultancy deleted its official Instagram account.

Despite these promises of transformation, Sentebale’s income actually declined from £4.45 million in 2022 to £3.4 million in 2023, the year Chandauka led the charity. This sharp drop directly contradicts her claim of successfully improving the charity’s fundraising efforts.

Additionally, Chandauka’s assertion that she managed 540 employees is likely exaggerated. According to the UK Charity Commission’s 2023 filing, Sentebale had only 107 employees. For a charity of Sentebale’s size, hiring 540 employees would be highly unusual, especially given the charity’s limited resources. It appears that Chandauka may have inflated the staffing numbers to make her leadership seem more impressive, while also hiring staff that the charity could not afford.

Conflict of Interest and Lack of Transparency

What Chandauka fails to mention is the potential conflict of interest that arose from her appointment of close associates to positions of power at Sentebale. At the 2024 Sentebale Royal Salute Polo Challenge, she posed with her associates on stage while holding the trophy. Dr. Margaret Ikpoh, who stood beside her in brown trousers, now serves as a trustee on Sentebale’s board. Sarah Essien, seen third from the right, worked with Chandauka at Morgan Stanley before being hired as a consultant for Sentebale in August 2023, while simultaneously serving as Chief Business Officer at Nandi Life Sciences—a company Chandauka co-founded. Essien held both roles until November 2024.

Embed from Getty Images

Flashback to the 2024 Sentebale Polo Cup—where some of Dr. Sophie Chandauka’s close circle posed center stage with the trophy. Sarah Essien (third from the right) shared this moment on Instagram, praising the event.

Dr. Tinashe Chandauka, Sophie’s brother, also worked as a consultant for Sentebale during her leadership. He listed the role under “Experience” on his LinkedIn profile—typically reserved for paid positions rather than voluntary roles. As of April 2, 2025, he has since removed the Sentebale reference. These appointments raise serious questions about transparency and the potential for nepotism, as it appears the charity paid over £500,000 in consultancy fees, many of which were allegedly directed to individuals within Chandauka’s personal or professional circle, without full board approval.

Source: @RealDoctorC

Bottom line

This pattern of hiring associates, inflating employee numbers, and mismanaging funds points to a troubling lack of oversight and accountability under Chandauka’s leadership. Instead of focusing on the charity’s mission, she seems to have prioritized personal relationships and self-promotion. The claims of sabotage appear to be a way to deflect from the real issues: financial mismanagement, inflated roles, and questionable business dealings.

Rather than accepting responsibility for her failures and the resulting damage to Sentebale, Sophie Chandauka has chosen to project blame onto others, including Prince Harry and the trustees. However, the facts—documented in the financial reports, staffing discrepancies, and the involvement of her personal circle in key consultancy roles—paint a far different picture of what truly happened during her leadership of the charity.

Final Thoughts

Despite Chandauka’s portrayal of Prince Harry as a disruptive force at Sentebale, the evidence paints a different picture—one of continued support, public goodwill, and sustained engagement with vulnerable communities. Her most serious claims lack substantiation, and in some cases, are contradicted by her own past praise. The facts suggest that this was less a story of royal sabotage, and more one of failed leadership rebranded as victimhood.

Charities depend on public trust. When leaders misrepresent facts, it’s not just reputations at stake—it’s the vulnerable communities they serve. The data, not sensational claims, should guide our judgment.


Stay tuned for more debunked allegations. Sign up now to stay updated and get the full story on the facts behind the claims!

Discover more from Feminegra

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.