On being presented to his bride-to-be for the first time, the Prince of Wales at the time (later George IV) claimed to have become unwell and demanded alcohol instantly. That he had already secretly and illegally married another woman was, essentially, ignored by Parliament. This episode illustrates that members of the Royal Family have often had complicated lives, and marriages, and that the best response has usually been patience, pragmatism and flexibility. The union of Charles, Prince of Wales, and Camilla Parker Bowles on April 8 will be a far happier event than that of his ancestor to Caroline of Brunswick. It will be the culmination of a lengthy relationship, much of it conducted in the public eye.

Eight months ago, during one of the many bouts of speculation that have occurred about their intentions, this newspaper argued that if the couple wished to marry, they should not only be permitted but encouraged to do so. We welcome, therefore, the announcement yesterday.

The turbulent nature of the Prince’s marriage to Diana, Princess of Wales, and the tragic character of her death have made the idea of this marriage controversial. It would not have been possible if the couple themselves had not been patient and pragmatic and if other institutions, such as the Church of England, had rushed to judgment about their circumstances. Most of those involved have acted with dignity and due care. That they have done so should mean that this marriage will not attract the criticism which would once have occurred and that residual dissatisfaction will evaporate in a relatively short time as Mrs Parker Bowles becomes familiar to the public.

The Prince and Mrs Parker Bowles have recognised that time had to pass before their liaison would be accepted. To have waited much longer and allowed an awkward arrangement to become permanent would have been unacceptable. The Prince and Mrs Parker Bowles are obviously extremely fond of each other and it is quite natural that their shared affection should lead them to the altar. This is hardly a shotgun wedding, although it would not be surprising if the Prince’s advisers had impressed upon him the need to make a more formal commitment.

In our leading article eight months ago we suggested that it would be tactful if Mrs Parker Bowles were to assume the title of Duchess of Cornwall and implied that it might also be best if she were not ultimately styled Queen. This has been the outcome. It is a sensible formula. The suggested title of Princess Consort to a Charles III is not demeaning and reflects the particular and historically unusual circumstances of this royal marriage.

It will need to be legally sanctioned at some point, a process that should induce a wider parliamentary interest in finally addressing some of the legal absurdities that surround the monarchy and marriage. They include provisions of the Act of Settlement 1701 (which prevent members of the Royal Family from marrying Roman Catholics without renouncing all their rights to the succession) and the Royal Marriages Act 1772 (which can, in certain circumstances, allow the head of state to veto the proposed partners of other senior royal figures). It would be far better to amend or repeal these statutes before either Prince William or Prince Harry aspires to be married.

The Church of England has also acted with good sense and a quiet resolve in this situation. The Prince of Wales will eventually be the Supreme Governor of the Church and has taken an admirable interest in its internal debates. A failed first marriage should not disqualify him from the task of providing Anglicans with what is symbolic leadership. It would have been a mistake, nonetheless, for the Church to be perceived as stretching its specific rules relating to remarriage in church just for the benefit of one prominent member. That would have been the sense if it had been pretended that adultery was not largely responsible for the collapse of either party’s previous marriage.

The understandings reached for the ceremonies on April 8 thus strike the appropriate balance. A civil ceremony accurately reflects the conditions and status of the couple. It was fitting of the Prince and Mrs Parker Bowles to ask the Archbishop of Canterbury to lead a service of prayers and blessings after the marriage and proper of him to accept that invitation. This is an occasion that will inevitably blend the private and the public, and the Church of England should be an important part of these proceedings. Clarence House might look sympathetically at requests that this part of the day should be televised.

This will obviously be a rather different form of royal wedding to those of the 1980s. It will need to be handled with sensitivity and the early stages of Mrs Parker Bowles’s assumption of official duties should also be measured. It is not a union that should damage the institution of the monarchy. If the same combination of patience, pragmatism and flexibility demonstrated in the past is brought to bear in the future, it will do good, not harm. The Duke of Edinburgh, asked for his recipe for a successful marriage, replied: “Tolerance is the one essential ingredient . . . You can take it from me that the Queen has the quality of tolerance in abundance.” These are wise words and worthy of contemplation.