Harry and Meghan’s story is full of contradictions, yet Omid Scobie has weaponised it all over again, writes RICHARD KAY

Most of us will never know how it feels to be publicly named as a racist. It is a word so loaded that it can destroy a reputation overnight.

When it is uttered of an entirely innocent public figure – or figures – and, via the click of a computer mouse, goes viral, the repercussions can be even more wounding and infinitely more damaging.

These were the consequences yesterday as it emerged that an international edition of Omid Scobie‘s provocative book about the monarchy named not one, but two, so-called ‘royal racists’. Panicking publishers ordered the Dutch version to be pulled from shelves – but by then the identities of the figures had already been circulating widely on social media.

With Buckingham Palace maintaining its icy disdain for every aspect of Scobie’s book, a blame-game erupted over how such an egregious error had been committed. At the same time, royal friends of the two individuals dismissed the claims against them as ‘reprehensible’.

Perhaps even more mischievous is why the allegations of racism, first broadcast in the Duke and Duchess of Sussex‘s notorious interview with US chat show host Oprah Winfrey in 2021, have been revived nearly three years later. 

Meghan was adamant that questions about her son Archie’s complexion were motivated by ugly racism

It emerged that an international edition of Omid Scobie’s provocative book about the monarchy named not one, but two, so-called ‘royal racists’

Scobie devotes many pages of his book to what he claims is Britain’s ‘racist’ underbelly

What is undeniable, however, is that the naming of the two people is the latest twist in an unsavoury saga that began under the California sun and tarnished the last years of the late Queen Elizabeth’s reign. The comments Meghan made that day started a chain reaction that shows no sign of ending. At the time, her claims that a member of the Royal Family had expressed concerns about ‘how dark’ the skin of their unborn children might be triggered a storm of global outrage and some of the worst headlines the royals had endured for years.

Neither she nor Prince Harry were prepared to identify who was concerned, loftily professing it would be ‘too damaging to them’ while ignoring the fact that not doing so was equally harmful.

Indeed, such was the reaction in the wake of the broadcast that Ms Winfrey revealed that Harry had asked her to make clear that criticism was not aimed at either of his grandparents, the Queen and Prince Philip.

Far from damping down the conflagration they had started, this sent speculation soaring as accusations were hurled at senior royals unable to defend themselves.

In the light of the row this week, just what happened during the Oprah interview – and subsequently – is crucial.

Meghan was adamant that questions about her son Archie’s complexion were motivated by ugly racism (as opposed to, say, curiosity). At one point Ms Winfrey put it to her that ‘they were concerned that if he were too brown that would be a problem’.

A more forensic interviewer than Ms Winfrey might have queried these obvious inconsistencies. For while both Harry and Meghan were ‘speaking their truth’, they can’t both have been right

We can only speculate as to Scobie’s motivations for launching such a vicious attack on the Royal Family

The duchess responded: ‘If that’s the assumption you are making, I think that feels like a pretty safe one.’

A visibly shocked Ms Winfrey responded: ‘What? Who is having that conversation with you?’ ‘There were several conversations about it’, Meghan said, which took place ‘in those months when I was pregnant’. Ms Winfrey asked: ‘There’s a conversation with you?’ To which Meghan interjected: ‘With Harry.’ When the prince joins the interview, his recall about the matter is markedly different. He maintained there was just one conversation ‘right at the beginning’ of their relationship, ‘before we even got married.’

Asked to name names, Harry answered: ‘That conversation , I’m never going to share.’

A more forensic interviewer than Ms Winfrey might have queried these obvious inconsistencies. For while both Harry and Meghan were ‘speaking their truth’, they can’t both have been right.

But within days this most explosive of claims was not just being questioned, but unravelling.

In a telling intervention, the Queen sought to diffuse hostilities by noting that ‘recollections’ of what happened ‘may vary.’ Privately the Royal Family deplored the couple’s comments. And two days later Prince William made their thinking very clear. ‘We are very much not a racist family,’ he told a TV reporter.

This derisive intervention came amid reports that the Palace was ‘reeling’ over what were described as ‘toxic accusations.’ Activists piled in. One, Dr Shola Mos-Shogbamimu, wrote that racism had become ‘so normalised’ in Britain that ‘white people are able to ignore what is blatantly racist in front of them. People will watch the Oprah interview, listen to concerns a member of the Royal Family had over the colour of Archie’s skin, and still deny that it’s racism.’

Others ridiculed the claims. Jonathan Dimbleby, respected biographer of the then Prince of Wales said of Charles: ‘He is someone whose professional personal life has been dedicated to bringing people together, not pulling them apart.’

In woke America, however, the Sussexes were lionised. A year ago, at a glamorous charity event in New York they gladly accepted an award for their ‘heroic’ efforts standing up to ‘structural racism’.

And yet when they had a chance to expand on their claims soon after, they curiously chose not to.

The notorious episode was inexplicably absent from Harry’s best-selling memoir Spare. Nor did it feature in that toe-curling six-part Netflix documentary which just preceded publication of his book.

In the light of the row this week, just what happened during the Oprah interview – and subsequently – is crucial

Kate is described as ‘cold’, a ‘Stepford-like royal wife’, while claiming her willingness to support the institution into which she has married has earned her the cruel nickname ‘Katie Keen’ in Scobie’s book

It is baffling why the prince did not shed further light on this alleged incident. He could at the very least, surely, have explained why (in apparent contradiction of his wife’s version of events) he told Ms Winfrey there was just one conversation about their future children’s skin colour ‘before we were even married’.

ITV’s Tom Bradby broached the subject during an interview, ahead of Spare’s publication. The journalist asked: ‘In the Oprah interview you accused the Royal Family of racism. Harry shook his head and said: ‘No, I didn’t’, adding: ‘the British Press said that’.

Quite how he squared that claim with his decision to accept the Ripple of Hope award for their work in promoting racial injustice is, alas, anyone’s guess.

So why now has the whole issue blown up again? Even Scobie was surprised that ‘this huge allegation’ didn’t come up in the Netflix series or in Spare. Scobie, who devotes many pages of his book to what he claims is Britain’s ‘racist’ underbelly, is happy to take up the responsibility.

‘You don’t have to dig deep into those aspects of UK life to unearth some racist roots post-Brexit,’ he writes. And his evidence? ‘The mawkish Union Jack and St George’s Cross flag-waving often conjures up a yearning for the golden age of empire.’

Happily, he is able to fill in some of the gaps in the to-ing and fro-ing over the Sussexes’ racism claims. And guess what? Suddenly there is not one royal racist but two, his focus alighted on letters exchanged between Meghan and her father-in-law in the aftermath of the Oprah interview.

Neither she nor Prince Harry were prepared to identify who was concerned, loftily professing it would be ‘too damaging to them’ while ignoring the fact that not doing so was equally harmful

Details were scant, but Scobie confidently writes: ‘In the pages of these private letters, two identities were revealed. Laws in the United Kingdom prevent me from reporting who they were’

Details were scant, but Scobie confidently writes: ‘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 to make clear to Meghan that there was ‘no ill will or casual prejudice present when the two people had spoken about his future grandson.’

According to an ‘insider’ Charles wanted to ‘clear up something he felt strongly about.’ Meanwhile, Meghan’s concern was the ‘way in which these conversations [about Archie’s skin tone] had… revealed lingering unconscious bias and ignorance within the family that needed to be addressed.’

We can only speculate as to Scobie’s motivations for launching such a vicious attack on the Royal Family.

What remains very curious is that, considering his acknowledgement that the laws of libel would prevent the two names being published, in Holland, at least, that is exactly what happened.