It is true that The Queen has to taken the counsel of the Prime Minister. But this Prime Minister has no majority on his own and only with support of the DUP they have a majority of ONE vote. Taking into account the highly controversial time-path and the October 31 deadline, the Queen could have delayed it by holding it into Her Most Excellent Majesty's gracious consideration indeed and request to receive other politicians in audience.
Most likely this would not have changed anything, but at least it would have given the impression the Queen has held it in serious consideration and has finally approved with the Motion to prorogue Parliament.
But this: on her holiday destination, waiting in the library, buzzzzz, three gentlemen come forward, the Queen nods and says "approved" and that was it. In Spain, the Netherlands or Norway, the King could have requested to see the Leader of the Opposition at the palace, to hear his/her opinion. They can command a special Council. They can discuss it with the Prime Minister in a second audience. But just approve like this: it is as if she has just hired a new cleaner for the bathrooms at Balmoral. A nod and "approved".
I do not agree with you, in Spain what is happening in Britain is not possible, because in Spain, a change of political leader in the conservatives, does not grant him the right to be president of government. The succession Teresa May by Boris Jhonson, as Prime Minister derived from a change of leadership in conservatives, would not be possible in Spain.
The king is the one who proposes in the parliament, from among the leaders of the political parties, to the politician who aspires to be Prime Minister, who should receive the vote of the parliament. But in case, as it happens today, that no candidate obtains that vote of confidence, the King can: - To call elections or- can proposes a neutral candidate, to the parliament, in attention to the general interest. The state cannot constantly be holding general elections, when the result does not vary from one election to another, it is spending the money, and damaging the stability of the country. Many experts have demanded that the King exercise that competence," to proposes a neutral candidate", in last year's elections and now also. But King Felipe has opted for not exercising those powers, to ingest as little as possible, he has also been criticized for that attitude . Queen Elizabeth has done the same, she has powers that she can exercise, but she as King Felipe chooses to avoid that constitutional intervention. In Britain there has been a referendum, the BREXIT is a decision of the British people, this must be taken into account, Labor wants the queen to prevent the fulfillment of the will of the people expressed in a referendum. Queen Elizabeth has acted correctly, because that referendum cannot be forgotten, it must be the British people who revoke it, she does not. She has acted constitutionally