"End Game" by Omid Scobie - 2023

[Moran]

Scobie’s version that he “ never had a finished version with names in it” implies that , either the Dutch translator received an “ unfinished “ version. ( early draft) to translate, or Scobie is lying, or the translator is lying ( as she is adamant that the manuscript she received had names therein).

Recollections may vary, but, in this case, we are dealing with an objective fact: either the manuscript included the names or it did not. It suffices for the translator to show the original English version she received to translate. I am sure she kept a copy of it.

It isn't this simple. If the Netherlands publisher wants to stay in good standing with their UK counterpart, they might be against it - and if she insists, they might delicately spread the rumour that she's difficult to work with. Limiting her options for further books from other publishers. If their view of damages doesn't coincide with hers, there's no way it ends well for her, no matter what she does.

 

[Erin9]

It was gratifying to read about Catherine and William getting a standing ovation at Royal Albert Hall last night.

It was also quite something to read articles and opinions by prominent Royal Rota figures like Robert Jobson, Camilla Tominey and Arthur Edwards supporting Catherine and The King and dismissing Scobie's book.

Glad to hear it.

Sounds like this is being treated just how it should be.

 

[Leopoldine]

Glad to hear it.

Sounds like this is being treated just how it should be.

Indeed!

And given those reactions from these sectors of the public and the press, I think the BRF can rest easy.

 

[tommy100]

The likelyhood of the translator just happening to get the TWO names correct precludes the possibility of her choosing to add them off her own back IMO.

The most likely explanation is the text she was translating DID contain the two names. But why and who put them there? Was it a genuine mistake - maybe someone copied and pasted a line in the wrong place (the "best case" scenario)? Omid handed over a copy with the names in then somehow the "wrong" copy was given to the Dutch translators? Omid purposefully handed a copy with the names in to the Dutch to avoid the, in his opinion, stricter UK laws? Who knows

 

[Mbruno]

The likelyhood of the translator just happening to get the TWO names correct precludes the possibility of her choosing to add them off her own back IMO.

The most likely explanation is the text she was translating DID contain the two names. But why and who put them there? Was it a genuine mistake - maybe someone copied and pasted a line in the wrong place (the "best case" scenario)? Omid handed over a copy with the names in then somehow the "wrong" copy was given to the Dutch translators? Omid purposefully handed a copy with the names in to the Dutch to avoid the, in his opinion, stricter UK laws? Who knows

The problem is that Scobie says he “ never had” a finished text with names in it. He didn’t say he never had an earlier draft with names , but why would the Dutch translator be given a draft rather than the finished product?

As I see it, Scobie seems a bit juvenile in his actions and demeanor. It wouldn’t surprise me if he truly believed that he could leak the 2 names via the Dutch edition and get away with it by blaming the translator or the publisher.

 

[tommy100]

I certainly think he is silly enough to dig himself into a bigger and bigger lie by insisting he never "submitted" a version with names in - initially possibly purely on defensive instinct then having to roll with it.

 

[polyesco]

William and Kate being shouted some questions about the book yesterday.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/C0R6...d&ig_rid=2d827ee3-bea9-453a-b888-e354bcbf9fe7

not commenting on such "scandals" seems to be the way to go. Good gives the press less to work with

 

[Somebody]

Scobie’s version that he “ never had a finished version with names in it” implies that , either the Dutch translator received an “ unfinished “ version. ( early draft) to translate, or Scobie is lying, or the translator is lying ( as she is adamant that the manuscript she received had names therein).

Recollections may vary, but, in this case, we are dealing with an objective fact: either the manuscript included the names or it did not. It suffices for the translator to show the original English version she received to translate. I am sure she kept a copy of it.

Where did he specifically say that "he never had a finished version with names in it”. The words I encountered so far is that he said that the "submitted version" didn't have it (To be more precise: "I never submitted a book that had those names in it"). So, clearly, earlier versions did... Apparently, the official version didn't but earlier versions must have been shared with the publisher for it to end up in the Netherlands. And given how they tried to pretend the Sussexes didn't work with him on the previous book by using vague language, he might consider sharing and submitting completely different things?!

 

[irish_royalist]

I think it's dangerous for British media to imply that the BRF are responding to Endgame in anyway, especially since, for the moment, neither of TRH The Sussexes have responded one way or the other. The BRF's power comes from being above it all and doing the good work while TRH The Sussexes are "scrambling to hold onto any semblance of their past lives". The BRF responding to half-decade old allegations while TRH The Sussexes are going to hockey games or having a quiet Thanksgiving would be a bad look. I don't know why the British media would do that.

Now, if it's true that TRH The Sussexes conspired with Scobie to open old wounds to force a response from the BRF, then mission accomplished if the BRF actually did threaten legal action.

The good works WERE continuing! The King was speaking and receiving other world leaders at a climate summit in Dubai. The Queen was with the British Army at Sandringham, planting trees in memory of Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. The Prince and Princess of Wales were with The Crown Princess of Sweden and Prince Daniel at the Royal Albert Hall.

The Duke of Edinburgh was chairing a University Committee in Bath. The Duchess of Edinburgh was in Bogota, Colombia attending a discussion on preventing sexual violence. The Princess Royal was at a reception for the Not Forgotten Association. The aged Duke of Gloucester received the CEO of Limbless Veterans.

And what were Harry and Meghan up to?

 

[Kataryn]

I think the mess Harry and Meghan created will become a bigger problem for them as time goes on. They should have spent more time thinking about potential longer term consequences when they were weighing their options in the first couple of years after their exit from the working BRF. Things like the interview with Oprah, cooperating with Scobie for Finding Freedom, and Harry’s book probably felt really good at the time - all that righteous anger and indignation spewing everywhere they could make it land, they must have been very pleased with themselves for a time. They should have taken a moment to consider what would happen once their initial fury died down. The couple said and did some things that can’t be walked back, even if they’re relatively less angry now. They can’t take back what they themselves said about Harry’s family, and they can’t do anything about the fact that the people who made a living off their story with Harry and Meghan’s enthusiastic cooperation are still going to want to make money off that same story with or without the Sussexes participation.

I may have sounded too nice towards the Sussexes and I agree that my position changed over time but then I have a lot of understanding for them, for how hard love flamed up for the prince and his actress, how they had their happy ending - and suddenly there were problems on all sides! I understand how they came to say those incredibly hurtful things at Oprah but they simply have to understand they can solve this problems with their relationships only in private, with their relatives who are living and thus feeling people and notthrough the world media which is a very special beast, as we can see here. For it is a fact that Harry is not alone in his position, there were a lot of spares in the British and other Royal families and new ones growing up, it rare but not unique to feel like Harry and his wife and the world seems to have enough of their shenanigans. They have left the sphere where the people worked to give them at least a chance to preserve their privacy, they got the exposure they (maybe it was only Meghan) craved, now they have to deal with it. Which will be utter difficult, not because all that trust has been broken in the wif´der MW-family, but because they let the beast in. Be it Scobie or someone else, they will write and will not be the whole truth and Harry and Meghan can't make it go away.

 

[Hallo girl]

I may have sounded too nice towards the Sussexes and I agree that my position changed over time but then I have a lot of understanding for them, for how hard love flamed up for the prince and his actress, how they had their happy ending - and suddenly there were problems on all sides! I understand how they came to say those incredibly hurtful things at Oprah but they simply have to understand they can solve this problems with their relationships only in private, with their relatives who are living and thus feeling people and notthrough the world media which is a very special beast, as we can see here. For it is a fact that Harry is not alone in his position, there were a lot of spares in the British and other Royal families and new ones growing up, it rare but not unique to feel like Harry and his wife and the world seems to have enough of their shenanigans. They have left the sphere where the people worked to give them at least a chance to preserve their privacy, they got the exposure they (maybe it was only Meghan) craved, now they have to deal with it. Which will be utter difficult, not because all that trust has been broken in the wif´der MW-family, but because they let the beast in. Be it Scobie or someone else, they will write and will not be the whole truth and Harry and Meghan can't make it go away.

I always felt there was an underlying threat every time they spoke out. Meghan never signed an NDA. is an example. There was always this hint they would say more if they didn’t get what they were after.
It will take a great deal of effort to build trust again.

 

[southwind]

It wouldn’t surprise me if he truly believed that he could leak the 2 names via the Dutch edition and get away with it by blaming the translator or the publisher.

Agree 100%. It's not casuallity that he mention days before on an interview that he knows the two names, but could not put them on the book in the UK for legal reasons...

I think that this was on purpose to trash Kate and Charles, but they are so narcissistic that they never expected the reaction of the public would be on the royal family side, just because they lost all the credibility (and is all their fault).

Half truth/half lies and hyperbolic answers were always their methodology.

 

[Juliette2]

Or maybe somebody else wanted the names to come out and is using Scobie as a scapegoat... I think he's become a liability even for the Sussexes at this point. His future looks very bleak indeed.

Also, what a coincidence that we know the names because they were written down in correspondence by Meghan who is known to astutely write letters that may, one day, be leaked and made public....Do we know when these letters were written? Before or after the Oprah's interview?

Finally, do I understand correctly that Scobie has stated that he has seen the letters (or a copy of ) themselves?

 

[HRHHermione]

Or maybe somebody else wanted the names to come out and is using Scobie as a scapegoat... I think he's become a liability even for the Sussexes at this point. His future looks very bleak indeed.

Also, what a coincidence that we know the names because they were written down in correspondence by Meghan who is known to astutely write letters that may, one day, be leaked and made public....Do we know when these letters were written? Before or after the Oprah's interview?

Finally, do I understand correctly that Scobie has stated that he has seen the letters (or a copy of ) themselves?

In the book, the explanation is that even though it was private correspondence, Scobie knows about it because it was seen by a palace aide who later left on bad terms. I didn’t find the explanation particularly plausible- for someone to speak confidently about the contents of a letter, I think it would have to be read by that person, not just casually glimpsed at sitting on a desk.

 

[Juliette2]

In the book, the explanation is that even though it was private correspondence, Scobie knows about it because it was seen by a palace aide who later left on bad terms. I didn’t find the explanation particularly plausible- for someone to speak confidently about the contents of a letter, I think it would have to be read by that person, not just casually glimpsed at sitting on a desk.

Thanks for the explanation! Yes, very fishy...

 

[GondorHasNoPants]

In the book, the explanation is that even though it was private correspondence, Scobie knows about it because it was seen by a palace aide who later left on bad terms. I didn’t find the explanation particularly plausible- for someone to speak confidently about the contents of a letter, I think it would have to be read by that person, not just casually glimpsed at sitting on a desk.

If this story is true, could the palace sue Scobie to reveal the aide's name? Because I imagine that aide would have signed an NDA which they have now violated by sharing info about the letter.

Would this only be a civil matter? Would any aspect of it be treated as a criminal matter instead, because it involves breaching the privacy of documents belonging to the Head of State?

 

[Juliette2]

If this story is true, could the palace sue Scobie to reveal the aide's name? Because I imagine that aide would have signed an NDA which they have now violated by sharing info about the letter.

Would this only be a civil matter? Would any aspect of it be treated as a criminal matter instead, because it involves breaching the privacy of documents belonging to the Head of State?

The issue is very interesting and you make some excellent points...

 

[Mbruno]

Where did he specifically say that "he never had a finished version with names in it”. !

I couldn't find the quote with "finished" in it although I remember seeing it, but he apparently said to RTL Boulevard:

"There's never been a version that I've produced that has names in it," the author told the RTL Boulevard show.

The quote was reported by the BBC.

In fact, unlike in the reference to a "finished version", he appears to have ruled out on Dutch TV that any earlier drafts ever had names in it. Quoting again from the link above:

But the author Omid Scobie, speaking on Dutch television on Tuesday, made it clear that any version he had produced had never named names. So that would rule out this having been a draft or remnant of some previous editing that had not been removed.

It looks like Scobie is in deep trouble now. If no version that he has ever produced had names in it, he is openly accusing the publisher or the translator of coming up with names on their own, which is a very serious accusation that can be easily refuted.

EDIT: Here is Scobie saying again that he never produced a version with names in it.

 

[Hallo girl]

As I have now appreciated you have to listen carefully to the words spoken, I will re visit his interview on This Morning. It is amazing how you can hear something said but have not listened clearly to the words spoken.

 

[camelot23ca]

The likelyhood of the translator just happening to get the TWO names correct precludes the possibility of her choosing to add them off her own back IMO.

The most likely explanation is the text she was translating DID contain the two names. But why and who put them there? Was it a genuine mistake - maybe someone copied and pasted a line in the wrong place (the "best case" scenario)? Omid handed over a copy with the names in then somehow the "wrong" copy was given to the Dutch translators? Omid purposefully handed a copy with the names in to the Dutch to avoid the, in his opinion, stricter UK laws? Who knows

If the names being included in the Dutch translation was truly a mistake I think there’s probably plenty of blame to go around. I believe the translator when she says she translated what she was given. But that still leaves Omid Scobie in addition to the entire team at the publishing house - the editor, copywriter, possibly an in -house lawyer. As little as I think of Scobie, he wasn’t self publishing online in his spare time. Many pairs of eyes would have reviewed this book and I don’t think the author would have been the one sending final copies to various translators.

The only scenario that seems plausible to me is that an earlier draft of the book included the names, the legal team at the publisher raised a bunch of red flags, the names were taken out and then someone’s overworked assistant accidentally copy and pasted the wrong thing which led to the Dutch translator receiving the earlier draft. It would be one hell of a coincidence that the “mistake” that made it through without anyone noticing just happened to be the answer to the question that Harry, Meghan and their minions have been teasing for the past several years - but I guess it’s just possible.

I know the saying is “never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity” but it’s hard to know what to think in a situation involving these particular players, who have always demonstrated an almost infinite supply of both malice and stupidity.

 

[Mbruno]

If the names being included in the Dutch translation was truly a mistake I think there’s probably plenty of blame to go around. I believe the translator when she says she translated what she was given. But that still leaves Omid Scobie in addition to the entire team at the publishing house - the editor, copywriter, possibly an in -house lawyer. As little as I think of Scobie, he wasn’t self publishing online in his spare time. Many pairs of eyes would have reviewed this book and I don’t think the author would have been the one sending final copies to various translators.

The only scenario that seems plausible to me is that an earlier draft of the book included the names, the legal team at the publisher raised a bunch of red flags, the names were taken out and then someone’s overworked assistant accidentally copy and pasted the wrong thing which led to the Dutch translator receiving the earlier draft.

Again, Scobie literally said that no early draft or version that he has ever written or edited had the 2 names in it. So any editing that resulted in the inclusion of the names is being blamed entirely on the publisher, or the translator, or both.

That is a very dangerous position for Scobie to maintain as I am sure that the publisher and the translator keep copies of every manuscript that was sent to them.

EDIT: If Scobie is telling the truth, and the publisher or the translator added names on their own discretion, one wonders if the publisher had other (uncredited) sources besides Scobie, or if the information that is in the Dutch version is not even factual since it does not come either from Scobie or from anybody else who saw the correspondence between Charles and Meghan. The hypotheses that the publisher or, even less likely, the translator, would add any names without verifying the information , or that the publisher would get the scoop from someone else and send the edited text to the translator without consulting the author, are so far-fetched that I am led to conclude that Scobie is either lying or is mistaken in his recollection of the facts.

 

[Somebody]

And Catherine wasn't named by name but only by her title. So, technically he is correct that no version had two names in it...

 

[Iluvbertie]

Interesting when you say Catherine was named by title as at the time of the alleged incident Catherine didn't hold the title Princess of Wales, Camilla did. I know Camilla didn't use it but she did hold it so ... is it Catherine or Camilla who was meant in that it was The Prince AND Princess of Wales at the time who were asking these things or was it the then Prince of Wales and the now Princess of Wales.

This is just a thought. I have no idea. I haven't read the book, only the excellent summaries provided here and the various articles in the British media.

 

[VictoriaB]

Interesting when you say Catherine was named by title as at the time of the alleged incident Catherine didn't hold the title Princess of Wales, Camilla did. I know Camilla didn't use it but she did hold it so ... is it Catherine or Camilla who was meant in that it was The Prince AND Princess of Wales at the time who were asking these things or was it the then Prince of Wales and the now Princess of Wales.

Someone upthread raised the same question & there was a reply that the attribution is to Sister in Law not the title, so Kate.

I haven’t read either the Dutch version or the tweet that started all this so I’m just going by what was said upthread.

 

[Mbruno]

And Catherine wasn't named by name but only by her title. So, technically he is correct that no version had two names in it...

He didn't actually say "two names" in the YouTube clip I posted, but rather "names" without qualification. I added "two" in my reply just to emphasize that the names the quote referred to are those of the people involved in the alleged conversation.

Scobie's statement (that he never produced a text with names in it) is also unambiguous. I doubt he would claim that there were no names because he wrote "Princess of Wales" rather than "Catherine". That would be silly.

Incidentally, Catherine was not yet the Princess of Wales back then. So if that is indeed the title that the Dutch version used, it is another mistake. We do know, however, that the "Princess of Wales" mentioned in the book is indeed Catherine because, in the next sentence, she is referred to as Meghan's "sister-in-law" according to the (translated) excerpt posted by Evers.

 

[Somebody]

Interesting when you say Catherine was named by title as at the time of the alleged incident Catherine didn't hold the title Princess of Wales, Camilla did. I know Camilla didn't use it but she did hold it so ... is it Catherine or Camilla who was meant in that it was The Prince AND Princess of Wales at the time who were asking these things or was it the then Prince of Wales and the now Princess of Wales.

This is just a thought. I have no idea. I haven't read the book, only the excellent summaries provided here and the various articles in the British media.

It is clear that although in that part of the manuscript 'the king' and 'the princess of Wales' are used it (elsewhere it is plain 'Charles'); it was Catherine as in the same or next sentence a reference is made to 'her sister-in-law' (which is Meghan). But indeed at that time the king wasn't king and the princess of Wales was still the Duchess of Cambridge.

He didn't actually say "two names" in the YouTube clip I posted, but rather "names" without qualification. I added "two" in my reply just to emphasize that the names the quote referred to are those of the people involved in the alleged conversation.

Scobie's statement (that he never produced a text with names in it) is also unambiguous. I doubt he would claim that there were no names because he wrote "Princess of Wales" rather than "Catherine". That would be silly.

Incidentally, Catherine was not yet the Princess of Wales back then. So if that is indeed the title that the Dutch version used, it is another mistake. We do know, however, that the "Princess of Wales" mentioned in the book is indeed Catherine because, in the next sentence, she is referred to as Meghan's "sister-in-law" according to the (translated) excerpt posted by Evers.

While it might be silly. They clearly played word games to deny the involvement of the Sussexes in his previous book, so, it seems very likely that he is playing word games once more.

 

[Kataryn]

Again, Scobie literally said that no early draft or version that he has ever written or edited had the 2 names in it. So any editing that resulted in the inclusion of the names is being blamed entirely on the publisher, or the translator, or both.

That is a very dangerous position for Scobie to maintain as I am sure that the publisher and the translator keep copies of every manuscript that was sent to them.

EDIT: If Scobie is telling the truth, and the publisher or the translator added names on their own discretion, one wonders if the publisher had other (uncredited) sources besides Scobie, or if the information that is in the Dutch version is not even factual since it does not come either from Scobie or from anybody else who saw the correspondence between Charles and Meghan. The hypotheses that the publisher or, even less likely, the translator, would add any names without verifying the information , or that the publisher would get the scoop from someone else and send the edited text to the translator without consulting the author, are so far-fetched that I am led to conclude that Scobie is either lying or is mistaken in his recollection of the facts.

I go by "Cui Bono?" here - who profits from it. And it's neither the Dutch üublisher nor the translator. So Scobie had an excellent motive, the opportunity and the hope that a potential blame would be put on a different side. He got away with a lot for "Finding Freedom" and LA is far away from the Uk, so he probaly thought it would turn out alright.

But now it turned out that the Dutch publisher had serious cost for pulping part or the whole First edition, a translator has sorrows with her job and I doubt it will stay low level if it ever was.

My bet is on Scobie.

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

I always felt there was an underlying threat every time they spoke out. Meghan never signed an NDA. is an example. There was always this hint they would say more if they didn’t get what they were after.
It will take a great deal of effort to build trust again.

I agree! What still baffles me is why the Sussexes seem to think they can lob hand granades by revealing private, family conversations but seem surprised or “hurt” when family members shun them because of what they’ve said.

 

[TLLK]

Yes! The couple doesn't appear to understand that their actions and words will have consequences among the family members. King Charles didn't need to issue a "warning" to the family as most of them realized that their private interaction with the Sussexes might be revealed sooner or later.

 

[Toledo]

I'm trying to catch up with this topic and also saw some very funny YouTubers following the subject, too. The best is always the sardonic Dr. Grande and his dead pan humor - interjecting a joke within a serious moment with a straight face.

What can I say, the Montecitos can change the negative public image overnight with one great PR moment. Let the grandpas meet the kids, for Meghan to be a grown up and accept her elderly father's apologies, be done with it and move on.

That simple. When we are older, like me that I'll be 64 this month, you come to terms with looking back at all the stupid tantrums we all experience in life and think how irrelevant they were. When someone apologizes, especially a parent, for things they did to you and show remorse now that their lives and health are taking a bad turn, you accept the apology to remove that weight off your shoulders.

I hope they get better advice in 2024 and this End Game book-gate they are now embroiled it becomes a thing of the past and not something they can't move away from because of this 'fan' writer they allowed in within their sphere of influence.

From the excerpts I read above, this author and his seek for fame feels more to me like a Montecito obsessed fan attempting to be closer to the Sussex couple and also be their foot guard. They don't need any more negative publicity for 2023.