The Privilege of White: Why Only Seven Royal Women Are Allowed to Wear This Rare Color Before the Pope

Why some queens wear white and others must keep to black for papal audiences.

Mar 31, 2026 5:37 PM EDT

By Jennifer Mashuga

Key Points

• Most leaders meeting the Pope must wear modest, black attire following strict protocol.
• Only seven Catholic queens or princesses may wear white, via "il privilegio del bianco."
• Eligibility depends on royal status, Catholic tradition, and historical church ties.

When meeting the Pope, there are formal rules that most Presidents, First Ladies, Prime Ministers, and other heads of state follow, whether you’re Catholic or not. One of the most important things to consider for those who have the rare opportunity to meet the supreme pontiff most likely has to do with attire: what do you wear?

For most leaders or representatives, the protocol is simple: conservative, modest, black attire. For women, this is often a dress that falls below the knees and has full-length or three-quarters-length sleeves. A veil or mantilla is also worn. For men, a dark-colored suit and tie are expected. However, for a very small number of women — seven, to be exact — it’s all right to wear white, a color that is typically frowned upon in front of the Pope.

These seven women are Catholic queens and princesses who have been granted il privilegio del bianco (privilege of white), and are allowed to wear long-sleeved white dresses and an optional white veil or mantilla. These royal women include Queen Sofía and Queen Letizia of Spain; Queen Mathilde and Queen Paola of Belgium; Grand Duchess Maria Teresa of Luxembourg; Princess Charlene of Monaco; and Princess Marina of Savoy.

However, being a Catholic queen or princess isn’t enough to be given the rare privilege. They must also be a part of marriages or countries that are traditionally Catholic. Queen Máxima of the Netherlands was raised as a Roman Catholic, and remains one to this day. But her husband, King Willem-Alexander, is Protestant, as is his family and their three children. Therefore, she is not allowed to wear white.

Another point that is taken into account is how far back the Queen or Princess’s country’s ties to the Catholic Church go. Spain‘s ties to Catholicism go far back, as do those of Belgium and Luxembourg. Queen Masenate Mohato Seeiso of Lesotho and the Princess of Liechtenstein are both Catholic, but have not been granted the honor of wearing white by the Vatican.

On March 28, Pope Leo XIV visited Monaco, and many were quick to point out that Princess Charlene wasn’t the only royal wearing white; 11-year-old Princess Gabriella was, too. While chances are she will also be granted the same privilege as her mother when she’s an adult, for now, it’s just as likely that she was exercising her privilege of being a child.

Source

Pride flag flies again at Stonewall National Monument

Anti-ICE Protesters in Minneapolis

'Crackpot ideas': Hillary Clinton slams RFK Jr. over 'turning the clock ...

THE ADVENTIST CHURCH IS LED BY OLD WHITE MEN

Written by:
Simone Samuels

Am I the only one kind of unfazed by the pronouncements and decisions made at Annual Council last week? Or maybe I'm just jaded? I don't know.

We have a church that is, in my opinion, almost too organized and very hierarchical, with a bunch of old White men in leadership positions and not enough representation of POC (people of color) and women making decisions that will affect the 20 million Seventh-day Adventists worldwide. I know that there were ethnic delegates. I know that the resistance against women’s ordination comes mostly from our Latin and African brethren. However, the senior administration of the church is very homogeneous, at least in terms of age and gender and thinking. And I do not have stats, but I'm sure that if we are talking about voting members and delegates, it's not representative of at least the gender diversity in our church.

I love my brothers and sisters in Christ — regardless of gender, race, nationality, or differences in opinion. But representation matters, and when it comes to GC leadership and conference leadership and division leadership and union leadership, the representation is not there. Leadership — I'm not talking delegates, but there are problems there, too — is not reflective of our diversity. And it's a shame because we are one of the most diverse denominations in the world.

Our church is steeped in patriarchy and colonialism; for example, the idea that quiet, less exuberant forms of worship is the only right way to worship, and the tacit discrimination against female clergy members that ensures that administrative and senior leadership positions remain inaccessible to them.

U.S. Soldiers Taught That America Privileges White Male Heterosexuals

 

New documents released from ‘white privilege’ briefing




AP


BY: Morgan Chalfant
March 9, 2016 12:40 pm


Soldiers in the U.S. Army were subjected to a “white privilege” briefing last April during which they were advised that American society “attaches privilege to being white and male and heterosexual.”

Documents obtained from the Army through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request shed light on the diversity training briefing, which was given to 400 soldiers in the 67th Signal Battalion at Fort Gordon, Georgia, last year. While one slide from the PowerPoint presentation used in the briefing previously sparked outrage, the contents of the full “Power and Privilege” slideshow had not been publicly released until now.

The PowerPoint slides, which were obtained by the government watchdog group Judicial Watch, provide detailed insight into the so-called Equal Opportunity briefing delivered on April 2, 2015.

“Privilege exists when one group has something of value that is denied to others simply because of the groups they belong to, rather than because of anything they’ve done or failed to do. Privilege has become one of those loaded words we need to reclaim so that we can use it to name and illuminate the truth,” the slideshow read.

“Our society attaches privilege to being white and male and heterosexual regardless of your social class.”

“Imagine a school or a workplace where all kinds of people feel comfortable showing up … valued, accepted, supported, appreciated, respected, belonging,” the presentation continued. “Something very powerful keeps this from us. The truth of this powerful forces is everywhere, but we don’t know how to talk about it and so we act as though it doesn’t exist.”

The slideshow instructed the soldiers that such privilege results in a “yawning divide in levels of income, wealth, dignity, safety, health and quality of life [and] promotes fear, suspicion, discrimination, harassment, and violence.”

The presentation also featured a hypothetical story about a black woman to illustrate that the United States is “organized according to race.”

“Consider the ‘black woman’ in Africa who has not experienced white racism and does not identify herself as a ‘black woman.’ African, a woman, but not black. She only became ‘black’ when she came to the U.S. where privilege is organized according to race, where she is assigned to a social category that bears that name and she is treated differently as a result,” the slideshow read.

The slideshow instructed “privileged” soldiers to do something about the alleged problem.

“The trouble we’re in can’t be solved unless the ‘privileged’ make the problem of privilege their problem and do something about it. The fact that it’s so easy for me and other people in dominant groups not to do this is the single most powerful barrier to change,” the presentation concluded.

The new details of the diversity briefing come nearly a year after controversy first erupted over a slide used in the training that discussed “white privilege.” The slide, entitled “The luxury of obliviousness,” was posted on Facebook following the briefing and invited a slew of negative comments.

“Race privilege gives whites little reason to pay a lot of attention to African Americans or to how white privilege affects them. ‘To be white in America means not having to think about it,’” the slide, which was also among the documents obtained by Judicial Watch, read.

A spokesperson for the Army responded to the outrage last April by saying that the slide was inappropriately shown to soldiers and that the diversity briefing was not officially authorized.

“The unit [Equal Opportunity] instructor deviated from the authorized topic and content which was provided,” Army spokeswoman Capt. Lindsay Roman said at the time. “To prevent further instances, all unit instructors will receive additional training on the importance of following Army EO training requirements.”


Source
.