in any bourgeois dictatorship, it’s probably the largest capitalists who have the final say in any important matter, so the monarchy’s role would be mostly ceremonial (AFAIK – I have no specific evidence)

Head of state in most modern states have titular supreme command, be it monarch or president, though it’s mostly ceremonial function.

Well, polish president Lech Kaczyński allegedly did invoked his supreme command in distress once - he ordered pilot to land in very risky conditions and everyone on plane died as a result.

According to the constituteproject.org, yes that seems to be the case. For example, Malaysia’s constitution:

Canada is a constitutional monarchy which means whoever is The King/Queen in the UK is our Head Of State: currently Charles. Since I’ve been alive there hasn’t been any British royal meddling. They’ve always just been a symbol of sorts, never actually influencing laws.

The monarchy does have a representative in parliament called the Governor General; appointed by The Queen/King on the advice of the Prime Minister. They are responsible for most of the duties the monarchy would do in terms of giving royal assent to turn bills into laws and general House of Commons stuff. They’re not there to act as a normal monarchy, you can’t even say they’re more “powerful” than the Prime Minister.

So I’ve always seen it as just an extra step in government.

The monarchy was supposed to act as a force of “good” that would make sure the House of Commons was running properly and nobody overstayed their welcome. They haven’t ever really done that and the people in Parliament seem to get rid of others well enough on their own.

I think because Canada is not a British colony anymore, their monarchs don’t interfere in our decision making. It’s why more and more people kinda want to do away with the whole thing.