Among the recent crop of royal literature, Omid Scobie’s “Endgame” has sparked significant debate and intrigue.

Initially dismissed by many royal enthusiasts, “Endgame” gained unexpected attention after its Dutch edition was published—and then swiftly recalled—causing a global stir.

This came two years following Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s interview with Oprah Winfrey, where they revealed there were concerns from within the royal family about their son Archie’s skin color. In “Eindstrijd,” the Dutch translation, Mr. Scobie seemingly identified the two individuals behind these remarks.

A heated exchange ensued between Mr. Scobie and the book’s translator, with Scobie attributing the issue to a translation mistake. He later clarified that an “early and uncleared text” was mistakenly sent to the Dutch publisher without his consent.

Speculation arose that the mishap could have been a calculated publicity move, a claim that Mr. Scobie strongly refuted.

Despite the widespread controversy, “Endgame” sold just under 6,500 copies in its first week after its release on November 28, 2024. Critics, however, were unimpressed, likening it to a “press release drafted by ChatGPT.”

By contrast, Mr Scobie’s first book about the Sussexes, Finding Freedom, sold 31,000 in its first five days while Harry’s autobiography Spare sold 467,183 – making it the fastest-selling non-fiction book since records began in 1998.

In November 2023, a new royal book by Welsh author Omid Scobie (pictured) caused global outrage after the versions printed in Holland named two Royal Family members, alleging that they had speculated about Prince Archie’s skin colour before he was born

The release might have gone relatively unnoticed outside the UK had it not been for Endgame’s Dutch translation. 

Royal fans in the Netherlands couldn’t believe what they were reading when they spotted the alleged names of the two royals who had speculated about the colour of Harry and Meghan’s then-unborn child in translated copies of Endgame. 

Mr Scobie only went as far as to confirm two individuals had been involved in the damning conversation in books available in the UK, adding libel laws prevented him from naming them. 

However, the translated Endgame included their names in a section about letters written between the Duchess of Sussex and now-King Charles discussing the issue. 

When the error was noticed, the book was swiftly retracted – but word about the royals’ identities spread quickly after TV presenter Piers Morgan first named them on his TalkTV show days later. 

Mr Scobie initially, vehemently, denied including their names in the manuscript submitted to his publisher. 

However, the Dutch translator who worked on the book – Saskia Peeters – later told The Daily Mail that this was false. 

Speaking from her home in Arnhem, she insisted that ‘the names of the royals were there in black and white,’ and that she ‘did not add them’.

In the UK copies, Mr Scobie alleged that there had been two individuals involved in the conversation but libel laws prevented him from naming them. But in Holland, he claimed that the ‘identity’ had been confirmed in ‘private letters’

‘I just did what I was paid to do, and that was translate the book from English into Dutch.’ 

Mr Scobie later admitted in a column for the I paper that ‘unbeknownst’ to him, translators in the Netherlands had been sent an ‘early’ and ‘uncleared’  manuscript that was never updated.

‘Other foreign-language publishers, including in France and Italy, were also doing the same thing, though their versions perfectly replicated the completed work.

‘What I can be sure of is that I edited carefully, took independent legal advice, and the finished book that I submitted was not the version published in the Netherlands,’ he said. 

Mr Scobie clarified that he had only worked with the publisher responsible for the book in the UK and US. He also said he spent ‘almost two months’ working with lawyers so the book was ‘legally watertight’. 

In the author’s acknowledgements, Mr Scobie admitted that the book had been written at ‘lightning speed’ and also noted the ‘insane translation times!’

Mr Scobie’s publisher Xander Uitgevers, who had initially blamed a ‘translation error’ for the book being pulled, rejected Mr Scobie’s public explanation of events. 

Meanwhile, Ms Peters said she ‘did not know’ why the royal author had denied the names ever being in his manuscript. 

Initially, Mr Scobie strongly denied ever including the names when he submitted the completed manuscript of the book to his publisher. However, a Dutch translator who worked on the book – Saskia Peeters (pictured) – later told The Daily Mail that this was false

She added: ‘I have been translating for many years. This is the first time anything like this has happened.’

During an interview with ITV’s This Morning, Mr Scobie was asked whether the Dutch farrago was a ‘stunt to sell books’.

The royal author strongly denied such speculation, adding ‘I wish it was the case’ and that ‘an investigation is underway’. 

He also claimed that both he and his book had been ‘unfairly’ criticised, adding: ‘I knew this book would be controversial, whether it’s about race or the Palace’s relationship with the press. I never expected it to be presented fairly.’

During their explosive interview with Oprah Winfrey in 2021, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex alleged that during Meghan’s pregnancy, a particular conversation had been had with Harry regarding ‘how dark’ Archie’s skin could be.

‘All around this same time, we have in tandem the conversation of he won’t be given security, he’s not going to be given a title and also concerns and conversations as how dark his skin might be when he’s born,’ the Duchess said.

‘That was relayed to me from Harry from conversations that the family had with him.’

During the tell-all interview filmed in California, Meghan refused to say who had those conversations with Harry, adding: ‘That would be really damaging to them’.

During their explosive interview with US host Oprah Winfrey in 2021, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex alleged that during Meghan’s pregnancy, a particular conversation had been had with Harry regarding ‘how dark’ Archie’s skin could be

When the glaring error was noticed, the book was swiftly removed from the bookstores. While a version with the two names retracted was later restocked, the two names had already been shared worldwide, including by UK television host Piers Morgan

Shortly after the interview aired, an impassioned Prince William publicly hit back at the claims made by Harry and Meghan during the interview, insisting in response to a reporter: ‘We’re very much not a racist family’. 

Buckingham Palace also released a statement on behalf of the late Queen, noting that the ‘issues raised, particularly that of race’ were ‘concerning’. 

‘While some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately.’ 

Adding that the Royal Family had been ‘saddened’ to learn of ‘how challenging the last few years have been’ for the Sussexes, it ended: ‘Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much-loved family members.’   

Two years later, during an interview with ITV’s Tom Bradby, Harry doubled down on any suggestion that he or Meghan had ever said the Royal Family was ‘racist’ during their interview with the American broadcaster. 

Instead, the Duke claimed that the ‘troubling’ comments made about the skin colour of his son related to ‘unconscious bias’. 

He continued: ‘Did Meghan ever mention that they’re racist?’

After Mr Bradby said the Duchess claimed troubling comments were made about Archie’s skin colour, Harry responded: ‘There was – there was concern about his skin colour.’

When Bradby suggested that there was a danger in not naming the person concerned, Harry said: ‘Yes, you’re right, the key word is concern, which was troubling.

‘But you speak to any other couple, mixed-race couple around the world, and you will probably find that the white side of the family has either openly discussed it, or secretly discussed, you know, ‘What are the kids gonna look like?’ And that is part of a, you know, bigger conversation that needs to be had.’

When the Prince was asked if he would describe such comments as racist, Harry was firm in his response. 

‘I wouldn’t, not having lived within that family. The difference between racism and unconscious bias, the two things are different.’

During a television appearance on GMA3, Mr Scobie said that he had ‘always wondered why’ the couple failed to mention the remarks again after airing them so publicly during their bombshell sit-down with Oprah Winfrey in March 2021.

‘Listen, there are many people that argued, “It’s normal to have conversations about what a child might look like at birth.” But I think the problematic term that Meghan raised was that there were “concerns” over the color of Archie’s skin,’ he said.

Mr Scobie – who is known to have a close relationship with the Sussexes – went on to address claims made in his book that King Charles and Meghan exchanged ‘respectful’ letters about the couple’s decision to voice such damaging accusations so publicly.

He alleged that Charles and Meghan still do not ‘see eye to eye’ on the issue ‘to this day’, but doubled down on claims that they had a productive ‘conversation’ about the Sussex’s allegations.

‘To discover more about these letters that had been exchanged between Meghan and Charles after that Oprah interview, where – although neither of them see eye to eye on it to this day – they were at least able to share their queries and concerns about those conversations that happened within the family,’ he continued.

In the sensational book, Scobie claimed that Meghan and King Charles now have a ‘pleasant relationship’ after engaging in a ‘respectful back and forth’ via letter about the two Royal Family members who made the remarks about Archie.

He wrote that Charles first reached out to Meghan in the Spring of 2021 – not long after the interview with Oprah was aired – to express his ‘disappointment’ that the couple had ‘chosen to go public with their words’.

Scobie claimed that sources told him that Charles wanted to tell his daughter-in-law that he felt there was ‘no ill will present’ when two people allegedly commented on Archie’s skin color.

He added that, according to the source, the letters were ‘respectful’ but ‘serious’, concluding: ‘I don’t know if either saw completely eye to eye in the end, but there was at least a feeling that both had been heard.’