King Charles has been left devastated by a royal legal battle not tied to Andrew.MEGA
RadarOnline.com can reveal King Charles is said to be deeply distressed after a legal dispute involving his private charitable trust erupted into a $8million court battle, placing another royal-linked controversy in the spotlight and leaving the monarch frustrated that a project tied to his environmental and charitable priorities has become the subject of litigation.
The case centers on Amanda Navaian, an eco-fashion entrepreneur and founder of luxury handbag company House of Marici, who has launched a High Court claim alleging the King Charles Charitable Trust withdrew from a planned fundraising collaboration she said would have generated significant revenue had it not been axed.
Lawsuit Targets King Charles Linked Charity Project
King Charles faced an $8 million legal battle over a charity project.MEGA
Navaian claims the project involved a range of T-shirts supporting the Coronation Food Project – an initiative designed to redirect surplus food from suppliers to communities in need.
She says the plan also included a high-profile dinner at the Japanese restaurant CLAP in Knightsbridge, attended by celebrities and influencers, curated by Princess Beatrice’s stylist Olivia Buckingham.
Navaian is also suing food redistribution charity FareShare and Dori Dana-Haeri, chair of the development committee for the project.
All defendants deny the allegations, and their lawyers have asked a High Court judge to dismiss the claim, arguing it is without merit.
King Charles Said to Be Upset by Courtroom Dispute
The monarch worried the dispute overshadowed his environmental work.MEGA
Royal insiders said the dispute has left Charles, 77, upset a project linked to his charitable work has been dragged into a courtroom battle.
One palace source said the monarch was dismayed to see a philanthropic initiative tied to his environmental interests turn into a public legal confrontation.
“The King is deeply saddened that something connected to a charitable cause he strongly believes in has ended up in a legal fight,” they added.
“It was intended to highlight sustainability and food redistribution – not become the focus of a dispute.”
Another individual familiar with the royal household said the situation had been personally difficult for Charles.
“He is currently fighting cancer and the fallout from his brother Andrew’s Epstein scandal, and finds it incredibly frustrating a project associated with his charities has now also become overshadowed by conflict.”
“The King has always tried to keep his charitable work above controversy, so seeing it discussed in a courtroom is upsetting for him.”
Designer Claims Project Collapse Cost Over $1 Million
The luxury Chelsea Stud bag became one of the brand’s standout designs.houseofmarici.com
Navaian, 43, told Britain’s High Court she had approached the King’s charity in April 2024 because she admired Charles’ environmental principles and believed the partnership would align with the monarch’s long-standing advocacy on sustainability.
Her company, founded in 2020, produces luxury handbags made from discarded plant materials in an effort to avoid plastics. One of its designs, the Chelsea Stud shoulder bag, sells for $1,725.
According to Navaian, discussions about the project took place during a Zoom meeting involving Dana-Haeri and Dame Martina Milburn, chair of the Coronation Food Project. Navaian alleged an oral agreement was reached to collaborate on the T-shirt initiative and associated fundraising dinner.
She told Mr Justice Mansfield the planned launch week had the potential to generate major commercial success for the brand – declaring: “There was to be clear royal involvement. Soon after that, my entire ecosystem fell apart. There could have been over one million in sales during that launch week.”
Navaian promoted her eco-brand House of Marici during the partnership talks.@amandanavai/INSTAGRAM
Navaian said the project had been central to her business plans and the cancellation had serious personal and professional consequences.
She said: “Everything that meant anything to me was involved in that project. The cancellation led to me not being able to work for a very long time and caused me loss.”
Lawyers representing the defendants told the High Court the claim was “bound to fail” and argued no binding agreement existed between the parties.
The court heard submissions from both sides as the judge considered whether the case should proceed to a full trial.
Mr Justice Mansfield said he would reserve his decision on the matter and issue a ruling at a later date.
‘ The preceding article may include information circulated by third parties ’
‘ Some details of this article were extracted from the following source www.aol.com ’
