Omid Scobie’s defence unravels as Dutch translator says the names of royals accused of discussing Archie’s skin colour WERE in the book – So how DID details from Meghan’s private letter to Charles end up there?

It began as a private conversation between senior members of the Royal Family that would normally have stayed strictly within the palace walls.

But what appears to have been intended as an innocuous chat about the excitement of a new baby culminated this week with two alleged ‘royal racists’ being outed on national television in the UK.

In a broadcast monologue also viewed by 8million people on social media by yesterday afternoon, Piers Morgan named the royals who allegedly asked Prince Harry about the skin colour of his unborn son, Archie. But how did this chain of events come to pass, with all its potentially damaging implications for the reputation of the monarchy?

Given the stakes involved, it is surprising how little is actually known about the alleged conversation – or conversations – said to have taken place when the Duchess of Sussex was pregnant.

Meghan first revealed vague details of the exchange in an interview with US chat show host Oprah Winfrey in 2021.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex stand behind King Charles and Queen Camilla as the coffin of Queen Elizabeth II is transferred from the gun carriage to a hearse at Wellington Arch, London, on September 19, 2022

Omid Scobie appears on ITV’s This Morning on Thursday, November 30, to promote his new book Endgame

Prince Harry speaks to his father Charles during Trooping The Colour on June 9, 2018, as his wife Meghan looks on

She claimed there had been ‘conversations’ – suggesting more than one – in which ‘concerns’ were raised to Harry about how dark Archie’s skin might be.

But Harry stated later in the interview that it was one conversation. No other details were provided about who was involved. When Harry was asked about the allegations in a interview earlier this year with ITV’s Tom Bradby, he insisted the couple had accused his family members of nothing more than ‘unconscious bias’. He blamed the media for blowing the situation out of proportion.

The racism row was not mentioned in either Harry’s autobiography or the Netflix series the couple made about their exit from royal life. The statement from the late Queen about the alleged remarks, that ‘recollections may vary’, suggests it was only Meghan and Harry who considered them racist at the time.

The row resurfaced earlier this year when it emerged Meghan had written to the King setting out her concerns about racism in the family. Reports indicated it specifically named only one individual about a single comment made.

Which brings us to the dramatic events of this week, when the Dutch edition of a book by royal biographer Omid Scobie – long seen as a mouthpiece for the Sussexes – appeared to accidentally name the ‘royal racists’, citing Meghan’s letter as its source. They are separately named in different chapters, the first reference claiming the letter ‘revealed and confirmed’ the identity of one and the second suggesting the letter disclosed another royal ‘took part in such conversations’. Scobie denies writing the names in his manuscript, blaming it on a ‘translation error’.

Booker-nominated translator David McKay said it seemed ‘very plausible’ the confusion had arisen either due to an earlier manuscript being translated inadvertently, or changes being made post-translation which were not copied across.

Dutch publishers, Xander Uitgevers, said ‘an error had occurred in the Dutch edition’, without referencing a translation blunder. So if Scobie did write these passages, how did he get the information? It is understood Buckingham Palace denies the letter was leaked from its end. A briefing given to Scobie by the Sussexes’ camp would be seen as a major escalation of hostilities by Harry and Meghan towards the royals, and also call into question the privacy concerns Meghan insists she holds close.

She sued The Mail On Sunday when details of a letter she sent her father were published, claiming it was a violation of her privacy. Disclosing details of her correspondence with the King without his consent — and the Mail is NOT suggesting that she has done so — would be seen by many as serious hypocrisy.

The decision by Morgan to name the two supposedly identified in the letter, during his TalkTV show on Wednesday, has poured fuel on a combustible situation. It has the potential to wreck the reputations of the two royals. The Dutch publisher said a ‘rectified’ version of the book will be in shops by December 8, but questions about how the first edition came to be produced are unlikely to abate.

The Sussexes, the Waleses and King Charles and Queen Camilla attend the annual Commonwealth Service at Westminster Abbey on March 9, 2020

Piers Morgan named the two supposedly identified in the letter, during his TalkTV show on Wednesday, pouring fuel on a combustible situation

Dutch translator insists ‘the names WERE there in black and white’ after Omid Scobie’s denials

By Rebecca English and Paul Thompson 

Omid Scobie’s Dutch translator tonight said the names of two royals caught in a racism row were in the manuscript she was given to work on.

Saskia Peeters insisted she did not add the names – flatly contradicting Scobie’s claims that he had ‘never’ written a version identifying the pair.

‘As a translator, I translate what is in front of me,’ said Mrs Peeters from her home in Arnhem. ‘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.’

This suggests the Dutch publisher was sent an early draft of Endgame by Scobie’s people before lawyers removed the names. And it could mean the man dubbed ‘Meghan’s mouthpiece’ had intended to out the two senior royals.

The twist comes as the royals concerned were named as King Charles and his daughter-in-law, the Princess of Wales, by TV presenter Piers Morgan and dozens of publications around the world ranging from The Guardian to The New York Times.

Buckingham Palace has declined to be drawn into commenting on Scobie’s book, which has been savaged by critics for its many errors and relentless attacks on the Royal Family. The Mail understands the King’s aides are ‘united’ with the princess’s Kensington Palace team in dealing with the ‘upsetting’ claims – emphasising the closeness between the pair.

King Charles was all-smiles with Nigerian president Bola Ahmed Tinubu during a bilateral meeting in a hotel in Dubai, as they attend the Cop28 summit. on Thursday, November 30

His Majesty speaks with Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan President of the United Arab Emirates at a bilateral meeting at Expo City in Dubai on Thursday, November 30

On Thursday Charles brushed off the furore as he embarked on a series of high-profile meetings in Dubai where he has been invited to give a keynote speech at the start of the COP28 climate action conference.

Asked how he was, he smiled and replied: ‘I’m all right … just about.’

Speaking to Nigerian president Bola Ahmed Tinubu, he added light-heartedly: ‘Having had a rather ancient birthday recently – recovering from the shock.’

Meanwhile the princess dazzled in a teal gown, diamonds and sapphires at the Royal Albert Hall in London where she was attending the annual Royal Variety Performance with her husband William.

The Dutch translator’s revelations raise further questions for Scobie, who reignited the royal race row started by the Duchess of Sussex in her March 2020 bombshell Oprah Winfrey interview. Meghan told of conversations between her husband Harry and an unnamed senior royal in which ‘concern’ was raised about the colour of their child’s skin and what it might mean for the family.

Harry merely indicated the exchanges had been awkward and said he would never discuss it publicly again. But Meghan’s decision to raise the spectre of racism sparked a global firestorm that forced the late Queen Elizabeth to issue a statement saying that – while issues of race were taken seriously by the family – ‘recollections may vary’.

Harry and Meghan have not discussed the incident in public since. But Scobie, their favoured royal journalist, claims Meghan later identified not one but two people she believed were guilty of ‘unconscious bias’.

She is said to have made the claim in letters to the King who expressed his sorrow that she felt upset but stressed there was no ‘ill will or casual prejudice’ on any part.

In the English language version of his book Scobie boasted that while he knew the names in the letters he was bound not to use them because of UK libel laws.

However they did appear in the Dutch version of Endgame, forcing its publishers to withdraw copies on sale and pulp them.

Saskia Peeters (pictured) insisted she did not add the names – flatly contradicting Scobie’s claims that he had ‘never’ written a version identifying the pair

The names have since travelled around the world on social media and latterly in worldwide publications. The blunder was initially passed off both by Scobie and his publishing house as an ‘error in translation’. He did not explain, however, why the Dutch version did not also include the same legal explanation as his English-language edition.

Arriving in the UK yesterday for a round of publicity interviews starting with ITV’s This Morning, Scobie claimed to have been ‘frustrated’ at what had happened and said ‘an investigation’ had been launched.

He repeated his claim that he was not responsible for the names appearing in print. ‘I never submitted a book that had those names in it,’ he said carefully.

But Mrs Peeters, clearly shocked and nervous at the firestorm her translation has caused, insisted she had received a manuscript containing the names via the Dutch publisher Xander Uitgevers.

She said the pages were distributed between herself and fellow translator Nellie Keukelaar-van Rijsbergen to transcribe.

When told the book’s author Scobie had denied the names were in his manuscript Mrs Peters said: ‘I don’t know why he would say that. I have been translating for many years. This is the first time anything like this has happened. This is not something I wanted to be involved in.’