British tradition does have more teeth though. For example whilst the Monarch may not use that power normally they still have it. With support of the Privy council the King absolutely could remove a malicious but democratic government. They are perfectly placed to unify the people, politicians, civic society, judiciary, police and military. And they can do so legally. And this position is defended by the perfectly reasonable response that they would never do that or have any real power. But then who does? The PM can be replaced in an afternoon by a vote. Parliament would need substantial changes of law to do anything.

▲

Fluorescence 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

> With support of the Privy council the King absolutely could remove a malicious but democratic government.

The power of the Privy Council lies in it's executive committee, known as the "The Cabinet" that thing chaired by the Prime Minister we call the democratic government. The rest of the privy council membership is mostly a bauble for past cabinet ministers with some royal flunkies and bishops and the like. It's mostly vestigial, like knightly orders, but with weird exceptions like it includes the supreme court for overseas territories.

This isn't to say such things can't happen but it would not be through a recognised legitimate procedure "with teeth" but as a constitutional crisis where precedence, tradition and law has gone out of the window and whatever side wins is through primitive power/confidence dynamics. There might be rulings of lawfulness in one direction or another but as a postfacto figleaf downstream of victory rather than as a real judgement.

▲

7952 3 days ago | parent [-]

But in that primitive power/confidence dynamics could a monarch be useful?

	▲	Fluorescence 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Sure but it's far from the exercise of an accepted power the OP refers to. In a constitutional crisis, titles of the elected and inherited ultimately become a matter of opinion... but opinion is the path to victory up to the point it descends to military force. Any form of legitimacy becomes currency. Back in the day we had constitutional crises that deposed the "rightful" monarch despite somewhat believing in the divine right of kings, the magic oils of coronation and weird blood theories around patrilinial descent. These days they have none of that magic and they are just some weirdos that appear in the papers now and again but still, in a moment of crisis, that whiff of history is a poker chip.

▲

rcxdude 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Parliament is ultimately where the power is. If there's a struggle for power, it would be between parliament and the monarch. I think the only situation where the monarch wins that is if parliament has clearly lost their democratic mandate somehow (like truly massive widespread protests from the population).

	▲	FridayoLeary 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		That constitutional debate is long settled. The king rules by the consent of parliament and they are ultimately the highest authority in the land. In parliament, the commons has far more authority then the lords. While parliament delegates almost all their authority to the government and civil service it would take a lot to fundamentally change that. They still excercise their authority on occasion as several recent prime ministers found out. Their power also doesn't necessarily stem from the fact that they are voted in, but it's a key reason why they have all the power. I don't see any situation where the king wins. The only pathway to a constitutional crisis is between the government and parliament.
	▲	7952 3 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Ultimate power lies with people who can use violence. Its the military and police. Without continued compliance from those groups the status of politicians or royalty could become very tenuous. And we are specifically talking about an emergency here.