John Oliver discusses the future of the British monarchy, what they have and have not acknowledged about their past, and how Winston Churchill preferred to go down waterslides. 

Connect with Last Week Tonight online... 

Subscribe to the Last Week Tonight YouTube channel for more almost news as it almost happens: www.youtube.com/lastweektonight 

Find Last Week Tonight on Facebook like your mom would: www.facebook.com/lastweektonight 

Follow us on Twitter for news about jokes and jokes about news: www.twitter.com/lastweektonight 

Visit our official site for all that other stuff at once: www.hbo.com/lastweektonight

Our main story tonight concerns the British monarchy.

The best thing to happen to white actors since literally everything else.

The monarchy has given the world royal weddings, the unveiling of new royal babies, and of course, moments like this.

He may have grown up in a palace, but today, Prince Charles was doing his best to get in touch with the mood on the streets.

There is perhaps nothing more pathetic than the world's most famous adult son saying, -"Dig that crazy rhythm." -$30, 000.

With what I can only describe as big narc energy.

in transition right now following the death of the Queen, an event that prompted 10 days of public mourning with a massive line of people queuing for hours to pay their respects.

But while some were devastated, others had more complicated feelings.

The Queen, it's like, I care, but I don't.

So, tell me about the care part, and then tell me about the don't care part.

It's our queen, and it's a person who died, like, said, like,

similar reaction when Big died on the Peloton.

for nothing, and let's be honest, voted for Trump, but I do care a little because I know that Carrie cares.

Look at her, there in his last moments, devastated, doing absolutely nothing.

But their ambivalence speaks to the fact that to

a degree that Americans may not realize, the monarchy isn't a universally beloved institution, and they were being very nice about it there.

In the aftermath of the Queen's death, many sporting events held a minute's silence, But some crowds, particularly in Scotland and Ireland, went a different way, with this song proving particularly popular.

in a box In a box Lizzie's in a box ♪ -♪ Lizzie's in a box In a box Lizzie's in a box ♪ -♪ Lizzie's in a box In a box Lizzie's in a box

♪ Yeah, Lizzie's in a box, which I know sounds insensitive, but

I would argue that of all the places they could have chanted that she was in, box is actually

You can also make the case that it's very funny.

Even we got into trouble when Sky TV in the U.K.

Cut a couple of fairly benign jokes that we did the week she died.

Who knows if this segment will even air on TV over there.

they refuse, we've actually prepared an alternative show for them, where this story

is replaced with a 25-minute loop of this video of Winston Churchill going backwards down a water slide, set to the Benny Hill theme.

But in the UK, the argument was that in the wake of the

Queen's death, it just wasn't the time for criticism of her or the monarchy in general.

But it's been 2 months since then, and Charles is king now.

And while for many, the charm of his mother was in her longevity, she was the only sovereign most Britons had ever known, and her tendency towards silence, you never really knew what she thought about anything, neither of those things are true of her son.

Because Charles, a man whose face answers the question, what if 2 cousins had a kid, is taking the throne at a ripe age of 73.

He had, to put it mildly, an incredibly messy divorce, and he's been outspoken on a range of topics, from architecture to the environment, to his belief in homeopathic medicine, including supporting a controversial cancer treatment, which involves 13 fruit juices a day, coffee enemas, and weekly injections of vitamins.

The point is, he doesn't have the inscrutability of his mother, or enjoy her level of public affection.

And his ascent to the throne comes as the UK is facing a cost-of-living crisis.

1 man even recently confronted Charles directly about this.

Charles, while we struggle to heat our homes, we have to pay for your parade.

The taxpayer pays 100 million for you, not more.

That befuddled, -"Oh, " from him pretty much says it all there.

Just this week, a man threw multiple eggs at Charles on the street.

he didn't really seem that sorry, given that this was the photo from his arrest.

He was released on bail with conditions including, and this

is true, not being allowed to be within 500 meters of the king, and not being allowed to possess any eggs in

Now, the punishment is, be careful in the refrigerated aisle.

--AUDIENCE LAUGHS --So, given that, Charles is now king, and will actually have a formal coronation next May to be beamed by cameras all around the world.

Before all that happens, we thought tonight, it might be worth looking at the British monarchy, specifically to ask what the point of it is.

First in the UK, and then in the countries around the world where the monarch still serves as a figurehead.

And let's start with the very basic question of, What does the royal family do?

It's something that even they have had trouble defining in the past, as this clip of Prince Philip from 1968 demonstrates.

Could you tell me, what is your job in your own mind?

But surely you must have some clear idea of what role you fulfill in modern society.

It's honestly kind of amazing to watch him initially laugh that off before considering

the question and then facing something of an existential crisis.

Unlike in the U.S., where the head of government and the head of state are the same person, in the U.K., those are 2 very different roles.

Because while for centuries, the British monarch had huge political power, it was gradually stripped away over the years to the point that the position's now largely symbolic.

The monarch's main role as head of state is to receive incoming and outgoing ambassadors and visiting heads of state, and to make visits abroad.

Here's the queen meeting Narendra Modi, here she is taking a carriage ride with Vladimir Putin, and here she is with former President Trump.

so unhappy while wearing fancy costumes outside of Cats on Halloween?

There are also smaller responsibilities they do too, like visiting factories and opening things, and also, and this is true, sending people birthday cards when they turn 100.

Basically, think of the royals as Mickey and Minnie at Disneyland.

They're not running the rides, but they're a mascot for the whole operation and people kind of like having their pictures taken with them.

And the Royal Family's defenders will say that the ceremonial aspect of the monarchy is really the whole point.

In fact, the Royal Family's official website describes the role of sovereign as a focus for national identity, unity, and pride, and that it gives a sense of stability and continuity.

As you heard that man yell earlier, Britain's paying millions of pounds every year to support the royals, although some will argue that it's actually money well spent.

Interestingly, the British state gives, or the government gives the royal family 100 million pounds per year, roughly.

It's called the sovereign grant to pay for upkeep.

But tourism generated by the royal family generates about 500 million a year.

Right, the Monarchies' defenders argue that whatever money the royal family costs is vastly outweighed by what they bring in.

It's the exact same argument thousands of men

have made to their wives about investing in crypto.

And it's going really well for them right now.

they bring in 500 million a year in tourism is heavily disputed.

And it is not like that goes away if the royal family does.

You can still visit a palace if nobody lives inside it.

No 1 shows up to Versailles and says, -"Wait, no 1 lives here?

And the notion that the monarchy only costs a hundred million pounds also has some major asterisks on it.

Because while it is true that, as is often said, the sovereign grant amounts to just over a pound a person in the U.K.

It's by no means the royal's only source of income.

The new king now has 3 main sources of wealth.

Treasury gives the crown to fulfill its royal duties.

The family's private wealth, the full extent, a closely guarded secret.

Then, the Duchy of Lancaster, a private estate of land, property, and assets.

The queen received 27 million dollars from it last year.

It's true, The Duchy of Lancaster is a massive property portfolio containing land that incidentally was seized by the monarchy back in the 13th century, and from which they continue to draw personal profits to this day.

So as king, Charles gets money from the government, money passed down through his family, and money from the Duchy of Lancaster.

And none of that includes the Duchy of Cornwall, held by whoever holds the title of Prince of Wales.

It used to be Charles, now it's Prince William.

That is a separate billion dollar real estate portfolio, nearly the size of Chicago, by the way, which includes seaside vacation rentals, office space in London, and a suburban supermarket depot.

That alone brought in 26 million in additional income for the family last year.

So, the royal family's wealth, unlike their gene pool, is massive.

in response to public anger over their spending, both the Queen and Charles agreed to pay voluntary income taxes, that arrangement isn't necessarily permanent.

Meanwhile, the 2 duchies are completely exempt from corporation taxes, and Charles doesn't have to pay any inheritance tax on whatever the Queen passed on to him.

And when you factor all of that in, it sure starts to feel like they're costing a hell of a lot more than just a pound per person.

I think my position on the Royal Family is pretty well documented.

But, I admit, I am in the minority when it comes to British people.

I just think it's nice that we have it, and it makes us a bit unusual, unique.

And I think a lot of people would like what we have.

Okay, but, but, it's nice that we have it.

Isn't what you say about a freeloading multimillionaire family exempt from paying most taxes, it's what you say about a water dispenser in your fridge.

If you've never had the pleasure, imagine emotionally unavailable guacamole.

They're like if mashed potatoes killed themselves.

But that brings us to the second part of this story, because abroad, their role is a much more open question.

Charles as king is now head of the Commonwealth of Nations, a loose alliance largely composed of former British colonies, 14 of which still have the British monarch as their titular head of state in spite of being self-ruling nations.

And debates have been raging for a while in many of them about what the crown represents.

As we mentioned back In March, William and Kate had to cancel the first stop on their royal tour through the Caribbean due to overwhelming local protests.

And in Australia, in the wake of the Queen's death, the Women's Aussie Rules Football League held a moment of silence for her.

But given that they were, by sheer coincidence, in the midst of a ten-day tribute to indigenous players, They opted not to do that for the rest of the morning period, prompting this man to freak out.

I mean, that any sporting organization in this country would think there is any reason not to honor the queen is a joke, and why can't they have a minute's silence in Indigenous Week anyway?

I mean, you know, Indigenous people are Australian people.

They were subjects of Her Majesty the Queen, and You can have your arguments about colonialism or whatever, but the queen in this country and for the world was a force for good.

You can't just gloss over the entire history of colonialism there.

It's like saying, have all the arguments about murder or whatever, but at the end of the day, Charles Manson was a family man.

And let's talk about that history starting in Australia, where indigenous people suffered greatly under colonial rule.

Researchers have found evidence for conservatively nearly 200 massacres of Aboriginal people at the hands of British military and colonial police, and hundreds more by colonists.

And when the Queen herself visited Australia in 1954, First Nations people were not counted as part of the population, and children were still being forcibly removed from their families to be assimilated into white households.

So, have your arguments about colonialism or whatever is very much what we should be doing.

Not glossing over it and forcing people to mourn a symbol of a painful past.

If you really want to talk about colonialism or whatever, or litigate the extent to which the Queen or the monarchy in general has been a global force for good, let's do that.

And let's start with the full extent to which the monarchy was intricately involved in the transatlantic slave trade.

After Britain invaded Jamaica in 1655, the Royal African Company was set up by royal charter under King Charles II.

The RAC went on to transport more enslaved Africans to the Americas than any other single institution ever, lining the pockets of the Stuart monarchs.

Many of those trafficked were branded with the initials DY, as in the Duke of York, who led the company and later became King James II.

The direct ancestors of today's royal family were investors in the Royal African Company, and had their initials literally branded into people's skin.

And both The trade of enslaved people and the high-demand products that they produced, like sugar and tobacco, went to enriching Britain, strengthening its empire, and by extension, filling royal coffers.

And I do get that people shouldn't be held personally responsible for whatever their ancestors did, but trying to talk about the British role in the slave trade without talking about the monarchy?

It's sort of like trying to talk about Jeffrey Epstein without talking about the monarchy.

However uncomfortable, they might find that fact.

royal family has ever apologized on behalf of the crown.

Instead, they've tiptoed around culpability with passive voice statements like Prince William saying, slavery was abhorrent, or Prince Charles going to Ghana and saying this.

The appalling atrocity of the slave trade and the unimaginable suffering it caused left an indelible stain on the history of our world.

While Britain can be proud that it later led the way in the abolition of this shameful trade.

We have a shared responsibility to ensure that the abject horror of slavery is never forgotten.

He can't even mention how awful the slave trade was without, in the same breath, mention that Britain led the way in abolishing it.

British people love to talk about their role in abolition.

But Charles left out a lot there, including that while, yes, the British did abolish the slave trade in 1807, it allowed plantation slavery to persist in colonies for decades after, meaning full abolition didn't follow for another generation.

But the larger point here is, you can't have it both ways.

You don't get to take the credit for abolition without taking the blame for what led up to it.

If someone intentionally set fire to a Quiznos, then hours later, put that fire out.

They wouldn't get to post a picture of themselves holding a hose with

the caption, -"So, I did a thing." -$$ That's not the full story, is it?

what it's worth, the effect of slavery clearly isn't just in the past.

Was paying for it in a very literal sense incredibly recently.

Because when Britain finally abolished slavery in its colonies in the 1830s, It took out a loan of 20 million pounds, but not to compensate enslaved people.

Instead, it went to enslavers who wanted compensation for the loss of income from their properties, which to be clear, meant people.

That is about 17 billion pounds in today's money.

the British state was still paying off the debt.

Amazingly, many learned about this for the first time when a few years ago, the British Treasury tweeted, here's today's surprising hashtag Friday fact.

Millions of you helped end the slave trade through your taxes, and I'm sorry,

The average person farts between 10 and 20 times per day, that is pretty good.

you just helped pay off the families of dead enslavers.

That didn't happen on the watch of the modern monarchy." It is worth knowing, 1 of the most brutal atrocities carried out by the British actually happened in the first 8 years of Elizabeth's reign, and when Charles was alive.

Because in the 1950s, while Kenya was still a British colony, an armed rebellion was launched by the Kikuyu people, who had lost land to white settlers and found themselves locked into a formal racial hierarchy that placed Europeans on top and Africans at the bottom.

The British sent army reinforcements to put down the so-called Mao Mao uprising, describing the situation to the world back then like this.

See all LastWeekTonight transcripts on Youtube

The Monarchy: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)