Two senior royals 'mistakenly' identified in Omid Scobie's book as having 'concerns' over Archie's skin colour are now named on UK TV: Monarchy 'utterly dismayed' as officials take legal advice - fury grows at 'translation error' and 'spiteful' stunt

The monarchy is understood to be 'utterly dismayed' after Piers Morgan named the two senior royals who Omid Scobie claimed had 'concerns' over Prince Archie's skin colour on UK television last night.

Meghan Markle first made the claim in the Sussexes' infamous 2021 Oprah Winfrey interview when she revealed there were 'several conversations' between herself, Harry and Royal Family members about 'how dark' Archie's skin would be. 

While the Duchess of Sussex chose not to name them amid fears it would 'damage' their reputation, Morgan last night identified the royals accused on his Talk TV show - and he followed the claim up by posting it to his 8.7million social media followers.

On Tuesday it emerged that a Dutch translation of Scobie's book containing the names had gone on sale in the Netherlands. Its publisher was forced to withdraw and pulp copies amid much-mocked claims that it was an error in translation.

The two senior royals accused had not been publicly named here until Morgan's move last night.

Royal commentators have told MailOnline that it was 'the wrong thing to do', describing Morgan's stunt as 'shameful', 'spiteful' and 'nasty'. They also hit out at Scobie's book Endgame, which one described as a 'rant against the Royal Family'.

The Royal Family is understood to be 'considering all options', including legal action - as royal sources told The Mirror there was 'utter dismay' at Buckingham Palace after the names quickly went viral on social media.

Morgan tried to justify his decision by arguing he was reacting to the witch-hunt caused by Harry and Meghan's decision to air the race issue without giving any context or allowing a right to reply. The Royal Family later said the allegations were concerning but that 'recollections may vary'.

The row has been reignited this week by Omid Scobie's 'poisonous' royal book on the monarchy in which he said there was not one, but two senior royals, identified by the Duchess of Sussex in letters she subsequently wrote to King Charles on the issue the following year.

Morgan argued that it would enable people in the UK to have a 'more open debate about this whole farrago', saying: 'Because I don't believe any racist comments were ever made by any of the Royal Family, and until there is actual evidence of those comments being made, I will never believe it.

'But now we can start the process of finding out if they ever got uttered, what the context was, and whether there was any racial intent at all – like I say, I don't believe there was. The royals who are named in this book are …'

The Mail has chosen at this stage not to name the individuals involved and has redacted his quotes.

Morgan's decision is likely to spark anger and disappointment at Buckingham Palace which had refused to be drawn on the row sparked by Scobie's book and had likely been hoping that gossip on the subject would be restricted to internet and social media chatter.

Royal commentator Angela Levin told MailOnline: 'I think it's the wrong thing to do, because that, in a way, is helping Harry and Meghan to smirch the royals... to punish the royals and humiliate them.'

She said that Buckingham Palace will be 'horrified' by Morgan's comments, adding: 'It's just so unnecessary and spiteful and nasty.

'I think it's very wrong of him to name it. I think we should all keep our mouths shut because we're not on Omid's side are we? He's certainly not. He's not on Harry's or Meghan's side, and I think it's therefore a mistake.'

Fellow royal commentator Richard Fitzwilliams agreed that Morgan 'should not have named them' and said that 'the circumstances of this are extremely serious'.

He told MailOnline: 'To suddenly seize the nation's attention and propel yourself forward in this way, I think, is absolutely shameful, and it just shows that certain individuals would do anything to get publicity.'

Mr Fitzwilliams described Scobie's book as a 'rant against the royal family' and said this is 'precisely what he wanted to happen'. 'It just so happens that he's got this from Piers Morgan,' he added.

He continued: 'The circumstances which led to the names appearing in the Dutch copy of Endgame have not been explained and must surely involve Scobie in being told the names by the Sussexes, rather than friends of as it is so sensitive. 

'Yet they both deny collaboration, this surely be false. In his book Scobie makes clear he thinks the monarchy is in decline, possibly terminal decline. 

'He has taken a chance in weird circumstances to embarrass it. He has been aided by the appalling judgement of Piers Morgan in speaking out.' 

Mr Fitzwilliams said that Piers could have chosen to hold off which 'would have given the Palace and others a chance to collect their faults and see what they wanted to do' but has instead caused a 'very considerable furore'. 

Sussex insiders have said that Harry and Meghan had nothing to do with Scobie's book. Scobie has been friendly with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex in the past and co-wrote their biography Finding Freedom.

Royal author Phil Dampier said that withholding the name of the royals until now 'has been incredibly unfair to other members of the Royal Family because speculation has been rife'.

He added: 'They simply were making an inquiry or an observation that apparently is perfectly normal and acceptable among many black and mixed race families.

'Harry himself has rode back and said he and Meghan never accused anybody of being racists. So the whole thing has been blown up out of all proportion and maybe in some ways it's better to be out in open so we can have a frank and honest discussion about it.'

Mr Dampier believes that the Royal Family may have to change the late Queen's policy of 'never complain, never explain', adding: 'I think they will be scratching their heads at Buckingham Palace and wondering what the best thing to do about this is.'

He continued: 'The fact these names have been out on the internet in this world we live in... is farcical and therefore I can understand why Piers has done this. But whether it was a wise thing to do only time will tell.'

Scobie claimed in the English version of his book Endgame that although he knew the names of the two individuals involved – and had hinted even more clues heavily on US media in recently days – he could not name them because of strict libel laws in the UK.

Meanwhile pressure was mounting on Scobie last night to explain how a second member of the Royal Family was named in a Dutch translation of his book.

Neither Meghan nor Prince Harry have named the individual involved since talking about it in their bombshell 2021 Oprah Winfrey interview, prompting fevered speculation over the identity of the 'royal racist'.

Scobie and his Netherlands-based publishers were forced to pull the book from the shelves and put its launch on hold but dismissed it as a 'translation error'. Scobie then insisted on Dutch television that 'there was no version from me in which names were mentioned'.

Yesterday, however, it emerged that a second name had also been published in the Dutch version – 200 pages later – alongside a repeat of the first. And this time it was not just a word, but a sentence.

It read: 'Even after Meghan and Charles by letter discussed about possible unconscious bias within the family, after it was revealed that...[redacted] and... [redacted] had participated in these kinds of discussions about Archie,.. [redacted] avoided discussing the subject with... [redacted].' 

Moreover, while the English version and other translations have Scobie writing that he can't name those he believes were involved due to legal curbs, there is no such statement in the Dutch edition.

Publishing experts yesterday questioned how such a monumental blunder could have occurred.

Some speculated that Dutch publisher Xander Uitgevers could have been sent an early draft in which the two royals were intentionally named, before legal advice was given and the identities removed.

Sources in the Netherlands pointed out it was a small firm, unlike literary giant Harper Collins which is bringing out Endgame in the US and Britain. 

'Perhaps someone didn't see a memo which instructed them to remove certain paragraphs due to legal issues, or someone from America just forgot to send the revised manuscript to this tiny little country in Europe?' they asked. 'There doesn't seem to be any other explanation than it was in there in the first place.'

Dutch royal journalist, Rick Evers, who first spotted the discrepancy, added: 'If you compare the English and Dutch versions, it is very clear there are significant discrepancies between the two.

'The Dutch version has extra paragraphs containing names that the English language version does not have. So this cannot be a 'translation' error. It suggests they were in the version that was sent to the Dutch publishers in the first place. It is impossible otherwise.'

Ms Levin said the 'mistranslation' was 'nonsense', adding: 'This is a trick of some sort. I think this is a way of getting more publicity, which, indeed, he's got.

'And I think Harry should sue him for doing that. I think he should sue him for invading privacy.

'And if he does nothing, I mean, it's too terrible for words. He won't be invited for Christmas. It's a very odd situation.'

Scobie, who has received many negative reviews for his critical tome, admitted an 'error' had occurred but did not repeat his claim that he had 'never' written a version including the names.

He said: 'Having only written and edited the English version of Endgame, I can only comment on that manuscript – which does not name the two individuals who took part in the conversation.

'I'm happy to hear that the error in the translation of the Dutch edition book is being fixed.' Xander confirmed an 'error' had occurred and said the 'rectified' edition will be on sale from December 8.

Buckingham Palace declined to comment, with PR expert Mark Borkowski saying: 'These spats and tittle tattle will just run out. If [Harry's memoir] Spare didn't do anything to dislodge the royal brand, some journalist whose credibility is under question is not going to do anything.'

International media lawyer Mark Stephens suggested the royals could sue Scobie on the grounds of privacy, adding: 'It's difficult to see a name which is unknown to a translator become a name. That's an unusual translation error.'