As Holden points out, dissolution of parliament would be a little tricky for the Queen. In fact, I think heads would roll... again. The Bill of Rights of 1689 and subsequent legislation removed the rights of the Sovereign to rule without a Parliament - the Queen cannot dissolve Parliament without its consent. Therefore only all-out civil war would generate such a thing - and the protagonists in civil wars are not in the habit of obeying the rule of law anyway.
Given that we have had getting on for 400 years of stable, liberal, free-thinking democracy since - I think we have things under control. But thanks for your concern.
I know to outsiders, the constitutional monarchy is a difficult concept to understand. On the face of it, it does appear anachronistic, undemocratic and elitist. But to us Britons, it is a reminder of where we have come from, the great things we have given to the world, and the major achievements a small island off the coast of a largely hostile continent managed to pull off - it is part of the national identity.
How are things under absolute Tsarist rule anyway, Boroda? Different day, same Tsar/Lenin/Stalin/Putin?
