BUCKINGHAM Palace was mystified last night by an instruction
to Italian women that they should not wear red or black when they
meet the Queen during her state visit to Italy next week.
The fashion-conscious Italians are in a lather after reading reports
in their newspapers that guests invited to a one-hour concert at La
Scala, Milan, conducted by Riccardo Muti in honour of the state
visit, should not be dressed in colours which, it has been
suggested, would be a social gaffe in the presence of the British
monarch.
Palace officials said last night that the dress rule appeared to be
the figment of a rich Italian imagination. "The Queen herself does
not often wear red or black, unless a special occasion demands it,
but her lady guests are entirely free to wear whatever colour they
wish," the Palace said.
The Palace has been working closely with the Italian Foreign
Ministry and the British Embassy in Rome to ensure the success of
the Queen's first state visit to a style-obsessed nation since 1980,
when fashion commentators fell over themselves to remark how
elegant the Queen looked in black taffeta and matching cascade
veil, with diamond tiara and Garter brooch, for her meeting with
the Pope.
She will meet the Pope again during a courtesy call at the Vatican
next Tuesday. There are suggestions that the black required by
Vatican protocol of a female dignitary may no longer be insisted
on. The dress confusion arose from an article in Corriere della
Sera, the Milan newspaper, which said the management of La
Scala had "let the ladies of Milan" know that red and black were
out.
La Scala officials said the misunderstanding was a "result of the
grapevine" in Milan social circles, though where the idea had come
from was "a mystery, certainly not from us".
A British Embassy spokesman said it had issued no rules on dress
colour, either to La Scala or anyone else.
~*~
After 500 years, the
barriers remain (The Guardian)
Stephen Bates, religious affairs
correspondent
It is sometimes overlooked just how
sensitive relations between the British
monarch and the papacy remain even in
the 21st century, nearly 500 years after
the secession of the Church of England
from Rome.
Any visit between the Supreme Governor
of the Church of England and Sovereign of
Great Britain and the Bishop of Rome,
Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the
Prince of the Apostles, High Pontiff of the
Universal Church, Patriarch of the West,
Primate of Italy, Archbishop and
Metropolitan of the City of Rome, Servant
of the Servants of God and Sovereign of
the Vatican City State - all 110 acres of it
- is bound to cause annoyance to
someone.
For next week's visit, the Queen's third to
Rome, even for a meeting of less than half
an hour's duration with an aged and ailing
pontiff - though one who is fewer than six
years older than she is - there would have
been more than usually delicate
diplomatic negotiations. Courtiers have
been dispatched to Rome at least twice to
discuss the protocol of the meeting - as
well as the rest of the state visit to Italy -
to discuss what both sides hope to get
out of it.
It is likely that that is when the idea of
joint prayers was discussed and when
soundings were taken in Britain.
The Foreign Office would have been
consulted about the visit. Last night, after
being approached by the Guardian, the
Archbishop of Canterbury's staff
reluctantly admitted that he had not been
asked about prayers but declined to say
what general advice he might have given
on the meeting in the Vatican.
Sensitive
Forty years ago the then Archbishop of
Canterbury - Dr Geoffrey Fisher - met a
Pope, John XXIII, for the first time since
the Reformation. So sensitive was the
meeting that no photographs were taken.
Although visits by British monarchs have
been going on for longer - since Edward
VII paid a call in 1903 - they have mostly
been in the way of tourist - almost
sightseeing - jaunts, with long gaps
between meetings and resolute
downplaying of any possible significance.
It is not so long since the idea that Prince
Charles might marry a Catholic was
stamped upon. When the prince said he
wanted to attend an early morning mass,
his mother is said to have refused him
permission to do so.
There are still sensitivities within the
Church of England from fundamentalist
Protestants - now little more than a sect
but still a vociferous one, whose fortnightly
church magazine, the English
Churchman, routinely attacks the Pope as
the anti-Christ. Its latest edition suggests
that the Queen should remind the Pope of
the 39 articles - promulgated as recently
as 1571 to define what the church stands
for - and ask whether he subscribes to
them.
It naturally supports the Rev. Ian Paisley
who demonstrated against the Pope's visit
to Britain in 1982 and has been known to
travel to Rome - into the very belly of the
beast - to harangue the Vatican.
In this context, there are sensitivities to
the situation in Northern Ireland, where the
Queen is held up by loyalists as a symbol
of the nation, even as republicans of
Catholic origin insist that any reference to
royalty should be dropped from local
institutions such as the police force.
But it is not just the fundamentalists who
were thought to have reservations about
joint prayers. The Anglo-Catholic wing of
the Church of England - firm believers in
church and state - were also thought
likely to be concerned that the head of the
church should kneel down with the Pope,
though some last night derided that
suggestion as groundless.
For its part too, the Vatican has often
failed to appreciate the unique position of
the British monarchy as head of state and
head of church.
It does tend to regard the Church of
England as a bastard offshoot on an
offshore island and only since the 1960s
have British Catholics stopped praying for
the reconversion of England.
When Dr Robert Runcie paid a four-day
visit to Rome in 1989, during which he had
six meetings with the Pope, for talks
billed as bolstering the growing tide of
ecumenism, the archbishop admitted that
John Paul II appeared to have difficulty
understanding the delicate constitutional
balance in Britain. After all, the Pope is
"supreme, full, immediate and universal"
head of his church and - as last month's
Vatican declaration Dominus Iesus
showed - some in Rome have difficulty
envisaging any other religious legitimacy
at all.
The Roman Catholic church has problems
with some Anglican tenets and the tide
towards ecumenism appears to be stalled
over the issue of the ordination of women
but in many ways John Paul II ought to be
able to recognise Queen Elizabeth, head
of a church whose structure and practices
are often so similar to those of his own.
And, after all, it was one of his
predecessors who gave her ancestor the
title of Defender of the Faith.
~*~
Diana fund helps landmine victims(UK Times)
BY ALEX O'CONNELL
LANDMINE victims are the main beneficiaries in the latest Diana,
Princess of Wales, Memorial Fund awards, it was announced
yesterday.
Grants have been given to 18 British-based organisations working
abroad with communities recovering from conflict. The handouts
bring the amount of money for good causes pledged by the fund to
£30 million since it was set up three years ago.
The Mines Advisory Group is to get £300,000 over three years
for landmine clearance in Angola. Another £300,000 will go to the
Afghanistan Appeal, run by Sandy Gall, the former newscaster, to
provide false limbs and mobility aids to landmine and polio victims.
A delighted Mr Gall said: "The disabled of Afghanistan are a
forgotten people and the fund's support of them is a wonderful
legacy of Princess Diana's compassion."
Save the Children will receive £200,000 to improve the quality of
life for displaced children and their families in Colombia. A charity
in war-ravaged Liberia called Y Care International is to get
£67,089 to develop youth radio programmes.
Andrew Purkis, chief executive of the fund, said: "These grants
reach out to some of the most vulnerable communities in countries
affected by instability and conflict."