> 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.