>The USA sends in some aid for the Queen ... That is exactly what happened in Iran

This seem disingenuous as you completely remove the motivations of the actors. You forgot the part where the US bribes the queen to dissolve the parliament so that Boris doesn't nationalize British Petroleum. That's a HUGE detail that you are handwaving away.

So yes, if the US bribed the queen to dissolve parliament because the people of UK democratically decided to nationalize BP, that would be a very bad thing even though the queen "has the absolute right to do" so.

> You forgot the part where the US bribes the queen to dissolve the parliament so that Boris doesn't nationalize British Petroleum

Also the part where the CIA pays for and stages a coup attempt just so that it can use it as a pretext to use other forces that it is also paying to suppress the armed uprising on behalf of the Queen, with the resulting security situation being the public pretext used for the disillusion of parliament.

Also don't forget US-trained and provided for oppression campaign which radicalizes opposition and ends up in revolution and ultimately the heavily religious shift.

> In England, the Queen decides to dissolve the parliament - which she has the absolute right to do

No, she doesn't, at least by what appears to be the dominant constitutional theory (not having a simple written Constitution makes this...less clear than one might want it to be.) The Crown does, sure, but the particular category of Crown powers this falls into is that it is validly exercised by the Queen/King-in-Council; that is, by and with the advice and consent of the Privy Council, not unilaterally.

> Did the Queen/US commit a coup d'etat?

Yes.

I don't know what answer you are expecting, but realistically(?) speaking, the world will absolutely lose their mind if America installs its favorite leader on the UK. That kind of shit is what superpowers do onto countries like Iran or Afghanistan, not in Western Europe.

That's not the point of his example...