The Regent wrote:
Agreed, the titles were only given a historical definition in that old link. That entire act served no statutory purpose. It served more like those parliamentary pronouncements nations often do, that recognize history formally. Whether or not it qualified as a law and act at all is probably legitimately debatable.
With no other place in the entire set of laws that defined these things, I don't think it is debatable whether they meant something legally. They had to, because they were not legally defined anywhere else.
The Regent wrote:
And, arguably, a system with an explicitly symbolic head of state is indeed a Republic.
Perhaps, but that's a really weird way to describe it.
The Regent wrote:
A constitutional monarchy gets its authority from the crown, which is of course deeply dependent on parliament for its will (or entirely dependent). Systems that appoint non-crown heads of states make them presidents with power in some cases (US) or symbolic titles with no power, but are all republics. it's an incremental move towards republicanism to explicitly define your head of state as ceremonial.
Perhaps it could be viewed that way, but the real power hasn't shifted. The final authority is the Council of the Crowned, not an elected body.