SUMMER is a time for weddings and romance. We flick through the pages of the Evening Press to be greeted with photographs of happy newlyweds who have just tied the knot and bear the smiles of marital bliss.

They have no doubt planned the big day for months, maybe years, and have spent thousands of pounds on that special 24 hours.

Weddings today are an industry. The bridal publications are filled with dresses, cakes, cars and sugared almond favours, as well as advice on wedding etiquette and how to avoid the dreaded family bust-up.

As the wedding happiness and joy is caught on film and couples commit themselves to each other with the immortal words "I do", finances and future strife are the last things on their mind.

However, this week's landmark ruling, which saw Arsenal star Ray Parlour's ex-wife Karen win the right to a share of his future earnings, may cause engaged couples to wise up and consider the reality of marriage today.

This courtroom decision could have a major impact on how the rich and famous approach the institution of marriage. With the threat of having to hand over your future earnings to the ex if all goes wrong, will Britain's eligible batchelors (no, not John) and batchelorettes turn into bitter cynics and avoid the exchange of rings at all costs?

In good football tradition, when the now ex-Mrs Parlour was asked to comment on the judge's decision she used the fitting clich, "I'm over the moon".

You'd be inclined to think she herself had won a championship medal, but alas no, just a huge divorce settlement. This is the cost of four years of marriage to Mr Parlour, who was alleged to have enjoyed boozy nights with his team mates and who admitted to adultery. Ray, was a few pints and a night of lust really worth £3.7 million?

It seems the only way forward for the rich and famous today is to take a leaf out of the American book of happy marriages and sign a pre-nuptial agreement. Pre-nups, as they are referred to across the Pond, protect the high earner in the relationship and avoid massive pay outs if the couple decide to divorce.

Hollywood stars Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta Jones opted for this before their wedding and were heavily criticised by the British media for being both cynical and unromantic.

But in their circumstances surely this was the most sensible and practical option. He had just experienced an acrimonious divorce and, as they say, had been taken to the cleaners, and she is 25 years his junior and had no wish to be viewed as a gold-digging young wife. At least with pre-nuptials all the anxiety and suspicion is removed at the start and everyone knows where they stand.

With the Parlour case and last week's news of French Connection founder Stephen Marks having to sell £40 million of his company's shares to fund his divorce, one may be inclined to become disillusioned with marriage and all it has to offer.

The older generation may say people these days don't work at marriages and perhaps don't try hard enough to ensure success. I think the Hollywood actor Humphrey Bogart got it right when he said it should be difficult for couples to marry and easy for them to divorce rather than vice versa.

However, despite all the cynicism in the world today, I'd like to believe that happy ever after does still exist in the 21st century and although the prince charming may not always be as charming as one would like, a happy ending to the fairy tale can be achieved.

Sophie McGill has donated her fee for this column to York City FC Youth Development.

Updated: 08:22 Saturday, July 10, 2004