That still gives too much power to too many people.

So no nobility?

Church and Monarch

Have only monarch+royals, then clergy, then everyone else is a commoner?

Yes

What would be the status of landowners vs peasants, then?

What about royals who are not immediate family of the monarch?

Landowners are the bosses of the peasants who work their land.

Would landowners be given any special privilege or should they be content with at least having their wealth

Non-immediate family royals are still royals.

What about granting noble titles but only to royals who are too far down the line of succession? Such as duchies or counties?

Those close enough to the monarch in line of succession being princes

No, the only noble titles would only be titular and mean nothing more than status.

So you are ok with granting noble titles to men of extraordinary service and prestige but with no added political privilege

And perhaps to large landowners

Yes

Ah, ok

No disagreements here then

I do believe having more officials in government other than monarch is necessary, however, it should be clear that they serve the monarch and thus can be removed from power as easily as they are appointed

This is probably where clergy or close members of the royal family should come in

I've been saying that's where the clergy comes in.

Limited suffrage democracy gated by Service and vetting by the Church

I don't believe in democracy period.

Theocracy is also terrible, though.

Theocratic monarchy is great though

King/emperor + state religion

That's a religious confessional state. Not a theocracy

Tomato tomato

A theocracy is where the religious authorities also act as the rulers of the state.

So caesaropapism

No, papocaesarism

Caesaropapism is a secular ruler also ruling a church - England and Anglicanism

Papocaesarism is a cleric ruling a secular state - Vatican city for example or any HRE prince-bishopric

I prefer an actual monarch though

Neither is preferavle

And I don't think theocracy is necessarily papocaesarist

The judges of Israel certainly weren't any reflection of a king or any modern statesman

I'd prefer typical monarch by divine right

The ideal is symphonia, I believe also called "Byzantine theocracy" although I could be mistaken so don't quote me on that
Church and [monarchical] state working together for the good of the nation with neither ruling the other

I'm thinking Evola was mostly right, aside from the obvious things, like the "Sex magic". What do you all think?

His metaphysics of sex book is actually quite spot-on in places.