Omid Scobie lied about his age because he was ‘a bit insecure’ about his 40th birthday – after the royal biographer claimed he was six years younger and thought ‘no one would ever know’

The biographer behind a controversial new book that threatens to tear the royal family apart has admitted he lied about his age because he felt insecure about his 40th birthday.

Omid Scobie, 42, previously claimed in a 2020 newspaper interview that he was 32 years old at the time, but journalists looked at the former tabloid reporter and discovered he was actually 38.

Scobie, the author of the excellent book Endgame: Inside the Royal Family and the Monarchy’s Fight for Survival, has since admitted it was an “unfortunate and naive” move on his part, but claims he felt insecure about approaching the forty.

In a series of interviews, the ex-Yahoo! The royal news editor said he thought it was “normal” to take a few years off your age in the world of television, where he regularly appears as a royal commentator.

He has also defended Endgame, which paints what Buckingham Palace insiders have described as a “depressingly toxic” image of the Royal Family – and one that critics say appears to act as a mouthpiece for Harry and Meghan.

Scobie told it Evening standard: ‘I work in an industry where I’m surrounded by people who are, shall we say, conservative in telling their age, especially on television.’

‘You learn from those mistakes. There’s not much I can do other than own it,” he said, adding that he was “a little insecure” about turning 40 and thought “no one would ever know.”

The boyish reporter insists he hasn’t undergone any surgical procedures to maintain his youthful appearance, but admits he’s tried Botox and undergone Ultherapy, a non-surgical skin-tightening procedure.

He told The times: ‘[Lying about my age] was unfortunate and naive of me. I haven’t been under the knife, I haven’t done anything crazy.’

Scobie has used a series of interviews, published to coincide with the release of Endgame, to defend his reporting – claiming a talent for lip reading that has helped him get scoops.

He rose to prominence with the release of Finding Freedom, which he co-wrote with Carolyn Durand – seen as the definitive biography on ‘Megxit’, as the Sussexes split from the royal family to go their separate ways.

Critics claim he serves as a mouthpiece for Harry and Meghan and fights in their corner on their behalf.

But despite both books offering almost unparalleled insight into Harry and Meghan’s lives, Scobie insists he is not Meghan’s friend and is not dependent on them to get their side of the story.

Today he hit back at his critics on Instagram – ignoring some reviews – stating: ‘After all the nonsense written by people who haven’t seen the book, I’m looking forward to everyone actually being able to read Endgame. for themselves.’

Buckingham Palace has maintained a contemptuous silence, but a royal source has dismissed Scobie’s Endgame as yet another book about the Windsors not worthy of official comment.

The insider told MailOnline when asked if there was any truth to Mr Scobie’s claims: ‘Hundreds of books have been written about the royal family.’

Endgame was released today, but some reviews were bad. Even the Sussex sympathizers New York Times was withering, describing Scobie as a “sympathetic biographer” whose predictions about the end of the royal family are “a tad hyperbolic.”

The new book about the royal family was labeled ‘evil’ and ‘downright nasty’ last night. Well-placed sources described wild claims that Charles, Camilla and William were plotting to undermine Harry and Meghan as ‘depressingly toxic’.

Omid Scobie’s book also takes aim at the Princess of Wales, labeling her “cold” and castigating her for supporting mental health care while “ignoring Meghan’s cries for help.”

It tries to stir up controversy over the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh’s joke to deflect questions about the Sussexes’ impressive interview with Oprah Winfrey by saying: ‘Oprah who?’ He says it made Edward and Sophie seem “casually bigoted.”

Buckingham Palace and Kensington Palace have declined to comment, believing they have nothing to gain from pursuing the claims. Charles and William were both busy with public engagements close to their hearts: the King hosted a global investment summit and his son attended the Tusk Conservation Awards.

Those in royal circles described the book as ‘downright nasty’, ‘cruel’ and a ‘skewed’ retelling of family events ‘in the Sussex style’. Endgame claims:

• Charles’s ‘incompetence’ in dealing with Harry and Meghan – and refusal to give them the apology they demanded – has turned them into ‘disruptors’;
• Harry tried to ‘contact’ his father after the publication of his vitriolic memoir, Spare, earlier this year by calling his father, but found the king’s response to be ‘cold and curt’;
• Senior royals turned a blind eye to aides who leaked details about the Sussexes as part of their power games and subjected them to ‘institutional cruelty’;
• William and his father disagree over the future of the monarchy and the handling of family issues;
• Their ‘distrust and simmering hostility’ resulted in Charles borrowing ‘schadenfreude’ from his son’s supposedly disastrous tour of the Caribbean the previous year;
• William is ‘colder’ – but also inexplicably more ‘hot-headed’ – than his father and ‘has no problem taking prisoners along the way’;
• Camilla has helped leak stories about other members of the royal family and has ‘no relationship’ with Harry. The book says she has “great sympathy” for what Meghan went through, but “no respect” for the way the Sussexes handled themselves;
• The king was so indecisive about how to treat his beleaguered brother Andrew that William had to intervene and insist that he should lose his privileges;
• Charles ‘stumbled’ through his first 100 days because King and Queen Elizabeth had so little faith in him that she made a former spymaster her ‘CEO’.

Despite Scobie’s claims of independence from the Sussexes, they are the only ones who have been spared his sharp words, rumors and banter. He claims senior royals were jealous of Harry and Meghan’s success and undermined them.

Meghan suffered because she was too dynamic, he says, “insufficiently respectful” as a woman of color working in an “entitled, extremely white space” and reminded the royals of Princess Diana.

As a result, he says palace aides refused to defend her against the negative stories that began to appear about her, while they were happy to take action against a publication that suggested Kate had undergone ‘baby Botox’.

Queen Elizabeth, on the other hand, liked that “Katie Keen” – a nickname said to come from social media – was “coachable” as a future royal.

Yet Scobie claims her lack of support, involvement and insistence on spending time with her three young children during the school holidays technically makes her a ‘part-time working royal’.

Scobie says the statement after Harry and Meghan’s interview with Oprah that “memories may vary” was deliberately crafted to “plant seeds of doubt in people’s minds” about their claims.

Meanwhile, Wiliam shows ‘indifference’, ‘hardness’ and continues to ‘hold Harry back’ while his brother only wants ‘honest conversations and responsibility’.

And the Prince of Wales’s attempts to promote racial harmony have been branded ‘opportunistic’ given his refusal to speak to Harry about ‘unconscious prejudice’ in his own family.

The book states that Charles and Meghan discussed the issue in an exchange of letters – in which she named two people she said were concerned about her son Archie’s skin color.