Harry and Meghan interview: Our Google searches show which of the’bombshell’ revelations most intrigued us
3 min readThe Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s “bombshell” interview (as we are contractually obliged to refer to it) dominated headlines last week, but still people wanted more. As wall-to-wall coverage dissected every moment, the nation feverishly sought answers about even the most trivial details from Google.
Over a million Brits were googling “Meghan and Harry interview” even before it had aired in the US, seeking a way to watch the Oprah special by any means possible.
There were then more than 2 million searches for the couple’s names when it was eventually broadcast on ITV. As always, though, it’s by homing in on the specific queries that our true obsessions emerge.
It seems we all simultaneously googled “how much money did Diana leave Harry”, when the Duke lamented how his family had forced him to rely only on “what my mum left me” (an estimated pittance of £10m). Queries for “how much did Harry and Meghan get paid” continued for days, reflecting a suspicious refusal to believe Oprah’s statement that they “are not getting paid for this interview” (though there’s no evidence to the contrary).
Royal jargon led to spikes in searches for “what is the institution” (taken to mean the extended royal staff, not just the family) and “what is the firm” (the same, hence our confusion). There was even plenty of interest in “what does blindsided mean” (answer: “to surprise someone, with harmful results”) as Oprah quizzed the couple on how they broke the news of their defection to the Queen.
The shocking allegation that a member of the institution/firm made comments about baby Archie’s skin colour before he was born prompted tens of thousands of people to google “who is the racist royal” and “which royal made the racist comment”. Queries for “royal racist odds” proves there is nothing people won’t try to gamble on.
The fact that there were more searches for “Prince Philip racist” than the rest of the family perhaps indicates why Harry was so keen to confirm to Oprah that the Duke of Edinburgh was not the culprit.
Meghan’s claim that Archie’s race contributed to the decision not to make him a prince prompted a nationwide deep dive into the intricacies of royal convention.
We searched “royal titles explained”, “why isn’t Archie a prince”, and the more accusatory “why was Archie denied a title” in our droves. Thousands of us – after exclaiming “but hang on a second!” – also googled “why are Beatrice and Eugenie princesses”. (The simplified answer is that, as the monarch’s great-grandson, Archie is one generation past the point of automatically being named a prince, while Prince Andrew’s daughters are princesses because they are the Queen’s grandchildren).
Searches about Prince Harry focused on past indiscretions, with spikes for “Prince Harry Nazi costume” (remember those fancy dress photos from 2005?) and “Prince Harry racist comments” (recalling remarks he made in an army video diary). And the fact that over 100,000 people googled “James Hewitt” indicates that the baseless rumours about the Duke’s parentage (repeatedly denied by Hewitt himself) linger on stubbornly.
When Piers Morgan became a casualty of the fallout, he could take solace from his Good Morning Britain demise sparking a flurry of people googling “what happened between Piers Morgan and Meghan” and the wonderfully cynical “is Piers Morgan in love with Meghan Markle”. On both counts, you’d probably have to ask him.
