Editorial: Wait is over for Charles and Camilla

Of all victims of royal birth Prince Charles has seemed at times the saddest. Marriage for the heir to the throne is always and properly of particular public interest. For nearly 10 years before his disastrous marriage to Princess Diana, the marital prospects of the Prince of Wales were a subject of intense popular discussion in Britain and elsewhere. Few knew throughout those 10 years that Charles had already fallen in love with the woman he is now to wed.

Camilla Parker Bowles was deemed unsuitable at that time, not least because their relationship developed when she was married. When it was announced that Charles would marry the much younger, and hitherto unknown, Lady Diana Spencer, the public appetite for royal fairy tale was satisfied in abundance. But another woman was already entrenched in the Prince's affections, a position she would retain during his marriage and ever since.

The marriage was a disaster not just for the unhappy couple but for the monarchy that underpins the laws and Government of Britain and many Commonwealth states, including ours.

The unedifying spectacle of the Prince and Princess baring their personal problems on television, the sordid details that found their way into well-informed books and news articles and, eventually, the death of the cheated Princess, more popular and lamented than any member of the royal family, severely tarnished a monarchy that had fashioned its modern survival on a wholesome family image.

The damage continues to this day. Many are greeting the marriage announcement with disapproval. The Archbishop of Canterbury might approve, but polls find the public divided. Mrs Parker Bowles is still vilified by many for her part in spoiling the fairy tale. Charles cannot live down his part in the affair, either, no matter how much he might be a victim of not being permitted to follow the original impulses of his heart.

He is proposing to follow those impulses now and marry the woman with whom he has been living for several years. When he takes the throne she will not be designated Queen but she will be, fully and publicly at last, his companion. His inability to bring her out in public and have her with him at royal occasions over the past few years has been as sad as any chapter in this story.

The purpose of constitutional monarchy is to personify a continuity of order and authority within the changing and contentious currents of democratic government. Inevitably, such an institution has to maintain tradition and lag, if not resist, changes in social behaviour. Less than a generation ago it would have been contentious for an heir to the throne to marry a divorced woman. His grandfather's brother had been forced to abdicate for exactly that reason. Now the prospect seems much less of a concern.

The future King and his intended consort have proved their commitment in a long partnership that has survived the undoubted stresses of the constant attempt to keep it out of the public eye. Tentative steps into the public gaze have been made in recent years. With the nuptials announced the couple will soon be able to go about public duties together without awkwardness or suffering salacious attention. They have waited as long as anybody could ask to formalise their life together. Now the frustrations and uncertainties can be put behind them.