COLUMN ONE : A Royal Dilemma for Britain : Scandal and soap opera antics threaten to down the crown. Some warn that if the monarchy fails to reform itself, it won’t survive the queen.

Ye Royal Soap Opera, which has riveted Her Majesty’s subjects--and inquiring minds worldwide--keeps unreeling in tabloid fashion: Chuck and Di! Randy Andy and Fergie! Extra-marital romps! Wealthy Texas playboys! Fuzzy topless pix! Taped goo-goo love chats! Imperial spending and bluebloody divorces? And why does the Prince of Wales talk to flowers?

More important, though, the British now are deeply engaged with yet another query: Will scandal accomplish what invading armies, world wars, death, disease and other disorders could not do? Will it finally pull down one of Europe’s most venerated monarchies?

Contemplating the current wave of sniggering and sniping surrounding Britain’s Royal Family, Harold Brooks-Baker, publisher of Burke’s Peerage, the aristocrat’s bible, warns, “If the monarchy fails to reform itself, it will last no longer than Queen Elizabeth II’s life.”

Nigel Dempster, London’s premier gossip diarist, concurs, saying that Britain’s monarchy “is only as safe as the queen’s lifetime.”

Hugh Massingberd, an expert on the aristocracy, observes: “It is high time to address ourselves to the fundamental point that what really matters is not the antics of the tawdry soap opera of the Royal Family, portrayed so vulgarly in the tabloids, but the survival of the institution of the monarchy into the 21st Century.”

From Cockney cocktail waitresses to London hack drivers to commentators in this country’s most blue-blooded journals, the British find themselves alternately fascinated and repulsed by the controversies that swirl about their constitutional monarchy.

It is clear that the popular press--largely London’s zealously competitive, screaming tabloids--has a symbiotic relationship with the Royal Family.

The newspapers feed the public appetite for news of the royal characters, and the papers spare no expense to provide sensational stories; in turn, Buckingham Palace--up to a point--likes to stay in the public eye and retain the feeling of being needed that publicity creates.

As Charles Moore, editor of the weekly Spectator magazine, explained: “The current question people keep asking--’Can the Royal Family survive all these stories in the tabloids?’--is the wrong way round. It is, rather, ‘Can the tabloids survive without a Royal Family to furnish all these stories?’ ”

But just what does the Royal Family mean to most moderns here?

For most of the British, as evidenced by public opinion polls, the monarchy--particularly in the persons of Queen Elizabeth II, 66, and Queen Mother Elizabeth--remains extremely popular, representing stability, grace and civility in an increasingly uncivil world.

But the royal entourage, particularly the queen’s offspring, appears to be another matter, indeed.

Certainly, British royal history is replete with murder, madness, treason and adultery. British kings have scorned wives for mistresses; some were homosexuals; Queen Caroline, wife of George IV, wandered through Europe with a trail of lovers; William IV fathered 10 illegitimate children.

Queen Victoria’s son and heir, Edward VII, had plenty of women friends and made no secret of them during his long wait for the crown. And the marital life of George V and Queen Mary was far from serene.

But not since King Edward VIII abdicated in 1936 to marry Wallis Simpson, an American-born divorcee, has the Royal Family so tested its public standing.

Consider the controversies enveloping the family of Elizabeth II, queen since 1952, and her husband, Prince Philip, a former naval officer and stern taskmaster:

* Prince Charles, 43 and heir to the throne, has been the subject of endless scrutiny for his deteriorating, once storybook marriage to Princess Diana, 31. Wed in a sumptuous 1981 ceremony, Charles and Lady Di seemed to have won the public’s heart here.

But quietly, as recent accounts from her friends indicate, the couple’s marriage has been falling apart, even while producing two regal heirs, Prince William (Wills), 10, and Prince Henry (Harry), 7.

Depending on the source, Charles is seen as chilly, severe, spoiled, difficult and unsympathetic to her needs; she is depicted as being flighty, willful, hysteric, self-absorbed and unwilling to make the compromises needed for her royal status. He likes hunting, fishing, riding, polo. She hates all those pastimes and prefers yakking with friends in chic restaurants. She likes rock music; he admits to talking to flowers on his solitary hikes.

He has kept in contact with an old girlfriend, Camilla Parker Bowles, 43, wife of a senior officer in the Household Cavalry. That relationship is said to have wounded Diana.

She, in turn, has been accused of disloyalty for her tacit cooperation with “Diana, Her True Story,” a book by Andrew Morton, who was assisted by her friends and relatives. It depicts her as the long-suffering wife of a self-centered husband and uncaring father and reveals that her unhappy marriage has led her to bulimia and half-hearted suicide attempts. Charles’ friends and supporters have recently supplied material for an updated, unflattering Diana biography by Lady Colin Campbell.

Meantime, the couple’s latest torment has been the publication last month of a tape recording, allegedly of Diana and an old pal, businessman James Gilbey, 36. In the tape, a woman says Charles “makes my life real torture” and brags about buying a wardrobe for Maj. James Hewitt, 34, a friend of Diana who taught her to ride and served in the Persian Gulf War with the Life Guards.

The juvenile quality of Lady Di’s alleged taped discourse prompted John Junor, a former editor, to remark of the “banal, schoolgirlish, goo-goo” language: “If the taped conversations are any indication of how Princess Diana talks in private, is it really any longer any wonder why, on balance, Prince Charles prefers to chat up flowers?”

* Prince Andrew, 32, has been the subject of torrents of tabloid coverage, before and during “Randy Andy’s” dissolving marriage to “Fergie,” or Sarah Ferguson, 32.

Flame-haired, effervescent Fergie initially delighted her in-laws; the queen doted on Fergie’s daughters, Princess Beatrice, 4, and Princess Eugenie, 2.

But soon Fergie seemed to resent her naval officer husband’s long absences; she embarked on vacations without him--and was criticized for freeloading off her wealthy foreign hosts. Earlier this year, news leaked that snapshots had been found of her vacationing, sans Andrew, in Morocco and France with Steve Wyatt, a wealthy Texan who left his vacation pictures behind when he departed a rented London apartment.

The queen reportedly ordered Fergie not to see Wyatt anymore. Two months later, Buckingham Palace confirmed that Andy and Fergie had split.

Just last month, fun-loving Fergie toppled into even hotter water when she was caught in the telephoto lens of a free-lance photographer whose pictures showed her sunbathing topless while vacationing in St. Tropez with John Bryan, 37. He is a Texas businessman and man about town who claimed he was a family confidant and financial adviser. The explicit pictures, splashed in color worldwide, also showed the couple necking on poolside lounge chairs.

The popular press has howled that Andrew should divorce Fergie and that she should be stripped of her title of duchess.

“It is startling that the royal divorce rate is now rapidly overtaking the national rate,” wrote columnist Geoffrey Wheatcroft, “and the implications of this are grave.”

* Princess Anne, 42, has become the topic of a new flurry of news reports that she will remarry. The princess was married for 18 years to commoner Mark Phillips, but that ended in divorce earlier this year. The Daily Express reports that the princess will marry naval Cmdr. Timothy Laurence at a quiet ceremony in Scotland. Other papers noted that she may undergo Scottish ceremonies because the church there allows divorcees to remarry with a formal Christian service.

This would minimize embarrassment to the queen at Anne’s decision to disregard the Church of England’s teaching; the church, which the queen heads, frowns on divorce and says Christian marriage is for life.

* Prince Edward, 28, disappointed his father when he quit the Royal Marines and entered the theater world. He has been forced to deny suggestions that he is gay.

Meantime, amid the tumult in the royal household, even the queen has found herself the subject of questioning and doubt, some of it for her response to her family’s conduct and some of it for the always touchy subject of the regal finances.

Many in London have wondered aloud why the queen has not moved to quash the antics of her children, or at least provided them with better, sterner maternal counsel. Discussing the queen’s children’s sad marital states, Ross Benson, a knowledgeable columnist of the Daily Express, has commented: “The queen proved to be of little support. Like her eldest son, she is all but incapable of dealing with emotional problems.”

Others suggest that, if not the queen herself, at least some of her retainers might have interceded to keep some of the messier royal domestic spats in check.

But then, criticism comes all too easily and often to the lips of the British about their queen, in part because she is not only one of the world’s richest persons, she also pays no taxes.

Buckingham Palace keeps strict silence about the royal assets. But the queen’s wealth as head of state has been variously estimated at $13 billion--including her homes and other real estate, jewelry and paintings. She reportedly has a personal investment portfolio worth $1.2 billion.

She also receives a $16-million annual allowance from the so-called Civil List, voted by Parliament from public funds for her royal expenses; there is $120 million more in “hidden” public money that government departments pay to finance royal planes, yachts, trains and palaces.

In exchange for their state support, the monarchs engage in a variety of largely ceremonial duties, including opening Parliament, making polite visits to foreign countries and helping assorted charitable causes. But in the midst of a deep recession, and as the royal scandals expose ordinary British citizens to the grandiose lifestyle of the Royal Family, grumbling has grown about whether changes should be made in the Civil List.

But just how will the royal drama play out? Most observers in London believe that Prince Charles and Lady Di will split, although they may compromise and separate but not divorce. Prince Andrew and Fergie are believed likely to get a divorce.

As for the monarchy itself as it advances into the 21st Century, various theories abound.

Most observers agree that the queen could boost the royal household’s standing by paying taxes on her enormous income, just as her subjects do. As Robert Rhodes, a former Conservative member of Parliament, observes: “Even ardent royalists now feel she should pay tax. It would be a wise move, and the public relations boost would be very useful.”

There is also a consensus that the queen should pare the numbers of Royal Family members on the Civil List--or even abolish it.

“The family should be restricted to the monarch, the heir to the throne, his or her spouse and their children,” one friend of the monarchy said. “The others should earn their own living; then you would see these extraneous and embarrassing royals fade out of public view. The Civil List would be abolished. It’s very undignified anyway.”

Next, most experts think the palace courtier system should be overhauled, ousting groveling favorites and bringing in polished professionals, especially media-savvy handlers.

But ultimately, issues of sweeping changes focus on the fate of the queen herself: Should she abdicate or retire in favor of her son, while he is in his most productive years? Queen Elizabeth II is known to be appalled at the abdication of her uncle, Edward VIII. That action left her unprepared father as the monarch; it badly shook the House of Windsor.

As one observer put it, “She believes that the British monarch should not hand over at the age of 60 or 70, as is the custom among many other European royal houses,” lower-profile monarchies such as those in Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Belgium and Spain. “She believes that cheapens the monarchy.”

Prince Charles reportedly was infuriated by the queen’s broadcast remarks on Christmas Day in which she said she planned to remain on the job indefinitely.

Royal watchers like Massingberd suggest that the queen instead should make Charles the prince regent, allowing him to take over all of the important royal duties “to show what he can do at the helm.”

Gossip diarist Dempster points out that, if the queen lives as long as her 92-year-old mother has today, Charles would be 70 in 2018. “He’s a foolish creature now,” Dempster said, “and would be more foolish then. The British public would force a referendum and vote the monarchy out, as happened in Greece with King Constantine.”

Dempster and others have suggested that Charles, at some point, should declare that he is renouncing the throne in favor of his son William, now 10. “That’s what Diana wants,” Dempster said. “In 2018, William would be 36. Instead of Charles III, we would have William V. The longer the queen lives, the less likely it is that Charles will be king.”

Royal biographer Anthony Holden adds: “The monarchy should be reduced to the hereditary head of state and his or her heir and immediate family. The monarch’s would be a dignified role at the head of Parliament and the church, the law and the military, without any of the flummery which has done it such harm.”

But perhaps the final, equivocal word on the topic should go to the British press, which has always wanted it both ways--having a Royal Family to boost circulation by recording their peccadilloes, while sanctimoniously excoriating the royals themselves.

“We want the monarchy to survive,” intoned the Mail on Sunday in calling for reforms. “We want it to be strong. We wish it to represent national and family unity. The queen, and particularly the Queen Mother, have always symbolized these essentially British values. It would be a tragedy if the antics of the royal brat pack destroy what most British people still prefer to any other system.”