# Why is royalty preferred in fantasy over science fiction?



## Harpo (Jul 9, 2018)

Why does royalty seem to prefer fantasy over science fiction?

You know the sort of thing - Kings rewarded princes at the end of a quest, princesses and dragons, wicked queens, et blimmin cetera. 

Is it perhaps that scientific progress demands a republic or dictatorship or some such?


----------



## Joshua Jones (Jul 10, 2018)

Harpo said:


> Why does royalty seem to prefer fantasy over science fiction?
> 
> You know the sort of thing - Kings rewarded princes at the end of a quest, princesses and dragons, wicked queens, et blimmin cetera.
> 
> Is it perhaps that scientific progress demands a republic or dictatorship or some such?


I think you do see monarchies in SF, but they tend to be either evil, oppressive empires or inept puppet kings. I could be wrong, but it would seem there is quite a bit of opportunity for at least a neutral, if not positive, portrayal.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Jul 10, 2018)

Royalty does appear in some SF. 

Off the top of my head, Dune has an aristocracy and Emperors, Iain Banks had some societies that had kings...I'm sure there are plenty others. 

I suppose you could ask the question - is royalty really preferred by fantasy? Sure Game of Thrones and Lord of the Rings, but then what about 'arry Potter, Twilight or His Dark materials?

I don't think it's 'science' that demands that it would be progress to get rid of monarchies, but rather more social progress. If you believe all are born equal, then having a society in which some by birth are more important, is ridiculous.


----------



## Vladd67 (Jul 10, 2018)

Instead of hereditary royalty you get nepotism and political dynasties.


----------



## Onyx (Jul 10, 2018)

Right off the bat, because history has moved from feudalism to self governance, and fantasy is often about a version of the past while SF is about the future.

Why aren't more fantasy books about ancient democracies? Because being elected for a 2 year term and prophesy don't really go together? And fantasy loves prophecy.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Jul 10, 2018)

oh, how did I miss this one! Star Wars has royalty (just been watching the last Jedi) and had a hereditary aristocracy.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jul 10, 2018)

Venusian Broon said:


> oh, how did I miss this one! Star Wars has royalty (just been watching the last Jedi) and had a hereditary aristocracy.



And Phantom Menace has a democratically elected queen!


----------



## Onyx (Jul 10, 2018)

Brian G Turner said:


> a democratically elected queen


Oxymoronic complement to the president for life.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Jul 10, 2018)

Brian G Turner said:


> And Phantom Menace has a democratically elected queen!



Yeah - although I'm not sure if Princess Leia kept her title as the films went on...but then why was she called princess at first? Surely that's a bit of a give away as to her mother??? (I'm not up on Star Wars lore, so I expect to be corrected or explained on this one ), 

Anyway that planet of Alderaan had much more of a 'working' Dutch or Danish sort of monarchy rather than an absolute or British monarchy!


----------



## Montero (Jul 10, 2018)

David Weber's Honor Harrington has royalty and an aristocracy - and by law royalty has to marry a commoner. They are also champions of the people and stand up to the scheming section of the aristocracy.


----------



## Onyx (Jul 10, 2018)

Virtually any story with permanent social classes or a ruler for life could be considered "royalty". A king is a caesar is an emperor is a czar is a fuhrer is a sultan is a dictator. The name doesn't matter.


----------



## aThenian (Jul 10, 2018)

Onyx said:


> Why aren't more fantasy books about ancient democracies?



I've written one. 

But monarchies and fantasy, well, I was going to say Tolkien. He made the fantasy setting Medieval by default. But, when you think about it, there's no royalty around for most of the book - just a few pages at the end, really. Otherwise it's wardens, sheriffs, mayors, lords (elven or Dark) etc.


----------



## Onyx (Jul 10, 2018)

aThenian said:


> I've written one.
> 
> But monarchies and fantasy, well, I was going to say Tolkien. He made the fantasy setting Medieval by default. But, when you think about it, there's no royalty around for most of the book - just a few pages at the end, really. Otherwise it's wardens, sheriffs, mayors, lords (elven or Dark) etc.


Tolkien was largely channeling northern European Medieval lore, so I guess it is by default. He's essentially imagining how someone in the 13th century might have imagined a secret world history to be like.

Westerner's see chivalrous adventure as romantic. Would Western readers find romance in something like the 47 Ronin which ends in mass suicide? I think Westerners like the European middle ages because we feel a cultural connection to it that a Cambodian would not.


----------



## aThenian (Jul 10, 2018)

Onyx said:


> I think Westerners like the European middle ages because we feel a cultural connection to it that a Cambodian would not.



Well, GoT the series is popular just about everywhere I think, and that's European middle ages. So I think people do identify outside their own cultural traditions. It's not fantasy, but Shogun was and is popular in the west, for example, despite being set in feudal Japan. (Though to be fair there is an English character to bridge that divide for westerners - maybe it would be more difficult for western readers otherwise.)

I wonder if it's more that publishers play it safe with what seems to work, so you get a tradition of medieval european fantasy that takes a while to be challenged, for example. Something else needs to sell bucket loads before it can establish its own sub-genre?


----------



## Onyx (Jul 10, 2018)

aThenian said:


> Well, GoT the series is popular just about everywhere I think, and that's European middle ages. So I think people do identify outside their own cultural traditions. It's not fantasy, but Shogun was and is popular in the west, for example, despite being set in feudal Japan. (Though to be fair there is an English character to bridge that divide for westerners - maybe it would be more difficult for western readers otherwise.)
> 
> I wonder if it's more that publishers play it safe with what seems to work, so you get a tradition of medieval european fantasy that takes a while to be challenged, for example. Something else needs to sell bucket loads before it can establish its own sub-genre?


I assume you're talking about GoT TV series, and all big budget Western media is popular all over the world - most societies don't have studios that can make that sort of show, so they watch a fair amount of our stuff. I doubt the books are similarly distributed.

Shogun is a Western book written by a guy named James about a Westerner from his Western POV. It's historical fiction in the "exotic" East, not really a story about the Japanese POV as much as a travelogue. That seems distinctly different than something like 47 Ronin where the motivations of the main characters is outside of what the reader would normally empathize with. The Last Samurai is similar - the 'bizarre' honor code of the samurai has to be translated to the audience by way of the unlikely American character.


----------



## Danny McG (Jul 27, 2018)




----------



## EdLincoln (Dec 9, 2018)

Because we feel we have grown beyond monarchy, and sci fi is usually set in the future, while Fantasy is often set in a society based on the past.  Also, fantasy is often based on myths and legends (which often involved Kings).  Magical powers that some people are born with tend to lend themselves to hereditary governments.  

I'm reminded of John Wright's blog post lamenting the decline of Space Princess's in Fantasy.  (And David Brin's more serious blog posts attacking the reactionary subtext of Star Wars.)


----------



## chrispenycate (Dec 9, 2018)

Baen has a fair amount of hereditary aristocracy, and seems to have a deep philosophy that's quite 'in the blood' for military matters. But science fiction is generally a literature of change, rather than one big victory and happy ever after.  Fantasy has more of a tendency towards stability, when we beat down this present menace we'll get back to the golden age when everything was better, and just dissolve into it neverchanging for several eons… 

There's quite a nice lump of meritocracy in SF, and no real shortage of plutocracies, but it's generally accepted theocracies are bad, as they tend to damp out change. Still, the evil, all embracing bureaucracy seems to maintain its popularity over military authoritarianism as an antagonist.

But no-one seems to be attempting new, viable techniques of social organisation. It is clear even to me, a political near null spot, that democracy has faults - indeed, without considerable watering down is not viable at all for large masses of people. So why isn't SF throwing out alternatives, showing us possibilities for humans to live together differently, if necessary digging into older civilisations  for different systems of organisation? Where are the Brave new Worlds, with brave new inhabitants? It's one of the functions of SF to point out potentials - and they all look bad, right now.


----------



## Stephen Palmer (Dec 9, 2018)

I'm a bit surprised to read this, Chris!
There are any number of authors - Ken MacLeod, Gwyneth Jones, Ursula Le Guin, Iain Banks... just to name a few off the top of my head.


----------



## farntfar (Dec 9, 2018)

"The Mote in God's Eye" has  a king or emperor if I remember correctly. It certainly has a healthy aristocracy.

The Ender books have a queen of the hive.

There is a king on Gethen in" the Left hand of darkness"


----------



## nixie (Dec 9, 2018)

It has been awhile since I read them but I'm pretty sure Mickey Zucker Riechert  Renshai series didn't have royalty. Wizards and Norse Gods yes, royaty no.


----------



## Joshua Jones (Dec 9, 2018)

chrispenycate said:


> Baen has a fair amount of hereditary aristocracy, and seems to have a deep philosophy that's quite 'in the blood' for military matters. But science fiction is generally a literature of change, rather than one big victory and happy ever after.  Fantasy has more of a tendency towards stability, when we beat down this present menace we'll get back to the golden age when everything was better, and just dissolve into it neverchanging for several eons…
> 
> There's quite a nice lump of meritocracy in SF, and no real shortage of plutocracies, but it's generally accepted theocracies are bad, as they tend to damp out change. Still, the evil, all embracing bureaucracy seems to maintain its popularity over military authoritarianism as an antagonist.
> 
> But no-one seems to be attempting new, viable techniques of social organisation. It is clear even to me, a political near null spot, that democracy has faults - indeed, without considerable watering down is not viable at all for large masses of people. So why isn't SF throwing out alternatives, showing us possibilities for humans to live together differently, if necessary digging into older civilisations  for different systems of organisation? Where are the Brave new Worlds, with brave new inhabitants? It's one of the functions of SF to point out potentials - and they all look bad, right now.


I tend to agree with you on this. Most of what I watch and read seems to have only a handful of variations on the same tropes with figurehead royals or evil emperors, corrupt aristocrats and suffering peasants. 

Truth be told, one if the core themes of my SF WiP is the strengths and weaknesses of diverse governmental systems, and how ultimately, no political system can save us from ourselves. So, I have a near absolute, hereditary monarchy from a legal perspective, (though property ownership is still a thing) where the king determines the overall direction of the nation and what laws, social programs, and the sort he wishes to have, and parliament is something of an actualizing body which may advise the king if the laws requested contradict existing laws. However, the king is limited in that he is not above the law, may only serve as long as he is physically, mentally, and morally fit to do so (as determined by charter guidelines and parliament), may not make laws which are expressly to benefit himself alone (this would be considered a moral failing and make him suitable to be deposed), and ascent laws are strictly maintained. I also have republics, democracies, full communist nations (as in, no Big Brother figure), nations governed by a ruling council which are a mix of lifetime appointments and term elected individuals, a non-evil theocracy, a shareholder style plutarchy (as in, the more money one has invested in the national bank, the larger the share of the vote one controls), meritocracies, a genetic governance (they are non-human sentients, and they don't have governance as much as long term goals, and their engineered genes predispose them toward and make them suitable for their role in that purpose [except when they don't, of course), and others. And, each of these has strengths and weaknesses which are explored as fairly as I possibly can. 

All this to say, I see the problem you describe as well, and try to remedy that in my own writing.


----------

