Piers Morgan
Piers Morgan on his "Uncensored" show revealed the names of the two alleged "racist" royals who raised concerns about the complexion of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's son Prince Archie. Photo: Piers Morgan Uncensored/X Piers Morgan Uncensored/X

Piers Morgan has caused furore after he revealed on TV the alleged "racist" senior royals who raised concerns about the complexion of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's son, Prince Archie. Royal commentators have accused him of undermining Buckingham Palace's position to respond on the matter.

Royal author Omid Scobie said legal constraints prevented him from naming the royals in the original copy of his book "Endgame". But a Dutch translation of the book accidentally contained the names of the said "racist" royals, prompting its sales to be pulled back.

Morgan thought it was best to reveal their names nonetheless for the sake of the British public who funds the royal family. He also tried to justify his decision by arguing that there was no racial intent involved.

However, the damage has already been done. His decision reportedly did not sit well with Buckingham Palace. An unnamed source told the Mirror of the "utter dismay" his revelation caused within the firm and that the palace is "considering all options" including legal.

Royal commentators have also since slammed Morgan. Royal biographer Angela Levin said what he did was wrong because in a way, he allegedly helped Prince Harry and Meghan Markle punish and humiliate the royals.

She told the Daily Mail: "It's just so unnecessary and spiteful and nasty. I think it's very wrong of him to name it."

Levin added: "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."

Royal expert Richard Fitzwilliams agreed and said that Morgan "should not have named" the alleged "racist" royals. He said the circumstances of the host's action "are extremely serious".

"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," he said.

Fitzwilliams added that Morgan could have held off on the reveal which "would have given the Palace and others a chance to collect their thoughts and see what they wanted to do". Instead, the host has caused a "very considerable furore" with his controversial move.

Royal author Phil Dampier chimed in and believes that the royal family may have to change their family motto of "never complain, never explain" following the incident. He thinks the family will be "scratching their heads at Buckingham Palace and wondering what [is] the best thing to do".

He said: "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."

Meanwhile, Buckingham Palace nor any royal family member for that matter, have not publicly responded to Morgan's revelations. They have carried on with their public engagements. One insider said King Charles III is "responding in the most eloquent way possible by getting on with business and not letting it distract from vastly more important issues regarding the future on the planet".

PR expert Mark Borkowski speculated that "these spats and tittle tattle will just run out". He explained: "If (Prince 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."

Morgan revealed in an episode of his "Uncensored" show on TalkTV that King Charles III and Kate Middleton were the royal members who engaged in alleged "racist" conversations about how dark Prince Archie's skin could be ahead of his birth. Prince Harry and Meghan Markle never named the royals when they made this claim in their 2021 Oprah interview and to this day, have remained mum on their identities. It is unclear how Scobie obtained his information and if they are credible.