The Palace were expecting a hatchet job, but the sheer maliciousness of the claims in Omid Scobie's book has left them all reeling, writes REBECCA ENGLISH

Omid Scobie recently posted a cryptic message on X saying: 'If there's a book you really want to read, but it hasn't been written yet, then you must write it', adding: 'So I did!'

Perhaps he should have paid more attention to the better-known saying: 'If you haven't got anything nice to say, say nothing at all.'

For that, in a nutshell, is the fatal failing of his vitriolic new royal tome, Endgame, the sheer malice of which has left Palace staff reeling.

A critical look at the monarchy and whether it is an anachronism in the modern world would have been tolerated, even welcomed by some.

Every publicly funded national institution has to be prepared to justify its existence – and Buckingham Palace is no different.

Of course they will fight their corner, rabidly so at times (I've been on the receiving end of enough 'hairdryer' treatments to know that).

But even the most ardent royalist accepts that we are no longer living in an age of unquestioning reverence. The monarchy must prove its worth and relevance every day.

But the toxic nastiness of Scobie's book, the oozing bile that seeps from almost every sentence and the pantomime nature of its supposed villains (from King Charles and Queen Camilla, to the Prince and Princess of Wales, their staff – and even me!) leaves readers feeling quite grubby with the utter spitefulness of it all.

Like a bitter ex, Scobie dons the mantle of narcissism and victimhood of the couple he most definitely doesn't act as a 'mouthpiece' for to attack everyone from the King (for not giving Harry and Meghan what they wanted), to 'cold' Catherine (for her wariness of her new sister-in-law and wanting to spend time with her children in the holidays) and even poor old Prince Edward and Sophie, for daring to make an embarrassed joke out of the Sussexes' notorious Oprah interview.

The only person who has been ring-fenced is the late Queen Elizabeth, whom even Scobie knows (as do Harry and Meghan) it would be extremely unwise to take in his sights.

The shock in palace circles this week, as the true nature of the book began to emerge, has been palpable.

They were expecting a hatchet job, of course, given the author's well-known sympathies, but not one as viciously and aggressively one-sided as this.

'I think everyone is shocked at the malice and the deliberate cruelty of what he has written, not to mention the misogyny of much of what he says,' a source tells me.

'That's particularly breathtaking from someone who also makes such an effort to tell us what a high-minded person he is, operating above what he depicts as the incestuous fray of run-of-the-mill royal reporting.'

Among the claims of misogyny Scobie has faced is that the Princess of Wales is 'technically a part-time working royal' because of her determination to also be a hands-on mum and describing her rather patronisingly as the monarchy's 'last shiny thing for many years to come'.

And as more in royal circles read the book yesterday, one source told me – with genuine incredulity – that it was 'so thoroughly littered with errors, both basic and more serious', that it was 'discredited as a piece of journalism'.

That's not to say Scobie gets it all wrong. It's important, in the interests of being even-handed, to make that clear.

Tensions between Charles and William? Yes, that's recognisable. Father and son have never entirely seen eye-to-eye, as I've written many times over the years.

Did William and Kate welcome Meghan in with open arms?

Scobie says no – and I agree. But can their instinctive wariness in admitting a stranger into their tightly knit circle really be interpreted as social superiority and coldness?

And surely what's happened since (Oprah, Harry's book Spare and the rest) shows they were indeed right to be careful?

As for the issue of race and diversity, Buckingham Palace knows full well it must do better to ensure it truly reflects the whole country.

But in order for people to take you seriously, you have to take your subject matter seriously.

And this 400-page poison-pen letter amounts, as most of Endgame's reviewers have pointed out, to a settling of petty slights, interspersed with its author's pontifications on the evils of an institution he clearly despises. He has a right to be critical, but a responsibility to be fair.

Indeed, some might think his complaint of the 'institutional cruelty' of the House of Windsor, seems rather hypocritical given the nastiness of the Mansion of Montecito in recent years.

Everyone, particularly those who live their lives in the public eye, have to learn to bite their lip sometimes. Harry and Meghan, whose popularity has plummeted in recent months, are learning this to their peril. The question remains whether their favourite biographer will also meet his Endgame as a result of his latest – and most viperous – attack.