Yet more signs that a constitutional re-write is long overdue...

The Observer: Charles shelters in Oz as legal wrangle threatens wedding

Proof positive that it is high time we had a serious chat about the role/place of the monarchy in the 21st century. Why should you not be allowed a civil marriage simply because of who your parents are? More to the point, why should you by law be banned from marrying people of a particular religion [i.e. catholics] ??

I think the second most important women in Britain [assuming for the sake of argument that she's not actually number one, which she almost definitely is] is Cherie Blair...

Ah, the hagiography of Diana continues... as does this rather bizarre fantasy about the "institution of marriage" and the role of the monarchy in the UK. The "institution" of marriage historically exists for one single purpose: to attempt to regulate procreation in order to regulate/govern/direct the inheritance of property.

Everything else that allegedly goes with marriage [love, happiness etc.] is little more than a combination of 19th and 20th century fantasies [and with a rather large dollop of 'courtly love' and rose tinted-glasses] grafted ontop of the 'historic' "institution".

As for undermining the monarchy, it is rather strange that we should be so entranced by the semi-random behavior of a single upper-class family... this is of course a generational thing: much of British society regards the Royal Family as a sideshow. The Royal Family as an institution is doomed, and while some of that is because its members do seem to have a rather well-developed self-destructive streak, mostly this is because the UK media regard it as an asset to be ruthlessly mined for the media's own profit... and as we all know, all mines are eventually exhausted.