Opinion Why do we love royal weddings?

Perhaps there is also a feeling this wedding may be the last of its kind for a couple of decades, or ever.

We’re on the final run-in. In just over 100 hours, thousands of Kiwis will settle in to watch the wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle from St George’s Chapel, in the grounds of Windsor Castle. That’s if past experience, and comments on social media in the last couple of days, are anything to go by.

Some may be anticipating battles for control of the remote as a huge annual occasion on the sporting calendar, the FA Cup final, featuring football royalty Chelsea and Manchester United, is on the same English afternoon. It kicks off a few hours after the noon nuptials, so it shouldn’t cause too many hassles in these parts, even though the happy couple’s choice of date is keeping Harry’s older brother, William, from his customary prime spot at Wembley.

But why do we – not the royal we, we Kiwis – still so love a royal wedding? Republicanism is gaining in popularity in this part of the world, though in truth more so across the ditch than in New Zealand, but the view of the royal family as an anachronistic holdover from a bygone era is surely growing here too.

Yet there’s plainly still a demand for live coverage, which means many New Zealanders are planning to be up in the wee hours of Sunday watching events unfold.

The sheer romance of such an important royal occasion is obviously a factor. Tied to tradition it may not be in all aspects, but any wedding featuring a relatively ‘‘senior’’ royal is still an obvious drawcard, and Harry is probably as globally popular as any royal in recent decades.

Only his late mother, Princess Diana, and possibly older brother William, could come close, though the Queen’s renewed popularity – it has bounced back from the fallout over her handling of Diana’s untimely death – remains strong. Where Diana was regarded as the ‘‘people’s princess’’, Harry is widely thought of as the ‘‘people’s prince’’, a moniker that already features in the titles of a couple of biographies.

A sense that Harry is more down-to-earth than most royals, and the fact Markle is anything but a typical royal spouse, has engendered a view that their union represents a sort of modernising of the concept of a royal couple, and will also be a factor in the event’s likely popularity: she’s divorced, not British, a celebrity in her own right. If only media could get away from references to her as ‘‘biracial’’, as though the idea of two people from different ethnicities producing a child is somehow still noteworthy.

Perhaps there is also a feeling this wedding may be the last of its kind for a couple of decades, or ever. No royals regarded as ‘‘close to the throne’’ are likely to get married until William’s children reach adulthood. And with Harry’s father, Charles, the heir to the throne, known to be acutely aware of criticism of how the royals spend their money, it would be no surprise to see moves to downscale such celebrations in future. Charles is certainly keen to ‘‘streamline’’ the family in a financial sense, requiring ‘‘peripheral’’ royals to make their own money, so extravagance in general could be under threat.

The early hours of Sunday could, then, represent a conclusion of sorts, as the reinvention of the royals continues.

So traditionalists would do well to ensure they get their fix.