But thanks to SCOTUS interpreting any amount of political gerrymandering as permissible, we may have in fact fallen into an irreparable hole in the US Constitution.

Even if some of us are disinclined towards tyranny, we may be faced with a choice: accept that we are shunted towards it by forces beyond our control, or roll over and accept tyrannical rule by others. I continue to hope that it will not come to that and that we can fight our way out of this situation using Paine's methods.

Personally, I like having a figurehead head of state that is subject to a directly elected Parliament.

The King may have cerimonital power but he can never exercise it. As was proved in the Glorious Revolution we can remove our head of state anytime we like.

I would much rather see the House of Lords reformed than the monarchy ended.

Strongly suggest the USA leaves tinkering with other countries' political systems alone for at least a generation. No standing.

The British are actually quite conflicted about the monarchy.

It tends to be bound up in what a lot of people used to observe was the distinction between Royalism and Queenism (or Elizabethism specifically).

We don't much like the institution in the same way (only narrow approval overall), but we pretty much loved the Queen as close to unconditionally as we love anyone (she's like one or two rungs down from Judi Dench and the late Terry Wogan), and would not have wanted to see it go in her lifetime because it would just have been weird.

Now, not so much. Charles has yet to earn that kind of affection. Though surprisingly he is getting there, and Camilla's popularity (always a very serious problem for the monarchy) is genuinely surprising because she turns out to be a) really a friendly, kind person and b) genuinely liked by her step-family.

Another example: the Duke of Westminster is worth $12B and owns a large chunk of London outright, including a ton of large, notable buildings. (Also, I think, the Twinings tea company.)

There's the Crown Estate, which is controlled by the crown, but the family also owns the Duchy of Cornwall (45K acres) and the Duchy of Lancaster (45K acres), as well as numerous private holdings that are less visible. And this is predominantly highly developed city space.

I wonder if the monarchy serves that role for the UK. Might be better to keep it.

When you consider how many people and how much wealth was destroyed during/following revolutions like the French or Russian, and the compound interest of that wealth over 150 years, the pennies we pay to the royals todays is probably cheap.

Just saying, if you went back in time and opted for a revolution instead of a constitutional monarchy, you'd probably be poorer today -- compound growth over 150 years is no joke.

Yeah, I think reminding people that you don't get prosperity without rule of law is a good idea.

In your model you need the religious leaders to be aware of the ruse but still be benevolent actors. This is problematic because it makes selecting leaders from within the religion difficult (especially at lower ranks). By waiting to tell them the game many followers are likely to revolt as they've been told their entire lives and core beliefs are a lie. That risks collapsing the system. By pulling leaders from outside the faith you garner distrust from followers (maybe this could work if those members can be said to directly come from heaven rather, but that's difficult to pull off). By selecting from the followers and not revealing the ruse your system has no self realigning mechanism. In all instances you suffer from the effects of a game of telephone ("Chinese whispers"), but probably the most in the last case.

In all situations you are still vulnerable to the rise of fanatics. True believers of any philosophy can be dangerous, and the more power they possess (such as leadership) the more danger they possess. With competing religions you justify division between true believers. Even if the leaders of competing are not, the true believers will create that division and organize. A small population is all that is needed in order to upset the system.

I think you're right that there is utility to many aspects of religion (not just Christianity) but holy wars are still bloody wars. It's important to realize that these features can be met through other beliefs. Some of the greatest features are community, as organized religion forces common ground and people that have differing opinions in disjoint domains (e.g. shared religion, different politics) are forced to interact, which leads to lower tribalism (though not sub-tribes).

Maybe religion is a local optima, but it would be naïve to discount its flaws. By its nature it is dividing, even if at the same time it is unifying. Local and global structures need not be identical.

People Americans hoist into power (and many other countries do) often look like a poor man's replacement for a monarch. How many people in any country do actually lay claim to their own values and conscience? How many are genuinely emancipated and govern themselves?

In particular in this day and age where most of the wannabe kings are so obviously idiotic it's telling how eager people still are to subject themselves, sometimes in, as David Bentley Hart dubbed it crypto-erotic fashion, almost sadomasochistic and fully aware how incapable the demagogues are.