Prince Harry, Prince William Reported for Inappropriate Use of Over $350,000

Prince Harry and Prince William have been referred to a charity watchdog for allegedly inappropriate use of more than $350,000 in the aftermath of their split.

Anti-monarchy campaigners Republic accused the brothers of putting their relationship above the interests of Sussex Royal and The Royal Foundation.

The princes previously ran their projects through the same charity, currently known as the Royal Foundation.

However, when Prince Harry and Meghan Markle decided to break away and set up Sussex Royal, the organization's funds were split too.

Some Royal Foundation money went to Sussex Royal and other cash went to Travalyst, Prince Harry's eco-tourism venture.

Republic's letter to the U.K. Charity Commission states: "The Royal Foundation gave a grant of £145,000 ($183,000) to Sussex Royal and £144,901 ($183,057) to a non-charitable organization (Travalyst).

"In both instances it appears the only rationale for the decision was the personal relationship between two patrons, the Duke of Sussex and the Duke of Cambridge."

Sussex Royal was transferred funds. But it was forced to close after Queen Elizabeth II ruled Harry and Meghan could not trade off their royal links.

Prince Harry and Prince William Cenotaph
Prince Harry and Prince William attend the annual Remembrance Sunday service at The Cenotaph on November 10, 2019 in London, England. Max Mumby/Getty

Paperwork to shut down the organization was submitted at the beginning of the month and is still being processed by Companies House, a business registry in the U.K.

At the time, a friend of the couple told Newsweek: "During its 12-months, the sole program in operation and development at the charity has been the sustainable travel and tourism initiative, Travalyst.

"Travalyst is now operating as an independent non-profit based in the UK, and all assets from Sussex Royal will transfer over."

However, Republic says Travalyst is not a registered charity and should not have received the money.

Graham Smith, chief executive of Republic, said: "Maybe I'm missing something here, but I find it difficult to believe that a charity making an independent and impartial decision would decide to make these payments.

"The Royal Foundation has lost almost £300,000 to Prince Harry's pet projects. Harry's own charity is now closing and he appears to be taking the charity's money with him.

"I can't see how that isn't a breach of charity law. Whatever the legal position this looks unethical and underhand. People donate money to a charity expecting it to be used to fund the charity's objectives, not to be given away to support a patron's other projects."

A spokesperson for Prince Harry's legal team, Schillings, said: "The Duke of Sussex has always and continues to remain deeply committed to his charitable work.

"This is his life's focus, and his devotion to charity is at the very core of the principles he lives by, and is obvious through the impact and success of his many charitable projects throughout the UK and beyond.

"To this point, it is deeply offensive to today see false claims made about The Duke of Sussex and his charitable work.

"It is both defamatory and insulting to all the outstanding organisations and people he has partnered with.

"Travalyst (which was founded within Sussex Royal) is a non-profit organisation for which The Duke receives no commercial or financial gain, as is the case with all of his charitable commitments.

"The Duke has not, nor has he ever, had any personal financial interest in his charitable work."

They added: "All of The Duke's charitable activities are fully transparent as well as compliant with Charity Commission guidelines, and moreover with his own moral compass."

A spokesperson for The Royal Foundation said: "The grants made to Sussex Royal were to support the charitable work of The Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

"They were fully in line with governance requirements and were reported transparently."

A Charity Commission spokeswoman said: "We have received a complaint on this issue.

"As with all concerns raised with us we will assess the information provided to determine whether or not there is a role for the Commission.

"We have not made any determination of wrongdoing."