The announcement that Prince Charles will marry his live-in love Camilla Parker Bowles caught many of us by surprise. But negotiations on the matter have likely been in the works for years.

For the Royal Family, one of the biggest stumbling blocks surely must have been how to handle the fact that Charles will become the titular head of the Church of England upon coronation.

Many Anglicans remain opposed to remarriage of divorcees in church services. Officially, the church allows it but, according to regulations brought in a couple of years ago, only for those who were the innocent parties in the previous break-ups.

Charles admitted years ago that he broke his vows during his marriage to Diana, Princess of Wales, but only after his marriage had "irretrievably broken down," he said. 

Of course, the couple couldn't avoid marriage, since it would have been difficult for Charles to ascend to the throne while maintaining an unmarried relationship with Camilla. The former archbishop of Canterbury George Carey also recently urged Charles and Camilla to marry.

So the pair chose a civil ceremony, to be followed by "a service of prayer and dedication" led by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

While some may call it hypocritical that the future head of the Church of England choose a wedding with no religious significance, it may have been the best compromise.

"You know, they're damned if they do and they're damned if they don't," John Aimers of the Monarchist League of Canada told CTV's Canada AM.

"Royalty has to try to be all things to all men. When it fails, they're wrong, and when they do something that's pleasing, you will always get critics that say this isn't right. They can't win."

Aimers believes that in the end, the Royal Family showed that they would rather have Charles spend the rest of his life happy.

"Life's too short. It's time for them to do this and to get on with their lives. By and large, I would think that the British public are behind them on this."

"People are going to be happy this man has found happiness and that's what love and the wedding and being able to work with someone by your side is all about."

No historical precedent

Charles would not be the first divorced man to be king, of course. Henry VIII laid the groundwork there. But Charles would be the first to marry a divorcee.

Charles' ancestor, Edward VIII, was denied this privilege in 1936, and forced to abdicate the throne so that he could marry his love, Mrs. Wallace Simpson.

Of course, the significant difference is that Edward was already King when he decided to marry. Since the monarchy is actually a constitutional monarchy, it would have taken a change in the law to allow a "morganatic" marriage.

The title of Princess Consort to be bestowed to Camilla also has history, with echoes of the title taken by Queen Victoria's husband, Albert.

He and Victoria married in 1840, three years after she had become Queen at the age of 18. The British public was never fond of the German prince and the British Parliament was loathe to bestow a title on him.

It wasn't until 1857 that Queen Victoria succeeded in having her husband awarded a title, that of Prince Consort. He died four years later of typhoid.

In that case, just as in the Edward VIII case, Victoria was already on the throne before she married.

In this case, the monarchy has never run into the dilemma of a divorced heir to the throne so arguments about which titles to award are largely academic.

Royal biographer Christopher Warrick believes that Camilla herself likely doesn't much care what title she's given.

"I don't think that Camilla has ever been interested in titles. I don't believe that she's ever interested in becoming queen," he says. I think that the point here is that Charles wanted her and always wanted her really as his wife and she's wanted him as her husband."

Royal likely knew that granting Camilla the formal title of Princess of Wales would  have offended those who still see Diana as the Princess of Wales and who blame Camilla for Charles' failed marriage.

"Equally, there are those who claim that they would never want to see Camilla as queen," says Warrick. "By preparing the title, shall we say, of Princess Consort, that gets around that one quite nicely as well."

Interestingly, Camilla will be given the title of Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cornwall. The last person to hold that title was actually Princess Diana.

The whole dilemma of Charles and Camilla's status may become moot anyway, since there's a chance that Charles may never become king, or at least won't reign for long.

That would probably suit Charles just fine, Aimers says.

"He will be free, let's remember, until he becomes king to pursue these special interests he has: minority youth in inner cities which is very relevant here in Canada, complimentary medicine, his famous organic products -- so these are all good things, the freedom he has.

"Let's hope he enjoys some married life without the full glare of attention on him and the burdens of being king."