Despite the public mood, Camilla as queen is still on the cards, writes Frank Millar, London Editor
Forget the republican revolution, and prepare for Queen Camilla. This is not to say that outcome is yet certain.
Yesterday's YouGov poll brought a sharp reminder that the British people are still highly resistant to the idea, even as they accept the new Duchess of Cornwall's emergence at the side of the Prince of Wales with the blessing of church and state.
Yet the tone of much of the coverage of Saturday's extraordinary royal wedding would seem to confirm that the House of Windsor has turned a crucial corner.
It was an extraordinary affair, not least because of its (comparative) ordinariness.
The Union Jack bunting was visible on the next-door pub as the queen's Rolls-Royce delivered the bride and groom to the door of the register office for their civil ceremony.
They looked just like any other couple when they emerged a short while later, without royal fanfare or the customary massed ranks of military honour guard.
The buses which were used to transport the guests back up the hill to Windsor Castle lent to the slightly chaotic, informal atmosphere. Broadcaster and biographer Jonathan Dimbleby captured the mood following the finger buffet reception hosted there by the queen.
Aristocrats and arrivistes had mingled freely exclaiming their delight (and relief) that it had all gone well; there was the sense of a genuine family occasion rather than an "event" spun into fairytale. Neither the royal family nor the British people will be the worse off for that.
Questions of course persist about the attitude of the matriarch. Was she simply tense or still disapproving?
Did she consciously avoid eye contact with her newly acquired daughter-in-law on the steps of the castle after the service presided over by the archbishop who could not actually marry the future governor of the Church of England?
It is well known that the queen had long resisted this day. Despite inevitable headlines proclaiming an intended "snub", she put "duty" first and decided she could not countenance the civil marriage. It would have been a first.
Indeed the scale of this change is reflected in the fact that at the beginning of her reign, a divorced person could not have been presented to the head of state. In another age Camilla might have been quietly banished, if not locked in the Tower.
Yet by Dimbleby's account, the sovereign rose splendidly to the occasion with a reception speech welcoming her son and daughter to "the winner's enclosure", as she amused guests by revealing the all-important news of the afternoon, the winner of the Grand National.
The former mistress - once branded "that wicked woman" - is now the second ranking female member of the royal family.
Nor should we be persuaded by suggestions that as a mother, Queen Elizabeth simply bowed to the inevitable and chose to "go with the flow". Her sense of duty is to ensure the survival of the monarchy. So we may be confident that, just as she frowns on talk of her own abdication, she would hold little brief for the current sentiment urging the royals to "skip a generation" in favour of a King William.
Elizabeth II knows that unless there is legislation to contrary effect, when Charles succeeds her to the throne Camilla will be his queen.
It would have been unthinkable to many less than eight years ago, in the bitter aftermath of the death of Diana, Princess of Wales - as indeed it was for a time to Diana herself.
But as his former aide Mark Bolland put it yesterday, in pushing for this marriage Charles has displayed the determination, loyalty and - at times - sheer ruthlessness that has already helped the royal family survive a thousand years. The show goes on.