In the video circulating online, Kohli is in an attacking mode, trying to hit the ball and in most cases he succeeds in hitting the ball.

Chennai: The Royal Challengers Bengaluru reached Chennai in the wee hours of Tuesday evening and it has been all action since then. A new video has surfaced on social media and is already winning hearts. In the video, Glenn Maxwell is seen standing behind the nets where Virat Kohli is batting. Maxwell, who is standing behind, starts imitating the former RCB captain. In the video circulating online, Kohli is in an attacking mode, trying to hit the ball and in most cases he succeeds in hitting the ball.

Here is the clip of Maxwell and Kohli that is now going viral:

Glenn Maxwell imitates Virat Kohli.

– This is beautiful to look at. pic.twitter.com/ewFkOQGCZl

— Mufaddal Vohra (@mufaddal_vohra) March 20, 2024

Kohli was in the spotlight at the RCB Unbox event in Bengaluru. Admittedly it was absolutely amazing. Kohli praised Smriti Mandhana and her team for clinching the WPL crown.

“It was absolutely amazing. When they won it (WPL), we watched. Hopefully we can double it with the trophies and that will be something very special,” Kohli said.

“That’s a dream of mine to know what it feels like to win an IPL trophy. I will be here and be part of the team that wins the trophy for the first time. I will do my utmost with my capabilities and my experience to be able to do that for the fans and the franchise,” he added.

Kohli’s RCB will take on CSK on March 22 in what promises to be a cracker.

ROCKSTEADY has a great library of fantastic games behind it, so people were expecting big things from the next release.

For those who don't know, Rocksteady developed the excellent Arkham trilogy of games, two of which are rated 90+.

1

However, the studio's upcoming game Suicide Squad: Kill The Justice League doesn't promise to live up to Rocksteady's reputation.

The first signs of trouble were the number of delays the match had suffered.

While this isn't always a bad sign, it felt like many of these delays were in response to player concerns about the gameplay shown in trailers.

Rumor has it that behind the scenes executives were pushing for a live service model of a game with a Battle Pass, something the studio has no history with.

Live service games like Fortnite can be very popular, but there are even more that flop heavily and eventually disappear.

This seems to be the fate of Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League, as all signs point to something not yet ready for launch.

A preview event was held for the press, and only a small selection of outlets were invited.

Normally for a big game like this, the studio wants every publication to be there to draw as many eyes to the game as possible.

However, this wasn't the case in this case, and it was clear why, given the poor prospects for Suicide Squad.

Previews are usually positive in nature as there is still time to resolve any issues before the game is released.

Despite this, there were already negative comments about the game, making the problems seem irreparable.

The final sign of a problematic game is that reviewers haven't been given access to the game before launch.

Suicide Squad: Kill The Justice League was released for review on the same day it was released for players who purchased the Deluxe Edition.

Not only does this mean that people haven't had the chance to read reviews before trying the game for themselves, but it also has a sinister consequence.

While this is not always the case, many studios delay providing access to media outlets to reduce the number of negative reviews.

It also means reviewers have to rush the review process to be the first publication to score the game.

Only in extreme circumstances will a studio delay releasing their game, as hasty reviews can lead to worse scores due to the experience.

Suicide Squad was also taken offline yesterday (January 29) after players noticed a number of bugs, and will be offline again today (January 30).

You can read more about how Deluxe Editions have increased the price of gaming to over £100/$100 for new games.

Written by Georgina Young on behalf of GLHF.

By Jessica Taylor for Mailonline

Published: 11:21 EST, January 4, 2024 | Updated: 11:22 EST, January 4, 2024

By Ashley Nickel for Daily Mail Australia

Published: 01:04 EST, December 12, 2023 | Updated: 01:29 EST, December 12, 2023

By Rory Tingle and Mark Duell

Published: 02:00 EST, 7 December 2023 | Updated: 02:00 EST, 7 December 2023

Advertisement

Omid Scobie’s new book Endgame sold just under 6,500 copies widely in Britain in its first five days, despite a firestorm of publicity – and has now fallen to 215 on Amazon’s ‘bestsellers’ list.

The battle against the royal family has been widely pilloried, even by normally sympathetic media such as the New York Times, which described one chapter as “like a press release concocted by ChatGPT.”

Derided as ‘not that different from what Harry presented in ‘Spare’, most reactions to the book focused on the Dutch-language edition, which named two family members accused by the Duchess of Sussex of ‘unconscious bias’.

Yet even this controversy did little to contribute to its success: Nielsen estimated UK sales figures for the first five days at 6,448.

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

Endgame has now dropped to 215 on Amazon’s bestseller list, down from 174 yesterday.

The book is now in the table behind activity book Things To Do While You Poo On The Loo and children’s titles such as Dormouse Has a Cold, the Beano Yearbook, Diary of a Wimpy Kid and Stick Man.

It also includes biographies of Britney Spears, Matthew Perry and Chris Kamara; and cookbooks by Mary Berry, Rick Stein and Tom Kerridge.

In the same US Amazon list today, Endgame ranked 312th – below How to Catch a Dinosaur and The Very Hungry Caterpillar.

Amazon says its listings are a “good indicator of how well a product sells overall,” but “do not always indicate how well an item sells compared to similar items.”

The book’s declining performance comes despite a huge amount of media attention and TV interviews Mr Scobie conducted for the BBC and ITV in Britain and ABC in the US.

The author has also given interviews to publications including The Times, Evening Standard, Independent, Tatler, People, Elle.com and Paris March.

Meanwhile, the book was not prominently displayed in London’s oldest bookshop, Hatchards on Piccadilly – with only one copy set aside to order, reported The guard.

The newspaper added that around 14 copies were stacked on a table at the entrance to nearby Waterstones, but there was ‘limited interest’ there too.

Scobie is widely described as Meghan Markle’s mouthpiece, but neither she nor Prince Harry have yet spoken out in defense of the royal family over particularly damaging allegations of racism.

The Dutch translation of the book is named after Charles and Kate, because the royal family is said to have asked what color Prince Archie’s skin could be before he was born.

King Charles III is expected to consult Prince William this week to discuss their response to the storm, after Buckingham Palace said it is “considering all options” when it comes to a response.

The Sussexes have not commented publicly on the race, but a source close to Meghan said “it was not leaked to Mr Scobie by anyone in her camp.”

Yesterday it also emerged that the Dutch edition of Endgame quoted a source close to the Sussexes who branded William ‘heartless’ – another inflammatory passage not included in the British version.

Referring to claims that the Prince of Wales had secured a flight to Balmoral without Harry as the Queen lay dying, the translation quoted the following source: ‘It was callous to deny him the opportunity to go to Scotland to say goodbye his grandmother. This was not the time to be petty.”

A ‘family source’ also claims that William ‘deliberately ignored’ Harry when the Queen died and ‘didn’t want to help him’, according to the Dutch edition.

It said: ‘He was and still is angry because Harry revealed private matters… He finds that unforgivable.’

The Dutch version also refers to the king’s ‘cash for honours’ scandal last year, with a ‘source’ saying that ‘people within the institution are concerned that ‘more stories will follow’.’

None of these claims appeared in the English version, The Sun reported on Sunday.

It comes after Meghan admitted under oath that she authorized a senior aide to brief Scobie about his previous book about the Sussexes, called Finding Freedom.

• Endgame ranks 139th in the UK bestseller book list based on sales on Amazon
• Drops more than 100 places in three days after ranking 14th last Friday

By Mark Duell

Published: 07:10 EST, December 4, 2023 | Updated: 11:20 EST, December 4, 2023

Two members of the royal family appear to have been named as the ‘royal racists’ in the Dutch translation of Omid Scobie’s new book Endgame, it was claimed today.

Dutch royal journalist Rick Evers revealed on ITV’s Good Morning Britain that the first name was ‘very specific’ while the second was ‘a bit vague’.

It comes after Mr Scobie’s book was withdrawn from sale in the Netherlands yesterday after apparently naming one of the ‘royal racists’. The author’s Dutch publishers said they had been instructed by American bosses to put sales ‘on hold’ at the eleventh hour.

Thousands of copies of Endgame, which was published worldwide yesterday and received scathing reviews for its revenge on the royal family, are in danger of being pulverized.

In the English-language edition, Scobie does not mention the royal family, which Meghan accuses of raising “concerns” about the skin color of her future son Archie.

But the book claims that in her letters to discuss the situation, the Duchess claims similar comments were made by a second person in the royal family.

In the English version, Mr Scobie says he knows the names of both people, but ‘the laws in the UK prevent me from reporting who they were’. The same sentence appears in the Italian edition.

However, a page from a review copy of the book sent to Dutch journalists this week clearly points the finger at a high-ranking royal family.

Referring to the letters discussing the matter, it states dramatically: ‘But in those private letters an identity was revealed and confirmed: [The Mail has redacted the name concerned and will not be repeating it].’

It is unclear why a foreign language version of the book would mention a specific individual, while no other edition appears to do so. And it must be emphasized that there is no evidence that the statement itself is even true.

Mr Evers, who yesterday revealed for the first time that the book had identified one of the ‘royal racists’, told Good Morning Britain today: ‘The book names two leading members of the royal family.’

Host Richard Madeley then asked, “Can I be clear about this, there are two names in the book?”

And Mr Evers replied: ‘Yes, the first is very specific. The second is a bit vague, if this person is really involved in the story. But the first one is very clear and the official way was that it was a translation problem. There are some discussions about how these passages were reported in the book. I would say: how can you mistranslate a name?’

Mr. Madeley then said, “Well, I wanted to ask you how to mistranslate a name. You can mistranslate a word or a sentence, but a name? Do you buy the explanation from the publishers that it is a translation error?

Mr Evers answers: ‘I can’t believe it. I went through the book with a colleague of yours and we noticed that some passages were missing from the English version. As a sentence, five sentences between the first and third parts that were in the Dutch version.

“So something was erased in the work that was done on the book. So my suggestion is that… Omid’s official words were that it was “never in Omid’s production”.

‘That’s a way of saying: if it’s a production, then it’s produced – well, it’s my theory – but then a manuscript was never made, but of course it was used. So I think it was in the manuscript, but legal agents said it’s not a good idea to mention these names because that’s where we’re sitting.”

The Dutch version not only contains the specific name of the royal family, but contains no mention of Mr Scobie’s claim in the English version that he is prohibited by law from repeating it.

A spokesperson for the Dutch publisher, Xander, told the Mail: ‘You’re right, but I can’t talk about the details. However, we received a request to put the title on hold and we did so.’

When asked when that request was received, she explains: “Just now. We await further instructions. I don’t know how long this will be. You need to speak to the American agent.”

They later claimed it was an ‘error’ and ‘currently being fixed’.

Adding to the confusion, Mr Scobie told RTL Boulevard that he did not include a name in his manuscript.

He added: ‘Unfortunately I don’t speak Dutch. But if there are any translation errors, the publisher will correct them.

‘I wrote the English version. There was no version of me that mentioned names.”

HarperCollins in New York, Mr. Scobie’s publisher, did not respond to requests for comment.

Two major bookstores in central Amsterdam said they had not received delivery yesterday as expected, although they offered to order a copy for delivery “in about a week.”

There was no comment from Buckingham Palace, which has treated the book with dismissive silence. A royal source told the Mail yesterday that it was ‘thoroughly riddled with errors that discredited it as a piece of journalism’.

The furore started yesterday after a Dutch royal journalist leaked the name on social media.

That meant that as Scobie, 42, happily waved to photographers in New York and embarked on a round of talk show appearances to announce his new book, the supposedly concerned royal’s name was shared on social media — though most reactions were incredulous and sympathetic.

The original claim about racism was made by Meghan in her infamous March 2021 interview with Oprah Winfrey, when she revealed there were “several conversations” between herself, Harry and members of the royal family about “how dark” their unborn baby Archie would be are.

‘During those months when I was pregnant [there were] concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be at birth,” Meghan said in the interview.

Harry added: ‘I’m never going to share that conversation. It was awkward, I was a bit shocked.” Meghan added: “I think it would be very damaging to them.”

The resulting furor prompted Prince William to publicly declare that they were “not a racist family at all.”

Harry later clarified that the royal family was not Queen Elizabeth II or the Duke of Edinburgh.

In his new book, Scobie refers to an exchange of letters between Meghan and her father-in-law, which reportedly addressed the Duchess’s “concerns about unconscious racial bias in the Royal Family” and contained “damning details.”

Mr Scobie goes on to say that Charles first contacted Meghan in the spring of 2021 to express his sadness at the “distance” between them and his disappointment that the couple chose to make their words so public.

Despite the obvious inferences in her interview, Scobie falls over herself to emphasize that Meghan never used the words racist or racism when speaking about the event or in her private letters.

A panicked Omid Scobie has insisted he did not name a senior figure of The Firm as the ‘royal racist’, after his controversial new book was dramatically pulled from the shelves today in the Netherlands.

The author has blamed a ‘translation error’ for a passage in the Dutch language version of the book which appeared to name the person who allegedly questioned what colour Harry and Meghan’s unborn son Archie would be.

Publishers Xander have confirmed to the Daily Mail that it had received a last-minute request from the US to put sales of Endgame on hold and were ‘awaiting further instructions’. 

Prior to publication the 42-year-old had said he would not publish the name of the accused after alleging a letter between Meghan and King Charles named the person responsible.

He has claimed libel laws prevented him naming them – although he has gone on to claim that a second person within the royal household also echoed the remarks. 

But a page taken from a review copy of the book sent to Dutch journalists does seem to contain the person’s identity.

Speaking to Dutch chat show RTL Boulevard today, Mr Scobie said insisted he was not to blame for the error.

‘The book is in several languages, and unfortunately I do not speak Dutch. But if there are translation errors,  I’m sure the publishers will have it under control,’ he said.

‘I wrote and edited the English version. There’s never been no version that I’ve produced that has names in it.’

Although the Dutch version of the book does appear to name the person, both Scobie and publisher insist this is a translation error.

Referring to letters written between Meghan and the King discussing the issue, it reads: ‘But in those private letters [the identity] was confirmed: ….’ [the Mail has redacted the name concerned]

It is not clear why a foreign language version of the book would name an individual when other editions did not, or whether it was intentionally included or is a major publishing error.

A spokesman for the Dutch publisher said: ‘You are right but I can’t talk about the details. We have, however, received a request to put the title on hold and that is what we have done.’

Asked when that request was received, she explained: ‘Just now.

‘We are awaiting further instructions. I do not know how long this will be. You should speak to the US agent.’

The original claim was made by Meghan in her infamous Oprah interview of March 2020 when she revealed there were ‘several conversations’ between herself, Harry and members within the royal family about ‘how dark’ their baby could be before Archie was born.

‘In those months when I was pregnant [there were] concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he was born,’ Meghan said in the interview.

Harry added: ‘That conversation, I am never going to share. At the time it was awkward, I was a bit shocked.’

Meghan added: ‘I think it would be very damaging for them.’

The resulting furore led Prince William to state publicly that they were ‘very much not a racist family’.

Buckingham Palace said the claims were ‘concerning’ and that ‘recollections may vary’ but they would address the claims privately.

Harry later clarified that the royal family member in question was not the Queen or the Duke of Edinburgh.

But in failing to say who was said to have made the remark and what the context was, it has sparked continuing debate and uncertainty that has haunted the Royal Family to this day.

Many of the couple’s critics believe it was deeply unfair to have raised allegations of racism without defining them or giving those involved the chance to explain their side of the story.

Speaking to US television show GMA3 today, Scobie had revealed his surprise that Harry and Meghan hadn’t spoken about the issue again in their Netflix documentary or during the Duke of Sussex’s memoir, Spare.

When asked by hosts what he was able to share about what he’d learned about the allegations, Scobie said 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. 

‘I always wondered why Harry and Meghan didn’t continue that conversation in the Netflix series and in Harry’s book Spare. It was like it disappeared out of sight and I wanted to get to the bottom of that.’ 

In his new book Scobie refers to a subsequent exchange of letters between Meghan and her father-in-law that both parties are said to have wanted to keep confidential that address the duchess’s ‘concerns about unconscious racial bias in the royal family’.

It is suggested they contained ‘damning details’.

Scobie goes on to say that Charles first reached out to Meghan in spring 2021 to express his sadness over the ‘distance’ between them and his disappointment that the couple chose to go so public with their words.

He apparently said how ‘upset’ he was over the claims that ‘concern’ had been raised about what Archie’s skin colour night be ‘and what that would look like [for the Firm].’

He adds that in the pages of these private letters ‘two identities were revealed. Laws in the United Kingdom prevent me from reporting who they were.’

He quotes ‘sources’ as saying that the King wanted his response to make clear to his daughter-in-law that he felt there was ‘no ill will or casual prejudice when the two people had spoken about his future grandson’.

The book also quotes a ‘royal insider’ saying: ‘He wanted to clear up something he felt strongly about’.

Despite the clear inferences in her interview, Scobie is at pains to stress that Meghan never used the words racist or racism when she spoke about the event or in her letters.

He says her concerns were that the tone revealed ‘lingering unconscious bias and ignorance with the family that needed to be addressed.’ 

He claims while the king and Meghan never saw ‘eye to eye’ on the issue ‘there was at least a feeling that both had been heard’.

Scobie adds there was ‘no hard feelings’.

One well-placed source with knowledge of the situation has emphasised to the Mail that the conversation was a private one between Harry and the person concerned and that Meghan was not present. Her husband later relayed the conversation to her.

There was no immediate comment from Buckingham Palace. 

Scobie has also insisted that Harry and Meghan did not brief him for Endgame – but revealed ‘people around them’ were happy to tell all about ‘the ins and outs’ of their rows with the Royal Family.

He told the Evening Standard: ‘There’s enough people around them and in their orbit who know the ins and outs of things’, adding: ‘If there’s ever been a private encounter with Meghan, I’ve spoken about it’.

Mr Scobie has also denied Endgame is biased in favour of the Sussexes, with one pithy review claiming the main chapter on Harry and Meghan is more like a press release sent from their team. Another critic said ‘he paints Meghan and Harry in a relentless saintly light’.

Instead Mr Scobie says he is not close to the former Suits star and her royal husband, only drawn to ‘injustice’ and aims to highlight what he sees as the hypocrisy of the Windsors trying to be a ‘perfect example of traditional family values’.

Scobie’s ‘depressingly poisonous’ Endgame was today written off as just another book by those inside Buckingham Palace, MailOnline can reveal. Omid is particularly cruel to Prince William and his wife, who he says is dubbed ‘Katie Keen’.

He also appears to blame them, especially Kate, for pushing Meghan out: ‘There was a coldness towards Meghan from the very early stages that I always found quite surprising.

‘I always found it interesting that when Meghan was going through the sort of toughest days of her life, and struggling with mental health issues… someone within the family who’s experienced that glare as a newcomer for the first time herself… wasn’t able to turn around and help a family member. To me, I think that speaks a lot to someone’s character.’

He also said to the Evening Standard that as a ‘woman of colour’, Meghan becoming a royal is a ‘really important moment in British history’.

He said the Windsors should have tried harder to keep her close, ‘regardless of whether she’s likeable’. Not keeping her in The Firm sends a ‘strong message about the institution’s attitudes towards people from different backgrounds’.

He told the Standard that Prince William is now ‘very consumed, very hot tempered, quick to react’ and staff needing to ‘check which way the wind’s blowing before talking to him’.

Mr Scobie also told the Standard: ‘It makes me wonder how happy he is in his role’, adding that he believes there is a ‘widening divide between father and son’.

In the same interview he admitted to being 42, having previously lied about his age.

He said: ‘I work in an industry where I’m surrounded by people who are, let’s say, conservative with telling their age, particularly in television’, claiming it is ‘par for the course’ to ‘swipe’ years from your age.

Mr Scobie blamed a ‘little insecurity’ about turning 40 and thought ‘no one would ever know’ – but journalists checked.

‘You learn from those mistakes. I can’t do much more than own it’, he said.

He also hit back at criticism of his journalism defending his experience and revealing he is a good lip-reader and that has helped with some of his royal scoops.

He added: ‘I have had to deal with envy, I’ve had to deal with prejudice,’ he says. ‘I’m okay with it, at this point, it’s just all noise’.

Today he hit back at his critics on Instagram – and ignored some of the reviews – to declare: ‘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 kept a contemptuous silence but a royal source has dismissed Mr Scobie’s Endgame as just another book on the Windsors that is not worthy of official comment.

The insider told MailOnline when asked if there were truth in claims made by Mr Scobie: ‘There are hundreds of books written about the Royal Family’. Endgame was released today but some of the reviews have been poor. Even the Sussex-sympathising New York Times was withering.

The new book on the royals was branded ‘vicious’ and ‘plain nasty’ last night. Well-placed sources described wild claims that Charles, Camilla and William conspired to undermine Harry and Meghan as ‘depressingly poisonous’.

Omid Scobie’s book also takes aim at the Princess of Wales, branding her ‘cold’ and lambasting her for backing mental health causes while ‘ignoring Meghan’s cries for help’.

It tries to stoke a row over the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh’s jokey bid to deflect questions about the Sussexes’ bombshell Oprah Winfrey interview by saying: ‘Oprah who?’

He says this made Edward and Sophie seem ‘casually bigoted’. Endgame, which was published in Australia yesterday and hits shelves here today, paints an almost comically negative view of the monarchy, with royals depicted as pantomime-style villains.

Buckingham Palace and Kensington Palace have declined to comment, believing they have nothing to gain from engaging with the claims. Charles and William were both instead out on public engagements close to their hearts – the King hosting a global investment summit and his son attending the Tusk Conservation Awards.

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

• Charles’s ‘ineptitude’ in handling Harry and Meghan – and refusal to give them the apology they demanded – has turned them into ‘disruptors’;
• Harry tried to ‘reach out’ to his father after the publication of his vitriolic memoir, Spare, earlier this year by calling his father, but felt the King’s response was ‘cold and brief’;
• Senior royals turned a blind eye to aides leaking details about the Sussexes as part of their power games and subjected them to ‘institutional cruelty’;
• William and his father are at loggerheads about the future of the monarchy and the handling of family issues;
• Their ‘distrust and simmering animosity’ resulted in Charles deriving ‘schadenfreude’ from his son’s supposedly disastrous tour of Caribbean last year;
• William is ‘colder’ – but also inexplicably more ‘hot-headed’ – than his father and ‘has no problem taking prisoners on the way’;
• Camilla colluded in stories being leaked about other royals 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 step in to insist he lose his privileges;
• Charles ‘stumbled’ through his first 100 days as King and Queen Elizabeth had so little faith in him she made a former spymaster her ‘CEO’.

Endgame? It might discomfort the Royal Family for a few minutes…but it’s hardly a devastating blow: BBC says Omid Scobie’s book fails to pack a punch and is ‘a little bit awkward’ at best – as reviewers call it a ‘hit job reading like a Mumsnet post’ 

By TOM PYMAN

Omid Scobie’s new book Endgame was today dismissed by a senior BBC reporter as being merely ‘a little bit awkward for a few minutes’ for the Royal Family.

BBC News royal correspondent Sean Coughlan claimed readers expecting ‘juicy scandal and gossip’ would be disappointed and it was ‘not really landing punches’.

He said it was ‘very critical’ of King Charles III, Camilla, Prince William and Kate – but ‘you often feel the biggest flaw they have is not being Prince Harry and Meghan’.

Mr Coughlan added: ‘I think it’s not going to damage the Royal Family but it might be a little bit awkward for a few minutes I think rather than for days and days.’

Speaking on Radio 4’s Today programme this morning, he continued: ‘It’s highly critical but also I think maybe oddly enough it feels slightly out of date. If you call the Royal Family a soap opera, this feels like a soap opera from a couple of years ago.

‘And I think it’s sort of maybe settling some scores. But I don’t think it’s getting under their skin enough to have new information that would be really hurtful.

‘It’s quite exciting in places but it doesn’t have that explosive power that (Harry’s memorial) Spare had, because partly that was written from one person’s viewpoint who was actually in the ring. But this is a kind of slightly distant criticism from afar.’

It comes after the book faced damning reviews following its release, with one labelling it as a ‘hit job reading like a Mumsnet post about the world’s worst in-laws’.

Endgame, which hits shelves today, received two stars out of five in the Telegraph, which slams the author’s ‘burning indignation that he was shut out’ of the Palace.

It adds that there is ‘little gossip to be had here’ while simultaneously containing ‘a lot of petty detail’. 

The verdict from the Times was not much kinder, calling the book ‘not so much an incisive look at why he thinks the monarchy is doomed, more a mishmash of ancient history’.

The review also mocks Scobie’s ‘po-faced prose’ and describes the book as starting with ‘him buying a black sweater, followed by how he got to a TV studio in Hammersmith’.

It comes after the usually Sussex-sympathising New York Times compares Scobie’s writing to an AI bot and declares that Harry and Meghan’s favoured journalist does them ‘no favours’.

In a pithy review, the liberal US newspaper claims a chapter on the couple even ‘reads like a press release cooked up by ChatGPT’.

It also says the book ‘is not all that different from what Harry presented in ‘Spare’,’ and ‘is devoted to setting the record straight on petty slights against the Sussexes’.

America’s first review of the book adds: ‘Readers hoping for a final death blow of gossip will be disappointed. We’ve heard much of it before. From Fergie, from Diana, from Charles, from Harry, from Harry, from Harry again.’

Meanwhile the similarly left-leaning Independent news website in the UK claims ‘he paints Meghan and Harry in a relentless saintly light’.

The NYT’s writer Eva Wolchover, who co-hosts its Windsors & Losers royal podcast, is critical of Endgame after receiving an advanced copy.

She says: ‘Whether or not Scobie actively collaborated with Meghan and Harry for this book, he does them no favours. Their chapter reads like a press release cooked up by ChatGPT, and does little to shed light on them as humans.’

Ms Wolchover also says of the author’s warnings that the Royal Family faces ‘extinction’: ‘It’s hard not to find Scobie’s dire predictions a tad hyperbolic.’

She writes: ‘Scobie defines the term ‘endgame’ as ‘the final stages of a chess game after most of the pieces have been removed from the board’, adding: ‘Unless Charles and his heirs act quickly, Scobie underscores, they risk losing the crown, or at the very least, any remaining cultural relevance.’

The Independent had the first British review of Endgame, giving it three-stars.

Writer Anna Pasternak says that Scobie ‘is unfailingly sympathetic to the Sussexes’.

She writes: ‘He does not hold them accountable for anything – he does not, as I had anticipated, demonise Charles or denounce Camilla. I was expecting something different – him possibly laying into evil monarch King Charles and wicked stepmother, Queen Camilla. The real royal villain here is William’.