Constitutional monarchies, specially the more successful ones, are in practice mostly indistinguishable from a republic. The powerless diplomatic figure that is the monarch does not impact the overall decision making in any meaningful way.

Sweden and Canada fit that definition as well, and are not socialist countries according to what Marx meant by socialism. They're very much countries with a foundation of ownership rights and private enterprise, but taxed to a certain extent as to fund extensive government welfare programs. Of course, I'm not unaware that socialism is a word used loosely these days but within the context of discussing communism it's important to drive home the difference.

And of course, as someone that doesn't belong to any of the mentioned countries, I would say that the sentiment that a government like Sweden's or Canada's is better to live in than (pardon if I'm reaching here) the country that I believe you had in mind when making the comparison, is not only not universally accepted but very heavily debated across the world.

Constitutional monarchies tend to have a symbolic figurehead for the public to emotionally invest themselves in, but who is restrained from exploiting that public affection for political gain. I think this is valuable.

If the Netflix series "The Crown" is to believed, this is not quite true.