Nana Akua Criticizes Omid Scobie’s Book for Focusing on Royal Racists’ Identity

British television presenter Nana Akua has strongly criticized Omid Scobie's recent book, “Endgame,” in which he claims to have knowledge of a member of the British royal family questioning the skin color of Archie.

In an op-ed for the Daily Mail, Akua questioned the obsession with uncovering the identities of these so-called royal racists and suggested a broader perspective on whether it is inherently racist to discuss the potential skin tone of an unborn child.

Akua began her op-ed by reflecting on the public's fixation with discovering the individuals behind the alleged comments.

Whether it was at office water coolers, on social media, or in bars and cafes across the country, one question dominated conversations: Who were these supposed royal racists?

They were allegedly exposed by the Sussexes' apparent spokesperson, Omid Scobie, in his new book, “Endgame.”

Challenging this narrative, Akua urged readers to consider whether it was racist at all to wonder about the skin tone of an unborn baby.

As a black mother of two mixed-race children, she shared a personal anecdote to support her argument.

Akua humorously recalled conversations with friends and family expressing curiosity about her unborn child's potential appearance, highlighting the non-racist nature of such discussions.

She remembered laughing with her loved ones, contemplating what would happen if her child came out darker, contrary to his name, Ivory.

Regardless of his appearance, they would have loved him just the same.

It was simply a matter of curiosity.

Passionately defending the rights of parents, especially mixed-race parents, to wonder about their children's appearance, Akua emphasized that their skin tone is like a lottery ticket.

She drew attention to the unpredictability of genetics, using the example of twins from the same parents who could have vastly different appearances.

Akua emphasized that such discussions were a natural part of parenthood, stating that genuine anticipation should not be misconstrued as racism.

Discussing race is not inherently racist, she asserted.

While acknowledging the lack of context surrounding the alleged conversation within the royal family about Archie's skin tone, Akua questioned the accuracy of the account.

She suggested that Scobie, being mixed-race himself, may have reported the incident through his own lens.

However, Scobie has refused to apologize to royal family members after two names appeared in the Dutch publication of his book.

Meanwhile, Piers Morgan criticized Harry and Meghan Markle for their claims about supposed racists in the royal family, which Scobie revisited in “Endgame.”

Morgan accused the couple of leaving a predictable and poisonous legacy by accusing someone in the royal family of being racist.

He argued that they were well aware of the impact their words would have, and many people around the world took their claims at face value.

Morgan added that Britain is still grappling with the fallout from Markle's allegations, suggesting that neither Harry nor Meghan care about royal protocol or privacy.

Esther Cruick, a talk TV contributor, also weighed in on the situation, stating that the couple should address the bombshell claims made by their friend.

She pointed out that Meghan wasn't present during the alleged racist conversation and formed her opinion based on what Harry told her.

Cruick questioned why there would be concerns about the child's darkness, adding that Meghan herself has a Puerto Rican appearance.

In conclusion, Nana Akua's op-ed challenges the focus on uncovering the identities of the alleged royal racists and questions whether it is inherently racist to discuss the potential skin tone of an unborn child.

She highlights the curiosity and genuine anticipation that parents, especially mixed-race parents, have about their children's appearance.