LONDON -- One has to be very cautious about taking sides in the Great British Royalty Debate. If you blame the adulterous Prince Charles, heir to the throne, for his impending divorce with Princess Diana, you are likely to be condemned as an ignorant iconoclast by the dishevelled historians and purple-faced clergymen who always appear on British television at moments of minor national crisis.


If, on the other hand, you blame the adulterous Diana for the divorce, you are likely to be condemned as an unsympathetic smarty-pants by the therapy enthusiasts and public relations specialists who always appear on television straight after the historians and clergymen. Let us note, first of all, that, quite apart from their extramarital dalliances, both Charles and Diana have behaved somewhat strangely in recent weeks. The prince has distributed official Christmas cards which show himself sitting on a park bench flanked by his two sons, William and Harry, each standing in a giant flowerpot. It is not easy to say what Charles meant by thus encumbering the next generation of royalty, but as an attempt to reassure public opinion of his sanity it clearly left something to be desired.


Meanwhile, like some restless beatific phantom, Diana has taken to donning a baseball cap and paying unannounced visits in the dead of night to bedridden hospital patients in London. This disclosure followed a televison interview in which her answers combined excruciatingly embarrassing psycho-babble with vicious denunciations of the House of Windsor and its courtiers as "the enemy." Without realizing it, Charles and Diana have become co-producers of the most gruesomely entertaining public spectacle since the Roman masses watched lions tear Christians to pieces in the Colosseum. Seen from one angle, their story is a fairy tale turned into a nightmare, but from another it is a real-life soap opera turned into a higher form of tragicomedy.


Does any of it matter? The historians and clergymen argue that the royal divorce will have no constitutional implications, in the sense that Charles's marital status does not affect his legal right to succeed Queen Elizabeth as monarch. But what about his future status as head of the Anglican Church, England's official church?


Assorted clerics suggest Charles could not take on this role if he were to remarry, since the Church of England does not like to wed divorc?s, even royal ones. If he does not remarry, however, the word is that he can become head of the Church. Since Charles himself has confessed to having an affair with his mistress of many years' standing, Camilla Parker-Bowles, this presumably means that the Church of England prefers an adulterer as its head to a remarried divorc?.


It is difficult to believe anything of political significance will develop out of the bitchy media-driven war fought between Charles, Diana and their respective camps. There is some evidence that public respect for the royal family has declined in recent years, but few signs that the British want to replace the monarchy with a republic.


What will probably emerge early in the next century is a slimmed-down, less expensive, less high-profile monarchy, not as humdrum as the monarchies of Scandinavia but not as pompous and remote as the present British crown. That must surely be a good thing, though there will be many a tear shed when the British lose their favorite comedy show.