Buckingham Palace is considering whether it should take action after the King and Princess of Wales were named in the Dutch version of a new book as senior royals who questioned what skin colour Prince Archie would have.
When the unsubstantiated allegation first surfaced two years ago, the palace described it as fiction. And there has been no evidence that has been published since to suggest it is true.
But the row resurfaced on Tuesday after the names of the two senior royals were published in a Dutch translation of a book by Omid Scobie.
The writer said an investigation had been launched into how the names were included in the translated version of Endgame, which Dutch publisher, Xander Uitgevers, said had been pulled from shelves in the Netherlands due to an “error”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:22
Omid Scobie: ‘I’m obviously frustrated’
Mr Scobie insisted on Thursday that he had “never submitted a book that had their names in it” and that he was “frustrated” by the incident.
It comes as the King arrived in Dubaiwhere he is due to deliver the opening address to the UN’s Cop28 climate summit.
“I’m all right thank you very much, just about, having had a rather ancient birthday recently, recovering from the shock of that,” the monarch, who celebrated his 75th birthday earlier this month, joked when he met Nigeria’s President Bola Tinubu.
The Prince and Princess of Wales, meanwhile, were attending this year’s Royal Variety Show at the Royal Albert Hall in London.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:27
King Charles: ‘I’m alright… just about’
What is the row about?
Advertisement
The claims were first made public in the Dukeand Duchess of Sussex’s March 2021 interview with Oprah Winfrey.
The duchess alleged in the interview that a member of the Royal Family had raised “concerns” about Archie’s skin colour before he was born.
She said: “[There were] concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he was born.”
Winfrey replied: “There’s a conversation with you?”
Meghan interjected: “With Harry.”
Winfrey continued: “About how dark your baby is going to be?”
Meghan replied: “Potentially, and what that would mean and look like.”
Image: Harry and Meghan’s interview with Oprah Winfrey will air on Sunday Pic: CBS
She refused to reveal who had made the comments, adding: “I think that would be very damaging to them.”
Winfrey later revealed Harry had told her it was not Prince Philip or the late Queen.
The claim sparked headlines about a so-called “royal racist” and prompted a rare response from the royals, with Prince William saying: “We are very much not a racist family,” when asked about the claim.
The Royal Family later followed up with a comment, in which they said that “whilst some recollections may vary”, the issues brought up in the interview were “concerning” and would “be addressed”.
Harry denies calling family ‘racist’
In November 2021, American author Christopher Andersen alleged it was the King who made the comments on the day
Harry and Meghan’s engagement was announced in November 2017.
He wrote in his book – Brothers And Wives: Inside The Private Lives of William, Kate, Harry and Meghan – that Charles said to Camilla: “I wonder what the children will look like?”
In response, a palace source told Sky News: “This is fiction and not worth further comment.”
The row was raised again in January this year, when Harry denied the couple had called anyone racist.
When asked by ITV’s Tom Bradby whether the couple had accused the Royal Family of racism, he said: “No I didn’t. The
British press said that. Did Meghan ever mention they were racist?”
Mr Bradby responded: “She said there were troubling comments about…”
Harry replied: “That there were concerns about his skin colour.”
Mr Bradby responded: “Right. Wouldn’t you describe that as essentially racist?”
Harry replied: “I wouldn’t. Not having lived in that family,” before adding that there was a difference between “racism” and “unconscious bias”.
What has Endgame said?
Mr Scobie’s new book claimed the names of two senior royals allegedly involved were shared in a letter written by the Duchess of Sussex to the King in the aftermath of the interview.
In the UK version of the book, Mr Scobie writes: “Laws in the United Kingdom prevent me from reporting who they were.”
However, a Dutch version of the book claimed the letter named the King and the Princess of Wales as the two people involved in the conversations.
Image: Omid Scobie appears on ITV’s This Morning
The Dutch publisher, Xander Uitgevers, said on Tuesday that sales of the book had been put on hold “temporarily” in the Netherlands over what it called an “error”.
Mr Scobie, who previously co-authored the biography Finding Freedom about the Sussexes and their split from the Royal Family, denied publishing the names in any version of Endgame.
“The book is in several languages, and unfortunately I do not speak Dutch,” he told chat show, RTL Boulevard.
“But if there are translation errors, the publisher will correct them.
“I wrote the English version. There was no version from me in which names were mentioned.”
On Thursday, speaking on ITV’s This Morning, Mr Scobie insisted: “I have never submitted a book that had their names in it.”
He also said he has never used the word “racist” to describe the royals who allegedly questioned Archie’s skin colour, describing the incident as “unconscious bias” in the book.
Following the publication of Endgame, TV presenter Piers Morgan named the two senior royals on his TalkTV show and social media account.
Mr Morgan, who made it clear he did not believe the allegations, said: “If Dutch people wandering into a bookshop can see these names, then you, the British people who actually pay for the royal family are entitled to know, too.”
Representatives for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have not responded to a request for comment.
The Crown Prosecution Service has said it is considering whether to bring further criminal charges over the deaths of babies at hospitals where Lucy Letby worked.
The CPS said it had received “a full file of evidence from Cheshire Constabulary asking us to consider further allegations in relation to deaths and non-fatal collapses of babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital and Liverpool Women’s Hospital”.
“We will now carefully consider the evidence to determine whether any further criminal charges should be brought,” it added.
“As always, we will make that decision independently, based on the evidence and in line with our legal test.”
Letby, 35, was found guilty of murdering seven children and attempting to murder seven more between June 2015 and June 2016 while working in the neonatal unit of the Countess of Chester Hospital and is currently serving 15 whole-life orders.
She is understood to have carried out two work placements at Liverpool Women’s Hospital, where she trained as a student, between October and December 2012, and January and February 2015.
Earlier this year, Letby’s lawyers called for the suspension of the inquiry, claiming there was “overwhelming and compelling evidence” that her convictions were unsafe.
Their evidence has been passed to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), which investigates potential miscarriages of justice, and Letby’s legal team hopes her case will be referred back to the Court of Appeal.
A power outage that shut Heathrow Airport earlier this year, causing travel chaos for more than 270,000 passengers, was caused by a “catastrophic failure” of equipment in a nearby substation, according to a new report.
Experts say the fire at the North Hyde Substation, which supplies electricity to Heathrow, started following the failure of a high-voltage electrical insulator known as a bushing, before spreading.
The failure was “most likely” caused by moisture entering the equipment, according to the report.
Two chances were also missed that could have prevented the failure, experts found, the first in 2018 when a higher-than-expected level of moisture was found in oil samples.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:21
Moment Heathrow substation ignites
Such a reading meant “an imminent fault and that the bushing should be replaced”, according to guidance by the National Grid Electricity Transmission.
However, the report by National Energy System Operator (NESO) said the appropriate responses to such a serious issue were “not actioned”, including in 2022 when basic maintenance was postponed.
“The issue therefore went unaddressed,” the report added.
The design and configuration of the airport’s internal power network meant the loss of just one of its three supply points would “result in the loss of power to operationally critical systems, leading to a suspension of operations for a significant period”, the report added.
Heathrow – which is Europe’s biggest airport – closed for around 16 hours on 21 March following thefire, before reopening at about 6pm.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Tens of millions of pounds were lost, thousands of passengers were stranded, and questions were raised about the resilience of the UK’s infrastructure.
More than 71,000 domestic and commercial customers lost power as a result of the fire and the resulting power outage, the report said.
NEOS chief executive, Fintan Slye, said there “wasn’t the control within their [National Grid’s] asset management systems that identified that this [elevated moisture levels] got missed.
“They identified a fault, [but] for some reason the transformer didn’t immediately get pulled out of service and get repaired.
“There was no control within the system that looked back and said ‘oh, hang on a second, you forgot to do this thing over here’.”
Sky’s science and technology editor, Tom Clarke, pointed to the age of the substation’s equipment, saying “some of these things are getting really very old now, coming to the end of their natural lives, and this is an illustration of what can happen if they are not really well maintained”.
The report also highlights a lack of joined-up thinking, he said, as “grid operators don’t know who’s critical national infrastructure on the network, and they don’t have priority”.
Responding to the report’s findings, a Heathrow spokesperson said: “A combination of outdated regulation, inadequate safety mechanisms, and National Grid’s failure to maintain its infrastructure led to this catastrophic power outage.
“We expect National Grid to be carefully considering what steps they can take to ensure this isn’t repeated.
“Our own Review, led by former Cabinet Minister Ruth Kelly, identified key areas for improvement and work is already underway to implement all 28 recommendations.”
In May, Ms Kelly’s investigation revealed that the airport’s chief executive couldn’t be contacted as the crisis unfolded because his phone was on silent.
Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, who commissioned the NESO report, called it “deeply concerning”, because “known risks were not addressed by the National Grid Electricity Transmission”.
Mr Miliband said energy regulator Ofgem, which opened an investigation on Wednesday after the report was published, is investigating “possible licence breaches relating to the development and maintenance of its electricity system at North Hyde.
“There are wider lessons to be learned from this incident. My department, working across government, will urgently consider the findings and recommendations set out by NESO and publish a response to the report in due course.”
So much for an end to chaos and sticking plaster politics.
Yesterday, Sir Keir Starmer abandoned his flagship welfare reforms at the eleventh hour – hectic scenes in the House of Commons that left onlookers aghast.
Facing possible defeat on his welfare bill, the PM folded in a last-minute climbdown to save his skin.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:23
Welfare bill passes second reading
The decision was so rushed that some government insiders didn’t even know it was coming – as the deputy PM, deployed as a negotiator, scrambled to save the bill or how much it would cost.
“Too early to answer, it’s moved at a really fast pace,” said one.
The changes were enough to whittle back the rebellion to 49 MPs as the prime minister prevailed, but this was a pyrrhic victory.
Sir Keir lost the argument with his own backbenchers over his flagship welfare reforms, as they roundly rejected his proposed cuts to disability benefits for existing claimants or future ones, without a proper review of the entire personal independence payment (PIP) system first.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
4:31
Welfare bill blows ‘black hole’ in chancellor’s accounts
That in turn has blown a hole in the public finances, as billions of planned welfare savings are shelved.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves now faces the prospect of having to find £5bn.
As for the politics, the prime minister has – to use a war analogy – spilled an awful lot of blood for little reward.
He has faced down his MPs and he has lost.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
4:38
‘Lessons to learn’, says Kendall
They will be emboldened from this and – as some of those close to him admit – will find it even harder to govern.
After the vote, in central lobby, MPs were already saying that the government should regard this as a reset moment for relations between No 10 and the party.
The prime minister always said during the election that he would put country first and party second – and yet, less than a year into office, he finds himself pinned back by his party and blocked from making what he sees are necessary reforms.
I suspect it will only get worse. When I asked two of the rebel MPs how they expected the government to cover off the losses in welfare savings, Rachael Maskell, a leading rebel, suggested the government introduce welfare taxes.
Meanwhile, Work and Pensions Select Committee chair Debbie Abrahams told me “fiscal rules are not natural laws” – suggesting the chancellor could perhaps borrow more to fund public spending.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:45
Should the govt slash the welfare budget?
These of course are both things that Ms Reeves has ruled out.
But the lesson MPs will take from this climbdown is that – if they push hard in enough and in big enough numbers – the government will give ground.
The fallout for now is that any serious cuts to welfare – something the PM says is absolutely necessary – are stalled for the time being, with the Stephen Timms review into PIP not reporting back until November 2026.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:10
Tearful MP urges govt to reconsider
Had the government done this differently and reviewed the system before trying to impose the cuts – a process only done ahead of the Spring Statement in order to help the chancellor fix her fiscal black hole – they may have had more success.
Those close to the PM say he wants to deliver on the mandate the country gave him in last year’s election, and point out that Sir Keir Starmer is often underestimated – first as party leader and now as prime minister.
But on this occasion, he underestimated his own MPs.
His job was already difficult enough – and after this it will be even harder still.
If he can’t govern his party, he can’t deliver change he promised.