[stordoff]

It's partly because it is difficult to change. All power flows from the Crown, and the democratic system has been bolted on to that, so it's difficult to change in a way that doesn't leave it open to legal challenge or require wiping the whole system clean and starting over.

If you make a new constitution under the current system, it can always be undone-they _can't_ abandon that power. Furthermore, Parliament doesn't have the power to get rid of the Queen, but Parliament requires the Queen in order to have power so she can't remove herself. If you change it on a standalone basis, and completely abandon the old ways, what legal authority do they have to do that, and will it be recognised? I imagine the Courts especially would be sceptical about such a big divergence from the constitution (without an intervening event, which seems unlikely given the Queen polls well).

Realistically, the Queen only have has power on paper (she can never exercise it, except as required theoretically to give power to democratic decisions), so it'd be a big upheaval for little gain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen-in-Parliament

[mr_toad]

> Parliament doesn't have the power to get rid of the Queen

In theory. In practice they can, and have.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_Revolution