If he stopped the legislature doing something, there would be a “constitutional crisis” but whether or not he then lost the power to do that again would really depend on public opinion and how well judged his move was. I can imagine a scenario in which a corrupt and unpopular government is holding onto power by twisting the rules somehow, and the king says no. It would be chaos, but if the king had public opinion on his side it could work out well.

For me this is a strength of a constitutional monarchy over an appointed or elected but mostly ceremonial head of state. The people have a relationship with the king, they’ve grown up together and there’s a connection there that’s hard to define. In times of crisis that connection could play a key role.

> The people have a relationship with the king, they’ve grown up together and there’s a connection there that’s hard to define. In times of crisis that connection could play a key role.

That relationship really is hard to define... As a Brit my defining memory of the now King was - as an 8 year old - learning of his desire to be a tampon in his then mistress and current Queen.

https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/film-tv/a41913184/tamp...

Monarchy is absurd but it has been particlarly difficult to take him seriously since.

I mostly just feel sorry for him. No-one should have to live their life in the public eye like that.

Nationalise their considerable private wealth (which only exists due to their role) and let them live their lives in peace.

Ireland and Germany both show that we can enjoy the benefits of a ceremonial head of state without having to put up with the nonsense of monarchy.

This actaully happened last year. The then Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, was in a spot of political bother and it looked like the then Queen was going to sack him, as she must (according to the conventions that comprise the UK's constitution) dismiss any prime minister who cannot command the confidence of the House of Commons.

Johnson didn't want to go, so he announced (via a leak to a tame newspaper, another part of our unwritten constitution) that he would advise the Queen to dissolve parliament, in order that new elections be held. He hoped to bring rebellious Tory MPs in line by threatening those in marginal seats with defeat, and those in secure seats with the prospect of a lengthy spell in opposition.

The Palace put paid to this plan by informing the PM that the Queen would be unavailable to meet with him, in the event of him perhaps wanting to to her in order to dissolve parliament.

And the rest is history!

The "check on the legislature" is only a reality in extremis. The discussion is usually about politics, but ultimately, if a legislature/executive were going off the rails and intervention by the armed forces was required, their allegiance is always to the monarch as the embodiment of the nation.

The rest of the time, the check on the legislature is only theoretical.

I've never heard anything like that. As your sibling comments mention the check in the legislature is the official role of the monarch. It's not about the possibility of a military coup.

It still counts as a coup if somebody in a legitimate position of authority uses the military to seize more power in a manner not permitted by law