[HairOfTheDog]

I think there is a lot of literary appeal to the idea of birthright and royalty because kingdoms are more romantic than democracies, and make for better visions in epic stories.

There is much more romance to Aragorn declaring an edict protecting the Shire from further interference from men, than there would be in some lawmaker proposing a bill declaring the Shire free, and then debate and argument from representatives of Mirkwood, who want the same freedom, representatives of Harad, who think Hobbits cannot be trusted to self-rule, and then representatives from Rohan, who tack on an open space preservation ammendment that gives the pastures of Rohan tax-free status.

Give me the romantic rule of Kings, lest C-Span bore me to tears!

[The_Expatriate]

Your vision of Middle Earth as a United Nations-style democracy is a disturbing one indeed; if there must be a one-world government, I'd prefer to think of it as a republic of autonomous 'states' (and as a good Southerner I believe these states should have the right to secede if they wish). I realize that 'I am Aragorn son of Arathorn, and am called Elessar, Chief Executive of Gondor' won't stir many hearts, but the price of liberty is high. :-)

To put in another two cents for home rule, Aragorn may well have issued an edict banning outside interference, but it was the local populace taking up arms against their oppressors that finally restored freedom to the Shire. Nothing quite like a little home-grown revolution!

Lest you think, however, that I tear through fantasy novels continually screaming "Death to the aristos!", I should say that I am a long-time fan of British literature and film, many of the best stories from which focus on the upper classes, so I certainly do understand the appeal. Don't take my libertarian opposition to the feudalism of LOTR too seriously!