THIRD director quits Prince Andrew’s Dragons’ Den-style scheme for entrepreneurs in wake of disastrous Newsnight interview as Hong Kong-based German investor resigns
- German investor David Stern, 41, resigned from director role at Pitch@Palace
- The investor, based in Hong Kong , follows departure of two other directors
- They stepped down days after Duke of York’s disastrous Newsnight interview
- Prince Andrew’s Dragons Den style scheme was set up to help entrepreneurs
Prince Andrew‘s Dragon’s Den style project for entrepreneurs has lost a third director after a private investor resigned.
David Stern, 41, a German investor based in Hong Kong, is listed as having officially resigned from Pitch@Palace on December 10, it is reported.
It follows the departure of fellow directors Mark Eaves and Hanadi Jabado on November 19, just three days after the broadcast of Andrew’s disastrous Newsnight interview.
The Duke of York did not attend a Pitch@Palace event last night, the first one since he was TV grilling on his relationship with peadophile financier Jeffrey Epstein.
The Dragon’s Den style scheme Pitch@Palace has moved out of Buckingham Palace for its first event since the car crash Newsnight interview featuring Prince Andrew (left). It has emerged that investor David Stern (right) has resigned as a director of the scheme
A senior source within the organisation told The Times that he was unsure why Mr Stern or Mr Eaves had quit or whether the duke himself would continue with Pitch@Palace. ‘It’s in flux,’ the source said. ‘It’s for him to decide.’
Mr Stern is a serial investor who also has links to the royal family through St George’s House, a networking organisation founded by the Duke of Edinburgh and based at Windsor Castle, the paper reports.
The source said Ms Jabado had resigned to concentrate on Pitch@Palace CIC, a ‘community interest company’ that she has served as a director since May 2015.
The event was due to take place at Buckingham Palace, but was relocated to the Corinthia Hotel in central London at the last minutes, sources said.
It was described on the organisation’s website as a ‘final’ in which 15 entrepreneurs pitch their ideas to potential investors.
Last night’s Pitch@Palace event was moved from Buckingham Palace to the Corinthia Hotel (pictured) in central London
The duke (left) is facing continued backlash over his friendship with billionaire paedophile Jeffrey Epstein (right)
Investors were reported to have received a text from the Duke’s private secretary Amanda Thirsk saying the venue had changed at the last minute. She claimed it was due to the General Election. Buckingham Palace has not commented.
The prince agreed to withdraw from public duty in the wake of the car crash TV appearance, but initially wanted to remain a figurehead for Pitch@Palace, some 200 charities and other affiliations after
At the end of his disastrous Newsnight interview with Emily Maitlis said he planned to continue with Pitch@Palace and his other business schemes.
But he was forced to back down afters several sponsors made it clear they no longer wanted his backing. The organisation is believed to be dropping ‘Palace’ from its name.
At least 23 organisations have either dropped the Duke or accepted his resignation, including the English National Ballet, the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra and the Outward Bound Trust.
In the immediate fallout, one of the country’s leading accountancy firms, KPMG, revealed it had stopped sponsoring Pitch@Palace to protect its reputation.
KPMG bosses decided to end the relationship last month due to ‘unsavoury’ issues stemming from the Duke’s friendship with Epstein.
The firm was a founding partner and had paid up to £100,000 a year in sponsorship since 2014.
Several other major companies and charities said they were also considering their links with Andrew in the wake of his extraordinary television interview about the Jeffrey Epstein scandal.
The pharmaceutical giant Astrazeneca said it was reviewing its relationship with Pitch@Palace, while insurance firm Aon asked for its name be removed from the scheme’s website.
Aon sources insisted that the company is not associated with the Duke’s scheme and that the supposed relationship had been publicised in error.