Democracy and the Freedom of the press.

I might have to go back to 1708 to find the answer to your 'IF'.

I didn't say it was Hindenburg exclusively, so you have just spent the last four posts pretending i did and therefore lying.
My point was that, although Hitler didn't have the clear win, there is no logical reason why that couldn't have happened.

So what next? Are you just going to lie again?

Basically, the political right in Germany was opposed to the Weimar democracy from the outset and hankered after some sort of authoritarian nationalist regime. Though they differed amongst themselves about exactly what they wanted. Some yearned for a restoration of the monarchy, others wanted to emulate the regime of Mussolini. Still others yearned for some sort of oligarchical regime. On the left the communists also were opposed to democracy. Only some of the centrist parties and the Social Democrats supported the Weimar regime. And many of the centrists veered sharply to the right in the economic crisis that beset Germany from 1929.

In the 1930 elections the Nazis came from nowhere to become the second largest party behind only the Social Democrats who had nevertheless lost support. The communists also made gains. From this point on a majority of Reichstag seats were held by representatives who wanted to destroy democracy, which effectively ceased to function as such, the Reichstag being entirely bypassed by chancellors ruling by presidential decree. This required the support of President Hindenburg, himself a conservative who really wanted an authoritarian conservative regime.

As the economic crisis deepened, support for extremist parties grew whilst the moderate ones more supportive of democracy lost votes. By 1932 the Nazis were the largest political party and the communists third largest. Democracy was no longer workable and some businessmen, many army leaders, and above all the landed aristocracy as well as top civil servants, were plotting various schemes for establishing a right wing authoritarian regime, all of them having the enthusiastic ear of Hindenburg himself. Many thought the Nazis vulgar and undesirable but they feared a party supported now by a third of the people and with 400,000 SA stormtroopers. They thought that any attempt to seize power might well be thwarted if opposed by the Nazis who could command the streets so some of them began to think of ways of harnessing Hitler and Nazi support without conceding control to him. For many months the conservatives tried to persuade Hitler to accept the vice chancellorship, with arch conservative favourite of Hindenburg - von Papen - as chancellor with the offer of a couple of other Nazi cabinet ministers. Hitler refused and insisted upon the chancellorship. So the conservatives began to try and think of ways of conceding that whilst retaining control themselves. The army and the aristocracy above all else - both having the ear of Hindenburg - became supportive of a Hitler chancellorship, imagining that if most other posts went to conservatives they could control Hitler.

The main obstacle to this plan in the end was Hindenburg himself, who was personally contemptuous of Hitler, and referred to him with disdain as that "Bohemian corporal". He steadfastly refused to make Hitler chancellor for many weeks and in the end it was only the persuasive efforts of both von Papen - promised the vice-chancellorship by Hitler - and Hindenburg's own son who was won round, which resulted in Hindenburg conceding. Hitler thus became chancellor on January 30th 1933.

But only two other cabinet posts went to Nazis, though this included interior minister in charge of the police. All other cabinet posts went to non-Nazi conservatives. The latter thought they were in control, which proved to be a disastrous under-estimation of Hitler. 

It is thus the case that conservative right wing elements - especially in the aristocracy and army - were responsible for levering Hitler into power, though this was felt necessary only because of his clear support from a third of the electorate, without which they would never have bothered with him. But they miscalculated their ability to control him. Instead he quickly ended up controlling them, which was never their intent.

Cheers, myself and others have been through this so often that I personally am not prepared to go through it all again.

Legally of course there is not but as in all things there are always alternatives. The legal position for Charles 2 was that he was effectively God on earth and legally he could act the way he did. Legally he was right but in the end an alternative is what occurred and a new Constitution evolved. There is always an alternative beyond the end of the legal road, it is not a no through road, it just has no direction fingerposts.

I have conceded the circumstance I have described is not very likely.
That is not my concern.

My concern is: is the circumstance I have described an accurate representation of the law as it stands.
That is a resounding Yes, it is.

If, and stress IF, the Monarch chooses to withhold Royal Assent there is NO LEGAL redress available to either Parliament or the People.

That necessarily means that, no matter how it has been disguised and how many people that disguise has fooled (a LOT), the Monarch is Sovereign.
The people are not Sovereign; so we are NOT a Democracy.
Parliament is not Sovereign; so we are not even a watered-down Representative Democracy.
The Monarch IS Sovereign, we are therefore a Monarchy.

Which, funny enough, is what just about every credible source out there calls us - a Constitutional MONARCHY.

No one has so far presented any evidence at all that the legal position I have described is anything other than the truth.

All The Best