Ah, fair enough. So you're just saying the Monarch should interfere more in the lawmaking process? Your whole system would be the Monarch trying harder? Doesn't tally with the other parts you've written, if you've just snuck a 'try' in a later post, really.
Protest in today's society? You're talking students/doctors/anti-war etc, I was talking about MPs. If democratically elected Members of Parliament are protesting that laws they have voted on are being overturned by the Monarch that's a different level of magnitude.
Each MP isn't impartial in politics if that's what your implying, that's why we have political parties. However, there is Government and The Opposition, bills have to be voted on (many times, freely, to the individual MP's conscience) and there is The Lords as well. You're proposing one single individual deciding what's legal and what's not. Maybe "impartial" was the wrong word to use, but I used "well balanced" as well. The Monarch on their own has no mechanism to discuss and debate a proposed overturning, it would simply be what they think is right.
Doesn't Parliament control the civil list, does controlling the crown's purse, I know way back when they used to threaten reductions in the civil list to push the crown toward their point of view. Furthermore, if a monarch can justify their reason for preventing a bill being passed, could Parliament, or a group of MPs not then present a motion for they think the bill should be passed, thus starting an actual conversation?
Indeed it would be, but after observations, their own views formed through research and learning, and through speaking to the people the bill could well effect, could they not make an informed decision?