"End Game" by Omid Scobie - 2023


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
duchessrachel said:
At this point, I think the Royal Family should just move on and not even consider making a statement. I think the public has already made it clear its feelings about this book.
Click to expand...
I wholeheartedly agree.
 
I agree, I think personally that is why they waited to see how it landed in the media and with the public. Its clear now no one believes it and actually the greater fuss is on how the names were included (thanks to Omid adding confusion to that by insisting he never put the names in) so the RF should just keep calm and carry on doing lots of good works over this festive season. We have the Carol Concert next week, the family lunch then Sandringham. United, togetherness, moving forward.
 
US Royal Watcher said:
I just checked Amazon and it isn't in the top 100. It is actually #140, which means that the book has only sold a couple of thousand copies in the last week.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that info.

I was wondering if people wouldn't be more inclined to buy this book online rather than in physical stores. (In general I believe most books are now bought online.)
But that position is pretty dreadful for such a "juicy" book. Especially up to Christmas where books about royals sell the most.
 
I’ll be buying ‘EndGame in online, as I do now for most of my books. (My home is over-full with books and I’ve been using Amazon Kindle now for a very long time.) A close friend of mine will be ordering one for her Kindle for Xmas as well.

On the other hand my elder daughter has ordered a physical copy from an outlet in town. I do agree that many, many people now read books on Kindle. Most of my friends do, even though there is nothing nicer than the feel and smell of a brand new book in your hands!
 
This is interesting:

"The Sun revealed today that Scobie has further deepened the rift between Princes William and Harry thanks after it emerged that the Dutch version of his controversial book brands the heir to the throne “heartless”.

The highly inflammatory term however, does not appear in the UK edition of Endgame - just like the two names."

It looks like there are more differences between the UK and Dutch versions....

https://www.thesun.co.uk/royals/24933033/prince-harry-meghan-stripped-royal-titles/
https://www.thesun.co.uk/royals/24930053/prince-william-denied-harry-chance-fly-queens-deathbed/
 
Last edited:
My sister's bookclub voted hands down that it will NOT be bought, read or even contemplated, so that's 26 non-sales Mr Scobie!! :lol:
 
Juliette2 said:
This is interesting:

"The Sun revealed today that Scobie has further deepened the rift between Princes William and Harry thanks after it emerged that the Dutch version of his controversial book brands the heir to the throne “heartless”.

The highly inflammatory term however, does not appear in the UK edition of Endgame - just like the two names."

It looks like there are more differences between the UK and Dutch versions....

https://www.thesun.co.uk/royals/24933033/prince-harry-meghan-stripped-royal-titles/
https://www.thesun.co.uk/royals/24930053/prince-william-denied-harry-chance-fly-queens-deathbed/
Click to expand...

In this particular case, it would be interesting to know what words exactly were used in the English and Dutch versions respectively. That way we would get a better sense of whether it was a genuine translation error or not.
 
Reminds me of all those unscientific polls run by British tabloids before ‘Spare’ was published, with respondents who swore black and blue that they werent interested in reading it and wouldn’t be buying it. And the result was that Spare was a bestseller all over the world including in the UK.

I’m not suggesting End Game will do those sort of numbers at all. However with so many online outlets now for books I don’t believe the numbers who will be reading or listening to this book are half as dire as the media would have us believe.
 
The bookclub didn't buy and read Spare either! It made the Sussex's and their publishers a wad of money, for sure, but it hasn't improved their reputations one iota.
 
Curryong said:
I’ll be buying ‘EndGame in online, as I do now for most of my books. (My home is over-full with books and I’ve been using Amazon Kindle now for a very long time.) A close friend of mine will be ordering one for her Kindle for Xmas as well.

On the other hand my elder daughter has ordered a physical copy from an outlet in town. I do agree that many, many people now read books on Kindle. Most of my friends do, even though there is nothing nicer than the feel and smell of a brand new book in your hands!
Click to expand...

This title isn’t on my ‘want to read’ list, but if it were, I’d get it from my local library.
Thanks to the internet (and generous posters here) I doubt there is much new material to be covered.
 
Mbruno said:
In this particular case, it would be interesting to know what words exactly were used in the English and Dutch versions respectively. That way we would get a better sense of whether it was a genuine translation error or not.
Click to expand...

The Dutch translator clearly got a different (earlier) version that was later 'cleaned up' for het official UK version, so let's not venture into it being translation errors... The translators are not to blame.
 
Somebody said:
The Dutch translator clearly got a different (earlier) version that was later 'cleaned up' for het official UK version, so let's not venture into it being translation errors... The translators are not to blame.
Click to expand...

That would be too many translation errors, all in the same vein. I have yet to see someone sound the alarm for Meghan and Harry being presented as way too harsh in the Dutch version, in contrast to the UK one.

Not translation errors at all. The words aren't the problem, the vein in which the two manuscripts were written was. It was not the same vein.
 
Last edited:
duchessrachel said:
At this point, I think the Royal Family should just move on and not even consider making a statement. I think the public has already made it clear its feelings about this book.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I'm black American, as are both my parents and all my grand and great-grandparents. My mom has slightly lighter skin than my father, but when my bother was born, he was pale with sandy red hair, which no one in my family has. I've heard lots of stories from family and friends about how shocked everyone was by his appearance and how they jokingly asked my mom if she'd been given the right baby to bring home or if there was something she needed to tell my father, LOL. (FWIW, my brother has always been lighter skinned, but the red hair went away after a year or so). Similarly, when my cousin's first son was born, he was also very light, and I remember her (black) in-laws joking about how he'd probably darken up as he got older.

This is why I nodded along when I heard Sir Trevor's comments. Skin color is a really common thing for black and mixed families to discuss and/or joke about when babies are born, though I imagine that kind of speculation and/or joking might sound different when it's coming from "the white side of the family."

Only Harry can tell us what was said and why he found it objectionable. And while I can believe a clumsy comment may have been made, I simply don't believe either Charles or Kate have any animus towards black people (or any other racial group). TBH, the "royal racist" story never rung true to me. Unlike Oprah, I've been a royal watcher long enough that every inconsistency, half-truth, and misstatement in H&M's interview with her immediately jumped out to me and cast doubt on the veracity of a lot of the things they said. But finding out it was (allegedly) Charles and Kate who were involved is what makes me confident that this entire story was overblown from the start.

I imagine a lot of other people feel the same way, which is why the "reveal" hasn't had the negative impact some may have been hoping for. So I definitely agree that the BRF would be wise at this point not to dignify it with a response.
 
Thanks Kenya. Very well said. And Thankyou for your perspective too.
 
Ghost said:
So, aparently, there was a draft with the names and there was a final version without the names. This fact makes Scobie a liar. Again.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...f-endgame-naming-royals-in-race-row-jjtvfxvr6

And the archived link:

https://archive.is/9zp8v
Click to expand...

On the interview I saw on TV he said that the book he signed off on did not contain names. Emphasis on signed off on. I believe he did have names on something because he repeatedly went on about the UK laws preventing him publishing . it would suggest that he thought about it but lawyers stepped in or he thought better off it.
 
Hallo girl said:
On the interview I saw on TV he said that the book he signed off on did not contain names. Emphasis on signed off on. I believe he did have names on something because he repeatedly went on about the UK laws preventing him publishing . it would suggest that he thought about it but lawyers stepped in or he thought better off it.
Click to expand...


'I'm as frustrated as everyone else. The book I wrote, the book I edited, the book I signed off on, did not have names in it'.

Nuances.
 
Somebody said:
The Dutch translator clearly got a different (earlier) version that was later 'cleaned up' for het official UK version, so let's not venture into it being translation errors... The translators are not to blame.
Click to expand...

As far as the use of "heartless" is concerned, it may well have been a choice made by the translator.

As discussed before, in the case of names of the people involved in the conversation about Meghan's future child's skin color, Omid Scobie vehemently denies that there has ever been a different or earlier English version with names in it. Of course, Omid may be lying , as The Times article suggested, but that has not been proven yet and won't be unless the publisher or the translator show the draft that was sent to them.
 
Last edited:
Kenya said:
Agreed. I'm black American, as are both my parents and all my grand and great-grandparents. My mom has slightly lighter skin than my father, but when my bother was born, he was pale with sandy red hair, which no one in my family has. I've heard lots of stories from family and friends about how shocked everyone was by his appearance and how they jokingly asked my mom if she'd been given the right baby to bring home or if there was something she needed to tell my father, LOL. (FWIW, my brother has always been lighter skinned, but the red hair went away after a year or so). Similarly, when my cousin's first son was born, he was also very light, and I remember her (black) in-laws joking about how he'd probably darken up as he got older.

This is why I nodded along when I heard Sir Trevor's comments. Skin color is a really common thing for black and mixed families to discuss and/or joke about when babies are born, though I imagine that kind of speculation and/or joking might sound different when it's coming from "the white side of the family."

Only Harry can tell us what was said and why he found it objectionable. And while I can believe a clumsy comment may have been made, I simply don't believe either Charles or Kate have any animus towards black people (or any other racial group). TBH, the "royal racist" story never rung true to me. Unlike Oprah, I've been a royal watcher long enough that every inconsistency, half-truth, and misstatement in H&M's interview with her immediately jumped out to me and cast doubt on the veracity of a lot of the things they said. But finding out it was (allegedly) Charles and Kate who were involved is what makes me confident that this entire story was overblown from the start.

I imagine a lot of other people feel the same way, which is why the "reveal" hasn't had the negative impact some may have been hoping for. So I definitely agree that the BRF would be wise at this point not to dignify it with a response.
Click to expand...


Thank you Kenya, really interesting to get your view point on this ! thanks for sharing
 
Kenya said:
Agreed. I'm black American, as are both my parents and all my grand and great-grandparents. My mom has slightly lighter skin than my father, but when my bother was born, he was pale with sandy red hair, which no one in my family has. I've heard lots of stories from family and friends about how shocked everyone was by his appearance and how they jokingly asked my mom if she'd been given the right baby to bring home or if there was something she needed to tell my father, LOL. (FWIW, my brother has always been lighter skinned, but the red hair went away after a year or so). Similarly, when my cousin's first son was born, he was also very light, and I remember her (black) in-laws joking about how he'd probably darken up as he got older.

This is why I nodded along when I heard Sir Trevor's comments. Skin color is a really common thing for black and mixed families to discuss and/or joke about when babies are born, though I imagine that kind of speculation and/or joking might sound different when it's coming from "the white side of the family."

Only Harry can tell us what was said and why he found it objectionable. And while I can believe a clumsy comment may have been made, I simply don't believe either Charles or Kate have any animus towards black people (or any other racial group). TBH, the "royal racist" story never rung true to me. Unlike Oprah, I've been a royal watcher long enough that every inconsistency, half-truth, and misstatement in H&M's interview with her immediately jumped out to me and cast doubt on the veracity of a lot of the things they said. But finding out it was (allegedly) Charles and Kate who were involved is what makes me confident that this entire story was overblown from the start.

I imagine a lot of other people feel the same way, which is why the "reveal" hasn't had the negative impact some may have been hoping for. So I definitely agree that the BRF would be wise at this point not to dignify it with a response.
Click to expand...

Thank you for sharing your perspectives. Well said!
 
Ghost said:
So, aparently, there was a draft with the names and there was a final version without the names. This fact makes Scobie a liar. Again.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...f-endgame-naming-royals-in-race-row-jjtvfxvr6

And the archived link:

https://archive.is/9zp8v
Click to expand...
Thanks so much for this link! :flowers:

After reading it I was able to read another article in the Times about the hypocrisy of them keeping their honorifics while “rubbishing” the institution that bestowed it. Here is that article:

https://archive.is/TGzQj
 
Thanks so much for your thoughtful post, Kenya! I think all families talk and joke around about a baby’s appearance. All in love and excitement about a new family member who will bring much joy and further the bond of family.:flowers:

I can imagine the surprise around your brother’s red hair - lol! My new granddaughter has strawberry blonde hair and my SIL’s family is wondering about that. :eek: My mom (her great grandmother) had red hair but none of her children did.

I agree with you that whatever the comment(s) was, I cannot imagine that it was malicious or racist in intent.
 
Mbruno said:
In this particular case, it would be interesting to know what words exactly were used in the English and Dutch versions respectively. That way we would get a better sense of whether it was a genuine translation error or not.
Click to expand...


Does William have someone who compares the Dutch and the English versions of the book? I could understand that a secretary read the English version and

came up with a report om it, but the Dutch, too?
 
Royalist.in.NC said:
Thanks so much for this link! :flowers:

After reading it I was able to read another article in the Times about the hypocrisy of them keeping their honorifics while “rubbishing” the institution that bestowed it. Here is that article:

https://archive.is/TGzQj
Click to expand...

That's a great article, thanks for posting.

I wonder if PH is aware that if this had all happened a few hundred years ago, he could well have found himself getting acquainted with a barrel of malmsey wine! :D
 

7.52mins - "I have never submitted a book with their names in it"


Yes you did, so you are a liar. Simple as that.
 
Royalist.in.NC said:
Thanks so much for this link! :flowers:

After reading it I was able to read another article in the Times about the hypocrisy of them keeping their honorifics while “rubbishing” the institution that bestowed it. Here is that article:

https://archive.is/TGzQj
Click to expand...

Thank you for the link.:flowers:

As I understand things only Parliament can remove the dukedom as it is a peerage. The royal styles & titles (prince, HRH) are entirely in the gift of the sovereign & can be given or taken away at HM’s pleasure. Recently demonstrated by The Queen of Denmark.

There is also the Princess Patricia of Connaught option whereby someone with a royal style & title can voluntarily relinquish them. A convenient & useful precedent for a reluctant royal I would have thought.
 
Last edited:
tommy100 said:

7.52mins - "I have never submitted a book with their names in it"


Yes you did, so you are a liar. Simple as that.
Click to expand...

He certainly seems to have submitted a manuscript with the names in. Rather silly of him to think that all this would not come out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Stefan
Jewels worn by Members of the Spanish Royal Family 2: Jun 2023 -
Replies
14
Views
2K
An Ard Ri
An Ard Ri

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom