Charles and Camilla enjoy ceremonial welcome in Rome
Charles and Camilla were greeted by the statesman at his official residence, the Quirinale Palace in Rome, after their limousine was escorted into the palace quadrangle by mounted Corazzieri guards.
Mr Mattarella was joined by his daughter Laura Mattarella, who acts in a first lady role as the president's wife died a number of years ago.
The foursome stood still as they observed the British and Italian national anthems played by a military band.
Nearby lined up along a red carpet stood a guard of honour formed of the Quirinale Band, troops from the Italian army, navy and air force, the Carabinieri and mounted Corazzieri guards.
Charles, accompanied by the president, walked along the line casting an eye over the service personnel stood in three ranks and at one point paused to bow his head when he reached Italy's national flag held aloft.
Mr Mattarella, a constitutional court judge and veteran centre-left politician, is a respected figure for his sober statesman-like qualities performing a role that puts him at the centre of Italian national life.
He has served as president since being elected by Italy's parliament in 2015, succeeding Giorgio Napolitano.
The group went inside, and before the president and the king sat down for talks, a demonstration of UK and Italian military co-operation was staged.
From a balcony, they all watched a joint flypast over the capital by the Italian air force's aerobatic team, Frecce Tricolori, streaming Italy's national colours, and the RAF's Red Arrows who left red, white and blue smoke in their wake.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
11 minutes ago
- Spectator
There is no escaping politics with Palestine
Foreign relations are among the most political functions of a government. Ministers favour or disfavour other states based on calculations about which relationships might better serve the national interest. Human rights violations are condemned here, while a blind eye is turned there. Dictators are treated as democrats and democrats as dictators depending on the diplomatic needs of the day. It's a dishonest, venal, hypocritical business conducted by people with almost no morally redeeming characteristics. Like I said, it's politics. Too many state actions are compelled – or claimed to be compelled – by law or judicial interpretation of the law. This bodes ill for parliamentary sovereignty, even if it is parliament that keeps passing legislation without considering its practical effects, but it is perhaps even more unfortunate for judges. This isn't about the Chagos islands but that issue usefully illustrates what I'm talking about. When the Prime Minister tells the public he must surrender sovereign British territory because a (non-binding, advisory) opinion of the International Court of Justice says so, he might think he is signalling his high-status views about international law to his peers in the post-national professional class but he is also telling the British public that the ICJ is an institution that goes around telling the UK which territory it is allowed to keep and which it must surrender. Whatever esteem the ICJ was hitherto held in, it will have been diminished by this matter. The 40 legal experts who have written to Lord Hermer warning that recognition of Palestine contravenes the Montevideo Convention (for recognition, states must possess a permanent population, defined territory, a government, and capacity to treat with other states) work the same misguided, legalistic seam. Shadow Attorney General Lord Wolfson, a lawyer but a respectable man all the same, says 'recognition of a foreign state… has always and universally been regarded as a legal question'. The legal frameworks for recognition, however, originate in political decisions. If it so wished, Parliament could legislate tomorrow that UK recognition of other states is entirely at the discretion of the Foreign Secretary. That would be a supremely bad idea, but scarcely worse than 'Oi, mate. You got a loicence to recognise that disputed territory?' When the state speaks to the world, its political and not its legal institutions should do the talking. As it happens, I think recognising Palestine is both impractical and morally objectionable, and I have set out how I think Jerusalem should respond. But if the UK decides to go ahead, the government should get its way. They are the King's ministers, after all, and they are entrusted with his foreign relations. That doesn't mean recognition should be consequence-free. On the contrary, while states should be at liberty to grant recognition other states should be free to take actions in response. On that note, I would draw your attention to a statement issued by the US State Department on Thursday unveiling sanctions on members of the Palestine Liberation Organisation and officials of the Palestinian Authority. The grounds given are that the two organisations are 'not in compliance with their commitments' under US law to refrain from 'initiating and supporting actions at international organisations that undermine and contradict prior commitments in support of Security Council Resolution 242 and 338' and 'taking actions to internationalise its conflict with Israel' through certain global institutions. In supporting unilateral recognition by states like Britain, France and Canada, the Palestinian Authority has, the United States submits, violated its commitments. That the Trump administration has responded in this way suggests sincere displeasure with the Palestinians and the current governing structures in the West Bank and Gaza. If more states come forward to recognise Palestine without requiring a peace deal with Israel, it will be for Trump to decide whether to escalate sanctions. At a point where relations between Washington and Ramallah are becoming more strained, Britain and nations like it have chosen to tie themselves to a recognition policy that could bring them into sharp conflict with the goals of the Trump administration. Donald Trump is not a forgiving man. States can make their own decisions about recognition but they will have to accept whatever consequences might come out of the White House as a result.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on the other Afghan scandal: countries are forcing refugees back to Taliban rule
The British public discovered only very belatedly that an enormous accidental data breach by an official three years ago put up to 100,000 Afghans at risk of torture and death. Some of them had worked with British forces in Afghanistan. The result was that thousands were secretly relocated to the UK. A superinjunction covered up the story for almost two years. But the shocking security lapse is far from the only example of Afghans being failed since Kabul fell to the Taliban in 2021. Many more are now at risk because the countries to which they fled are pushing them out. The mirage of a more moderate Taliban was soon shattered by their imposition of gender apartheid and the brutality faced by minorities. Three-quarters of the population struggle to meet their daily needs. Women are particularly vulnerable. Humanitarian support is being slashed. A drought and now the loss of overseas remittances are deepening the crisis. Yet almost 2 million Afghan refugees and migrants in neighbouring countries have returned or been forced to return home this year alone – thousands of them unaccompanied children, according to UN experts. More than 1.5 million Afghans have returned from Iran in 2025, with Iran accelerating expulsions after the war with Israel, which fed suspicion towards migrants. Pakistan began deporting unregistered Afghans in late 2023, after attacks by militants in border areas, but has widened its campaign to those who hold documents. More than two-thirds have never lived in Afghanistan, according to the International Crisis Group; their families fled conflict decades ago. In some cases, security forces are forcibly repatriating Afghans. In others, threats, harassment or intimidation have chased them out. The Trump administration has announced the removal of temporary protected status from almost 12,000 Afghans in the US, though an appeals court has for now blocked it from doing so. The US said that conditions in Afghanistan no longer merited the status. Tajikistan has also ordered Afghans to leave. UN experts have warned that former officials, including judges and lawyers, human rights defenders and journalists and other critics of the Taliban, along with religious and ethnic minorities, are at particular risk if they are returned. Women and girls are being deported to a country where they can no longer attend secondary school or university and are prohibited from letting their voices be heard outside the house, and where the EU has estimated that basic health services are available to just 10% of women. By driving women out of jobs and severely restricting their movements, the Taliban have ensured that female-headed households face destitution. The prospect of return is particularly frightening for women's rights activists who face imprisonment or death for their work. Pakistan and Iran should not force Afghans home – endangering lives and ending education for girls. But other governments too bear responsibility for this crisis. Poorer nations have been left to shoulder the strain of a high number of refugees, some of whom are in limbo due to Germany's closure of a humanitarian admission programme, and the bureaucracy surrounding a similiar programme in Australia. This has been a triple failure: a failure to welcome Afghans with a strong case for resettlement; to support them in countries which have accepted them; and to help those who are returning to Afghanistan. Western countries must live up to their promises to the Afghan people. Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
Scotsman
an hour ago
- Scotsman
Why silence over Gaza, even in Scotland, risks complicity in war crimes
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... The situation in Gaza has never been a distant conflict; it is a humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in real time, and it demands a political response that goes beyond words of concern. As the death toll rises, the calls for action from my constituents grow louder and more urgent. Every day, I receive messages not only expressing anguish over the suffering of Palestinians, who are being deliberately starved, displaced, and killed while trying to access food and water, but also demanding that their elected representatives act. They are not only grieving; they are writing letters and calling for accountability at every level of government. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad As a Muslim MSP, I feel the emotional toll of this crisis both personally and publicly. At Friday prayers, in mosques, at community events and constituency surgeries, I am approached with grief, frustration, and a deep sense of urgency. Many are deeply shaken by what they are witnessing and feel abandoned by institutions they once trusted to stand for justice. People want reassurance that their voices are not being drowned out by political hesitation. READ MORE: Why Palestinians in Gaza are protesting with photos of Israeli children killed by Hamas Scores of people carry sacks of flour through the ruins of northern Gaza. UN-backed food security experts have warned the 'worst-case scenario of famine' is playing out in the area (Picture: Bashar Taleb) | AFP via Getty Images Providing arms and diplomatic cover Some argue that Gaza should not be a focus for British politicians. However, decisions made in Westminster, regarding arms exports, foreign policy, and trade, have global implications. We provide arms and diplomatic cover; we are not a neutral party. People in Scotland understand this. They expect those in public office to act with transparency and a firm commitment to human rights. Silence, in this context, is not a neutral stance. It risks complicity in war crimes. The systematic brutality we are witnessing in Gaza and the West Bank is not collateral damage; it is the deliberate dismantling of a people's right to exist. Entire families are being wiped out in minutes. Hospitals, schools, and places of worship have been bombed. Journalists and aid workers are allegedly being targeted and some have been killed. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The horror unfolding at humanitarian aid points is especially shocking. Civilians, many of them children, have been killed while queuing for food and water. What should be safe zones for relief have become death traps. These are not isolated incidents. The ongoing violence fits a broader pattern that many human rights observers now warn may amount to ethnic cleansing, or even genocide under international law. Such actions cannot go unanswered. There must be accountability. British citizens have also been among the victims. Three UK aid workers were killed in an Israeli airstrike on a World Central Kitchen convoy in April 2024. More recently, Israeli tank fire struck the Holy Family Church in Gaza, killing civilians who were sheltering inside. People rush to join a queue at a charity kitchen in Khan Yunis in the southern Gaza Strip | AFP via Getty Images Condemning but enabling atrocities That is why I have consistently worked with MPs and fellow MSPs to amplify concerns about Gaza. I welcomed the UK Government's decision to suspend trade talks with Israel and to impose sanctions on the most extreme members of Prime Minister Netanyahu's government. These measures are steps in the right direction, but they are far from sufficient. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Last week, the UK joined 27 other countries in condemning Israel's 'inhumane killing' of civilians seeking aid. Yet, despite suspending some export licences in September 2024, the UK has continued to authorise military exports, including munitions, vehicle and aircraft parts, and maintains diplomatic support in international arenas. You cannot claim to condemn atrocities while enabling the means to carry them out. Here in Scotland, we must also question how our own institutions may be complicit. I recently met with members of Campaign Against Arms Trade Edinburgh, which raised serious concerns about public subsidies being directed through Scottish Enterprise to arms manufacturers, including companies whose components may be used in weapons linked to war crimes. While not all funding is directly tied to weapons, the ethical implications are undeniable. Taxpayer money should never support, even indirectly, actions that risk violating international law. Public funds must align with Scotland's commitment to peace, dignity, and justice. Yasmine, a 22-year-old Palestinian mother, holds her malnourished two-month-old daughter Teen as they wait for treatment at the Nasser hospital in Khan Yunis in the southern Gaza Strip | AFP via Getty Images Standing Together In that same spirit of accountability and solidarity, I've also been in conversation with Standing Together, a movement of Jewish and Palestinian citizens in Israel working jointly for peace and equality. In a deeply polarised and dangerous environment, these activists are showing extraordinary courage. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad They risk their personal safety to stand against settler violence, challenge discriminatory policies, and protest against the actions of the Israeli government. Their message is simple but powerful: that peace is only possible when it is built on mutual recognition and shared humanity. Supporting movements like Standing Together is not only a way to protest against violence and promote peace in the face of the horrific situation unfolding in the region, it is also essential to tackling antisemitism and Islamophobia. This is not about political allegiance. It is about basic human dignity; the right of every person, regardless of where they are born, to live free from fear, violence, and oppression. The scale of suffering in Gaza has moved far beyond the bounds of political debate. Calls for a ceasefire are no longer enough. There must be immediate international action to stop the violence, protect civilians, and hold those responsible to account. In light of Prime Minister Keir Starmer's recent announcement, I welcome the outlined pathway towards recognising the state of Palestine ahead of the United Nations' General Assembly in September. The suffering in Gaza remains relentless. Our priority must be protecting civilians, both hostages and the people of Gaza, who continue to bear the unbearable. On Gaza, and on every issue where human rights are under threat, I will continue to raise my voice. Whether it's in the Scottish Parliament, in community spaces, or in solidarity with international movements for justice, I will continue to use every platform to speak out against oppression and to stand up for those whose voices are being silenced.
