I get that, but I also have found that sentiments like that are rarely as universal as they are proclaimed to be which I is why I cited specifically British sou

I get that, but I also have found that sentiments like that are rarely as universal as they are proclaimed to be which I is why I cited specifically British sources which are easy to find and readily available, and I could have just kept going if I wanted to. I've certainly corrected fellow Americans on the whole "President of California" thing myself because Federation is a poorly understood concept even within the United States; but unlike Queen/King of England, that one actually doesn't have a historical precedent whereas if I refer to King Charles as the King of England, King of Britain, King of Great Britain or King of the UK, or give the whole spiel and say King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, all will be understood, even though only a couple of those are correct with respect to the legal title described within the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927. But if you want to be a true stickler, most instances where people say British with respect to the UK are also incorrect and we should instead be saying British and Northern Irish save for those times we are referring solely to Great Britain itself. I don't think that's a thing that happens much though, and I'm not looking to start now either.