Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's Archewell Foundation has stated that a missing check in the mail is the reason behind a declaration of delinquency by a US charity regulator.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex's organization is currently considered "not in good standing," according to the Registry of Charities and Fundraisers in California, where the couple resides.
The registry has cited Archewell's failure to properly submit its annual report or renewal fees, resulting in a temporary ban on fundraising or distributing charitable funds.
Sources close to the Sussexes insist that all paperwork was submitted on time, attributing the discrepancy to a missing check accompanying the documents, as reported by the Daily Mail.
They further assert that "a new check has been mailed," indicating that the issue should be resolved promptly, although the incident is likely to cause embarrassment.
An Archewell source informed the Daily Mail, "for the foundation, everything was filed on time. Part of that filing was a physical cheque. That cheque appears to have never been received, which we were only made aware of when this delinquency notice was published.
"A new cheque has been mailed and we anticipate that this will be quickly resolved and reflected in records within seven business days."
This development coincides with the couple's return from a three-day visit to Abuja and Lagos in Nigeria, which was widely regarded as a royal tour.
During the trip, they announced a partnership between the Archewell Foundation and the Geanco Foundation, a Nigerian charity involved in surgical missions, maternal health promotion, and scholarships for young female victims of terrorism.
However, a "delinquency notice" letter sent by the Registry of Charities and Fundraisers to Archewell on May 3 indicated that the foundation is "listed as delinquent" for "failing to submit required annual report(s) and/or renewal fees."
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ