Interesting that nobody mentioned Pratchett - who lives in a monarchy, is aware of the slipperiness and complexity of the concept, and has examined it from a number of perspectives.
Couple of people mentioned monarchy in the context of Tolkien, but although his major work is (sort of) about the restoration of a monarchy, I think it's interesting that it is mostly set outside of one, in a situation that came up because the kings were not very competent or sensible. And of course, the Shire, although nominally part of a kingdom, seems to be more of a very low-key oligarchy in practice.
Personally, I'm not convinced that a monarchy is a monarchy is a monarchy. I really don't think Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, Elizabeth II and Charlemagne have a lot in common in terms of their job description (though, you know, would love to be a fly on the wall if they met... :-D)
In my case, the only trouble with kings and queens is that as a historian and long time student of the British Civil Wars, they turned me into a republican many years ago! :o)
Historians of the period tend to fetch up either as ardent republicans or ardent royalists- no middle ground at all. If Starkey and I ever met, there'd be a cat fight :o)
This is interesting, because a lot of contemporary urban fantasy is characterized by bureaucracies: The Watchers of BtVS or Highlander, the White Council of Harry Dresden, etc. These aren't the "rulers" per se of their respective Worlds, but they are the power that effects the life of the protagonist most strongly, with actual government being a far-away, nebulous thing in such stories.
Comments 34
That's so perfect, because loving and hating are what we love to do, and stories that let us do those things? Well--they grip us, don't they!
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Couple of people mentioned monarchy in the context of Tolkien, but although his major work is (sort of) about the restoration of a monarchy, I think it's interesting that it is mostly set outside of one, in a situation that came up because the kings were not very competent or sensible. And of course, the Shire, although nominally part of a kingdom, seems to be more of a very low-key oligarchy in practice.
Personally, I'm not convinced that a monarchy is a monarchy is a monarchy. I really don't think Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, Elizabeth II and Charlemagne have a lot in common in terms of their job description (though, you know, would love to be a fly on the wall if they met... :-D)
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Shame the English Republic failed though.
Historians of the period tend to fetch up either as ardent republicans or ardent royalists- no middle ground at all. If Starkey and I ever met, there'd be a cat fight :o)
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment