You say “if the king oversteps” and my point about law and norms and all that is that they shape perception about whether a particular thing is overstepping.

You mentioned before that most people don't even know about these things. Why is that? Because the norm is the King does as the Parliament wants.

I think you have a very idealistic understanding of what we call democracy these days…if a 60/40 split happened like I talked about earlier came up, you think there would be mass mobilization?

This is what I mean about the people having a strong will. If they do, then yes. If the don't then we lose democracy.

Again I go back to the example of the US. Them being a republic makes no difference. If the people don't have the will to stand up to a tyrant, then there will be tyranny.

A crisis doesn’t occur without a context…it would be about something, and certainly something that one side thinks it can win on. I think you imagine any constitutional crisis would be immediately and unanimously handled in a democratic manner by everyone involved, no matter their interest in the underlying matter that lead to the crisis…we’d just all be on-side and do the right thing…I think that is extraordinarily naive!

Sure, but what does the existence of the monarchy have to do with any of that? Trump is a continuous constitutional crisis, doesn't seem like eliminating the monarchy prevents any of that happening. If anything having a monarch makes it more obvious when there's an abuse of power. Americans don't understand that Trump is undermining their precious constitution, I suspect it has something to do with the fact that Americans know the President should have some power they just don't know which powers he shouldn't have. We know our head of state is supposed to only be a figurehead. It's more obvious when someone is taking some power when they're supposed to have none than someone show's supposed to have some power taking more than they should.