Washington ? The British have occasionally flirted with the idea of abolishing the monarchy. This is not new. They actually did abolish it in 1649, when King Charles I was defeated by Parliament in the English Civil War. Eleven years later they brought the beheaded king’s son, Charles II, back in the Restoration, albeit with fewer kingly powers than his father had.

This week, the British are celebrating Queen Elizabeth II’s Silver Jubilee 50 years on the throne. And once again discussion is raised about doing away with British royalty. It has happened before during her reign. During the 1960s, the gilded carriages, horse guards, and matronly dress were considered out of touch with the modern era. The queen altered her manner, acquired a more human touch, and the storm passed.

Then came Princess Diana, the late wife of Prince Charles, heir to the throne. She was the most beloved of the royals since Queen Elizabeth I ruled three centuries earlier. Not even the Queen Mother, who recently passed away, was more popular. Diana combined beauty and charm with a common touch the people understood, and the more trouble she had with Prince Charles and the queen, the more questions were raised about the viability of the monarchy.

Then, when Princess Diana was killed in an automobile crash in Paris, the queen was viewed as lacking sufficient compassion. Once again, the queen adapted, and once again the storm passed.

But is the monarchy really that fragile? It is not. Besides the two most-quoted justifications for retaining the monarchy tourism and tradition lies the most important reason: it is essential to the British form of government.

When the United States Constitution was written, John Adams and other founding fathers insisted upon a bicameral legislature. The House of Representatives would represent the people; the Senate would represent the states. They feared the tyranny of the majority, and their fears were borne out when the French Revolution erupted in 1789.

The French National Assembly, which represented the people, was not balanced by another branch. The result was that tyranny ensued and gave rise to Napoleon Bonaparte, who eventually crowned himself emperor. It was Bonapartism that struck fear in the hearts of an emerging democracy like America and an evolving democracy like Great Britain.

Whereas three separate branches of government and two legislative wings prevented a French experience in America, it was the monarchy that did so in Great Britain. And to this day the British monarch continues to provide that legislative leavening so essential for orderliness. Queen Elizabeth II is no mere figurehead. The prime minister consults with her regularly; she holds a special position with regard to British intelligence services; she is the living symbol of her country; and, most of all, the public realizes that their monarch represents them, and that she would expose any government that was running amuck.

So the British monarchy is not the powerless position people sometimes believe it to be. Rather, it is an essential branch of the British government, without which that government would have to create a replacement or risk falling into the chaos John Adams feared and the French Revolution produced.

Prediction: The British people have a political, familial and psychological bond with their monarchy, which they are not going to give up. They have no current alternative.