The article does a good job conflating the parliamentary process of Queen’s consent and lobbying of the government by the Royal family. You may think both are bad/outdated, I do, but there’s a lot of journalistic spin going on here.

Right at the bottom of the article there is a quote: “Consent is always granted by the monarch where requested by government. Any assertion that the sovereign has blocked legislation is simply incorrect.”

The journalist never provides any evidence to the contrary.

But the quote does not address the question of whether the government felt that the sovereign were threatening to block legislation, if it were not modified in accordance with the Royal Family's wishes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyqnu6ywhR4).

Or whether the monarch was threatening to oust the government, using the army which is loyal to the monarch.

Because it could not exist, because it is secret.

Also, the government has to request it. Another problem the UK has is: massively corrupt governments.