[Tantumergo]

Mr Drolesky is actually labouring under false assumptions in this article. Why should the Cardinals condemn this proposed marriage?

a) Charlie boy is a widower and therefore is free to marry.

b) Camilla was "married" to a Catholic (Parker-Bowles) who subsequently was granted an annulment and therefore their "marriage" never existed. She is therefore free to marry.

The delicious irony of this situation is that were either of them Catholic, they would be completely free to marry in a Catholic Church. (I am not here speaking of their being in a state of grace to participate in the Sacraments, however, as they are almost certainly habitual fornicators.)

Instead, the very "church" which was created to allow the marriage of the English monarch is not able to marry them! What goes around comes around I guess.

[royalcello]

Camilla was "married" to a Catholic (Parker-Bowles) who subsequently was granted an annulment and therefore their "marriage" never existed.

Really??!! I've never read that. If so, I wonder why the Parker Bowles annulment hasn't been mentioned in all the coverage of this marriage. Do you have a link or source for this information?

[Land of the Irish]

I was unaware of the annulment.