> considering you conveniently left off the very next part of my sentence Sorry, it wasn't meant as a direct comment to you, more of a comment on the thread in

> considering you conveniently left off the very next part of my sentence Sorry, it wasn't meant as a direct comment to you, more of a comment on the thread in general. Still though, using the words "supreme leader" about any constitutional monarch in a liberal democracy sounds so weird to me, that's a title for dictators, which is the complete opposite of what they are. They're heads of state, and they are completely dependent on popular support for their reigns. > As a Canadian, the whole thing is so bizarre because he is the supreme leader of our country. I agree, I don't understand why any former colony would want to keep that. The case for the UK is that they've been doing the king thing for 1100 years now, it's an integral part of the land and the people and the history, and that gives it symbolic value that contributes to the power or cohesiveness of the nation state.