Swedish King Carl Gustaf removes grandchildren from royal house – observers say move reflects a wider view that there is no need to pay so many members of the royal family

The queen, acting in her figurehead role on behalf of the prime minister and cabinet, prorouged parliament. This happens every year between the end of one session of parliament and the beginning of another. It's not unusual. What was unusual was that Boris Johnson had the queen prorogue parliament for a much longer period than is customary, and he clearly did so in order to sabotage parliament's ability to do its job. This is what the supreme court ruled was illegal.

Now some people are asking whether the queen should have pushed back against Boris Johnson's advice. But she hasn't done so because that would constitute a constitutional crisis, in which the conflict between the queen's formal powers and her practical role as a figurehead would come to a head. Most decisions made by "the queen" are actually made by the queen-in-council, meaning the queen acting on advice from her privy council, which consists of members of the ruling party. This "advice" is in practice a command, but in theory, merely a suggestion that could be refused. So this "petition" is a formality, it happens all the time and the queen can't really refuse. It's just that this time, Johnson is using it to do things that are outside the scope of his powers, but technically inside the scope of the monarch's, and some people think she should push back. But that would raise too many uncomfortable questions. Unless you actually want to dissolve the monarchy, which only a minority on either side of the Brexit issue wants, the best thing to do is for parliament and the courts to deal with this, and leave the queen to execute her ceremonial role.

All duties are largely ceremonial. If the Queen ever refuses the will of Parliament, that is "technically" allowed, but would constitute a governmental crisis.