After all that, Omid Scobie’s controversial book only sold 9,000 copies in America during its first week

Omid Scobie’s controversial book Endgame sold just 8,923 copies in America during its first week.

According to the US ranking system Book Scan, the new release was easily outsold by Britney Spears’ memoir, which sold 34,438 copies last week.

Scobie’s book ranked at No 731 on the Amazon bestseller list yesterday, which insiders called ‘disappointing’ considering the publicity it has received. 

Endgame made headlines around the world after it was revealed the Dutch version of the book ‘accidentally’ included the names of the two Royals who allegedly questioned what colour skin Meghan Markle and Prince Harry’s unborn son Archie would have.

A source told the MoS: ‘These numbers are disappointing when you think of how much promotion Scobie has done for the book and how much publicity has been generated by the Dutch scandal.

According to the US ranking system Book Scan, the new release was easily outsold by Britney Spears’ memoir, which sold 34,438 copies last week

Prince Harry’s book Spare sold 4,562 copies last week, and that has been out since January

Just 6,448 copies of Endgame were sold in the UK in its first week. Scobie has repeatedly denied including the names of King Charles and the Princess of Wales in the book, although he did claim they may have been included in an early draft that was sent to Dutch translators

‘Prince Harry’s book Spare sold 4,562 copies last week, and that has been out since January.’

Just 6,448 copies of Endgame were sold in the UK in its first week. Scobie has repeatedly denied including the names of King Charles and the Princess of Wales in the book, although he did claim they may have been included in an early draft that was sent to Dutch translators.

Scobie, 42, wrote in a newspaper last week: ‘Unbeknownst to me at the time, early and uncleared text was provided to the Dutch publisher in order for them to start work on the translation with the understanding that their translation would be updated.’

But the publisher called that ‘factually incorrect’ and added: ‘We do not recognise ourselves in his representation of the events.’