Omid Scobie lied about his age because he had a 'little insecurity' about turning 40 - after royal biographer claimed to be six years younger and thought 'no one would ever know'

The biographer behind a controversial new book that threatens to tear the Royal Family apart has admitted lying about his age - because he felt insecure about turning 40.

Omid Scobie, 42, previously claimed in a 2020 newspaper interview to have been 32 years old at the time - but journalists looked into the former tabloid reporter and discovered he was in fact 38.

Scobie, the author of bombshell tome Endgame: Inside the Royal Family and the Monarchy's Fight for Survival, has since admitted that it was an 'unfortunate and naive' move on his part - but claims he felt insecure about approaching 40.

In a series of interviews, the ex-Yahoo! News royal editor said he thought it was 'par for the course' to deduct a few years from your age in the world of television, where he regularly appears as a royal commentator.

He has also defended Endgame, which paints what Buckingham Palace insiders have described as a 'depressingly poisonous' picture of the Royal Household - and one that critics say appears to act as a mouthpiece for Harry and Meghan.

Scobie told the Evening Standard: 'I work in an industry where I’m surrounded by people who are, let’s say, conservative with telling their age, particularly in television.'

'You learn from those mistakes. I can't do much more than own it,' he said, adding that he had a 'little insecurity' about turning 40 and thought 'no one would ever know'.

The boyish reporter insists he hasn't had any surgical interventions to retain his youthful looks - but admits to having tried Botox and undergoing Ultherapy, a non-surgical skin-tightening procedure.

He told The Times: '[Lying about my age] was unfortunate and naive of me. I’ve not been under the knife, not done anything crazy.'

Scobie has used a series of interviews, published to mark Endgame's release, to defend his reporting - claiming to have a knack for lip-reading that has helped him to get scoops. 

He found fame with the release of Finding Freedom, which he authored with Carolyn Durand - seen as the definitive biography on 'Megxit', as the Sussexes parted from the Royal Family to go their own way.

Critics have claimed he acts as a mouthpiece for Harry and Meghan, fighting their corner on their behalf.

But despite both books offering an almost unparalleled insight into the life of Harry and Meghan, Scobie insists he is not Meghan's friend and does not depend on them to get their side of the story.

Today, he hit back at his critics on Instagram - and ignored some of the reviews - to declare: 'After all the nonsense written by people who haven't seen the book, I'm looking forward to everyone actually being able to read Endgame for themselves.'

Buckingham Palace has kept a contemptuous silence but a royal source has dismissed Scobie's Endgame as just another book on the Windsors that is not worthy of official comment. 

The insider told MailOnline when asked if there were truth in claims made by Mr Scobie: 'There are hundreds of books written about the Royal Family'. 

Endgame was released today but some of the reviews been poor.  Even the Sussex-sympathising New York Times was withering, describing Scobie as a 'sympathetic biographer' whose predictions of the end of the royals are 'a tad hyperbolic'.

The new book on the royals was branded 'vicious' and 'plain nasty' last night. Well-placed sources described wild claims that Charles, Camilla and William conspired to undermine Harry and Meghan as 'depressingly poisonous'. 

Omid Scobie's book also takes aim at the Princess of Wales, branding her 'cold' and lambasting her for backing mental health causes while 'ignoring Meghan's cries for help'.

It tries to stoke a row over the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh's jokey bid to deflect questions about the Sussexes' bombshell Oprah Winfrey interview by saying: 'Oprah who?' He says this made Edward and Sophie seem 'casually bigoted'. 

Buckingham Palace and Kensington Palace have declined to comment, believing they have nothing to gain from engaging with the claims. Charles and William were both instead out on public engagements close to their hearts – the King hosting a global investment summit and his son attending the Tusk Conservation Awards.

Those in royal circles describe the book as 'plain nasty', 'vicious' and a 'skewed' retelling of family events 'in the Sussex style'. Endgame claims:

• Charles's 'ineptitude' in handling Harry and Meghan – and refusal to give them the apology they demanded – has turned them into 'disruptors';
• Harry tried to 'reach out' to his father after the publication of his vitriolic memoir, Spare, earlier this year by calling his father, but felt the King's response was 'cold and brief';
• Senior royals turned a blind eye to aides leaking details about the Sussexes as part of their power games and subjected them to 'institutional cruelty';
• William and his father are at loggerheads about the future of the monarchy and the handling of family issues;
• Their 'distrust and simmering animosity' resulted in Charles deriving 'schadenfreude' from his son's supposedly disastrous tour of Caribbean last year;
• William is 'colder' – but also inexplicably more 'hot-headed' – than his father and 'has no problem taking prisoners on the way';
• Camilla colluded in stories being leaked about other royals and has 'no relationship' with Harry. The book says she has 'great sympathy' for what Meghan went through but 'no respect' for the way the Sussexes handled themselves;
• The King was so indecisive about how to treat his beleaguered brother Andrew that William had to step in to insist he lose his privileges;
• Charles 'stumbled' through his first 100 days as King and Queen Elizabeth had so little faith in him she made a former spymaster her 'CEO'.

Despite Scobie's claims to be independent from the Sussexes, they are the only ones spared his sharp words, rumours and tittle-tattle. He claims senior royals were jealous of Harry and Meghan's success and undermined them.

Meghan suffered because she was too dynamic, he says, 'insufficiently reverential' as a woman of colour working in an 'entitled, exceedingly white space' and reminded the royals of Princess Diana.

As a result he says palace aides refused to defend her against the negative stories that had begun to emerge about her, while being happy to take action against a publication that suggested Kate had undergone 'baby Botox'.

By contrast Queen Elizabeth liked the fact that 'Katie Keen' – a moniker said to have originated on social media – was 'coachable' as a future royal.

Yet Scobie claims her lack of patronages, engagements and insistence on spending time with her three young children in the school holidays makes her technically a 'part-time working royal'.

Scobie says the statement following Harry and Meghan's Oprah interview that 'recollections may vary' was deliberately drafted to 'plants seeds of doubt in people's minds' about their claims.

Wiliam, meanwhile, displays 'indifference', 'harshness' and continues to 'stonewall' Harry when all his brother wants is 'honest conversations and accountability'. 

And the Prince of Wales' attempts to promote racial harmony are branded 'opportunistic' given his refusal to talk to Harry about 'unconscious bias' in his own family.

The book says Charles and Meghan discussed the issue in an exchange of letters – in which she named two people she claims expressed concerned about her son Archie's skin colour.