Palace considering all options after Charles and Kate named in Archie ‘skin colour’ row

Published

2 years ago

November 30, 2023

admin

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”.

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 Dubai where 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.

What is the row about?

The claims were first made public in the Duke and 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.”

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.

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.

UK

Four charged after £7m of damage caused to aircraft at RAF Brize Norton

Published

1 hour ago

July 2, 2025

admin

Four charged after £7m of damage caused to aircraft at RAF Brize Norton

Four people have been charged after £7m of damage was caused to two Voyager aircraft at RAF Brize Norton.

The investigation into the incident early on Friday 20 June was led by counter-terror police.

They have been charged with conspiracy to enter a prohibited place knowingly for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the UK – and conspiracy to commit criminal damage.

The four charged have been identified as:

• Amy Gardiner-Gibson, 29, of no fixed abode

• Daniel Jeronymides-Norie, 35, from London

• Jony Cink, 24, of no fixed abode

• Lewie Chiaramello, 22, from London

They will appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court later today.

A 41-year-old woman arrested last week on suspicion of assisting an offender has been released on bail until 19 September.

Meanwhile, a 23-year-old man detained on Saturday was released without charge.

Last month’s incident at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire was claimed by the activist group Palestine Action.

Yesterday, MPs voted to proscribe the group as a terrorist organisation.

The legislation passed with 385 MPs voting in favour, while 26 were against.

UK

No 10 backs Chancellor Rachel Reeves and says she ‘is going nowhere’ after tearful appearance in Commons

Published

9 hours ago

July 2, 2025

admin

No 10 backs Chancellor Rachel Reeves and says she 'is going nowhere' after tearful appearance in Commons

Rachel Reeves has not offered her resignation and is “going nowhere”, Downing Street has said, following her tearful appearance in the House of Commons.

A Number 10 spokesperson said the chancellor had the “full backing” of Sir Keir Starmer, despite Ms Reeves looking visibly upset during Prime Minister’s Questions.

Politics latest: ‘A moment of intense peril’ for PM

A spokesperson for the chancellor later clarified that Ms Reeves had been affected by a “personal matter” and would be working out of Downing Street this afternoon.

Politics latest: Reeves looks visibly upset in Commons

UK government bond prices fell by the most since October 2022, and the pound tumbled after Ms Reeves’s Commons appearance, while the yield on the 10-year government bond, or gilt, rose as much as 22 basis points at one point to around 4.68%.

Downing Street’s insistence came despite Sir Keir refusing to guarantee that Ms Reeves would stay as chancellor until the next election following the fallout from the government’s recent welfare U-turn.

Tory leader Kemi Badenoch branded the chancellor the “human shield” for the prime minister’s “incompetence” just hours after he was forced to perform a humiliating U-turn over his controversial welfare bill.

Emotional Reeves a painful watch – and reminder of tough decisions ahead

It is hard to think of a PMQs like it – it was a painful watch.

The prime minister battled on, his tone assured, even if his actual words were not always convincing.

But it was the chancellor next to him that attracted the most attention.

Rachel Reeves looked visibly upset.

It is hard to know for sure right now what was going on behind the scenes, the reasons – predictable or otherwise – why she appeared to be emotional, but it was noticeable and it was difficult to watch.

Speaking at Prime Minister’s Questions, Ms Badenoch said: “This man has forgotten that his welfare bill was there to plug a black hole created by the chancellor. Instead they’re creating new ones.”

Turning to the chancellor, the Tory leader added: “[She] is pointing at me – she looks absolutely miserable.

“Labour MPs are going on the record saying that the chancellor is toast, and the reality is that she is a human shield for his incompetence. In January, he said that she would be in post until the next election. Will she really?”

Not fully answering the question, the prime minister replied: “[Ms Badenoch] certainly won’t.

“I have to say, I’m always cheered up when she asks me questions or responds to a statement because she always makes a complete mess of it and shows just how unserious and irrelevant they are.”

Mrs Badenoch interjected: “How awful for the chancellor that he couldn’t confirm that she would stay in place.”

The prime minister’s watered-down Universal Credit and Personal Independent Payment Bill, aimed at saving £5bn, was backed by a majority of 75 in a tense vote on Tuesday evening.

A total of 49 Labour MPs voted against the bill – the largest rebellion in a prime minister’s first year in office since 47 MPs voted against Tony Blair’s Lone Parent benefit in 1997, according to Professor Phil Cowley from Queen Mary University.

After multiple concessions made due to threats of a Labour rebellion, many MPs questioned what they were voting for as the bill had been severely stripped down.

They ended up voting for only one part of the plan: a cut to Universal Credit (UC) sickness benefits for new claimants from £97 a week to £50 from 2026/7.

Ms Badenoch said the climbdown was proof that Sir Keir was “too weak to get anything done”.

Ms Reeves has also borne a lot of the criticism over the handling of the vote, with some MPs believing that her strict approach to fiscal rules has meant she has approached the ballooning welfare bill from the standpoint of trying to make savings, rather than getting people into work.

Experts have now warned that the welfare U-turn, on top of reversing the cut to winter fuel, means that tax rises in the autumn are more likely – with Ms Reeves now needing to find £5bn to make up for the policy U-turns.

Asked by Ms Badenoch whether he could rule out further tax rises – something Labour promised it would not do on working people in its manifesto – Sir Keir said: “She knows that no prime minister or chancellor ever stands at the despatch box and writes budgets in the future.

“But she talks about growth, for 14 years we had stagnation, and that is what caused the problem.”

UK

Prosecutors consider more charges against Lucy Letby

Published

12 hours ago

July 2, 2025

admin

Prosecutors consider more charges against Lucy Letby

Prosecutors are considering whether to bring further criminal charges against Lucy Letby over the deaths of babies at two hospitals where she worked

The Crown Prosecution Service 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.

Police said in December that Letby was interviewed in prison as part of an investigation into more baby deaths and non-fatal collapses.

A Cheshire Constabulary spokesperson said: “We can confirm that Cheshire Constabulary has submitted a full file of evidence to the CPS for charging advice regarding the ongoing investigation into deaths and non-fatal collapses of babies at the neo-natal units of both the Countess of Chester Hospital and the Liverpool Women’s Hospital as part of Operation Hummingbird.”

Detectives previously said the investigation was looking into the full period of time that Letby worked as a nurse, covering the period from 2012 to 2016 and including a review of 4,000 admissions of babies.

Letby’s lawyer Mark McDonald said: “The evidence of the innocence of Lucy Letby is overwhelming,” adding: “We will cross every bridge when we get to it but if Lucy is charged I know we have a whole army of internationally renowned medical experts who will totally undermine the prosecution’s unfounded allegations.”

On Tuesday, it was confirmed that three managers at the Countess of Chester hospital had been arrested on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter in a separate investigation.

Police said the suspects, who occupied senior positions at the hospital between 2015 and 2016, have all been bailed pending further inquiries.

There is also an investigation into corporate manslaughter at the hospital, which began in October 2023.

A public inquiry has also been examining the hospital’s response to concerns raised about Letby before her arrest.

In May, it was announced the inquiry’s final report into how the former nurse was able to commit her crimes will now be published early next year.

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.

In February, an international panel of neonatologists and paediatric specialists told reporters that poor medical care and natural causes were the reasons for the collapses and deaths.

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.