> There is no constitution, bill of rights, and while there are elections in the mainland
The UK is a constitutional monarchy and does have a bill of rights.
> nominates huge numbers of Bishops to the British Parliament
It's a bit more nuanced than that. The Queen doesn't nominate anyone to Parliament, at least not in the way you're implying. Just like she has to sign a bill into law before it has any effect, she does so as a ceremonial function rather than with a critical eye which is exactly the same as with nominations like this.
To take any action but that which is recommended to her by relevant (elected) parties would result in a pretty big crisis that would ultimately see her ceremonial roles stripped.
> Many hereditary "Peers" hold title and they cannot prevent Bills from Passing but they can hold them up and amend them.
The house of lords is a pretty good check on the house of commons. Implying it's purely a thing that functions to "hold up" bills is rather incorrect.
> Britain even them claimed the mantle of "World Oldest Democracy"/ "Cradle of Democracy".
I've never seen such a thing, have you got a source?
> To take any action but that which is recommended to her by relevant (elected) parties would result in a pretty big crisis that would ultimately see her ceremonial roles stripped.
This actually did occur in Belgium: in 1990 then-king Baudouin refused to sign abortion laws in to effect, citing his Catholic faith. The Belgian constitution allows for parliament to sign laws in to effect if the king is incapacitated so they declared him incapacitated for a day, signed the laws in to effect, after which everything continued as before (the exact legal manoeuvring is a little bit more complex, but this is essentially what it amounted to).
I would imagine something similar would happen in the UK; for reasons that elude me personally the monarchy is quite popular, so I wouldn't necessarily expect it to be stripped of all ceremonial roles.
Reading the applicable Regency Act of 1937 it has similar language that could be used to the same effort, but of course hard to be sure without it actually happening :-)
You say all this about the UK's constitution but it is not codified anywhere. Is it based on precedence, custom or generally accepted principle that it will happen this way if things do come to a crisis.
It all seems to be asserted resting on....on an uncodified constitution.
I'm a massive fan of an uncodified constitution. It allows parliament to have a great deal of flexibility and modernisation.
New laws can be iteratively created rather than relying on extremely old documents and lawyers/historians who attempt to decipher what was intended and how that relates to modern times.
If the US constitution was converted into a set of laws and then deleted, what do you think would happen? Attempts to be made to change the laws, some would pass, some would fail, but the passing of those laws would still be democratic if those making them were democratically elected.
The UK is a constitutional monarchy and does have a bill of rights.
> nominates huge numbers of Bishops to the British Parliament
It's a bit more nuanced than that. The Queen doesn't nominate anyone to Parliament, at least not in the way you're implying. Just like she has to sign a bill into law before it has any effect, she does so as a ceremonial function rather than with a critical eye which is exactly the same as with nominations like this.
To take any action but that which is recommended to her by relevant (elected) parties would result in a pretty big crisis that would ultimately see her ceremonial roles stripped.
> Many hereditary "Peers" hold title and they cannot prevent Bills from Passing but they can hold them up and amend them.
The house of lords is a pretty good check on the house of commons. Implying it's purely a thing that functions to "hold up" bills is rather incorrect.
> Britain even them claimed the mantle of "World Oldest Democracy"/ "Cradle of Democracy".
I've never seen such a thing, have you got a source?