Omid Scobie's New Book - PART 2

[Mymilkshakebringsallthepapstomycar]

I'm not sure what is the correct etiquette for carrying on a thread, but here we are. Thanks to @BoxedandRibboned for the original thread.

Original thread:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/the_royal_family/4935714-omid-scobies-new-book?page=40&reply=131041571

Beautiful isn’t it Maireas? 😁

There are reports that the Dutch translation is being pulled after it accidentally published the name of the royal ‘racist’. Said it was Charles.

How could that happen if it wasn't in the book?

Whaatt!! 😵I don't think Charles name ever came up as a 'suspect' in all those years of speculation.

They had an earlier version where the name was included? Omid said in a TV interview that he wasn’t allowed to name the racists for legal reasons so maybe it was in an earlier version and then the lawyers insisted on an edit but the Dutch translation missed it.

I don’t believe that for a moment.

About the racism I mean.

I can well believe it could be a desperate ploy for publicity.

Well this is going to be fun on Twitter

The bloke really is a grade one idiot.

He has no gravitas whatsoever, his journalistic background is somewhat poor to say the least, he's a proven liar, he doesn't fact check anything, he throws out nonsense that can be thrown back at him, etc. etc.

OK so he will get a pay cheque out of this utter garbage, then what? His credentials are on the floor.

Any why oh why Harry and Meghan ever hook their wagon to this low grade "journalist" in the first place? These two now look even more stupid than ever before, if that's at all possible.

The thing is I can imagine Charles saying something as a potential grandparent - something intended to be nice but clumsy in current woke times like “I hope they’ll have Meghan’s lovely colouring” etc but if this was passed onto Harry third hand we don’t know if there was something lost in the retelling.

The question is why would Meghan and Charles be corresponding in letters about the incident if Charles was the one being accused, it doesn’t sit with the rest of the story

👀 👀

Possibly because he remembered saying something about the future babies genes and wanted to assure Harry and Meghan that they’d got the wrong end of the stick?

Sounds like he wrote after the Oprah interview -

This is the problem, @wordler - we have no idea. In the Oprah interview, Harry said comments were made before they were married, Meghan said Harry told her when she was pregnant, with the impact on Archie's security and title. So when were the comments made, and what were they?
Then Harry backtracked in the Tom Bradby interview. The RF weren't racist at all. Now the original accusation.
Was it an innocent comment about a child's possible appearance, or something more nasty and sinister? They're letting this fester again and it's not good.

H himself has said no one was racist but may be ‘guilty’ of unconscious bias. So why is this gowk persisting in saying otherwise.

I can well believe the conversation took place as you suggest wordler. It happened with me.

It wasn’t borne of malice. I’ve heard many nasty and veiled comments in my time and when that conversation happened in my presence, it didn’t even ping my radar.

Do not mention the person here! The Dutch publisher is pulling it because it's libellous, so for heaven's sake don't repeat it.

Shit, the RF are going to have to address it now, they can't grey rock this one!!!

What the hell has Harry done to one of his loved ones (not repeating the name, even if it is everywhere now).

Oh I dunno. 'Recollections may vary' is multi-purpose and fits all sizes. Unless they have something in writing, but I assume that would have emerged by now.

Well H&M now have an opportunity to build bridges by coming out and saying: Pa said xyz, which we accept was not meant maliciously and we have resolved between us. We know KC is not racist in any way, and regret that this personal matter which was resolved has been made public.

Which they won't.
Because they cannot bare to not be the victims. They still think victimhood is the route to success, because it was in Califormia for the past 15 years. But times are a changin and people are sick of it.

Charles makes sense, in as much as MM said that conversations happened " in tandem" about Archie not getting a title and security and "concerns and comments" about how dark his skin would be. However, without knowing exactly what was said, in full context, it's impossible to know if what was said could be interpreted as racist. I think she may well have conflated the two things, and taken an innocent (if clumsy) comment on skin colour as being an indication why a title and security were being denied (the former because she doesn't understand what letters patent mean). However, we must go back to Harry who made it absolutely clear that Meghan was not accusing anyone of racism. So if it's not racism, it's, at worst, someone making a thoughtless remark, which is captured by the nebulous and highly subjective category of "unconscious bias".

I don't believe for a minute that a mention of Charles was placed in the Dutch version "by mistake" if it indeed was in there. Any more than I believe copies of Spare went on sale too early in Spain by mistake.

I'd imagine that they're not quite getting the reaction from this book that they expected today.

Recollections may indeed vary .

And it would mean the same to me this time as it meant when it was said last time.

Can you be done for libel for repeating that someone said/wrote something?
Genuine question.

I can imagine that if I were to go around saying he is racist then yes.
But is me saying Omid said he’s racist still libel? If it’s repeating someone else’s belief?

Plus, how do they account for the fact that by entitlement and parental choice, Archie and Lilibet are Prince and Princess?

I don’t think it is though. The way it’s written it doesn’t call him a racist - it more implies that there were conversations about something connected to the future babies gene pool and that there had been a misunderstanding about those conversations.

I’m actually surprised they didn’t just go ahead and publish.

It feels to me more like a publicity stunt to keep the mystery and speculation going by not naming anyone or actually saying what the content of the conversations were.

Yes you can! The very fact the Dutch publisher has taken it off sale at the request of the US publisher shows how seriously they are taking it - they know it's actionable. Repeating the name here in the light of them taking it off sale is reckless. It doesn't matter who said it first – if you state the name in public you're libelling them yourself. Plus Scobie and his publisher can argue it was a translation error and they took steps to remove it from the public domain. What's your defence for naming that person as the racist on MN?