"Who cares?" grumbled Greg Bams, the ex-chairman of the Australian Republican Movement. "It's just two members of the privileged English ruling class marrying each other. It has no relevance to Australians."
But that didn't stop the Sydney Morning Herald from reporting gleefully that Prince Charles would be spending "his last few weeks as a single man" in Australia. The last time he visited the country, a student tried to shoot him.
The New York Times patiently tried to explain why some Britons might object to the match. "Camilla Parker Bowles is divorced and her former husband is still alive. Charles would be the supreme governor of the Church of England, the legally established faith of the nation, if he took the throne, and some Anglicans remain opposed to remarriage of divorcees." But the church, it added, took no official line. You can almost hear the sighs of befuddlement across the Atlantic.
The fact that the news broke before 5am east coast time did not prevent nocturnal American bloggers from urging us to ignore it. "I, for one, have no particular interest, except in the constitutional arrangements, the precedents broken and set, and whatever ceremonial bric-a-brac occurs," writes Jackalope Pursuivant. That's right, Jackalope.
It was a tough call for Fox News. Should they lead with the news that North Korea had admitted having nuclear weapons, or with the wedding? In the end, the nukes got the headline and Camilla - described irreverently as Charles' "longtime girlfriend" - was the picture story. The New York Post hasn't woken up yet and the Diana memorial sites are apparently still too shocked to respond. Expect an online petition to the Archbishop of Canterbury before the day is out.
