It was posted online via twitter. The man on the left isn't William but one of Harry's support staff. Ed Lane Fix(?) Not sure.
Also online is a posted invitation for Harry's Invictus thank you gala at Buckingham Palace. Not sure if it's tonight or not.
http://33.media.tumblr.com/fa98e2883e1bca7191e2f0afc3c55cb1/tumblr_ndi9xlOZOA1swd44ko1_1280.jpg
Edit: The person said it was otnight so that party for Harry last month was for his birthday.
Nice to see that those who were involved in the planning, organization and production of this event are being honored.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B0FuZ1ZIYAATM7x.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B0FlhLOCEAAcTKg.jpg
Prince Harry arriving at Patron 100 women in Hedge Funds dinner gala in aid of Wellchild
:thanks:
@HsHCharlene Someone said he looks like a waiter, I agree! He and William really need the number of Charles' tailor. His hair is so disheveled... A comb would be very helpful to him.
I don't mind his hair, but I agree on the waiter point. I have never liked double-breasted suits, and the length of that jacket really exacerbates the problem.
I see no problem with the length of his jacket.
I prefer a slightly shorter tuxedo jacket length on men. That said, having seen some more pictures (Harry's night out with the ladies: Prince joins 200 of the world's leading businesswomen at charity fundraising gala... and jokes at ending up being (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2796182/harry-s-night-ladies-prince-joins-200-world-s-leading-businesswomen-charity-fundraising-gala-jokes-ending-seated-two-men.html)) my issue is really with the double-breasted style.
Harry is a very attractive man who presumably spends a considerable amount on his suits; none of them should make him look as bad as this one does.
I so agree,
@Canuck It is way beyond unflattering.
On second viewing he does look rather fuddy-duddy.
Prince Harry hosts gala with more than 200 women - and is seated between two men - Mirror Online (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prince-harry-hosts-gala-more-4450623)
Quote from: SophieChloe on October 16, 2014, 09:23:58 PM
On second viewing he does look rather fuddy-duddy.
:happy15: It's like he borrowed the suit from Charles! :happy15:
Quote from: HsHCharlene on October 16, 2014, 09:40:44 PM
Prince Harry hosts gala with more than 200 women - and is seated between two men - Mirror Online (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prince-harry-hosts-gala-more-4450623)
Gonna by a number of disappointed ladies tonight. :P
Double post auto-merged: October 16, 2014, 10:18:07 PM
Quote from: Limabeany on October 16, 2014, 08:05:23 PM
:thanks: @HsHCharlene Someone said he looks like a waiter, I agree! He and William really need the number of Charles' tailor. His hair is so disheveled... A comb would be very helpful to him.
I wonder if the disheveled look is an attempt to make his hair look thicker and to cover some thinning areas. William is a lost cause but Harry can work with what he still has. :)
Quote from: TLLK on October 16, 2014, 10:17:01 PM
Quote from: Limabeany on October 16, 2014, 08:05:23 PM
:thanks: @HsHCharlene Someone said he looks like a waiter, I agree! He and William really need the number of Charles' tailor. His hair is so disheveled... A comb would be very helpful to him.
I wonder if the disheveled look is an attempt to make his hair look thicker and to cover some thinning areas. William is a lost cause but Harry can work with what he still has. :)
It could be, but it looks awful... But, maybe I am just a bit old for the disheveled look. :hide: William's thinning areas are a lost cause but his hair works quite well for him in terms of the mature lifestyle and look he goes for. But Harry should befriend a comb, at least William doesn't look as if he has waged a war on them! :happy15:
Quote from: SophieChloe on October 16, 2014, 08:52:25 PM
I see no problem with the length of his jacket.
Mental note to myself next time:
Always read previous posts to get a clear story. So, no need to raise my eyebrows when the sentence starts with ' I see no problem with the length of his.......'. Also, a jacket is just a jacket, not a euphemism for anything else.
Your post gave me a good chuckle,SophieChloe. :blowkiss:
Not a fan of double breasted suits either . Imagine if he wore a Tom Ford suit . People would complain if he got a lot of new clothes but I would not be one of them . I still love the tan suit he wore on the Jubilee tour . Perfect . I hope there is a video of his speech
I also wish that he would buy at least three new suits and a tux AND some new casual wear.
Double post auto-merged: October 17, 2014, 07:33:04 AM
Harry, in his speech 'I'm not entiely sure who made the seating plan but I am sitting between two men. I thought it would just be 100 women and myself.'
Oh Harry! :vday4:
That suit :censored2: ...
bad suit ,double chin :unsure: not taking care of himself will turn him into will 2.0 in the next few yrs lol minus the balding ,his clothes and overall appearance isnt well taken care off ,just like willy boy :thumbsdown: one of their main jobs is to be presentable and they fail that too lol
All the women looked charmed to meet Harry. :)
Quote from: Curryong on October 17, 2014, 02:50:39 AM
Harry, in his speech 'I'm not entiely sure who made the seating plan but I am sitting between two men. I thought it would just be 100 women and myself.'
Oh Harry! :vday4:
:hehe:
QuotePrince Harry Attends the 100 Women in Hedge Funds Gala Dinner
Prince Harry had dinner with more than 200 women but made a joke about being seated between two men.
He was at a fundraising gala dinner at the Royal Hospital Chelsea in west London held by 100 Women in Hedge Funds (100WHF) to raise money for children's charity WellChild.
Dressed in a tux, and addressing a room full of professional women in evening gowns, he said: "Thank you all very much for coming this evening.
"I am not entirely sure who made the seating plan but I am sitting between two men.
"I thought it would just be 100 women and myself."
There were approximately 260 people at the dinner and the vast majority were women.
More: Prince Harry attends the 100 Women in Hedge Funds Gala Dinner (http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/news-and-diary/prince-harry-attend-the-100-women-hedge-funds-gala-dinner)
Cindy
Thanks for the video . I love his sense of humor
he is a charmer but he does need to get a new tux - the one he wears is too big and so out of date -
Lovely sense of humour, although the ultra feminist hisforher don't like...boo hoo.
His speech, oh dear, he has also been touched by the Kate Effect, unbiasly he made a 30 second fluffy speech seeing the paper every two words. Did I see a touching of hair? It was probably the first time he read the speech, does he even know the indepth of this organization?!
^Well it's for a charity he visits regularly and not once in a blue moon so he's got that much on her. :wellduh:
Really, HsHCharlene? This is Harry's second WellChild event this year, and before that he did exactly one event a year for WellChild for the past four years. Whereas Kate is being criticized for doing two events a year for each of her patronages. :hmm:
yes he does need a bit of speech coaching - 1) know the speech - use little cards with brief outline to help you if you forget - but he has his sheets of paper with the whole speech written down - definite no no 2) make eye contact - which he can't do cause he has to read from the papers 3) speak slower - he rushes it too much
Really just spending a little time before hand should do it and he'd be so much more effective and sincere
But his clothes - the tux is just so out of date - the double breasted thing is for some 50 year old who is trying to hide a paunchy tummy - he wears his pants too long - as if he can't afford the tailor?
Picking on poor Harry - he manages somehow to still look great and charm everyone!
I do know people who have seen Harry in person - they say he is not as good looking as he photographs - not really that physically impressive in person
I've seen him at Sandringham at Christmas walks over the years. He's a big strong, robust looking man, and he always looks cheerful. I think he's goodlooking but it's all subjective isn't it?
Quote from: Canuck on October 18, 2014, 02:11:24 AM
Really, HsHCharlene? This is Harry's second WellChild event this year, and before that he did exactly one event a year for WellChild for the past four years. Whereas Kate is being criticized for doing two events a year for each of her patronages. :hmm:
He has spent weeks with some of his charities, Kate never has sent more than two hours a year for any of hers.
Quote from: Canuck on October 18, 2014, 02:11:24 AM
Really, HsHCharlene? This is Harry's second WellChild event this year, and before that he did exactly one event a year for WellChild for the past four years. Whereas Kate is being criticized for doing two events a year for each of her patronages. :hmm:
Two events per year of each of her EIGHT patronages doesn't seem like a very hard worker to me. That's just me of course. Harry also did Invictus/Military for most of this year so saying this is only his second event with this charity and comparing it to Cannot is not a fair comparison in my eyes. He does spend a great deal working with the charities behind the scenes, one of the workers was actually quoted as saying this at this very event. So yes, I believe he puts more effort into his work than Kate. She's too busy picking sailing charities to back than real ones to even bother to care about people. Of topic chatter, but to me Harry is working far much harder than other younger members of the family.
:happy20:
I didn't say anything about how hard working either was overall, or what Harry does with his other charities. I was responding specifically to HsHCharlene's statement that this event was for a charity (WellChild) that Harry visits "regularly and not once in a blue moon" unlike Kate with hers. In fact, Harry sees this charity once per year, and this year twice -- less than Kate sees hers.
Quote from: Limabeany on October 18, 2014, 09:55:19 AM
Quote from: Canuck on October 18, 2014, 02:11:24 AM
Really, HsHCharlene? This is Harry's second WellChild event this year, and before that he did exactly one event a year for WellChild for the past four years. Whereas Kate is being criticized for doing two events a year for each of her patronages. :hmm:
He has spent weeks with some of his charities, Kate never has sent more than two hours a year for any of hers.
I agree Lima. I think this is the main thing.
Quote from: Canuck on October 18, 2014, 12:52:40 PM
I didn't say anything about how hard working either was overall, or what Harry does with his other charities. I was responding specifically to HsHCharlene's statement that this event was for a charity (WellChild) that Harry visits "regularly and not once in a blue moon" unlike Kate with hers. In fact, Harry sees this charity once per year, and this year twice -- less than Kate sees hers.
Not entirely true as he spends time before the banquet and the entire banquet with the families, still more than Kate spends on any of her charities in a year or two.
And I'm going to with each of those charities very likely appreciate the work done by their royal patrons, staff, and volunteers. :vday4:
So basically when someone mentions he does behind the scene work it's true, but with Kate it's false. He attends the awards banquet to pin the kids once a year, no good pr visit rest of the year it's a hurra Henry, Kate makes the effort to visit, paint, play, sing, and it's 👎
He went to the IG offices once in a blue moon, various workers said he serves tea, coffee and cake, it's not true.
Selective reporting beliefs. 😝
Quote from: wannable on October 18, 2014, 04:51:10 PM
He went to the IG offices once in a blue moon, various workers said he serves tea, coffee and cake, it's not true.
Never heard this from any reputable source. Additionally, what does this have to do with charity work?
The biasness of selective reporting with all Harry is amazing. Replying in general to he works hard, harder lol by the standards and being unbiased, he did the bare minimum comparing with the young royals.
^ I definitely don't feel like I'm going out on a limb by saying that it depends on the source, journalist, etc. Publications like the DM exhibit a more bi-polar nature toward the BRF. If you glance at American supermarket rags like People, Starz, In Touch etc. they have nothing but gleaming bias for Kate in the most stomach-churning superficialities imaginable.
Are you sure the biased isn't in the eye of the beholder? Still waiting on an explanation as far as how you equate "genius" with Charles, Kate, William and Harry, over something as insignificant (in terms of genius) as establishment of their own charities. Their academic records are far from "genius". (Charles didn't earn his spot at Cambridge academically. Both William and Kate chose soft majors.) Average? A little above average? I mean, if we're just tossing the genius title to everyone...Genius? :Lothwen: Genius. :no: None of them are geniuses.
What was said about him serving coffee/tea/cakes wasn't as if to say that was all he did. It was that he isn't above doing that, or expecting others to serve him. And I thought going in once in awhile was when discussing how awkward the army office is because of the women working there, or their inability to work when Harry came in, ;). To me that doesn't reflect on Harry's work, but others.
They all do similar things, his is work. Watching a game....inaugurating a Twitter account. Never seen to office, but hey ho it's true, he works hard behind the scenes.
We've all read it!
DMR, I did explain, apparently you want a further explanation of trusts and foundations working together for better results for all, greater impacts. In this I'm referring not be genius "enough", they preferred the 600 and 700, hard to see the results, if any. Plain and simple people have to look up for any of the 600 or 700 find what significant thing happened for a single charity, there's no Princes Trust for all those 60 years of E&P, People relate and know clearly to point out the goods, of Charles PT, a WKH foundation, which also people can recall. The genius copy was there and will stay for BRF generations to follow in the firm. It's part of history!
Many of the by association problems without a trust or a foundation happens in greater extent, before the foundation for example, Harry almost lost Sentebale because of a bad decision, was it Harry who pushed and the yes men couldn't tell him no?! Advise him, too eager for fun?! Maybe, we won't know the thousands lost.
^Yes, I have reviewed that information a couple of times before, and even conceded that it was to the fact that it was a pragmatic move. Genius though.....Genius?
That's up there with the pants-on-head ridiculousness of:
If the BRF thinks the Sultan of Brunei is a super dude, despite even the UN finding his backing of anti-humanitarian policies questionable, I think he's a good guy too!
I don't think I can ever scour that from my brain, and I'm sure I lost a few IQ points reading that rebuttal. (Wannable wasn't the one who said this, just to clarify.)
I'm not sure you actually read what others say before fluttering your fingers across the keyboard.
If you read this thread, there's a reason for everyone to write an opinion. Similar to the other thread, when someone questions, that means you don't mind to compare...well there you go. Hopefully it generates interest with fellow posters.
You may not think my opinions relate, you may disagree with what I bring to the table, but surely others may relate and understand what and why it's being mentioned.
^ Here's the major question that keeps eluding you, would you, yourself, actually classify anyone in the contemporary BRF a genius?
I just want to get a clear picture of what I'm dealing with.
Let me hold your hand through this:
1.) The irony of the statement you made in the other thread pertaining to Kate's philanthropy is that I mocked some media outlets' use of "The Kate Effect". When, in my joke, I pointed out the genius of people's legitimate contributions as of late (minus the Royals (baseball); that was just fun).
2.) You turn around an over-exaggerate their intellect via establishing charities themselves (which plenty of people do), which is not "genius" by any stretch of the imagination.
3.) Now, you're taking about biased in another thread, which you showed clear biased by using a very easily debunked assessment of their mental capacity in the previous thread.
How is this not funny? Just saying...
Depends, your scope on genius is too too limited with the little you've mentioned, whilst in corporate, institutions, organizations, etc., a project, an outline, something new with repeated success which impacts may be referred to being a genius work, genius team...even if it's a copy molded to your firm from Socrates, Andrew Carnegie, Rockefeller.
The pr crafted world of E&P has a positive impact as a hard worker, but when signaling what did she do for the 600, there's no immediate answer. A she did good, aha in what did she do? If she and her yes men would have, could have, well there would be a difference.
So, again, you acknowledge precedent proceeding the BRF, but they're still geniuses? :eyes:
Mkay. Nevermind. [admin]We do not allow name calling here at the forum. [/admin]
Yes, they're wonderful and magical!
We clearly disagree in many issues. You seem to not comprehend my posts.
Please refrain from repeatedly insulting me.
How is any of this an insult?
I disagree on your interpretation of genius, sorry if you're insulted by that. I think degenerating the definition of genius is insulting to people who actually qualify for that adjective and make or have made significant contributions to the world past, present and future.
Let's just start passing that title out like Oprah, why the hell not? Everyone is a genius!
Now I'm late to the convo but what in the world would a member of the RF have in common with Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Socrates other than the fact that they are all homo sapiens?
^The comparison to Carnegie and Rockefeller, is their philanthropic contributions and establishment of a few. Not sure how Socrates fits in there. (Rockefeller also contributed to the New York Times or New York Post. I forgot which off the top of my head, but make what you will of that.
I see. Yet Carnegie and Rockefeller were self made men who worked their whole lives so I'm still not seeing the comparisons, philanthropic or not.
Ah! There it is. Hereditary wealth versus earned wealth. That does void the comparison.
My memory is a bit faint on the subject, but wasnt the trouble with Sentable some form of financial mismanagement or incompetence involving one of the executives? I can't imagine that Harry sits down and micro-manages the daily financial affairs of his charity
^The financial issues that arose weren't mismanagement but because they spent much of the money on startup costs. Instead of starting small and growing they kind of started big and then the recession hit and money stopped coming in like it used to. That was the main issue, they had to be saved by a wealthy benefactor. Since then it's been smooth sailing and I think Harry does have some knowledge of the day to day since he goes to all the meetings and is consulted whenever they make plans for anything, i.e the garden at the flower show.
Quote from: DaisyMeRollin on October 18, 2014, 10:17:38 PM
How is any of this an insult?
I disagree on your interpretation of genius, sorry if you're insulted by that. I think degenerating the definition of genius is insulting to people who actually qualify for that adjective and make or have made significant contributions to the world past, present and future.
Let's just start passing that title out like Oprah, why the hell not? Everyone is a genius!
Yes Oprah did enjoy spouting that word out at everyone. Maybe we should redefine the word, in a 21st century sense. Not Galileo, Einstein, de Vinci, Newton, Tesla but .......pick a celebrity!
The collation has to do with how they did form their trusts and foundations, copying them and molding the blueprint indifferent to acquisition of wealth, Charles did it with the Princes Trust, WKH with their Foundation and Forum.
The Sentebale issue had to do with Harry's desire and realization with Enduro 2008, in short he invited his brother, the Enduro charity to benefit Sentebale was a failure, the Enduro Group didn't deliver the moneys. The investment recorded as a loss rather than a profit.
^So assuming he did copy their trust, how could he be the genius? He copied from a genius would be the appropriate way to say it then. Genius because he set up a charity...not even the first to do so? come on, now.
One can copy a blueprint, masterminding it to your own liking, make it a successful all around effort indepth rather than superficial, and it will be a genius job, work, team that will be celebrated. As I said it depends on the scope of what one considers to have carried out something genius. When an individual for example blueprints a copy into the organization he or she works for, and said project results in huge profits, cost savings, all around success, the shareholders will call the person a genius, simultaneously one has noted the sour colleagues say "anyone can do ", but they didn't.
If E&P would have had a team of think tanks, she could have had her own grouped of charities in a foundation, indepth results of all around quality rather than quantity, which the later superficially looks good. But is it really good in the financial perspective indepth? I don't think so. I also think Harry the individual has this similar problem, and his staff, including the military can't resit in advising him, telling him the financial all around risks in charity expeditions, seems it's hard to tell him no, he goes ahead. He has done various looks great superficially, but the indepth result is actually poor. An example of indepth outcome if you spend usd 350K and make usd 450K, your only profit was 100K. That is a poor result. A look to his past, character, it's his way or nothing, apparently with his military career it was the same, behavior IMO defines him as such, perhaps a bit spoiled.
Ok, Charles is a genius lol
I dont know where the information comes from that says his ventures are failures?
^^But as you see he masterminded a blueprint copy without being a self made billionaire, which would superficially look void to compare, made it to his own liking and it works wonderfully, successfully. Some have said he is.
^ review end of the year financial reports Sentebale, enduro and walking with the wounded. Huge expense, little returns. Superficially good job, what a challenge, matter of fact it's a fun event for those who like to do "expeditions". This type of ventures are very risky.so when you see they spent half a million, made 600 thousand, end of the year they donated those 100 thousand earned, to have a precarious balance....
^I guess some people have lower standards than others. But then again, Harry also has his own charity so what makes him a failure and his father a genius? Especially if both charities are still functioning
Only the risky expeditions may have loss failure situations. His charities aren't in absolutes...i think and hope he can throw more caution seeking all around success in the indepth, an example is a two hour polo game has more profit than a one month charity expedition.
Quote from: Curryong on October 19, 2014, 03:55:56 AM
Quote from: DaisyMeRollin on October 18, 2014, 10:17:38 PM
How is any of this an insult?
I disagree on your interpretation of genius, sorry if you're insulted by that. I think degenerating the definition of genius is insulting to people who actually qualify for that adjective and make or have made significant contributions to the world past, present and future.
Let's just start passing that title out like Oprah, why the hell not? Everyone is a genius!
Yes Oprah did enjoy spouting that word out at everyone. Maybe we should redefine the word, in a 21st century sense. Not Galileo, Einstein, de Vinci, Newton, Tesla but .......pick a celebrity!
LOL! :thumbsup:
Yeah, I got a little testy about that yesterday.
Anyway, I just think it somewhat displays a level of ingratitude or ignorance of what legitimate genius has provided the entirety of humanity if someone is going to haphazardly toss around the word "genius", and on the other hand, admit that a person/a group of people (specifically hired to do their thinking for them) is piggy-backing on the ideas of others.
The fact that we're all having this discussion cross-continentally on a devise whose origins can be traced almost 200 years ago, by an English, aristocratic female (You know, when aristocrats did more than DJ, open clubs and bars, and "act".), and with the cumulative addition of genius contributions until now here we are. The fact that some of us are even alive today, is due in thanks to vaccinations which are only a blip in the time-scale of humanity. Hey! We could even add Kate's prenatal care in there if we wanted to!
Genius is apparently applicable to the last two generations of the BRF or recognition of their staffers, that are again, piggy-backing. Some could debate that establishment of or streamlining a charity is an attempt to stay relevant today, so I think it's a level of denial and somewhat sycophantic to hand out the "genius" sash and tiara, smile and elbow-elbow, wrist-wrist through this particular conversation.
Good intent, yes.
Pragmatic intent, yes.
Genius, an emphatic no!
Quote from: wannable on October 19, 2014, 03:50:56 PM
Only the risky expeditions may have loss failure situations. His charities aren't in absolutes...i think and hope he can throw more caution seeking all around success in the indepth, an example is a two hour polo game has more profit than a one month charity expedition.
So basically you want Harry to care less...ok, well to each their own.
It depends on how you see it, a motorcycle expedition, which was a loss, almost placed his charity into closure, I think his desire to have this fun was selfish, there must have been someone from his yes men that advised against it? That's caring less from his part IMO
^So it's better to let others do the work for you and then just show up for the photo ops?
^ Self-initiation and seeking alternative routes is hard, granted it could be argued that the motorcycle trek could have been a tad self-indulgent. It's easier when people tell you what to do and where to go.
(Also, please excuse the grammatical errors. Poker night and the subsequent recuperation is quite the event. :blush: )
I'm a team work with a decision maker believer, if Harry is the boss, perhaps he needs to listen more, exercise caution financially, then decide.
Those expeditions would be great with deep pocket investors sponsors, it not pan it. If an expedition costs prebudgeted 350K, seek before going ahead 1M investor (s) so at least 750K can yield for the good purposes and leave the financial aspect of the charity healthy, rather than hanging by the string.
Maybe he should get Charles to help; I'm sure Harry would appreciate the advice of a genius.
He did, but Harry with heart in sleeve is hell bent to do it his way or the highway. He is a edit risk taker IMO.
[mod]Offensive name-calling removed. [/mod]
Not saying that Harry is anywhere near genius by making this comparison, but a edit mapped the double-helix, a "edit" invented the process of psychoanalysis, and it's very well a distinct possibility that a "edit" founded the Methodist church.
Those were also way worse edit in the grand scheme of things.
[mod]Repeating of name-calling removed[/mod]
Quote from: wannable on October 19, 2014, 06:02:50 PM
He did, but Harry with heart in sleeve is hell bent to do it his way or the highway. He is a "edit" risk taker IMO.
But the genius in the family surely is responsible for how his offspring go about business. I mean being a genius comes with great responsibility no? I mean how embarrassing for the future king to have his own flesh and blood be such a far cry from his own ingenious flair. I can only imagine how much of a blow this was to the Prince; I mean his high IQ and savvy must have told him how much of a failure his son was in for. It must have been hell to simply sit by and have to watch it unfold...
Doubt it, Charles doesn't seem to be an absolutis, the criticism he gets for example for sharing his ideas, advise if you want to ministers, speaks of a person that's open to debate his ideas if better than...
Not that Penny Junor authorized bio of Harry is gospel truth, but there are some interesting palace sources in reference to Harry's high risking temperament, which is good to have as a team player, IMO rather than the decision maker, tie to that he is hell bent my way or the highway, eventually some of his stuff goes wrong.
This discussion is very interesting, some have absolutism in genius, whilst the scope IMO is open to not meaning perfection in every aspect of a person.
I will end now with the OOT, the 100 women HF is simply amazing, good works they have done in the past 4 years for the WKH foundation.
Is it absolutism by definition, or can some not comprehend the expansiveness of the weight of words, and uses words that carry weight as a generalization?
Some generalize the working poor. Some generalize political affiliation. Some generalize a "servant's" place. Some generalize the superficiality in people's appearances because they're not of the same political mindset. Some generalize (a) certain subject(s) previous indulgence of drink or use of a misdemeanor class drug in their youth (substantiated or not, in some topics that have appeared here).
Interesting that societal divisions, which are based on subjective morality are very prevalent here, and judged upon harshly to suit the echo-chamber of a few.
None of them are "genius". Take away the money, staff, titles and perks and I doubt any of them could organise a piddle up in a brewery
:hehe: love it! ^
The thing is genius is not perfection embodied, the counter people mentioned for doing a or one great contribution to society considered as genius, their personal bios, you will find handicaps in other aspects of their lives, including the smart factor, hence the scope of what each defines the word, for me it's not narrow.
I will leave the smart factor for any to discover the mind bending, blowing who it was, and contributed to society referred as a genius.
Quote from: SophieChloe on October 19, 2014, 07:48:56 PM
None of them are "genius". Take away the money, staff, titles and perks and I doubt any of them could organise a piddle up in a brewery
Oh I don't know! I can imagine Harry being willing and able!
Quote from: wannable on October 19, 2014, 04:25:20 PM
It depends on how you see it, a motorcycle expedition, which was a loss, almost placed his charity into closure, I think his desire to have this fun was selfish, there must have been someone from his yes men that advised against it? That's caring less from his part IMO
I've never heard a motorcycle expedition almost sent his charity int closure and can find no information about that. Where did you get that from?
Double post auto-merged: October 19, 2014, 08:40:46 PM
Quote from: SophieChloe on October 19, 2014, 07:48:56 PM
None of them are "genius". Take away the money, staff, titles and perks and I doubt any of them could organise a piddle up in a brewery
:hehe:
Quote from: wannable on October 19, 2014, 08:19:09 PM
:hehe: love it! ^
The thing is genius is not perfection embodied, the counter people mentioned for doing a or one great contribution to society considered as genius, their personal bios, you will find handicaps in other aspects of their lives, including the smart factor, hence the scope of what each defines the word, for me it's not narrow.
I will leave the smart factor for any to discover the mind bending, blowing who it was, and contributed to society referred as a genius.
See, here's where arguments like this fall flat. Insinuating that other people's connotation of genius means "perfection" and denial of other handicaps within their personal lives. Strawman? The only person who has made the correlation of "perfection" to genius is you in terms of abstract definitions, no one else.
Quote from: Curryong on October 19, 2014, 08:26:29 PM
Quote from: SophieChloe on October 19, 2014, 07:48:56 PM
None of them are "genius". Take away the money, staff, titles and perks and I doubt any of them could organise a piddle up in a brewery
Oh I don't know! I can imagine Harry being willing and able!
^I can see that. :lol:
Quote from: wannable on October 19, 2014, 02:56:42 PM
^^But as you see he masterminded a blueprint copy without being a self made billionaire, which would superficially look void to compare, made it to his own liking and it works wonderfully, successfully. Some have said he is.
^ review end of the year financial reports Sentebale, enduro and walking with the wounded. Huge expense, little returns. Superficially good job, what a challenge, matter of fact it's a fun event for those who like to do "expeditions". This type of ventures are very risky.so when you see they spent half a million, made 600 thousand, end of the year they donated those 100 thousand earned, to have a precarious balance....
What I got from what you're saying is Harry invented Enduro and invited poor Will and his friends to come along in order to raise funds but it didn't work. Well I looked it up and Enduro is an annual event carried out in SA where riders register and pay a 5,000 pound fee, all to go to charity. Harry didn't invent it he joined it and wanted his friends to come along. That has nothing to do with his business sense if it's not his event. BTW can you post the links to the facts which you are citing so that we can all judge for ourselves. Sentebale has done tremendous things in Lesotho and helped many a child I'm not sure the intention was to turn a profit since it is a non-profit organization. Walking with the Wounded is a charity he works with, all I'm saying is cite your facts if you're throwing out numbers. All you've said is that he is wasteful and isn't effective but shown no proof. If that's your opinion then so be it but at least proffer proof if making such claims and stating them as fact.
Quote from: Limabeany on October 19, 2014, 08:38:25 PM
Quote from: wannable on October 19, 2014, 04:25:20 PM
It depends on how you see it, a motorcycle expedition, which was a loss, almost placed his charity into closure, I think his desire to have this fun was selfish, there must have been someone from his yes men that advised against it? That's caring less from his part IMO
I've never heard a motorcycle expedition almost sent his charity int closure and can find no information about that. Where did you get that from?
Double post auto-merged: October 19, 2014, 08:40:46 PM
Quote from: SophieChloe on October 19, 2014, 07:48:56 PM
None of them are "genius". Take away the money, staff, titles and perks and I doubt any of them could organise a piddle up in a brewery
:hehe:
Look it up, Enduro had a three year commitment with Sentebale, they didn't and will not pay because they filled bankruptcy.
Double post auto-merged: October 20, 2014, 09:59:32 AM
@HsHCharlene I said Harry invited, if my post said invented, appologies the autocorrect keyboard. Since Sentebale is Harry's, he invited William.
Enduro social responsibility has long gone bust, into administration, indebted.
If you wish to read any charity financial numbers, please enter the charity commission UK, enter search, enter charity name, you will find pdf files with the annual reports until 2013. Also IMO the Everest walk was cancelled by lack of funds rather than bad weather, by what I read in that particular note in walking with the wounded annual review.
On another note, E&P after 60 years doubtfully will make a trust or a foundation grouping all the 600 and 700 charities.
Enduro had a commitment with other charities as well, and it has not caused problems for Sentebale because Sentebale has never been wholly or even majorly dependent on Enduro , Enduro is simply one of many donors and not even a major one. Where do your numbers come from? There is no evidence Harry's involvement with Enduro sent Sentebale almost into bankruptcy as there is no evidence Enduro is such a major donor to have had the impact you claim, of which I can find no evidence.
There is a Express article, harry almost lost Sentebale due to this charity expedition.
This article does not say that because Prince Harry participated in an Enduro race, as you claim, Sentebale almost went bankrupt, it simply says Enduro went bust and could not make its commitments to the charities among which was Sentebale. And, there is no aticle I can find to support your claim.
Quote
Prince Harry charity loses thousands of pounds as expedition firm goes bust | Royal | News | Daily Express (http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/374894/Prince-Harry-charity-loses-thousands-of-pounds-as-expedition-firm-goes-bust)
The company, which has raised £3.4 million for good causes since 2002, declined to say exactly how much it owed to Sentebale and other charities but the figure is thought to run into the tens of thousands.
Combine and review the annual reports...
Although with all due respect, the culture of multiple time linking annual reports here hasn't changed views, even if financial results speaks for itself, the indepth.
There is nothing on the internet to support these claims. Obviously, you haven't been able to find anything to substantiate this either.
Quote from: wannable on October 19, 2014, 04:25:20 PM
It depends on how you see it, a motorcycle expedition, which was a loss, almost placed his charity into closure, I think his desire to have this fun was selfish, there must have been someone from his yes men that advised against it? That's caring less from his part IMO
Quote from: wannable on October 20, 2014, 10:50:29 AM
There is a Express article, harry almost lost Sentebale due to this charity expedition.
No offense Wannable but I don't think you even took the time out to read the annual reviews yourself. You can have your own opinion but I don't see anything to back up your claims. :flower:
I do take, as I have matter of factly consistently and insisting in reviewing annual reports not only now, but with the DOC, DOL and SG. And since long time have said that financial numbers speaks louder, for itself.
There is negative numbers in brackets if you care to check.
Has previously reviewed in-depth financial reports, can't be bothered to link the source or sources. Sounds fishy.
Last time I checked, the responsibility of the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of a person making the claim.