The Daily Telegraph - Saturday
Back off Scobie – our royals deserve better
‘Backlash over
Scobie’s book might give him an inkling of the frustrations the King has to live with’
Iwatched Omid Scobie’s appearance on Newsnight the other day (so you don’t have to) as the wretched scribbler lamented the way that the PR had gone awry at the publication of his book Endgame; his latest assault on the Royal family. Rather than wallowing in unfettered praise at his investigating prowess – of fresh revelations, of explosive new insights – the narrative was side-tracked by the question of how a Dutch version of the book contained the names of two senior royals who had apparently wondered about the skin colour of Harry and Meghan’s first-born child Archie.
Scobie talked of “a book I was extremely proud of now completely overshadowed by an event that has caused me a lot of frustration”. The sweet irony, of course, being that the poor little lamb might now get some proper insight into what it’s like being a royal with people fishing round at the edges, attempting to milk gossip from any willing “source”.
Now Scobie might in fact get an inkling of what it must be like, to be, say, the King; of the frustration of scandalous diversions bagging the airtime, his team are taking calls on it, while he’s trying to fulfil duties arranged long in advance. Or of the frustration of any member of the Royal family as they visit a disability centre in Camberley or host a reception at Buckingham Palace for the Diplomatic Corps or visit a women’s refuge in Leytonstone, a Coptic church in Stevenage, a new surgical unit at a children’s hospital by Waterloo and so on and on and on. And all the while looking cheerful and smiling and knowing that if you ever uttered so much as a cross word to a stranger that they would then tell their friends, and their family and that moment would echo down through the generations. Scobie can’t even oversee the publication of a poxy book without all hell breaking loose and then moaning and groaning about it across the media landscape.
But then the royals, the King, in his telling, deserve it. The King is, after all, as Scobie often points out, and repeated again on Newsnight,a
“publicly-funded official”. The incident must be investigated and those who were party to it held to account because, he says, “this was a conversation that happened behind private doors that was had by publiclyfunded officials”. He continued that “they should be scrutinised like we do politicians, like any other publiclyfunded officials”.
And he’s egged on by republicans, with cheerleaders like Yasmin Alibhai-Brown shrieking on X, formerly Twitter, that “we pay for this lot…”. The idea being that because the Royal family are part-funded by the Sovereign Grant, raised from taxes, agreed by the Government, they are fair game: in front of, behind, above and below those private doors. All utterances, behaviours and actions, trivial or not, are ours to dissect and opine upon.
So Kate can get it in the neck from Scobie because she fell in love with and married William. She made a choice, in marrying a publicly-funded official, to become one herself. She then gave birth to three publiclyfunded officials (age being no barrier) and, no doubt, uses it as a stick to beat the children with when they’re behaving badly: “Louis, give Charlotte her yellow digger back. That is NOT how a publicly-funded official behaves.”
That this approach is dehumanising and cruel is no matter. We pay for them, we own them. We can do what we will with them. Indeed Peter Morgan, creator of The Crown, doesn’t even feel the need to offer a justification for his fictional portrayals of living royals, which most people watch and believe is a sort of nicelooking documentary.
“Dramatists are born to write about kings and queens. That’s what we do,” he once said. And his buddy, Netflix boss Ted Sarandos, actually ventured of The Crown that “it humanised them. These folks who are by design not relatable, [Morgan] made them relatable.” And thus The Crown depicts even (or rather especially) the most private of moments. And depicts them as – or at least they are interpreted as – facts. Even though the series is little more than red-top tittle-tattle dressed up, decorated, styled and acted with great taste, skill and precision.
I wonder if the actors ever ponder beyond their performances. Can those who portray the most private moments in a living royal’s life expect that then they should be immune from unfair, inaccurate or downright invented stories?
If we, as republicans would wish, manage to destroy the monarchy, rip it to shreds and cast it into the bin of historical anachronism, then what? One can only assume the head of state that follows (corruptible merely by dint of actually wanting to do the damn job) will be a publicly-funded official along with an entourage which will similarly attract endless assault until that institution is finished.
Except that an elected head of state would expect that. Politicians court criticism, it goes with the territory. They give up a private life, they can’t complain about (legal) media scrutiny. They are schooled, surely, on the treacherous paths of political life. As they sit around the Cabinet table, they know that most of their highprofile colleagues will do a book at some point in which they will endeavour to stitch up their fellow ministers. And if they don’t do it, one of their crafty wives will.
It’s thus surprising when they commit highly personal, abusive or indiscreet thoughts to WhatsApp. And thus not surprising that having made such an error they then, er, manage to, er somehow, sort of lose all those incriminating messages when the, er, blasted phone thingy sort of shut down then re-booted and all the, er, messages had been (for the first time in IT history) deleted.
In a functioning democracy, politicians invite and encourage media criticism. But the Royal family, as the embodiment and backbone of our traditions, cultures and values – who work for, represent, encourage and champion so many good and important ventures – deserve better. Better than Scobie’s gossip-mongering dressed up as vital debate on the future of constitutional monarchy.
Particularly when it comes to digging up and dusting down that old accusation of racism as was implicit in Meghan’s original revelation to Oprah Winfrey.
You’ll recall she said that there were “concerns and conversations about how dark [Archie’s] skin might be when he’s born”. Except, of course, says Scobie (and Prince Harry) that wasn’t racism it was “unconscious bias”.
I once swerved a course on that subject at a firm I worked at. I didn’t feel the need to have my instincts corrected. If you think a person might be wrong for a particular task because they strike you as an annoying, lazy git, you’re probably right.
Now Scobie complains about facing backlashes from what he sees as misreporting of himself and his book. The very thing his book does to the royals. Perhaps the King should persuade Princess Anne to marry him. Thereby subjecting him to daily terror and enabling the rest of us to tear him to shreds.