>... check on abuse of government power. The Queen's consent in forming government is routine but it can be withheld...
> Australia had an example of this where the Governor General (the Queen's representative in the Australian government) sacked the government and formed a caretaker governmen tin the 1970s.
Australia was ruled by a Liberal/Country coalition from the 1940s to the end of 1972. Finally the workers of Australia elect a Labor PM, and he was thwarted for three years and then removed at the behest of a hereditary monarch thousands of miles away. That sounds like abuse, but not of the type you mean.
> then removed at the behest of a hereditary monarch thousands of miles away. That sounds like abuse
You forgot to mention the part where Australia immediately held an election. The poor victimised Labour party, who you would have us believe was wrongly removed, lost the vote by a landslide.
If the people wanted Whitlam's government, and thought it was a grave injustice, they would have voted them back in. They were clearly unpopular given the election results. The end result was decided by the people, not the Queen/Governor General/Liberals.
> Australia had an example of this where the Governor General (the Queen's representative in the Australian government) sacked the government and formed a caretaker governmen tin the 1970s.
Australia was ruled by a Liberal/Country coalition from the 1940s to the end of 1972. Finally the workers of Australia elect a Labor PM, and he was thwarted for three years and then removed at the behest of a hereditary monarch thousands of miles away. That sounds like abuse, but not of the type you mean.