All language subtitles for Last.week.tonight.with.john.oliver.S09E29.WEBRip-ION10.English-WWW.MY-SUBS.CO

WWW.MY-SUBS.CO

LAST WEEK TONIGHT
WITH JOHN OLIVER

Welcome, welcome,
welcome to "Last Week Tonight!"

I'm John Oliver,
thank you so much for joining us.

It has been a busy week.
Russia pulled out of Kherson in Ukraine,

and Twitter continued its
very entertaining death spiral,

but the big news this week
was the midterm elections,

where Democrats did unexpectedly well.

John Fetterman,
seen here in a Philly tuxedo,

defeated Dr. Oz,
something perhaps best celebrated

by Pennsylvania's current Democratic
Senator Bob Casey.

And, before I show you this video,

know that there are
some unexpected twists in it.

You're going to hit the first one and
think, "That's what he was talking about,"

but it's not over yet.

John Fetterman won the Senate race.

This is Pittsburgh beer.

Good work, John.

You and Gisele and your whole team
did great work. Congratulations.

I'm coming in hot.

I don't think I'm going to sleep tonight.

I think I'm gonna just hold
this beer and look at that map.

Okay, first, if you'd given me a million
guesses about the genre of music

that was gonna run a freight train through
the middle of that clip,

not a single one would have been rap.

Second, finding out that guy's gonna spend
the rest of his night staring at a map

isn't remotely surprising to me.

We all know a map guy when
we see one, and you, sir? Map guy.

Finally, congratulations, John Fetterman,
you survived a stroke

and an incredibly ugly campaign
run by a snake oil salesman,

only to win several years with
the world's weirdest new co-worker.

Have fun! All in all,
Tuesday was a pretty good night.

Democrats also won
key gubernatorial races,

progressive prosecutors won elections

in places like Dallas County, Texas
and Polk County, Iowa,

and voters in these five states opted to
support or defend abortion access.

And while it is ridiculous that
we're having to fight state by state

for rights that people had earlier
this year, I guess here we are.

Now, there were also some big losses
for some alarming candidates

that we've featured on this show,
like Kristina Karamo in Michigan,

Doug Mastriano in Pennsylvania,
and Blake Masters in Arizona.

And those results were something that sent
Fox News pundits scrambling for answers.

Single women are voting
for Democrats by 30 points.

- 37.
- 37 points!

And urban America,
they're cleaning our clocks in the cities.

And the fact that these youth voters

are coming in so strong
on an off-year is very concerning.

The Democrats were also very deliberate
in their pitch to young people.

They offered them drugs,
recreational drugs

- Pot.
- Abortion, paid off student loans.

So, there were, again,
actionable policies

that they were promising to advance,
and climate change.

Okay.

We don't have time to go into all the ways
that they're telling on themselves.

From being appalled
young people were voting,

to admitting they have
zero "actionable policies"

but adding,
"Oh, and climate change,"

as a complete afterthought
is a pretty fun way to end that.

A nice little cherry on top of a
"what the fuck have we done" sundae.

But one person in particular came in
for a lot of the blame this week,

and that is Donald Trump,
as key candidates that he supported lost.

And even some on Fox made it clear
that they had a new favorite Republican.

Ron DeSantis won the Florida
governor's race in a landslide.

Inevitably, he's now seen
as a presidential candidate.

That is not going down well
with Donald Trump.

He actually threatened to reveal personal
information about Governor DeSantis

if he runs for the presidency.
Bad move. Trump is the past.

DeSantis, according to
the New York Post, is "DeFuture."

Okay, I do not like a single part of that.

Especially not when
Stuart Varney said "DeFuture"

like a Chicago alderman introducing
the musical guest on SNL.

"Ladies and gentlemen, DeFuture."

The prospect of a President DeSantis
is just one of the worrying things

that came underneath
all of the good news on Tuesday.

There is a chance that Republicans
will recapture the House,

and if they do, they'll be able to jam up
Biden for the next two years,

with stunts like holding
the whole country hostage

by refusing to raise the debt ceiling,
and I don't know,

launching an investigation
into Biden's Peloton ride history.

Plus, there's the small matter of
Georgia's runoff election next month,

which could put Herschel Walker
in the Senate.

So, Democrats still have a lot of
work to do.

But for now, they can pause
for a very brief celebration.

And may I suggest something like this.

I'm coming in hot.

THE DEMOCRATS DID
UNESXPECTEDLY WELL

IT COULD'VE BEEEN
A LOT WORSE

I'm just gonna hold this beer
and look at this map.

And now, this.

And Now: Steve Kornacki Is Never Not
at the Big Board.

It is Election Day, that means one thing.
Steve Kornacki is at the big board.

Steve Kornacki joins us at the big board.

Steve Kornacki at the big board.

Steve Kornacki will be at
his natural habitat, the big board.

- Steve Kornacki at the big board.
- The big board.

We've got Steve Kornacki
over at the big board.

- The big board.
- Kornacki at the big board.

- Let's go to the big board.
- Steve Kornacki.

- Steve Kornacki.
- Steve Kornacki at the big board.

- Steve Kornacki.
- Back to the big board.

The great Steve Kornacki
at the big board.

The big board.
Steve Kornacki.

Kornacki at the big board.
Big board.

We have seen Kornacki
that's standing at the big board.

I don't think they ever let him leave the
big board, I think he lives there now.

Moving on. 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.

Ah! Dig that crazy rhythm!

Oh, no, no!

There is perhaps
nothing more pathetic

than the world's most famous adult son
saying, "Dig that crazy rhythm,"

with what I can only describe as
"big narc energy."

The monarchy's clearly in transition 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.
That's me being real.

Tell me about the "care" part and then
tell me about the "don't care" part.

- I care because it's our Queen.
- Our Queen.

- It's a person who died, it's sad
- Okay, and then the "don't care" part.

- She ain't done nothing for us.
- She's done nothing for us.

Yeah, I get that.

I had a similar reaction
when Big died on the Peloton.

I don't care, because Big was pompous,
good for nothing and 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.

Others have been much less kind.
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.

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!

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 pretty generous.

And look, you can make the case
that that is in bad taste.

You can also make the case that it's very
funny. Two things can be true here.

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?

In fact, just in case they refuse, we've
prepared an alternate show for them,

where this story is replaced
with a 25-minute loop of this video

of Winston Churchill
going backwards down a waterslide,

set to the "Benny Hill" theme.
So, they won't have nothing to watch.

But in the U.K., 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.

It would be impolite.

But it's been two 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 toward 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 two 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 U.K.'s facing a cost-of-living crisis.

One 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, what for?

That befuddled "oh" from him
pretty much says it all there.

But that wasn't the only recent protest.

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

And when they caught him,
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 a public space.

Which really shows just how far
the power of the monarchy has fallen.

A few hundred years ago,
it would have been instant beheading.

Now, the punishment is,
"Be careful in the refrigerated aisle."

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 U.K.,

then in the countries 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?

Well, I haven't got one.
I'm self-employed.

But surely, you must have
some clear idea

of what role you
fulfill in modern society.

Really difficult to answer.

Wow. 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.

But since that question seemed to
stump him, perhaps we can help.

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 two 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 is the Queen
meeting Narendra Modi,

here she is taking a carriage
ride with Vladimir Putin,

and here she is
with former President Trump.

Just two people delighted to be there.

You don't usually
see a pair 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."

But that comes at a price.
As you heard that man yell earlier,

Britons pay 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.

So, that's five to one.
I would take that investment return.

Right. The monarchy's 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!

But a few things about that.

First, the claim that 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 one shows up to Versailles and says,

"Wait, no one lives here?
It's a hard pass from me."

And the notion that the monarchy
"only costs 100 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 royals' only
source of income.

The new king now has
three main sources of wealth:

the Sovereign Grant, money the U.K.
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 monarch receives
its annual profits.

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.

And while, in 1993, 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 two 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.
So, is it worth it?

Well, people can disagree.

I think my position on the royal family
is pretty well-documented.

To me, they're like a human appendix:
we've long evolved past needing them,

and there's a compelling case
for their surgical removal.

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

Many feel exactly like this woman does.

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

Yeah. I mean, it's nice that we have it.
It's a British thing, isn't it?

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

Okay, but "it's nice that we have it"
isn't what you say about

a free-loading multimillionaire family
exempt from paying most taxes,

it's what you say about a water
dispenser in your fridge.

As for being "a British thing,"
that's not a great justification, either.

You know what else is a British thing?
Mushy peas.

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

They're like if mashed potatoes
killed themselves.

But the fact is, 67% of people in the U.K.
feel that the monarchy should remain.

So, for now,
it does seem secure there.

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.
These are those countries.

And debates have been raging
for a while in many of them

about what
the crown represents.

As we mentioned 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 they were,
by sheer coincidence,

in the midst of a 10-day tribute
to Indigenous players,

they opted to not do that for
the rest of the mourning period,

prompting this man to freak out.

What a disgrace. Seriously, I mean that

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.

What? 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.

And that's just Australia.

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.

That's true.

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

is sort of like trying to talk about
Jeffrey Epstein

without talking
about the monarchy.

They are inextricably linked, however
uncomfortable they might find that fact.

Yet despite all of that,
no one in the 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 could be proud
that it later led the way

in the abolition
of this shameful trade,

we have shared a responsibility

we have a shared responsibility to ensure

that the abject horror of slavery
is never forgotten.

But listen to that. He can't even mention
how awful the slave trade was

without in the same breath mentioning 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?

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

The U.K. 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,

and up until 2015, 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 #FridayFact

Millions of you helped end the
slave trade through your taxes."

And I'm sorry,
but that is just not a good Friday fact.

"The average person farts between
10 and 20 times per day?"

That is pretty good.
"Fish can cough?" Now we're talking.

"Surprise, I know times are tough

but you just helped pay off the families
of dead enslavers?"

No! Absolutely fucking not.
Save that shit for Monday, you buzzkill.

For anyone thinking, "That didn't happen
on the watch of the modern monarchy,"

it is worth knowing one of the most brutal
atrocities carried out by the British

actually happened in the
first eight 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 "Mau Mau uprising,"

describing the situation
to the world back then like this.

Agitators urge some of the Africans
to free their country of the white man.

There is little reliable information about
the set-up of the terrorist organization,

for few members even know
from whom they take their orders.

They obey blindly,
savagely attacking the defenseless.

Burning, looting, murdering.

Kenya is a battlefield of a conflict
that cannot end

until the Mau Mau
is dissolved forever.

"Oh, righty-ho! The trouble in Keen-ya
comes not from the British

who took over and stole land but from
the people whose land was stolen!

Now, is there more to this story? Surely!

But will you hear it coming from a
voice that sounds like this?

I say, never! Never, I say!"

In crushing the uprising, the British
instituted a system of detention camps,

and "90,000 Kenyans were executed,
tortured or maimed during the crackdown,"

and an estimated "160,000 were
detained in appalling conditions."

For a long time,
the British met outcry over this

with a mixture
of denial and defensiveness.

In fact, just watch this interview
with a former British colonial officer,

who'd been responsible for at least
six of those detention camps.

When asked about reports that soldiers had
put their boots on the necks of detainees,

he has an escalating exchange

culminating in the single longest pause
you'll ever see on television.

I'll warn you, however long you think
this pause is going to be,

it's going to be much longer.

Did you have cause
to give the order to, or yourself,

put your boot on the neck of these
resisters, the ones that were howling?

Can we stop talking for a moment?

No, 'cause I'd quite like
you to answer that.

I will answer it when I have stopped
talking for a moment.

I'm sorry, but I

Well, do you have a problem
with that question?

No, it's… it's a
hypothetical question.

No, it's not.
It's a very precise question.

You've asked me, "Did I put
my foot on anybody's neck?" No.

Did you cause the order to be given?
Did you give the order to do that?

Are you not going
to answer the question?

No, I am looking at you
with certain thoughts in my mind.

Holy shit!

If you are trying to conceal your role
in supervising torture,

here's a few quick tips:

don't respond to a simple question
by taking a full 23 seconds to answer.

Don't then issue a vague threat
like some sort of cartoon villain.

And finally, try not to glare
malevolently at the interviewer

with what I can only
describe as war crime eyes.

And just to be clear,
we don't know what the Queen knew.

What she is briefed on is kept secret,
very conveniently.

But we do know what was done
in her name, by her government.

Her face was on the money in Kenya.

When Kenyans' captors sang their national
anthem, it was a hymn to her protection.

And we do know that she was not only
characteristically silent

about those atrocities, you know, in that
charming style that everybody loved,

but she also awarded that man an MBE,
one of the country's highest honors.

Which is just appalling, unless the MBE
stands for "Messiest Bitch Ever,"

in which case, yeah,
I guess that might be appropriate.

And that is the thing,
if you are the symbol of a country,

you represent what it does.

And it is revealing that,
even decades later,

when the British finally agreed
to pay some compensation

to a fraction of
those who suffered in Kenya,

this woman was very clear about
who she wanted to hear from.

Muthoni Mathenge is one of the few
surviving Mau Mau independence fighters

in Kenya.

Britain has apologized for some abuses,

but Mathenge did not get a
compensation paid to other rebels.

She is calling on the Queen
for help before it's too late.

Let Elizabeth bring what belongs to me.
That's what I want to say.

No middlemen in between. Let the
compensation come directly to me.

She should look for a sensible
person and send it here.

Yeah, that's completely understandable.

And particularly the "send
a sensible person" point.

Because when you are dealing
with the royal family,

it's very much worth remembering
that unless you stipulate otherwise,

you could end up
being sent someone like this.

Dig that crazy rhythm!

Exactly.
And nobody wants that! Nobody.

The point is, you can't say you're just
a symbol and bear no responsibility

for how the institutions
that you are the head of behave.

Take the Church of England,
of which the monarch is the head.

In Canada, it played a role

in their system of residential schools
for Indigenous children,

who were forcibly separated
from their families

"and sent to government-funded,
church-run boarding schools

in an attempt to assimilate them."

Horrific abuses happened
in those schools.

And while they were largely
run by the Catholic Church,

the Church of England operated
approximately three dozen of them,

giving up control of the last one in 1969,
which is pretty fucking recent.

Earlier this year,
Charles visited Canada

and made a point
of showing up at a garden

that paid tribute to
the victims of those schools.

But when it came to showing
remorse for what had happened,

that seemed to be off the table.

Because just listen
to one Indigenous leader

who briefly spoke with Charles that day
describe their entire exchange.

He did say,
"I hope we weren't too bad on you."

I didn't get a chance to respond,
so he moved on.

The Prince, while leading this country,

he should apologize
to the Aboriginal people

for this trauma that
we've gone through for 500 years.

Wow. "I hope we weren't too bad on you,"
he said, before walking away.

Which I know might seem bad to you,
but as a symbol of Britain,

it's honestly pretty on-brand.

"You keep calm, and now,
if you'll excuse me, I will carry on."

And look, I know,
across Commonwealth countries,

there are a range of views on this,
especially among the older generation,

as, incredibly, even some
who suffered under British rule

can feel strong affection
for the Queen personally,

even if they didn't love
what she represented.

And some argue,

"If the royal family is just ceremonial
now, where is the real harm?"

But the ceremonial
can still have the power to infuriate.

And to see that,
let's go back to Australia.

Because shortly before the Queen died,
Lidia Thorpe,

an Indigenous Australian senator,
was taking the oath of office,

which required her to swear
allegiance to the Queen.

Something she understandably had a bit of
a problem with, so this is what she did.

Please recite the affirmation
on the card handed to you.

I, sovereign Lidia Thorpe,

do solemnly and sincerely affirm
and declare

that I will be faithful,
and I bear true allegiance

to the colonizing
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

Senator Thorpe, you are required
to recite the oath as printed on the card.

Yeah. They actually forced her to read
what was printed on the card, verbatim.

So, she did that, but credit to her,

because she then employed a tone of voice
that did a lot of heavy lifting for her.

I, Lidia Thorpe,

do solemnly and sincerely
affirm and declare

that I will be faithful
and bear true allegiance

to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II,

her heirs, and successors,
according to law.

Okay, I hate that
she was forced to do that,

but I absolutely love the way
that she was able to make a pledge

to a fancy old lady
on the other side of the world

sound exactly
as stupid as it fucking is.

And look, to go by recent polls,
Australia, like the U.K.,

seems unlikely to let go of
the monarchy anytime soon.

But other commonwealth countries
are already preparing to do so.

Last year, Barbados removed
the Queen as head of state.

Jamaica is looking to have a referendum to
do the same within the next three years,

with one poll showing
a majority support it.

And Antigua and Barbuda,
Grenada, and Belize

seem to be moving
in the same direction.

And while the royal family has said

that these countries are free
to leave if they so choose,

they also refuse to reckon with why they
might want to do that in the first place.

Instead, they've continued working hard
to be perceived as a mere "symbol,"

while never taking responsibility
for what that symbol excused,

all while ignoring calls
for true apologies and reparations

to those who suffered tremendously
because of what was done in their name.

And look, you don't have to hate
the royal family personally.

I mean, Google "Prince Philip racism"
or "Prince Andrew everything"

and see where you land,
but you don't have to hate them.

You don't even have to think
that the institution shouldn't exist.

But if it's going to continue to,

it is fair to expect
significantly more from them.

Because right now, far too often,

they hide behind the convenient
shield of politeness and manners,

which frequently demands the silence

of anyone who might criticize them,
or what they stand for.

Will this segment even air on Sky TV
in Britain? I honestly don't know.

Maybe. Maybe not.

But if they do cut it out
for being disrespectful,

they might want to seriously
think about why.

Why they, and everyone else,
are working so hard

not to offend a family whose name
was branded into people's skin,

and who sit atop a pile of stolen wealth,

wearing crowns adorned
with other countries' treasures.

And if there is an answer to that,
I would love to hear it,

though if history is any guide,

I'm guessing that I'm just
going to get an icy stare

while you think
"certain thoughts" in your head.

But I really hope
that they don't cut this piece.

Partly because this is a long-overdue
conversation that really needs to be had,

and partly because absolutely no
audience deserves to be subjected

to 25 straight minutes of this.

That's our show. Thanks for watching.
We'll see you next week, good night!

I don't think I'm going to sleep tonight.
I'm think I'm gonna just

hold this beer
and look at that map.