Welfare more important than democracy

[Amazeroth]

That can be limited with constiution, but constitution that cannot be changed is against democracy itself. Though such constitution does not and can not exist. If majority want's something badly enough, no constitution can stop them.

One of the reasons I like the monarchy. The Prime Minister currently has more personal power than a mediaeval monarch, but he could never become a dictator as long as there is a monarch. Hitler's Enabling Act could never have passed in Great Britain. If the Queen were to refuse to give her assent to an Act of Parliament it would mean civil war, but in the case of something like the Enabling Act that would be a good thing.

Indeed, but King Edward VIII may have just let it slid (one reason why he had to go). This is the point where constitutional monarchism falls down, we're supposed to salute the uniform not the person in it, but that doesn't make the person a non-entity. Many a constitutional monarchy in the making can be irreparably damaged by a Monarch which takes itself seriously, and as their is such limited choice in who wears the uniform (as it where) there is little headway for a constitutionalist to make in that kind of situation. This is why so few of the hundreds of monarchies survive, because they took their own power on face value. Not to mention quite a lot of them where physical and mental weaklings with an over-inflated sense of self-importance. And are you sure Gordon Brown has more power than a medieval monarch (which would make Lord Mandelson a Roman Emperor, I guess)? Last time I checked Brown could not hang up his enemies by the toes, get into thousands of pounds worth of debt and not get criticised, or behead the speaker of the House of Commons.

You wouldn't need a civil war to get rid of a monarch, a revolution would do.

And as we all know, the line between civil war and revolution is this thin. If the rebels win it's a revolution, if the government wins it's a civil war.

I meant that differently. A revolution, at least in my understanding, is, as you say, to overthrow the current government. A civil war can be a revolution, but it consists of two or more fractions of citizens fighting against each other.