Throwing all your tea in the harbour like the absolute bad-asses you were. I think this is a semantic distinction.... the consent of the governed is held in place by rules and due process. If you don't have those, then you don't have the consent of the governed.

The Capitol uprising was an example of this in action. An agitator said 'THIS ELECTION WASN'T FAIR!' and his followers stormed the Capitol because they believed him.... the ability to demonstrate that the elections were fair, that no rules were broken and that the game was being played properly is what maintained the consent of the rest of you.

Political legitimacy and the consent rests (to my mind at least) on whether what is being done is being done fairly, not whether you agree or disagree with it. Brexit over here was a good example, I was pro-remaining and we threw absolutely fucking everything at the Government after we lost what was a fair referendum.... We stymied the Government via our MPs, when Johnson prorogued parliament we forced it back into session. We did everything we could - and we lost. We consent to be Governed because the systems which led to Brexit were fair and democratic.

We would not consent to an autocratic decision taken by Prince Charles to withdraw from the EU.