'Two grown-ups who loved, lost, took their lumps, still loved, and hope to live happily ever after, despite everything' Photograph: John Stillwell, AFP/Getty
Queens, constitutional amendments, civil marriages … No, not the royal wedding, but the ongoing debate over gay marriage in the States. It may be the stuff of commemorative pullouts here, but Charles' belated proposal gets short shrift in most of the US press.
The New York Post does oblige with a hyped-up titbit which calls Camilla as a "dowdy divorcee" and says many Britons are outraged. But, oddly, it is the Washington Post that is just bowled over by it all. "It's a tale of two grown-ups who loved, lost, took their lumps, still loved, and hope to live happily ever after, despite everything," writes Roxanne Roberts.
As you would expect from a country whose head of state is still the Queen, the Sydney Morning Herald is rather more interested. Its readers' poll makes heartening reading for republicans. Twenty-two per cent of the respondents say they intend to join the Australian Republican Movement right away, 37% couldn't care less, 4% are "much more interested in Lleyton and Bec" (the tennis player Lleyton Hewitt has just become engaged to a Home and Away star), and 31% wish them good luck. Quite a few think she should be Queen, and not just Princess Consort - and as the Economist points out today, she might indeed become one. While British politicians will vote through any legislation limiting her title, the weekly says, the acquiescence of other Commonwealth countries would also be required. If this was not forthcoming, she could end up as Queen Camilla in Australia and Princess Consort here, which might be awkward.
Back home, meanwhile, PoliticalBetting.com has an interesting post on what effect, if any, an April 8 wedding date will have on Tony Blair's election plans.
