See All of the Most Striking Photos of the Funeral of Pope Francis
Today, mourners from around the globe have gathered in Vatican City for the funeral of Pope Francis in St. Peter's Square. The 266th pope of the Roman Catholic Church, Argentinian-born Jorge Mario Bergoglio, took on the name Francis in honor of St. Francis of Assisi after was elected as leader of the faith in 2013. His election was a historic choice; he was the first pope from the Americas, the first from the Southern Hemisphere, the first from the Jesuit Order, and the first born outside Europe since Pope Gregory III, who held the position from 731 to 741 AD. Francis passed away at the age of 88 on Easter Monday, April 21, 2025.
Ahead of the funeral, Francis lay in state in St. Peter's Basilica, where popes are traditionally buried. However, in a break from tradition, Francis will be laid to rest at Santa Maria Maggiore (St. Mary Major) basilica in Rome following the funeral services today. Similarly, the services themselves were recently simplified by the late pontiff, in line with what he felt was "the need to simplify and adapt certain rites so that the celebration of the funeral of the bishop of Rome may better express the faith of the Church in the risen Christ,' according to the Vatican's master of liturgical ceremonies, Archbishop Diego Ravelli.
Among the numerous people paying tribute to the late pontiff will be members of royal families across Europe, including Prince William, who will represent his father, King Charles, King Felipe and Queen Letizia of Spain, Belgium's King Philippe and Queen Mathilde, and Prince Albert and Princess Charlene of Monaco. Likewise, world leaders including President Donald Trump and his wife Melania, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and his wife Olena, French President Emmanuel Macron, British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, and many more are also expected.
Here, a look at some of the most poignant photos from the day's services.
Members of the clergy gathered to pay respects.
Italian cardinal Giovanni Battista Re anoints the coffin of Pope Francis with incense. Laid atop it is a book of gospels.
Prince William was in attendance as a representative of his father, King Charles.
President Donald Trump and his wife Melania attended the event. Seated next to them were President Alar Karis of Estonia and Spain's King Felipe VI.
St. Peter's Square was filled for the funeral.
The cardinals gathered in homage to the late pontiff.
King Felipe and Queen Letizia of Spain arrive at the ceremony.
France's President Emmanuel Macron and his wife Brigitte paid their respects.
Princess Charlene and Prince Albert of Monaco were among the mourners.
Former President Joe Biden and Dr. Jill Biden attended.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer was also a guest.
You Might Also Like
12 Weekend Getaway Spas For Every Type of Occasion
13 Beauty Tools to Up Your At-Home Facial Game
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Hegseth says Nato allies ‘very close' to raising defence spending target to 5%
The US defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, said Nato allies were 'very close, almost near consensus' to an agreement to significantly raise targets for defence spending to 5% of GDP in the next decade. The Trump administration official indicated he expected the increased target to be agreed at a summit in The Hague later this month – and confirmed that the headline figure was to be split into two parts. 'This alliance, in a matter of weeks, will be committing to 5%: 3.5% in hard military and 1.5% in infrastructure and defence-related activities. That combination constitutes a real commitment,' he said. Hegseth was speaking at a press conference at Nato headquarters in Brussels after the morning session of an all-day meeting of defence ministers from the 32-country transatlantic military alliance. 'I'm very encouraged by what we heard in there,' Hegseth told reporters. 'Countries in there are well exceeding 2% and we think very close, almost near consensus, on a 5% commitment to Nato.' Nato's current target level for military spending, agreed at a summit in Cardiff in 2014, is 2% of GDP, but Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed that European allies and Canada do not spend enough compared with the US. In an attempt to avoid Trump wrecking the first Nato summit of his second term, the alliance's new secretary general, Mark Rutte, proposed a 3.5% plus 1.5% target, though there is some ambiguity about the target date. Initial reports suggested that Rutte wanted allies to hit the target from 2032, though earlier this week British sources suggested the date could be 2035. Sweden's defence minister said he would like to see the target hit by 2030. Only Poland currently exceeds the 3.5% target for hard military spending at 4.32%, according to Nato figures, while the US defence budget, the largest in the alliance, amounts to 3.4% of GDP, at $967bn (£711bn). The UK spends 2.33% of GDP on its military, but has pledged to increase that to 2.5% by 2027 and to 3% some time in the next parliament. Earlier this week the prime minister, Keir Starmer, declined to set a firm date for the UK achieving 3% as he unveiled a strategic defence review. Related: Why is defence such a hard sell? The same reason Starmer is struggling in the polls | Martin Kettle Rutte will visit London on Monday to meet Starmer before the summit. Downing Street said the prime minister and the secretary general would 'talk about how we ensure all allies step up their defence spending now in order to respond to the threats that we face now'. Germany's defence minister, Boris Pistorius, said Berlin would need up to 60,000 additional troops to meet new Nato targets for weapons and personnel. 'We are stepping up to our responsibility as Europe's largest economy,' the minister said on Thursday. Germany, which currently spends 2.12% of GDP on defence, had been singled out by Trump as a laggard in spending, though until Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Berlin had been reluctant to be a leader in European military spending, partly due to the memories of the militarism of the second world war.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump v Musk: 10 ways they can further hurt each other
The falling-out between the world's richest person and the president of the world's largest economy will have consequences – for both of them. Elon Musk, as the boss of multiple companies including Tesla, and Donald Trump, who has benefited from Musk's support in his journey to the White House, have had a mutually beneficial relationship up until now. Here are 10 ways in which Musk and Trump could hurt each other if they fail to broker a peace deal. Cancel government contracts related to Musk's businesses Responding to Musk's criticism of his tax and spending bill, Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform on Thursday that cancelling the billionaire's government contracts would be a straightforward way to save money. 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts. I was always surprised that Biden didn't do it!' Trump said. In 2024, the New York Times reported that Musk's companies – which include electric vehicle maker Tesla and rocket company SpaceX – have over the past year been promised $3bn across nearly 100 different contracts with 17 federal agencies. Investigate Musk's alleged drug use The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal have made allegations of heavy drug use by Musk, raising questions about Nasa requirements for its contractors – including SpaceX – to maintain a drug-free workforce. The Times alleged that Musk has received advanced warning of the tests. SpaceX has been contacted for comment. Responding to the Times allegations on X last month, Musk wrote: 'to be clear, I am NOT taking drugs!' In 2024 he said he sometimes used ketamine on a doctor's prescription. Challenge Musk's immigration status Steve Bannon, a Trump ally and influential 'alt-right' figure, told the Times on Thursday that Musk's immigration status should be investigated. 'They should initiate a formal investigation of his immigration status, because I am of the strong belief that he is an illegal alien, and he should be deported from the country immediately,' Bannon said of South Africa-born Musk, who is a US citizen. Use general presidential powers against Musk When Trump was elected, observers pointed to the myriad ways in which a Musk-friendly White House administration could benefit the financial interests of the world's richest person. That benign environment, which includes awarding of government contracts and directing federal agencies giving Musk's businesses an easier ride, could of course be turned hostile. Richard Pierce, a law professor at George Washington University and a specialist in government regulation, told the Guardian at the time: 'All federal regulators and prosecutors work for the president. He can tell them to do something or not to do something with the understanding that he will fire them if they disobey.' Ostracise Musk from the Maga movement Trump, as the leader of the 'Make America great again' vanguard, can close doors on Musk. The Republican congressman Troy Nehls excoriated the billionaire on Thursday, telling him: ''You've lost your damn mind.' He added: 'Enough is enough.' Musk can handle such opprobrium and, given his considerable wealth, he is an important source of funding for Republican politicians. Turn X against the White House Musk used his X platform, and his more than 220 million followers on it, to rally support for Trump's victory in the 2024. It also provided a platform for rightwing views that helped publicise the Maga agenda. Theoretically, Musk could at least use his own X account to criticise Trump with as much regularity as he pumped the president's policies (the Tesla chief executive is a prolific user of his own platform). However, this also depends on Musk's influence with the US electorate. Five out of 10 US adults say they have an unfavourable view of Musk, according to the Pew Research Center. But it should be noted that seven out of 10 Republicans or Republican-leaning adults hold a favourable view – he's not going to sway many Democrats who dislike Trump anyway. Form a new political movement Musk, who is worth more than $300bn (£220bn), could divert his considerable financial resources away from the Republican party and start a new political entity. Musk spent $250m on getting Trump elected in 2024, signalling his willingness to invest heavily in politics. On Thursday he posted a poll on X and asked: 'Is it time to create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80% in the middle?' More than 80% of the 4.8 million respondents voted 'yes'. Create geopolitical problems with his businesses The Starlink satellite broadband platform, owned by Musk's SpaceX, is playing a key rule in Ukraine's fight against a Russian invasion, while China is an important manufacturing and consumer base for Tesla. Through his businesses, Musk also has political contacts around the world and is regularly photographed in the company of global leaders. However, any damage Musk causes to Trump's international standing or interests will have to be balanced with any knock-on effect on his own businesses. Create problems for Nasa Nasa has a close relationship with Musk's SpaceX, with the company's Dragon spacecraft being used to transport the agency's astronauts to and from the International Space Station. Musk immediately pledged to decommission Dragon in the wake of the Trump spat on Thursday – before quickly signalling an about-face. Nonetheless, SpaceX is a crucial part of Nasa's ISS operations. Tell-all on Trump Musk has been a fixture of Trump's inner circle for a considerable period of time and, as the contents of his X account show, he is capable of taking multiple damaging swipes at people. However, members of Trump's inner circle will have had the same access to Musk, whose personal life is becoming a media staple.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Russia is at war with Britain and US is no longer a reliable ally, UK adviser says
Russia is at war with Britain, the US is no longer a reliable ally and the UK has to respond by becoming more cohesive and more resilient, according to one of the three authors of the strategic defence review. Fiona Hill, from County Durham, became the White House's chief Russia adviser during Donald Trump's first term and contributed to the British government's strategy. She made the remarks in an interview with the Guardian. 'We're in pretty big trouble,' Hill said, describing the UK's geopolitical situation as caught between 'the rock' of Vladimir Putin's Russia and 'the hard place' of Donald Trump's increasingly unpredictable US. Hill, 59, is perhaps the best known of the reviewers appointed by Labour, alongside Lord Robertson, a former Nato secretary general, and the retired general Sir Richard Barrons. She said she was happy to take on the role because it was 'such a major pivot point in global affairs'. She remains a dual national after living in the US for more than 30 years. 'Russia has hardened as an adversary in ways that we probably hadn't fully anticipated,' Hill said, arguing that Putin saw the Ukraine war as a starting point to Moscow becoming 'a dominant military power in all of Europe'. As part of that long-term effort, Russia was already 'menacing the UK in various different ways,' she said, citing 'the poisonings, assassinations, sabotage operations, all kinds of cyber-attacks and influence operations. The sensors that we see that they're putting down around critical pipelines, efforts to butcher undersea cables.' The conclusion, Hill said, was that 'Russia is at war with us'. The foreign policy expert, a longtime Russia watcher, said she had first made a similar warning in 2015, in a revised version of a book she wrote about the Russian president with Clifford Gaddy, reflecting on the invasion and annexation of Crimea. 'We said Putin had declared war on the west,' she said. At the time, other experts disagreed, but Hill said events since had demonstrated 'he obviously had, and we haven't been paying attention to it'. The Russian leader, she argues, sees the fight in Ukraine as 'part of a proxy war with the United States; that's how he has persuaded China, North Korea and Iran to join in'. Putin believed that Ukraine had already been decoupled from the US relationship, Hill said, because 'Trump really wants to have a separate relationship with Putin to do arms control agreements and also business that will probably enrich their entourages further, though Putin doesn't need any more enrichment'. When it came to defence, however, she said the UK could not rely on the military umbrella of the US as during the cold war and in the generation that followed, at least 'not in the way that we did before'. In her description, the UK 'is having to manage its number one ally', though the challenge is not to overreact because 'you don't want to have a rupture'. This way of thinking appears in the defence review published earlier this week, which says 'the UK's longstanding assumptions about global power balances and structures are no longer certain' – a rare acknowledgment in a British government document of how far and how fast Trumpism is affecting foreign policy certainties. The review team reported to Keir Starmer, Rachel Reeves, and the defence secretary, John Healey. Most of Hill's interaction were with Healey, however, and she said she had met the prime minister only once – describing him as 'pretty charming … in a proper and correct way' and as 'having read all the papers'. Hill was not drawn on whether she had advised Starmer or Healey on how to deal with Donald Trump, saying instead: 'The advice I would give is the same I would give in a public setting.' She said simply that the Trump White House 'is not an administration, it is a court' in which a transactional president is driven by his 'own desires and interests, and who listens often to the last person he talks to'. She added that unlike his close circle, Trump had 'a special affinity for the UK' based partly on his own family ties (his mother came from the Hebridean island of Lewis, emigrating to New York aged 18) and an admiration for the royal family, particularly the late queen. 'He talked endlessly about that,' she said. On the other hand, Hill is no fan of the populist right administration in the White House and worries it could come to Britain if 'the same culture wars' are allowed to develop with the encouragement of Republicans from the US. She noted that Reform UK had won a string of council elections last month, including in her native Durham, and that the party's leader, Nigel Farage, wanted to emulate some of the aggressive efforts to restructure government led by Elon Musk's 'department of government efficiency' (Doge) before his falling-out with Trump. 'When Nigel Farage says he wants to do a Doge against the local county council, he should come over here [to the US] and see what kind of impact that has,' she said. 'This is going to be the largest layoffs in US history happening all at once, much bigger than hits to steelworks and coalmines.' Hill's argument is that in a time of profound uncertainty, Britain needs greater internal cohesion if it is to protect itself. 'We can't rely exclusively on anyone any more,' she said, arguing that Britain needed to have 'a different mindset' based as much on traditional defence as on social resilience. Some of that, Hill said, was about a greater recognition of the level of external threat and initiatives for greater integration, by teaching first aid in schools or encouraging more teenagers to join school cadet forces, a recommendation of the defence review. 'What you need to do is get people engaged in all kinds of different ways in support of their communities,' she said. Hill said she saw that deindustrialisation and a rise of inequality in Russia and the US had contributed to the rise in national populism in both countries. Politicians in Britain, or elsewhere, 'have to be much more creative and engage people where they are at' as part of a 'national effort', she said. If this seems far away from a conventional view of defence, that's because it is, though Hill also argues that traditional conceptions of war are changing as technology evolves and with it what makes a potent force. 'People keep saying the British army has the smallest number of troops since the Napoleonic era. Why is the Napoleonic era relevant? Or that we have fewer ships than the time of Charles II. The metrics are all off here,' she said. 'The Ukrainians are fighting with drones. Even though they have no navy, they sank a third of the Russian Black Sea fleet.' Her aim, therefore, is not just to be critical but to propose solutions. Hill recalled that a close family friend, on hearing that she had taken on the defence review, had told her: ''Don't tell us how shite we are, tell us what we can do, how we can fix things.' People understand that we have a problem and that the world has changed.'
