I don't think that adequately describes my proposed system at all.
Direct democracy comprising all members who wish to join the Senate. Unlimited legislative power by the Senate, yet the ability for the monarch to step in, in the event of a crisis or inability to govern.
It gives us a plan for the future and protects the rights of citizens.
How can you call it direct democracy if you confine it on the concept of senate, with "unlimited legislative power" but then a monarch save it, like of he's an automaton fireman, ready to put out a fire by the press of a button. That way you will always keep the Senate hostage by another power, completely useless, unless someone - you? - does not agree with the will of the People, and feel they're doing the right thing by stepping in. Why wouldn't an assembly of People have the right to deliberate in the event of a crisis or such "inability to govern"? Why do they need a monarchic plan for their future? protecting their rights or rather protecting the power of a king?
People cannot be subject to your monarchy, hostage of your whim, only a participative democracy without rulers coercing it's will, a full direct democracy, that do not address the issues of a monarchy, but the issues of the People, organizing itself by need instead of hierarchic status. It's the government that has to follow the will of the people, not the other way around.
