So, what are the constitutional implications of the wedding of Prince William to Kate Middleton? John Hipwood gives his analysis.

Nearly 30 years ago, I stood on the steps of the Victoria Memorial opposite Buckingham Palace to do my bit for the Shropshire Star’s coverage of the “fairytale” wedding of Prince Charles and Lady Diana Spencer.

The weather was fine, the thousands of people who had waited for hours to catch a glimpse of the 32-year-old prince and his 20-year-old bride were in jubilant mood, having been worked brilliantly from early in the day by Terry Wogan.

Britain was going through tough times economically as Margaret Thatcher and her Chancellor, Geoffrey Howe, applied the Big Squeeze which followed her election victory over James Callaghan two years earlier.

The British public needed something to cheer, and, however briefly, economic woes were put aside as the nation was sidetracked by a royal wedding.

Little did we know then that the marriage was based on extremely dodgy foundations, and that the cracks would begin to appear within a few years in what was a relationship which now appears to have been based not on love, on a Royal Family arrangement.

Today it’s happening all over again, and large parts of the world are focusing again on Fantasy Island and the “fairytale” wedding of a prince and a good looking young woman.

Much has changed over the 30 intervening years, not least in the Royal Family’s approach to the British people and its realisation that it had to change to survive.

The young woman who became a princess on July 29, 1981, is dead; the prince is still a bit of a grump, has remarried and is still waiting to fulfil the role assigned to him at birth – to become King of the United Kingdom and titular head of state of a myriad of countries across the Commonwealth.

There have been many calls for the UK to skip a generation and make William king when the Queen abdicates, or passes on.

But it won’t happen, and today’s event does not bring William an inch closer to the throne. The Royal Family still does such things by rote, and Charles will become king unless he dies before his mother or unless something extraordinary and completely unforeseen occurs.

So what are the constitutional implications of the wedding of William and Kate? The short answer is “None”, but… And there are several buts.

Neither has been married before, and there are no religious difficulties. If William had hooked up to a foreign princess who was a Roman Catholic, there would have had to have been some sorting out to do, which would have included a change to the law.

But Catherine Middleton has recently been confirmed as a member of the Church of England, not because she had to, but because she wanted to. So no problem there.

William came along within a year of his parents’ wedding, so questions have been asked about the line of succession if and when Kate has a child, and that child is a girl.

Under the principle of male primogeniture, the first son of William and Kate would slot in behind his father as next in line to the throne, but this is not the case if the first born is a girl. An opinion poll published last weekend indicated that 60 per cent of the public want this rule abandoned.

However, enacting a change would be mighty complicated with legislation being required not just in this country but in the 15 other countries where the Queen is head of state.

It would also cause significant changes to the current succession order, with Princess Anne rising up the chart to fourth behind Charles, William and Harry, and ahead of her younger brother, Andrew.

Constitutional expert and West Midlands political veteran Lord (Patrick) Cormack is relaxed about the issue.

“Let’s cross that bridge when we come to it. There is a 50/50 chance that the first child will be a boy anyway. Let’s just rejoice that there are no constitutional problems at the moment, hope that there won’t be, and wish William and Catherine a long, happy and fruitful future,” said the former South Staffordshire MP.

The crowds in London today, the millions watching on television and the incredible media coverage indicate that any wish republicans might have that the UK might want to ditch its monarchy is just that — wishful thinking.

One constitutional issue which has been thrown up, however, is in Australia where the prime minister, Julia Gillard, wants the Queen ousted as head of state. Apparently interest in the royal wedding has diminished support for a republic among Australians.

Miss Gillard was elected prime minister in June last year, but scraped into office only after a protracted period of negotiation with Green and Independent MPs.

The election was held under the Alternative Vote system. But that’s another story.