And what happens if that head of state decides to overrule the Parliament on a whim? Is it even meaningful to talk about an entire population having "whims", as

And what happens if that head of state decides to overrule the Parliament on a whim? Is it even meaningful to talk about an entire population having "whims", as that's a term normally reserved for individuals. People can afford to take edgy contrarian positions on the basics of democracy because they take it for granted. The Queen is not an abusive monarch and never has been, in fact she's been so scrupulously symbolic that her actual political views are almost entirely obscure. So here we see arguments of the form "maybe Parliament should have to bend to the whims of the Queen". The Queen is 94. How many more years can she carry on? When she dies, Prince Charles will take her place and he has always been politically active in ways the Queen has not. Does the idea of Charles vetoing legislation sound fun or in any way appropriate for a first world democracy? No, it does not. I don't like the Guardian at all but it's good that they're bringing this to light, or rather, it would, if they were actually revealing the documents in question. It seems this article isn't going to do so, which means we are being asked to trust the Graun. Unfortunately I don't trust the Graun so this is a bit of a pickle. What's being said here sounds plausible, and there's really no reason for such a process to exist at all, but it could also be shit-stirring.