The UK did not, the Governor-General of Australia did. (The Governor-General is the practical head of state, though the Queen of Australia is the formal head of state; removal of a government in response to loss of supply, which had occurred in Australia in 1975, is not irregular in Westminster-style systems whether the head of state of is a monarch acting directly, a monarch acting through an agent like the GG, or elected.)
The UK (both the government and the monarch as monarch of the UK) hadn't had authority (even ceremonial) over Australia for around 4 decades in 1975.
Regarding the UK, is 1975 the last instance of such a thing? That's quite a while ago.
The Wikipedia link makes no mention that I could find of the Buckingham Palace's direct involvement in the constitutional crisis in Australia. What am I missing?
The Australian Govenor-General is an Australian citizen chosen by the Australian Australian prime minister, and acts only on the advice if the prime minister or other ministers, the monarchs role is purely ceremonial.
The constitutional powers of the monarchs in Scandinavian countries do not at all reflect reality. The monarchs have no power to influence politics or elections outside of public or international relations.
The Swedish monarch has no power at all in the Swedish Grundlag (constitution). He is the titular head of state, holds a few honorary military titles and opens the government every year.
It's a marketing function, nothing more. He has no power over the election process, legal system etc.
Most of the powers the monarchs in Scandinavia supposedly have can't actually be enforced in reality, so they really don't have as much power as you seem to think.
On the opposite end, is North Korea a democracy just because it says so in their constitution?
no, the supreme power has moved from the time of writing and the codification of this change has not been completed. Many places in the world have laws that do not reflect actual practice.
Non of your examples above exist in the Swedish constitution.
You have provided no reference to your claim whatsoever, if you are arguing this point, please provide what you are referring to specifically.
Furthermore, Finland does not have a monarch at all (all though you might argue that they are not formally part of Scandinavia, but that's up for debate)
Today all political interactions are purely ceremonial. The monarchy is still part of the power elite, and of ceremonial importance in domestic and international relations, but they have no direct power over political decisions or elections.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_X_of_Denmark#Easter_...
The 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, where the Governor General (granted power by the Queen) dismissed the Prime Minister.
In 2019, when the British PM suspended Parliament - a provision that would not exist without a Monarchy, as it was technically done by the Queen on the PM s advice. This was later ruled illegal but there was no way to right the wrong.
Recently, Queen's Consent was exposed as a secret process where laws are changed in secret before coming to Parliament to gain the Queen's approval. One example being that the Queen can hire without complying with laws against race discrimination. She also has exceptions from environmental and COVID legislation.
Checking Wikipedia, it looks like Queens Consent was withheld in 1990 preventing debate of reforming the House of Lords. Probably the world's least democratic legislative chamber of any democracy.
Queen's Consent is a better argument, although worth noting that it's more like "I don't have to follow your laws" rather than "I get to change your laws".
* Their monarchs have absolute power, the monarchs give right to the parliament to exist for example
* The monarch can decide who gets to run for elections
* The monarch can veto against any legal decision
All of them do have elections and they do appear to have some impact on policies... but the supreme power is hidden and made to look ceremonial to the masses when it is totally not the case.