Michael; a couple of small points from an academic perspective; I've told you before, there is no such Law as 'the Law of Unforeseen Consequences', it's just lazy journo-speak. One of my research areas is non-linear complexity theory; 'chaos theory' in the same lazy style. Politics is run on the flawed principle that a given action will produce a given result. The world outside politics knows that this is not so, and therefore expects more and different results.
There is evidence from other societies that our form of democracy may not be ideal, but we stick with it; why? This flawed thinking extends into why we have a monarchy. Looked at objectively, the monarchy is the vestigial remains of a totalitarian system of government which was decisively rejected by revolution and civil war. It serves no political, economic or governmental purpose, but retains enormous, unaccountable and largely malign influence over the social mores of our country. It also costs a fortune, money which could be better spent. There are many successful democracies around the world which manage perfectly well without a monarch, and others who have a monarch with a much reduced constitutional standing. The problem in this country is the bowing and scraping that is expected (even demanded) by 'protocol', which is another name for 'making sure the plebs know their place'. Watching adults bow and curtsey (both physically and metaphorically) before a bunch of useless, overprivileged, undereducated and morally bankrupt Royals; doesn't that make you a little uneasy about how our society works?
One last point; Tale of Two Cities isn't a great academic reference; last time I was in the library, it was under 'fiction'.