[stillwaiting]

I'm fond of books in the fantasy/sf/horror categories so frequently browse the list in that category. I am struck by how many refer to kings, or thrones or to realms and especially to "true" or "rightful" kings. Given that most of this stuff is written by Americans, who rejoice in their republicanism, why this continual yearning for someone who wears a crown merely because his dad wore one?

And, yes, I am a big fan of Tolkien but remember, the Shire had an elected Mayor, not a king.

I think there's a bunch of things contributing towards the fascination with royalty in fantasy- first, a good chunk of swords-and-sorcery style fantasy books seem to be based in a pseudo-Middle-Ages-England type land, and so: monarchy; second, despite (or possibly because of?) the US never having had a monarchy, there's still a fascination with royalty here, from Disney princesses to those who follow Kate and William's every move- it's highly romanticized; third, royalty means you don't have to deal extensively with politics, at least, not on the level you would have to with a different system. You have the king/queen, and maybe a royal advisor or two, but other than that you don't have to concentrate too hard on how the nation runs. You can add politics to the mix if you want- alliances, disgruntled nobles, etc- but it's not as necessary.

I enjoy monarchical fantasy because I'm a huge fan of court intrigue, but I do wish there were more types of fantasy. Especially bureaucratic fantasy.

Also, the Shire may have had an elected mayor, but a HUGE portion of Aragorn's storyline was that he was the 'true' king of Gondor.

I think there's a bunch of things contributing towards the fascination with royalty in fantasy- first, a good chunk of swords-and-sorcery style fantasy books seem to be based in a pseudo-Middle-Ages-England type land, and so: monarchy; second, despite (or possibly because of?) the US never having had a monarchy, there's still a fascination with royalty here, from Disney princesses to those who follow Kate and William's every move- it's highly romanticized; third, royalty means you don't have to deal extensively with politics, at least, not on the level you would have to with a different system. You have the king/queen, and maybe a royal advisor or two, but other than that you don't have to concentrate too hard on how the nation runs. You can add politics to the mix if you want- alliances, disgruntled nobles, etc- but it's not as necessary.

I enjoy monarchical fantasy because I'm a huge fan of court intrigue, but I do wish there were more types of fantasy. Especially bureaucratic fantasy.

Also, the Shire may have had an elected mayor, but a HUGE portion of Aragorn's storyline was that he was the 'true' king of Gondor.

When you ask somebody to picture a Medieval setting, I think the majority would probably picture England which would consequently be followed by it's type of monarchy.
The same way when the average person pictures the Classical Age, they picture men in togas, or unpainted marble statues, and gladiator matches. They don't picture things like, a Celtic tribe chanting a war-song or prayer, or an Egyptian dude in Ptolemaic Egypt fanning their Greek Pharaoh, or a Carthaginian sailor on his way to Spain, etc.

Plus, unless they don't want to spend too much time on how monarchies or feudalism work, it's usually Kings > Nobles > Knights > Peasants or some similar form. The others they can just fill in since it's their world, anyway.

Anyways, I think having a bureaucracy or republic or democracy in a fantasy setting would be hard to pull off. I mean unless it's well-written and you get it, then yeah it would be amazing, but if it's poorly written then it could get pretty boring fast.
Also, I will find it hilarious (in a good way) if the MC, instead of summoning his levies or controlling his vassals etc., would be campaigning for his presidency instead.

Let me know if I don't make sense.