2006-11-22 10:27:09 · 25 answers · asked by carnival queen 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Royalty
Yes red beret, it does make a difference. If she is catholic Charles cannot be king.
2006-11-22 10:34:27 · update #1
Careful MW - she is NOT Princess of Wales and NEVER WILL BE!!!
2006-11-24 07:51:20 · update #2
no just a horse look a like
2006-11-22 10:31:25 · answer #1 · answered by antagonist 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
The simple answer is no. Her first husband was Catholic, but Camilla never converted. The Catholic Church approves marriages between non-Catholics like Camilla and Catholics if the non-Catholic spouse agrees that the children will be raised as Catholics. I believe Camilla made this agreement, but she herself never became a Catholic. Had she done so, she would have had to convert back to Anglicanism in order to marry Prince Charles. Such a conversion wasn't necessary since she had never converted to Catholicism in the first place.
2016-05-22 19:10:20 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, she is not a catholic, APB is catholic but, all Camilla did when she married him, was agree to bring the children from the union up as catholic.
Leaving her free to marry Charles as a member of the Church of England and take her rightful place at his side and as the Princess of Wales.
2006-11-24 07:43:16 · answer #3 · answered by MW 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Camilla Parker-Bowles is a name left to the past. The correct styling is Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cornwall (like it or lump it).
She was married to a Roman Catholic but She could NOT have been otherwise, although Charles could have married her, He would have had to renounce his right to the throne. Think we may have heard about this if it had been the case!
Time the discriminatory law was banished anyway
2006-11-23 05:08:49 · answer #4 · answered by Raymo 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, she's not a Catholic. They would have made an even huger fuss about that than about her being a divorcee had she been.
She was, however, married to a Catholic (which has absolutely no bearing on whether she can be married to Charles or not.) Having worked in a Catholic parish, I can tell you that there is nothing barring a non-Catholic from marrying a Catholic in a Catholic wedding ceremony.
2006-11-22 13:21:36 · answer #5 · answered by glurpy 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
she was married in catholic church, but this doesnt mean she is.
I am catholic and married my Anglican husband in catholic church but he can keep his religion.
I am not saying Catholic is the best, but someone like her doesnt sound like she has ever had any religion or belief there is God somewhere. Diana may not have this too, but there was something beautiful in her at least. Like Angelina Jolie or Sharon Stone, they do not need to be follower of any religion to be generous and affectionate for the poor.
I never see or hear anything good about Camilla or Charles. If they are Catholic, won't take long for them to be exterminated.
Glad they are not.
2006-11-22 14:43:16 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
No she married a catholic Andrew Parker Bowles and they brought up their two children, Tom and Laura as catholic, but she remains a heretic to all and sundry.
As all others have said, she definately is not catholic and would not of been able to of married Prince Charles if she had been or he would have to renounce the throne.
2006-11-22 10:36:08 · answer #7 · answered by Gar 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Svartalf...take a hike!
No she is of the same faith as her husband.
And may I add that she has proved against all the odds and speculation to be the right woman for her man.
Have you ever seen Charles look more contended and happy. Happiness is something everyone deserves even when at times it's a long time coming.
Camilla shows dignity and interest in all her engagements and trips abroad with her husband.
2006-11-23 07:30:15 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I've heard that she was Catholic while married to her ex-husband, but converted to Anglicanism. However, I've also heard that she's always been Anglican so who knows. I figured if she was still firmly Catholic, than we would really have a reason to skip Charles and make William king after Queen Elizabeth.
2006-11-22 14:48:57 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Same as Charles.
2006-11-22 12:03:34 · answer #10 · answered by notProudatAll 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Even if she were, unless Jug ears chuck becomes one too, there's no obstacle to his mounting the throne. Ed VIII was a poofter, or he just did not want to deal with the aggravation, but if Henry VIII divorced half of his wives, at least one fully catholic, and 2 by the axe, there's no reason chuck can't get away with marrying a catholic, so long as he himself remains Co E
2006-11-22 12:42:02 · answer #11 · answered by Svartalf 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋