The row over Harry and Meghan naming their daughter Lilibet shows that you 'don't put words in the Queen's mouth', Robert Hardman has said.

Talking to Mail columnists Sarah Vine and Andrew Pierce about their… new talk showthe esteemed royal author spoke about the fuss over the naming of the Duke and Duchess' daughter, Lilibet.

Earlier this week, the Mail released its exclusive serialization of Charles III: New King. New Court. The Inside Story revealed the Queen was left enraged by the war of words following the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's decision to give their daughter her childhood nickname.

In it, he quotes a former member of the late monarch's staff who said Her Majesty was “as angry as I'd ever seen her” after the Sussexes claimed she “supported” their decision to use the name.

Speaking on the latest show – now available on YouTube – Hardman said: 'The Queen adored Harry, Harry adored the Queen. She was lucky enough to meet Lillibet and clearly adored her – that's not the problem.

Watch the full show on the Daily Mail's YouTube channel by clicking here

'At the heart of this is the way the release of the name was handled – the fact that the couple said the Queen was very supportive of their decision.'

Hardman notes that after the BBC reported that the Queen had not been asked, the couple resorted to lawyers and fired off legal notices – only to suddenly call it quits.

He added: 'The Palace was unwilling to endorse their version of events and in that situation they had no other option but to withdraw.

'What I discovered in my research is that you don't actually put words in the queen's mouth.

“As I say in the book, it's a case of 'memories may vary'.”

Vine concludes that the Sussexes could have been more respectful to the late queen by using her childhood nickname, Lilibet, as her middle name instead.

She added: “I don't think it's a problem in itself, but when you add it to everything else.

“All the other problems they've had, all the things they've said about the royal family, the documentary, the accusations of racism.”

Vine also questions why the couple chose this name, given their decision to leave the royal family.

She notes: 'They left expressly because they didn't want to be part of the royal family, they didn't want to do what royals have to do.

'And then calling their daughter that seems so contradictory to many people.'

Hardman agrees: “It seems like making that decision, by adopting that name, invited a whole host of issues that simply wouldn't have applied with any other name.

'They consider this an extremely personal matter, the naming of an adored daughter, I understand all that.

“But if you are going to appropriate a unique royal name – there is only one Lillibet – then I think that carries the risk of a backlash.”

The trio also conclude that King Charles has remained 'steadfast' in the face of every challenge thrown at him during his reign so far.

'He is absolutely rock solid, he has not been questioned. He is seen as a king who is steadfast and has had a very good start. There have been no royal crises, at least not of his own making,” Hardman said.

Launched last week, The Reaction is a new YouTube talk show where The Mail's star writers share their insights and views on the biggest topics of the day – no matter how controversial.

In the second episode, Vine and Pierce also discuss what's going wrong with Prime Minister Rishi Sunak as he dealt with a Tory uprising over Rwanda's asylum law.

Pierce asks: “It's been another tough week for Rishi Sunak, who looks like he's fighting for his premiership again. Do the Tories have a death wish?'

Vine interjects: 'The problem with the Tory party, and it's not recent, it's historic and has been going on for years and years, is that they always end up fighting each other like rats in a poke.

'Rishi Sunak must get his party under control.'

They also discuss the “nuclear” response to Donald Trump's victory in the first Republican caucuses in Iowa this week, which puts the former president one step closer to a return to the White House.

Pierce said, “I've never been Donald Trump's biggest fan, but look at the alternative: shady old Joe Biden who clearly has cognitive issues… he's a disaster, I don't want him anywhere near the nuclear button. '

But Vine suggests Trump won't come without problems, adding: “I just think he needs to stop acting like such a huge baby, he needs to take this seriously.” America needs a serious, competent president and I think Trump can be just that if he stops being such a disgusting populist.”

The Reaction is recorded in the Daily Mail's new state-of-the-art studios in its West London offices and airs on the Daily Mail's YouTube channel every Wednesday at 5pm.

The second episode can be viewed at YouTube.com/DailyMail

Queen Elizabeth II's anger over Meghan and Harry's claim that she had given her blessing to their daughter named Lilibet will have caused her “distress” in her final years, a royal expert told MailOnline today.

A new book quotes an aide to the monarch as saying she was “as angry as I've ever seen her” after the Duke and Duchess of Sussex publicly stated they wouldn't have used her private family's nickname if she wasn't “supportive ' Has been. .

Royal commentator Richard Fitzwilliams told MailOnline today that he believes author and historian Robert Hardman has finally shed light on what the Queen really thought about the Sussexes' use of her nickname Lilibet.

Mr Fitzwilliams said it was “despicable” of Harry and Meghan to “co-opt” the name in this way if they had failed to get the right blessing from Her Majesty first.

'Robert Hardman is one of our most authoritative historians. He quotes a member of the Queen's staff who said she was “as angry as I've ever seen her” at the way Harry and Meghan were handling this,' he said.

'Lilibet was the charming and deeply personal childhood nickname used only by the Queen's immediate family and her intimates. For the Sussexes to take over in this way and then say it was with her blessing was despicable if what the assistant says is true. It was outrageous behavior. It meant spending her last years suffering.”

He added: “Their infamous interview with Oprah in March of that year had already made that clear. Their attacks on the Royal Family after they resigned as senior working members of it, for financial gain, were therefore entirely out of character.”

Mr. Hardman's new book, Charles III: New King. New Court. The Inside Story reignites the row over the naming of Lilibet, who was born on June 4, 2021, at Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital in California.

At the time, the couple instructed their aggressive law firm, Schillings, to write to news outlets and publishers – particularly the BBC – claiming she had not been asked for permission, were false and defamatory and should not be repeated.

But when the Sussexes tried to 'co-opt' Buckingham Palace to 'support' their version of events, they were 'rebuffed'.

The illuminating revelation comes in the latest installment of a fascinating new biography of Mr Hardman, published exclusively in the Mail.

A remarkable memo has already been revealed about the late queen's last moments, now in the Royal Archives, in which her private secretary recorded that she had 'slipped away' peacefully – but not before filling out her last box of paperwork and sealing two had left letters. one addressed to her son and heir.

In conversations with members of the royal family, friends and palace staff past and present, Hardman's insights into Harry's relationships with family members are fascinating.

In 2021, his and Meghan's decision to welcome their new daughter Lilibet, who was born in California and has only been to Britain briefly once, raised eyebrows.

Lilibet was the late Queen's affectionate childhood nickname, which is said to have arisen because Princess Elizabeth could never pronounce her name correctly as a child. It was only used by her parents, King George VI, the Queen Mother and her sister Princess Margaret, as well as her husband, Prince Philip, and a handful of close friends.

The BBC reported at the time that a palace source had told the queen that the duke and duchess had not asked to use the name. Other sources told the media, including the Mail, that although the Queen received calls from her grandson and his wife, she felt she was not in a position to say no.

But the Sussexes' spokesman insisted the couple would not have used the name if the Queen had not been 'supportive'.

They said at the time: 'The Duke spoke to his family ahead of the announcement – in fact his grandmother was the first family member he called.

During that conversation, he shared their hopes to name their daughter Lilibet in her honor. If she hadn't supported her, they wouldn't have used the name.”

Strongly worded legal letters were then sent.

Hardman writes that some of the late monarch's household were particularly “interested” that, amid a wealth of private family information and criticism of staff members, Harry mysteriously “omitted” the entire incident from his memoirs.

The author says: 'One person privately recalled that Elizabeth II was “as angry as I'd ever seen her” in 2021 after the Sussexes announced she had given them the blessing to name their baby daughter “Lilibet.”

'The couple subsequently fired off warnings of legal action against anyone who dared to suggest otherwise, as the BBC had done. However, when the Sussexes tried to co-opt the palace to support their version of events, they were rebuffed.

'Once again it was a case of “memories may vary” – the late Queen's response to the Oprah Winfrey interview – as far as Her Majesty was concerned.

“Those vociferous threats of legal action have disappeared and the defamation actions against the BBC never materialized.”

Queen Elizabeth was outraged by Harry and Meghan's claim that she had given her blessing to their daughter named Lilibet, a new book has revealed.

A member of her staff says the monarch was 'as angry as I've ever seen her' after the Duke and Duchess of Sussex publicly stated they would not have used her private family nickname if she had not been 'supportive'.

The couple even instructed their aggressive law firm, Schillings, to write to news outlets and publishers – particularly the BBC – claiming she had not been asked for permission, were false and defamatory and should not be repeated.

But when the Sussexes tried to 'co-opt' Buckingham Palace to 'support' their version of events, they were 'rebuffed'.

The illuminating revelation comes in the latest volume of a fascinating new biography: Charles III: New King, New Court. The Inside Story, from The Mail writer Robert Hardman, is currently serialized exclusively in the Daily Mail.

It has already revealed the existence of a remarkable memo detailing the late queen's last moments, now in the Royal Archives, in which her private secretary recorded that she had 'slipped away' peacefully – but not before packing her last box filled out paperwork and left. Inside were two sealed letters, one addressed to her son and heir.

In Monday's episode, Hardman explores the fallout following the Sussexes' decision to bitterly step down from royal duties and the ongoing issues surrounding Prince Andrew, including how:

• Prince William felt his brother's attacks on his wife Kate – especially the suggestion that male members of the royal family simply marry women who “fit the mold” – were “the lowest of the low”.
• The prince was also 'mortified' by Harry's 'casual betrayal' of so many brotherly secrets in his memoir, Spare.
• Neither King Charles nor William has read Spare, or ever will. But the staff informed them of 'the most important points'.
• Charles was deeply hurt by Harry's actions, but has learned to compartmentalize domestic trauma.
• He now feels 'annoyance' about the situation. “He did what he could and now that he is king there are many more things to think about,” says a friend.
• However, he insists the door is always open for his youngest son. “You would always want your child back,” says a senior official.

In conversations with members of the royal family, friends and palace staff past and present, Hardman's insight into Harry's relationships with family members is fascinating.

In 2021, his and Meghan's decision to welcome their new daughter Lilibet, who was born in California and has only been to Britain briefly once, raised eyebrows.

Lilibet was the late Queen's affectionate childhood nickname, which is said to have arisen because Princess Elizabeth could never pronounce her own name correctly as a child.

It was only used by her parents, King George VI and the Queen Mother, her sister, Princess Margaret, her husband, Prince Philip, and a handful of very close friends.

At the time, the BBC reported that a palace source had said the Queen had not been asked by the Duke and Duchess if they could use it.

Other sources told the media, including the Mail, that although the Queen received calls from her grandson and his wife, she felt she was not in a position to say no.

But a spokesperson for the Sussexes insisted they would not have used the name if the Queen had not been 'supportive'.

They said at the time: 'The Duke spoke to his family ahead of the announcement – in fact his grandmother was the first family member he called.

During that conversation, he shared their hopes to name their daughter Lilibet in her honor. If she hadn't supported her, they wouldn't have used the name.”

Strongly worded legal letters were then sent.

Hardman writes that some of the late monarch's household were particularly “interested” that, amid a wealth of private family information and criticism of staff members, Harry “mysteriously omitted the entire incident from his memoir, Spare.” '.

The author says: 'One person privately recalled that Elizabeth II had been 'as angry as I had ever seen her' in 2021, after the Sussexes announced she had given them the blessing to name their baby daughter 'Lilibet', the nickname of the queen from her youth. .

'The couple subsequently fired off warnings of legal action against anyone who dared to suggest otherwise, as the BBC had done. However, when the Sussexes tried to co-opt the palace to support their version of events, they were rebuffed.

“Once again it was a case of 'memories may vary' – the late Queen's response to the Oprah Winfrey interview – as far as Her Majesty was concerned.

“Those vociferous threats of legal action have disappeared and the defamation actions against the BBC never materialized.”

On Harry's relationship with his father, Hardman quotes a friend: 'Of course the king is extremely sad about Harry and Meghan, but there is a sense of annoyance, that he has done what he could and now he is king, there are many other things . to think about,” says a friend.

'He tried to listen. Now he just says, 'I don't want to know what the problem is. I'm just going to get on with my life.'” For now, though, Harry has decided he wants to do things differently and is determined to give him the space to do so.

As for Prince William, the staff says he hopes people will understand and respect that he has kept his counsel about his brother's repeated attacks, especially regarding his wife.

Harry's suggestion, as many have interpreted it, that Windsor men, including his older brother, are “tempted” to marry someone “who would fit the bill – as opposed to someone you might be destined to marry” to be', had ended up. bad.

'On top of all the other breaches of trust, Harry made a blatant attack on Catherine here. For William this was the lowest of the low,” he quotes a family friend.

Elsewhere, Hardman praises Harry for showing respect at the end of the coronation. He notes that when the congregation bowed to the king after the ceremony, the Duke of Sussex dropped his head “longer than most.”

Queen Elizabeth was outraged by Harry and Meghan's claim that she had given her blessing to their daughter named Lilibet, a new book has revealed.

A member of her staff says the monarch was 'as angry as I've ever seen her' after the Duke and Duchess of Sussex publicly stated they would not have used her private family nickname if she had not been 'supportive'.

The couple even instructed their aggressive law firm, Schillings, to write to news outlets and publishers – particularly the BBC – claiming she had not been asked for permission, were false and defamatory and should not be repeated.

But when the Sussexes tried to 'co-opt' Buckingham Palace to 'support' their version of events, they were 'rebuffed'.

The illuminating revelation comes in the latest installment of a fascinating new biography: 'Charles III: New King, New Court. The Inside Story', from The Mail writer Robert Hardman, and is currently serialized exclusively in the Daily Mail.

It has already revealed the existence of a remarkable memo detailing the late queen's last moments, now in the Royal Archives, in which her private secretary recorded that she had 'slipped away' peacefully – but not before packing her last box filled out paperwork and left. Inside were two sealed letters, one addressed to her son and heir.

In Monday's episode, Hardman explores the fallout following the Sussexes' decision to bitterly step down from royal duties and the ongoing issues surrounding Prince Andrew, including how:

• Prince William felt his brother's attacks on his wife Kate – especially the suggestion that male members of the royal family simply marry women who “fit the mold” – were “the lowest of the low”.
• The prince was also 'mortified' by Harry's 'casual betrayal' of so many brotherly secrets in his memoir, Spare.
• Neither King Charles nor William has read Spare, or ever will. But the staff informed them of 'the most important points'.
• Charles was deeply hurt by Harry's actions, but has learned to compartmentalize domestic trauma.
• He now feels 'annoyance' about the situation. “He did what he could and now that he is king there are many more things to think about,” says a friend.
• However, he insists the door is always open for his youngest son. “You would always want your child back,” says a senior official.

In conversations with members of the royal family, friends and palace staff past and present, Hardman's insight into Harry's relationships with family members is fascinating.

In 2021, his and Meghan's decision to welcome their new daughter Lilibet, who was born in California and has only been to Britain briefly once, raised eyebrows.

Lilibet was the late Queen's affectionate childhood nickname, which is said to have arisen because Princess Elizabeth could never pronounce her own name correctly as a child.

It was only used by her parents, King George VI and the Queen Mother, her sister, Princess Margaret, her husband, Prince Philip, and a handful of very close friends.

At the time, the BBC reported that a palace source had said the Queen had not been asked by the Duke and Duchess if they could use it.

Other sources told the media, including the Mail, that although Her Majesty received calls from her grandson and his wife, she felt she was not in a position to say no.

But a spokesperson for the Sussexes insisted they would not have used the name if the Queen had not been 'supportive'.

They said at the time: 'The Duke spoke to his family ahead of the announcement – in fact his grandmother was the first family member he called.

During that conversation, he shared their hopes to name their daughter Lilibet in her honor. If she hadn't supported her, they wouldn't have used the name.”

Strongly worded legal letters were then sent.

Hardman writes that some of the late monarch's household were particularly “interested” that, amid a wealth of private family information and criticism of staff members, Harry “mysteriously omitted the entire incident from his memoir, Spare.” '.

He says: 'Someone privately recalled that Elizabeth II was 'as angry as I had ever seen her' in 2021, after the Sussexes announced she had given them the blessing to name their baby daughter 'Lilibet', the nickname of the queen from her youth.

'The couple subsequently fired off warnings of legal action against anyone who dared to suggest otherwise, as the BBC had done. However, when the Sussexes tried to co-opt the palace to support their version of events, they were rebuffed.

“Once again it was a case of 'memories may vary' – the late Queen's response to the Oprah Winfrey interview – as far as Her Majesty was concerned.

“Those vociferous threats of legal action have disappeared and the defamation actions against the BBC never materialized.”

On Harry's relationship with his father, Hardman says: 'Of course the king is extremely sad about Harry and Meghan, but there is a sense of annoyance, that he has done what he could and now he is king, there are many more things to talk about thinking. about,” says a friend.

'He tried to listen. Now he just says, 'I don't want to know what the problem is. I'm just going to get on with my life.' For now, however, Harry has decided he wants to do things differently and is determined to give him the space to do so.

As for Prince William, the staff says he hopes people will understand and respect that he has kept his counsel about his brother's repeated attacks, especially regarding his wife.

Harry's suggestion, as many have interpreted it, that Windsor men, including his older brother, are “tempted” to marry someone “who would fit the bill – as opposed to someone you might be destined to marry” to be', had ended up. bad.

'On top of all the other breaches of trust, Harry made a blatant attack on Catherine here. For William this was the lowest of the low,” he quotes a family friend.

Elsewhere, Hardman praises Harry for showing respect at the end of the coronation. He notes that when the congregation bowed to the king after the ceremony, the Duke of Sussex dropped his head “longer than most.”

• Meghan Markle, 42, was spotted in Santa Barbara on Monday looking relaxed and carefree despite the scandal in Britain over her former ally’s book
• Omid Scobie, 42, is accused of naming the ‘royal racists’ in his book Endgame: Scobie says he has no idea how the names ended up in the Dutch version
• Sources close to Markle and her husband Prince Harry have insisted the couple had no input into Scobie’s book

By Harriet Alexander for Dailymail.com

Published: 9:13 PM EST, December 4, 2023 | Updated: 9:18 PM EST, December 4, 2023

Omid Scobie has escaped the drama surrounding Endgame and jetted into Los Angeles, heading straight for a luxury West Hollywood hotel for burgers and cocktails, MailOnline can reveal today.

The journalist and royal author, 42, flew out of Britain amid ongoing questions about the Dutch version of his new book naming two royals accused of discussing Archie’s skin colour before he was born.

After leaving LAX airport, sharing a picture as he approached customs, Mr Scobie ate at the Sunset Tower Hotel, beloved by Hollywood stars for decades with Clark Gable, Errol Flynn, Marilyn Monroe, Michael Caine, Quincy Jones, Roger Moore and Zsa Zsa Gabor regulars at the art deco establishment.

His LA trip came amid claims his UK agent did send a draft manuscript of Endgame naming the two ‘royal racists’ to be translated into Dutch.

If true, the revelation exposes Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s ‘cheerleader-in-chief’s’ insistence that he ‘never submitted a book that had those names in it’.

It is not known who Scobie dined with at the hotel, 90 minutes drive from the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s multi-million dollar Montecito mansion.

Harry and Meghan have yet to comment on Endgame. The Dutch translation has caused the Royal Family consternation after King Charles and the Princess of Wales were named as the senior royals who allegedly discussed Archie’s skin tone.

Despite the silence from the couple, sources close to the duchess insisted that Meghan Markle and members of Team Sussex did not hand Omid Scobie her letter to King Charles about the two so-called ‘royal racists’.

The usually privacy-conscious couple have been urged to sue Mr Scobie over the Dutch translation at the heart of the scandal.

A source told The Times that United Talent Agency had earlier sent a draft version of the book to publisher Xander Uitgevers which contained the names.

However, a final proof of the 400-page tome was later sent but it is understood the translator had been working from an earlier draft.

It comes as it emerged Buckingham Palace is mulling whether to take legal action after King Charles and the Princess of Wales were named as the senior royals who allegedly remarked about Archie’s skin colour before he was born. 

Mr Scobie, 42, has refused to apologise to Charles and Kate Middleton for the embarrassing mishap which resulted in the explosive book being hooked from the shelves in the Netherlands.  

The under-fire author has shrugged off criticism claiming the names were ‘known for a long time’ while putting the blame at the Dutch publisher’s door declaring: ‘I never submitted a book that had those names in it.’   

Yet Dutch translator Saskia Peeters insisted Charles and Kate’s names were in the book.

Speaking to MailOnline from her home in Arnhem on Thursday, she said: ‘As a translator, I translate what is in front of me. 

‘The names of the royals were there in black and white. I did not add them. I just did what I was paid to do and that was translate the book from English into Dutch.’ 

The second translator, Nellie Keukelaar-van Rijsbergern, then told The Sun: ‘We are professionals and we’ve done this for years, both of us. It’s unfair.’ 

Mr Scobie’s initially blamed a ‘translation error’. Anke Roelen, managing director of the publisher Xander, said a rectified edition of the book would be back on shelves on December 8 and simply blamed ‘an error’ for it being pulled. 

Mr Scobie’s excuse was mocked by Piers Morgan during a diatribe against the Sussexes’ favoured journalist. 

The former Good Morning Britain host went on to reveal that Charles and Kate were named in the book during his Talk TV show Piers Morgan: Uncensored. 

Morgan added, however, that he did not believe the allegations of ‘racist comments’.

He said: ‘Because I don’t believe any racist comments were ever made by any of the Royal Family, and until there is actual evidence of those comments being made, I will never believe it.’

Mr Scobie, appearing on BBC’s flagship Newsnight programme, said he was ‘hurt’ and ‘frustrated’ by the week’s events.

But he refused to apologise to the royals concerned, saying: ‘It’s not for me to apologise because I still want to know what’s happened.’

Buckingham Palace officials will meet with aides to Prince William this week for critical talks in how to deal with the fallout from accusations of racism.

The gathering of the two households will see them discuss all how to respond, with ‘time and care’ to be taken before any decisions are made, one source told the Sunday Telegraph.

All options are believed to be ‘on the table’, including legal action.

Charles, who flew back to the UK after several days at he COP28 environment summit in Dubai last week, is said to be taking the furore surrounding the book ‘very seriously’.

It is reported that during the week Charles will discuss the situation with senior advisers, while also carrying out his duties with aides telling the Mirror it will be ‘business as usual’ with royals to be seen as ‘rising above’ the row.

A source close to the Palace told the Sunday Telegraph: ‘Discussions [have been] had and we’ll continue those discussions this week, but not in a crisis talks manner…

‘Decisions [will be] made with care and time and professionalism rather than rushed over a weekend.’

Meanwhile, the Mail understands that Buckingham Palace is investigating who at their end could have seen the letters between the King and Meghan Markle in which the names were allegedly mentioned.

However, it is confident the leak has not come from within, believing only a ‘tiny handful’ of people have ever seen them.

Harry and Meghan, meanwhile, have not commented publicly on the scandal.

In another blow to the couple, the pair have been excluded from the high society wedding of his childhood friend Hugh Grosvenor. 

The Duke of Westminster, is said to have wanted to invite the Sussexes but decided against it to avoid clashes on his big day amid soaring tensions between the royals following the release of Mr Scobie’s book.

Mr Scobie has been accused of acting as a ‘mouthpiece’ for the Sussexes, an allegation he has denied, writing on X, formerly Twitter: ‘I’m not ‘Meg’s pal’.

Sources close to the Duchess of Sussex , who allegedly wrote down the names of the two family members in letters to King Charles, have insisted to that she ‘never intended for them to be publicly identified’.

The scandal – which Mr Scobie has been forced to insist was not a publicity stunt – has kept Endgame in the headlines for more than a week as excerpts were published in the days before its release in a French magazine.

The most eye-grabbing extract serialised in Paris Match claimed that there was a second so-called ‘royal racist’ – after Harry and Meghan alluded to a member of the Royal Household expressing discomfort over Archie’s skin colour in 2021.

They told Oprah Winfrey in their much vaunted interview a year after they quit royal duties that there had been conversations about ‘how dark’ Archie’s skin would be when he was born.

She did not name the member of the household, saying at the time: ‘I think that would be very damaging to them.’

The names did not appear in the English edition of the book when it was released on Tuesday. Mr Scobie had written a paragraph in which he said he could not name them under UK law.

The hunt for the leaker who provided biographer Omid Scobie with the names of two members of the Royal Family in a ‘racism’ row is underway – as both sides remain firm that they are not to blame.

King Charles III and Kate Middleton were named as the royals alleged to have made comments about the skin colour of Harry and Meghan’s son Archie prior to his birth in the Dutch edition of Scobie’s latest tome, Endgame.

The King is said to be taking the taking the furore over the book ‘very seriously’ and will consult senior advisers next week on the family’s next step, with ‘all options’ including legal action set to be considered.

The Mail understands that Buckingham Palace has been internally investigating who could have seen the letters from their end – but it is confident the leak has not come from within, believing only a ‘tiny handful’ of people have ever seen them.

Harry and Meghan, meanwhile, have not commented publicly on the scandal. Scobie has been accused of acting as a ‘mouthpiece’ for the Sussexes, an allegation he has denied, writing on X, formerly Twitter: ‘I’m not ‘Meg’s pal’.

But sources close to the Duchess of Sussex , who allegedly wrote down the names of the two family members in letters to King Charles, have insisted to that she ‘never intended for them to be publicly identified’.

They insist that the contents of the letters were ‘not leaked to Mr Scobie by anyone in her camp’, the Telegraph reports.

But one source close to the Royal Family has now called on Harry and Meghan to speak out publicly on the issue.

The source told the paper: ‘For the couple that talked about ‘death by a thousand no comments’, the silence at this point is deafening.’

Another insider added that the decision not to respond was ‘interesting’ given the Sussexes’ previous complaints about not being supported against negative press stories.

Boris Johnson, writing in his regular Daily Mail column, has suggested that asking questions about a baby’s skin colour could not be construed as racist.

He said: ‘To ask such questions, in anticipation of a happy event, is simple human nature.

‘It is one of the greatest joys and ­mysteries of life that we have no real idea, in utero, what our children will look like.

‘That, I expect, was exactly the kind of ruminative debate that the so-called royal racist was having.’ 

Meanwhile, Sir Trevor Phillips, the former head of the Commission for Racial Equality, called it a ‘nonsense story’ and said the comments were ‘a mark of excitement, I suspect’.

The scandal – which Scobie has been forced to insist was not a publicity stunt – has kept Endgame in the headlines for more than a week as excerpts were published in the days before its release in a French magazine.

The most eye-grabbing extract serialised in Paris Match claimed that there was a second so-called ‘royal racist’ – after Harry and Meghan alluded to a member of the Royal Household expressing discomfort over Archie’s skin colour in 2021.

They told Oprah Winfrey in their much vaunted interview a year after they quit royal duties that there had been conversations about ‘how dark’ Archie’s skin would be when he was born.

She did not name the member of the household, saying at the time: ‘I think that would be very damaging to them.’

The names did not appear in the English edition of the book when it was released on Tuesday. Scobie had written a paragraph in which he said he could not name them under UK law.

But the names appeared in the Dutch version of the book, prompting the publishers to pulp copies that were on sale. 

The Dutch translators who worked on the volume maintain that the manuscript they were given featured both names verbatim.

Saskia Peeters, speaking to MailOnline, said this week: ‘The names of the royals were there in black and white. I did not add them. I just did what I was paid to do and that was translate the book from English into Dutch.’ 

The second translator, Nellie Keukelaar-van Rijsbergern, then told The Sun: ‘We are professionals and we’ve done this for years, both of us. It’s unfair.’ 

Newspapers in the UK avoided reporting the names after the allegations came to light after Endgame’s release on Tuesday, but Piers Morgan revealed them on his Uncensored show on Wednesday.

Morgan added, however, that he did not believe the allegations of ‘racist comments’.

He said: ‘Because I don’t believe any racist comments were ever made by any of the Royal Family, and until there is actual evidence of those comments being made, I will never believe it.’ 

He then doubled down on his defence later in the week, saying on Thursday: ‘I took a view it was ridiculous that British people couldn’t be aware of this information. I also said when I named them that I didn’t believe a word of the racist allegations made against them.’

It comes as Scobie, appearing on BBC’s flagship Newsnight programme, said he was ‘hurt’ and ‘frustrated’ by the week’s events.

But he refused to apologise to the royals concerned, saying: ‘It’s not for me to apologise because I still want to know what’s happened.’ 

He has previously described it as a ‘translation error’ but says an ‘investigation’ has now been launched.

Although it was billed as a look ‘inside the royal family and the monarchy’s fight for survival’, Endgame’s relentlessly savage tone and attacks on the Princess of Wales has seen it roundly denounced and attracted a slew of brutal reviews.

The author first rose to worldwide fame with Finding Freedom, a book on ‘Megxit’ he authored with American journalist Carolyn Durand. 

On Newsnight earlier this week Scobie took the extraordinary step on swearing on ‘my family’s life’ that the leaking of the names was not a ‘stunt’ to shift more books.

He said he was ‘hurt’ by the suggestion and dismissed it as a conspiracy theory by people who want to believe he is in ‘cahoots’ with the Duchess of Sussex.

He claimed: ‘I am as frustrated as everyone else. The book I wrote, the book I edited, the book I signed off on, did not have names in it.’

Newsnight interviewer Victoria Derbyshire told Scobie: ‘In some version you must have written the names in and the wrong version has potentially gone to the people in charge of the rights around the world, I suppose.’ Scobie did not reply to this point. 

REBECCA ENGLISH: As King Charles lands back in UK from Dubai there will be no time for quiet reflection… instead he will be forced to ruminate on how he plans to address yet another Sussex-shape storm cloud on his horizon amid Omid Scobie book fallout 

The King was due back at Sandringham last night after jetting straight to the countryside fresh from his well-received address in Dubai.

As is his habit at this time of year, he plans to spend the weekend striding around the late Queen’s beloved Norfolk estate wearing his favourite patched green tweed jacket and cap, pruning clippers in hand.

It should be a time for quiet reflection on a job well done in the UAE, where he was the only foreign head of state invited to address the annual United Nations climate change conference. 

At the age of 75, Charles also managed to cram in half a dozen or so bi-lateral meetings with world leaders, discussing everything from net zero to the crisis in the Middle East.

Instead, he will be forced to spend a rare moment of leisure ruminating on how he plans to address yet another Sussex-shaped storm cloud on his horizon. 

The row over who said what has been lurking in the Royal Family’s rear-view mirror ever since Meghan first ‘weaponised’ conversations Harry had with family members in which she alleged ‘concern’ was raised about ‘how dark’ their son’s skin might be and what that would ‘potentially’ mean for the family.

Although the word racism wasn’t used during her bombshell 2021 interview with Oprah Winfrey, the inference was clear (Harry himself used the phrase ‘unconscious bias’ to describe it earlier this year and predictably – ludicrously – blamed the resulting furore on ‘the British Press’).

It’s fair to say the global uproar re-ignited by Omid Scobie’s ‘poisonous’ book on the Royal Family and the naming of two royals – reported to be the King himself and the Princess of Wales – in a Dutch-language edition of Endgame was an ‘unwelcome’ distraction for His Majesty in an immensely important week for him as an international statesman.

Although leaks had already emerged by last weekend that Scobie intended to refer to two members of the Royal Family, not one, palace officials had hoped the revelation would be a storm in a teacup and had refused to engage with the subject.

All that changed on Tuesday, when a local journalist in the Netherlands revealed the names were included in the Dutch-language edition of the book.

The journalist later told me he had been in possession of a review copy book for a week, waiting for the embargo to lift, and couldn’t understand why British news websites weren’t running the same ‘scoops’ as him.

An hour later he received a panicked call from a small local publisher demanding he take down his story about ‘Koning Charles’ from the Libelle website, which he refused to do, because there was a massive blunder in the translation.

I was the first journalist to contact publisher Xander Uitgevers who personally confirmed it was true. I was also the first to call Buckingham Palace to break the news and seek comment.

It’s fair to say their reaction was one of quiet shock. Many will ask why royal aides didn’t immediately seek to get an injunction on the book.

But it was a rapidly developing situation and there was immense confusion as to how it could even have happened.

Was it an ‘error in translation’ as was initially claimed, or had Scobie – as now seems likely – deliberately intended to ‘out’ the royals concerned at the start of his project, before being warned off by lawyers concerned over the UK’s strict libel laws.

Unfortunately for him – as the Mail exclusively revealed this week – it seems that an early draft of his manuscript was sent to the two entirely innocent (and highly experienced) Dutch translators who faithfully reproduced what they had been given.

For the first 48 hours the Palace held the line that it would not comment.

It was clear they wished to see how it would land, although calls were already flying between London and Dubai, where the advance party of the King’s team had just landed.

And it was equally clear that officials were desperate the scandal didn’t derail the King’s big COP28 moment. As one source said: ‘Sometimes the Palace need to act very quickly and other times they need to act carefully and with great thought. This was one of those times.

‘Queen Elizabeth took three days after the Oprah interview to issue a rare public statement because she and her advisers recognised, given the seriousness of the allegations that had been made, she should not be bounced into doing something because of the headlines. It was a case of caution in abundance and when she spoke, people listened.’

What was abundantly clear to me from speaking to multiple contacts, however, is that there was no ‘push back’ on the names that had been suggested.

I was also told Buckingham Palace and Kensington Palace were acting with complete ‘unity’ on the issue.

On Wednesday night, TalkTV presenter Piers Morgan took it upon himself to name the King and Kate, drastically raising the stakes.

By the following morning I was clearly and unequivocally told the Palace was now ‘considering all options’, which included the possibility of legal redress.

While it is highly unusual for Buckingham Palace to go down such a route, one informed source pointed out to me that it is not unheard of.

They recalled three occasions that the Palace had involved lawyers and each had been successful: The Sun’s suggestion that the late Queen backed Brexit (for which a front page apology was secured), William and Kate’s suing of a French magazine over topless photographs of the then duchess, and the King’s High Court battle over the publication of travel diaries.

‘It’s not something the Palace does lightly, but there is precedent. And they’ve won,’ my source said.

Behind the scenes, I understand that officials have also this week launched an investigation into who, if anyone, would have had access to, or even glimpsed, the letters passed between the monarch and the Duchess of Sussex over her allegations. They were considered so personal and so deeply private that all but a ‘tiny handful’ of family members and staff are known to have seen them.

The result? There is ‘extreme confidence’ at the Palace that the leak ‘didn’t come from us’.

Which is, of course, exactly what the Duchess of Sussex has also made known via her own sources, insisting that she never ‘intended’ for the names to become public and no one on her team leaked the letters’ contents to Scobie.

The public will have to decide whose version of events they believe.

It’s quite clear to me that, once again, ‘recollections may vary’.

Despite the accusations made by Meghan of ‘unconscious bias’ in her letters, one well-placed source tells me firmly: ‘It is only one person’s version, one side of the story.’

Which strongly suggests that behind Palace walls, those at the heart of events strongly dispute anything of the sort was even said – or could be considered to have been offensive.

Interestingly, while Meghan used the word ‘concern’ in her interview, it wasn’t repeated by a distinctly uncomfortable-looking Harry, who only said it was an ‘awkward’ conversation.

So where do things go from here? I’m told the Palace’s main focus, despite the furore, has been to get through COP28 and the King’s important appearance.

But conversations will start again in earnest next week when the team are back at Buckingham Palace about what their next move is.

It is something they are taking ‘extremely seriously’ and legal action still hasn’t been ruled out.

There is also immense sadness and anger at what has been described to me as a ‘terrible injustice’ to those involved. Some feel the Royal Family should address such mendacious smears in public once and for all.

But that, of course, comes with the risk of another very public falling out with the Sussexes, who had, for once, appeared equally keen to put the whole matter to bed.

One thing is for certain: That rumoured invitation to Christmas dinner for Harry and Meghan looks vanishingly unlikely.

By Martin Robinson, Chief Reporter And Arthur Parashar And Rory Tingle

Published: 04:33 EST, 1 December 2023 | Updated: 04:46 EST, 1 December 2023

Advertisement

By Martin Robinson, Chief Reporter And Arthur Parashar And Rory Tingle

Published: 06:15 EST, 1 December 2023 | Updated: 06:15 EST, 1 December 2023

Advertisement