Italian Court Etiquette and Protocol

[SaxeundGotha]

Does anyone know anything of court etiquette in Italy? I've heard that it was quite intricate. I also have seen many pictures of the Queens and Princeses sporting court mantles. Also, as catholic, they were allowed to wear white in the Vatican...
Does anyone know more on the subject? Thankx.

[Fiorenza]

There was a court etiquette, rules for dignitaries visiting and for the Royal Family. Any Catholic Queen or Princess is entitled to wear white visiting the Pope, any non-catholic can only wear black

[Warren]

Originally Posted by Fiorenza

There was a court etiquette, rules for dignitaries visiting and for the Royal Family. Any Catholic Queen or Princess is entitled to wear white visiting the Pope, any non-catholic can only wear black

Roman Catholic Queens, Princesses of the House of Savoy and by special dispensation the Grand Duchess of Luxembourg wear white at official audiences with the Pope.
But this is Vatican etiquette, not Italian or Savoy court etiquette.

[kaydura0717]

Also the Queen of Belgium and Spain wear white when they go to see the Pope. But you're right this is Vatican protocol not royal protocol. But I wonder for the funeral of a Pope they can't were white because they are in mourning.

[leonardinha]

Well, white IS a mourning colour!

Originally Posted by kaydura0717

Also the Queen of Belgium and Spain wear white when they go to see the Pope. But you're right this is Vatican protocol not royal protocol. But I wonder for the funeral of a Pope they can't were white because they are in mourning.

[Danny SR]

if you see any pics of the funeral of the late pope JPII all catholic queens, princesses of the house of savoy, and the grand duchess all wore black out of mourning and respect. but 2 weeks later at the instalation mass of pope Benedict XVI all of the wore white though i belive the duchess of savoy wore black but i am not sure.

[iago]

I should like to point out there is no Queen "of Belgium". Rather there is a Queen of the Belgians.

[asma]

Originally Posted by iago

I should like to point out there is no Queen "of Belgium". Rather there is a Queen of the Belgians.

excuse me,what is the difference?

[Sister Morphine]

Originally Posted by asma

excuse me,what is the difference?

I'm not sure. I would surmise that "Queen of the Belgians" refers to the people and "Queen of Belgium" refers to the country [obviously], but I don't know whether one is more appropriate than the other.

[SaxeundGotha]

Originally Posted by Sister Morphine

I'm not sure. I would surmise that "Queen of the Belgians" refers to the people and "Queen of Belgium" refers to the country [obviously], but I don't know whether one is more appropriate than the other.

That is correct. A King or Queen of "a place" (Queen of Great Britain, King of France, King of the Congo ) all would in theory loose their title if they were to loose their land - meaning, if there was some sort of revolution or the royal family needed to be exhiled.... this ofcourse is in "theory" since exhiled kings (such as those of England during Cromwel's tyranny, did mantain their claims to the title based on the fact that the overthrowing of the monarchy was illegal and therefore nul and void...)
All this goes from the sense of "kingship" developed during feudal times, when all titles were attached to the land, even that of king: reason for which one took the name of the place one had authority over and made it part of the title.

Earlier than feudal times, however, there weren't really definate "borders" to define the confines of the kingdoms, duchies, or whatever other jurisdiction. I speak of the time of the migrating tribes in Europe, "shortly" before and after the falling of the Roman Empire. Most of this tribes centered their sense of "nationality" basen on who they descended from, not on what land they were born on. The court, in turn, was centered around the king - wherever he may be. (This custom of not having a "capital city" but rather having the court "be" where-ever the king may be himself, was vestigial of those early histories, well into the 16c. in Engalnd, for example, if one recalls the fact that Queen Elizabeth I's court existed only where she happened to be, during her "progresses throughout her reals, albeit it being a feeudal system....)
So because there was no real safe, secure, or permanent "territory" for each of these migrating tribes, their Kings were refered to as "Kings of "their people" (e.g. King of the Angles, King of the Britons, King of the Goths, King of the Franks, King of the Swedes, etc.).

Following with that thought, do remember that eventually, all, or at least the most powerful of these "migrating tribes/kingdoms" did settle in pieces of land of what had once been the demesne of the Roman Empire (the smaller tribes were often conquered and swallowed up by the larger ones, thus disapearing, or merging into the identity of larger ones).
Once they did settle, however, is when pieces of land become asociated with certain tribes/kindoms/peoples.... The Goths settled in what is today Portugal, Spain, and southern France; the Franks settled in what today is northern france; The Burgundians in what is today also France; The Ostrogoths and later the Lombards settled in Italy; The Alemanni in Germany; the Bavarians in Bavaria.... well, you get the point... certain pieces of land became asociated with certain tribes and eventually that led to the feudal system in which it was the land that defined who one was - sort of 'till this days, in which one speaks of one's "nationality" as the country or land in which one is born (or naturalised in) rather than one's ancestry: thus one finds, for example "Americans", "Swedes", "Germans" etc. who are of african, asian, european or aboriginee characteristics....when Americans would really otherwise be the natural inhabitants of America before "the discovery" or Sweded would be only those people descendants from the original Swedes...etc.
All of this is mostly to prevent racism, factions within countries forming from migrant minorities (which can become majority...) into separate entities etc. It's for the sake of the peace if you will. The aculturation and adoption of a new nationality is a utopian "solves all evils" sort of solution though, because even many generations down the line, the descendants of someone who came from China will still look chinese, those of some one who came originally from Africa will still look african, anf of those who came from Europe will still sunburn like there's no tomorrow in the sun.... the secret is in accepting each other - that's the ultimate step, albeit it seemingly is a hard one to a lot of people as can be seen on the News every night.... but back to our topic: King of the Belgians:

After the French Revolution, the Orleans branch of the Bourbons, when it regained the throne, there was a whole constitution written and a new parliamentary system in the lines of the British one set up and the whole shabang (tryng to prevent being overthrown again by changing their ways in accordance to the people's demands...) but anyways, the King of France, it was stated in the constution, would henceforth be known as the King of the French. This wasn't an inovation, since before being called Kings "of France" they were termed Rex Francorum (in latin, in all official documents) which literally translated into "King of the French-people".... (technically they were also sort of imitation the Napoleonic model, but Napoleon was in itself, imitating some of the early-history models, so that's all I'll say of Napoleon's contribution to this shabang.)
Anyways, it was around that same time in history (correct me if I'm wrong) that the Belgian monarchy (more or less as it stands today) was formed, and they followed I would assume the model imposed by the Orleans-kings of France... Really the last sentence was the only answered to the question, but I took the liberty of writing about the 'historical' stuff because I think (or at least hope) it helps it all make a little more sense.

[SaxeundGotha]

Oh, and I guess I forgot to mention that suposedly: a king "of a people" would continue to be so even if he (or she, if it be a female monarch) were to loose their land.... this all is ofcourse "technically" though as stated before, most deposed and exhiled kings or their in-exhile-sucessors, still hold claim to their titles irregardles of how their title is composed... and the socialis/comunist/republican governments of their previously held demesnes, don't recognize them as kings or queen etc. even if they were "of the people" (which technically would then allow them to mantain a court in exhile and even if their people's allegiances were reduced or extinct at some point in history, due to their new government, that "royal family in exhile" would remain so in perpetuity, reverting to being a "migarting or wondering tribe" with at least their family as a representation of their court and people...... Anyways, that's how it was explained to me.........

Oh, and I just realized this was the Italian forum...... well, I guess they are an exhiled court, so it's not all TOO off topic... I hope....
Actually I don't know much about the Italian situation.... thus why I'm at this forum.... I still wonder if anyone know where I may find info on the Protocol and Etiquette of the Old Royal-Italian Monarchy.....

Oh, I must mention though, that the gutenmberg project does now have a book in which it decribes the "holding of court" and the "diplomatic court" held in Turin (Italy) and in Germany (called schleppenkurs, because of the long trains worn by all the ladies along with their tiaras: schleppe means "the train of a skirt or a mantle".....
The title is something like "The Sunny-side of Diplomatic Life" and it's by a very witty wife of a Diplomatic Minister from Denmark to the above-said courts and a description of the ways there..... very amusing, it's worth a read for all of those enjoying the descriptions of ceremonies and of the funny little things that "are not supossed to happen" - I still laugh-out-loud remembering her account of a dinner she had been seated next to some foreigner trying to speak engleeeeeesh (and her thorough transcript of the conversation, with all the gramatical and mis-accentuations - and ofcourse, a translation at the end of everything that was said.... it's hilarious.
More precisely on the subject of her visit to one of the estates of the Italian Royal family, she was lodged in a sumptuous room, with a tall bed all made with silk sheets - she wore a silk nightgow (pure luxury!) but couldn't get unto bed because silk with silk would make her slip, so finally she managed to climb onto it and eitherway, she ended on the floor....

Her humor reminds me of that of Madame, Duchess of Orleans (the second wife of Louis the XIV's brother) in her candid letters: There's her book of letters called The Letters of Madame: The Correspondence of Elizabeth-Charlotte on Google Book Search
From her I remember one letter in which she described the bathing of her son-in-law, the Duke of Lorraine, and the soap falling in the bath-tub and the valet trying to grab it accidentally grabbed one of the Duke's "arms" .... exept it wasn't his arm...... LOL That's a funny thing for a mother-in-law to talk about her son-in-law.... yes? LOL
And so it's not totally off-topic.... i think they did mention some things about a Savoy-princess as bride to one of the sons or grandsons of the king.... the Savoy's being the ducal, and eventual family of Italy..... see? I try my best to link all my random-tales back to the forum.... really, I don't want to be reprehended and erased by the moderator :)

[Warren]

Much appreciated SaxeundGotha.
.....................

The "King of the Belgians" is referred to this way because this is his formal title. There is no King (or Queen) "of Belgium".
To confuse the issue, the Belgian Royal Family has taken to using "de Belgique" ("of Belgium") as their surname, in preference to the dynastic name of Saxe-Coburg & Gotha.

[Empress]

So only Roman Catholic queens and a few select other may wear white to the Vatican? I suppose this is why Letizia, despite being a roman catholic princess, wore black when she met the Pope?

[Warren]

Posts asking questions about general Royal protocol have been moved to the Royal Protocol and Etiquette thread in Royal Chit Chat.

[melbournelad]

It is interesting to note that Empress Zita, perhaps the premiere Catholic Queen always wore black when she vsitied the various reigning Popes during her long life.

[kimebear]

I believe that Zita wore black throughout most of her life as a symbol of her mourning for her husband who died quite young.