Prince Charles is finally to make an honest woman of the love of his life, but Nick Morrison looks at how the Prince of Wales's second marriage also signals the end of the fairytale.

IT was the ultimate fairytale wedding: the dashing soldier-prince and the blushing young virgin, attended by all the pomp and circumstance a captivated nation could muster. Twenty four years later, it will be a very different story: a low-key civil ceremony, attended not by assorted heads of state, but just by close family and friends.

But the contrast between Prince Charles's two weddings is not just of ceremonial interest. Instead, it signals a fundamental shift in the way the monarchy is perceived.

For good or ill, the mystique which once surrounded the royals, the aura which somehow stood them apart from their subjects, has been consigned to history. Now, they are just like the rest of us, and nowhere has this been more apparent than in the forthcoming marriage of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles.

In some ways, the wedding will change very little, according to Martin Farr, lecturer in British history at Newcastle University. By merely formalising a situation everyone knew existed, it can be seen as Charles making an honest woman of his mistress. But this is the only old-fashioned thing about it.

"In almost every other respect it seems to be a modern phenomenon," Dr Farr says. "No-one has hang ups about it, constitutionally or theologically. Nobody is bothered that they've been married before and divorced before.

"It reflects a much more tolerant, open and relaxed Britain. This is an example of the Royal Family being much more connected with the rest of the country than has been the case in the past.

'I think it demonstrates a maturity on the part of the institution, that people don't have hang ups as they once would have. The really modern thing would have been to cohabit, as lovers, but these are people nearly in their 60s and they regard marriage as important."

Seventy years ago, a love between the Prince of Wales and a divorcee forced Edward VIII to renounce the throne. Now, albeit after a lengthy period of trying to ingratiate Mrs Parker Bowles with the public, there is barely a murmur of dissent. Indeed, it looks like bringing some welcome good publicity for the royals.

A poll last year put support for Charles's remarriage at 32 per cent, with 29 per cent opposed, although, perhaps worryingly for royalists, the largest group, 38 per cent, did not care. In contrast, a poll in the Sun last month put support for the marriage at 40 per cent.

"I've been astonished at the extent of the coverage," says Dr Farr. "This might be the sort of thing the royals would like after an uncomfortable period; it might be the sort of thing that rejuvenates public interest in the Royal Family.

"I think public opinion will warm to the couple, and to the institution itself: once people are faced with it all the time, they will get behind it."

But even with the surge of interest, there was never any question that it would be on a scale to match Charles's marriage to Diana Spencer in 1981. Instead, Dr Farr says it was always likely to follow the most recent precedent, the wedding of Prince Edward and Sophie Rhys Jones in 1999.

"There will be less of a to-do, and not just because Camilla is much less photogenic than Diana. The idea of these opulent ceremonies is rather old fashioned and the only time we will see these public ceremonies is for deaths and coronations.

'The exception is Prince William, who is the great white hope of the Royal Family. I suspect his wedding could be a crowd-puller," he says.

He says the obstacles to the marriage have always been much more to do with the public reaction than any constitutional questions, of whether the ceremony would take place in a church, if Camilla would ever be Queen and the niceties of royal precedence.

Whereas the constitution is flexible enough to adapt to changing circumstances, it is the public who have had to be wooed, with carefully staged joint appearances and then the first public kiss.

A key indicator of how the wedding is seen will be the BBC's behaviour. The broadcaster was criticised for overdoing its coverage of the Queen Mother's funeral, and it will be interesting to see if the wedding is treated as a great national event, or as the ultimate celebrity bash.

But if the public are generally positive about the wedding, or at worst indifferent, it is undeniable that there will be less interest in this wedding than in Charles and Diana's, and not just because of the glamour of the bride.

From the Royal It's a Knockout debacle onwards, the Royal Family's mystique has been undermined and diminished by a series of major scandals and minor revelations. But if this wedding is no fairytale romance, it is real in a way Charles and Diana never was.

"People used to think the Royal Family were different and above this human melee, but now we know they fall in love, they have affairs, they get divorced, just like most people," says Dr Farr.

"This is very much a human story. Charles's first marriage was entirely artificial, this is real and that will appeal to people. People now realise all the pomp and circumstance was untrue, but they would rather have a more honest Royal Family, rather than one preserved in aspic.

"We are seeing a change in people's perceptions, and it will be interesting to see how interested we are as a society. We have got a celebrity-based culture, so is this wedding part of that celebrity culture, or is it part of the national character?"

Today, the Royal Family are only special in the way celebrities are special, although they are still top of the tree. Charles and Camilla: not so much Prince Charming and Cinderella, more this year's Posh and Becks.