What Would Movies in a Monarchy-Dominated World Look Like?

I'm not sure how big of a change this would be. Japan and the United Kingdom are both monarchies and have large film and media industries. We can look to them as examples. Doctor Who, Sherlock Holmes, James Bond, etc exist with scant references to monarchism, and they could just as easily take place in republics. So why is it that popular franchises made in what are republics OTL could not be made in monarchies? Sure there would be some changes, but I think overall things would stay the same.

Historical dramas about the royalty might be more common as there is more of a connection to them. And there are some new story telling opportunities. Like, legal dramas about the royal family on trial, or spy thrillers about the kidnapping of the crown prince, or political thrillers about a new, young, visionary king, or what have you. But overall stories that don't interact with politics much can be functionally identical, and stories that do will just happen to take place in monarchies rather than republics.

We might actually see *more* Republics in sci-fi. A lot of the reason why monarchies are so popular in American sci-fi is that they are exotic and different from the status quo. It feels more like a 'strange new world' for Captain Kirk to discover if they have an emperor, because we don't. Thus in an Alt-Star Trek, they might be making first contact with strange aliens ruled by Premiers, Consuls, Presidents, and Lord Protectors. It is essentially the inverse of what we have OTL, where the human faction is generally a United States stand in and the aliens are all colorful representations of different and largely bygone government systems. Instead, here the human faction would be a monarchy (or a confederation of earth monarchies under one banner?) and the alien factions are all representations of various forms of Republicanism and other ideologies.

Fantasy is almost always set in a monarchy, so I doubt much changes there. But considering it's a bit less exotic for those who live in them, the genre as a whole might be less popular.

It would also depend on the politics of the people writing the story. Republicanism will still be an ideology to some extent, and there are plenty of radicals and anti-establishment types working in Hollywood. If teenagers think the king is dumb, then setting your YA dystopia in an evil kingdom seems smart. Having your heroes be republican revolutionaries overthrowing the tyrant king generates controversy, and thus free press.
 
In the words of Monsieur de Villefort from the Count of Monte Cristo (a work I could still see being written since the tale is pretty "universal" even if the events of 1815-1830 provide the frame of the story): treason (or rebellion in this case) is simply a matter of dates. When the emperor returns, the royalist shall be the traitor [or rebel] and I, the patriot.
And the Count got published in July Monarchy. Depicting an evil and corrupt Royal Procureur was not impossible to publish in Orleanist Kingdom of France.
In 1870s, France almost had a restoration. Go through with restoration in 1870s, and Count of Monte Cristo is still classics. No reason not to film it.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
In the words of Monsieur de Villefort from the Count of Monte Cristo (a work I could still see being written since the tale is pretty "universal" even if the events of 1815-1830 provide the frame of the story): treason (or rebellion in this case) is simply a matter of dates. When the emperor returns, the royalist shall be the traitor [or rebel] and I, the patriot.
I quite agree with the sentiment, although what I actually mean is that in a "real world" where the question has been decided -- and the legitimists are the ones who get to write the history books -- we will see fiction wherein the self-identification of the heroes isn't likely to be "rebel". In OTL, the Star Wars example literally has the good guys calling themselves "Rebel Alliance" (and formally "Alliance to Restore the Republic"). In the ATL, such heroes would be loyalists of the true Emperor, fighting against some depraved usurper who has instituted some kind of despotism rooted in an appeal to radical ideology, which is ("of course") a false-face for corruption and cruelty.

I agree with that premise. However, political-themed movies will be the ones most strongly affected by this alteration, no?
Definitely the case; but also in non-political stories, certain implicit assumptions will no doubt shine through.

We might actually see *more* Republics in sci-fi. A lot of the reason why monarchies are so popular in American sci-fi is that they are exotic and different from the status quo. It feels more like a 'strange new world' for Captain Kirk to discover if they have an emperor, because we don't. Thus in an Alt-Star Trek, they might be making first contact with strange aliens ruled by Premiers, Consuls, Presidents, and Lord Protectors. It is essentially the inverse of what we have OTL, where the human faction is generally a United States stand in and the aliens are all colorful representations of different and largely bygone government systems. Instead, here the human faction would be a monarchy (or a confederation of earth monarchies under one banner?) and the alien factions are all representations of various forms of Republicanism and other ideologies.
I'd say a lot of the reason why monarchies are so popular in sci-fi (and definitely not just in the USA) is that quite a lot of sci-fi writers don't believe in whig historiography, and thus quite seriously entertain the thought that republicanism and democracy will be temporary phenomena in the long run. (And they are right to do so. In fact, in a Star Trek episode where Captain Kirk of the Federation meets an Emperor, it's the existence of the utopian Federation that's the unrealistic fantasy-- not the presence of an Emperor.)
 
I'd say a lot of the reason why monarchies are so popular in sci-fi (and definitely not just in the USA) is that quite a lot of sci-fi writers don't believe in whig historiography, and thus quite seriously entertain the thought that republicanism and democracy will be temporary phenomena in the long run. (And they are right to do so. In fact, in a Star Trek episode where Captain Kirk of the Federation meets an Emperor, it's the existence of the utopian Federation that's the unrealistic fantasy-- not the presence of an Emperor.)

I mean, we can speculate all day what the 23rd century is going to look like, but that wasn't really my point. Alien governments are generally designed as commentaries on real world issues, stand ins for real world countries, or (most rarely) to be as alien as possible from our own way of live. The United Federation of Planets is a federal republic made up of many member states and lead by a president and congress because it's a stand in for the USA. It's a show produced by Americans, largely for Americans, to commentate on American politics and social issues.

In TOS, The Klingons were meant to be the Federation's greatest enemy. Their Foo Man Chu mustaches, tan skin, swords, and references to an Emperor and Empire are all designed to make them seem vaguely like China/Japan/Mongolia. They are designed to be different, foreign, and dangerous. The creators of the show built that feeling based off prejudices and feelings of the time. Most of that prejudice was racism against Asians, but it's not serendipity that it's the 'Klingon Empire' and not the 'Klingon Republic'. The Klingon Empire, Galactic Empire from Star Wars, the Dalek Empire, etc only work because the viewers dislike polities declared as 'empires'. In a timeline where monarchies and empires still stand and are accepted by people, that wouldn't be the case.

In a monarchy wank where an Alt-Hollywood is part of a monarchy, of course the Human faction would be one. It's a stand in for whatever country they live in. Their enemies would have to be different, foreign, and dangerous. Therefore I think it's logical that their enemies would be corrupt republics, military dictatorships, oligarchies, socialists, what have you. Enemies in sci-fi are based off of cultural fears and dislikes in our own society, and empires would not be feared in a timeline where they are common and mundane. I don't think its be related to whiggism or anti-whiggism.
 
Last edited:
There would probably be a larger emphasis on chaotic evil types, people like Trevor Philipps and the Joker would be the main antagonists. And there will also be a larger prescence of lawful-good types, so even if there is no politics or worldbuilding involved, the dynamic would probably be something like "the sherrif tries to stop a man who's essentially a GTA character" type of deal.
 
You could get the plot of "The Great Mouse Detective" or "Johnny English", where the villain is looking to supplant/remove the monarch to rule the country in their own fashion, in slightly more serious movies in place of the "Olympus had fallen" formula.
 
You could get the plot of "The Great Mouse Detective" or "Johnny English", where the villain is looking to supplant/remove the monarch to rule the country in their own fashion, in slightly more serious movies in place of the "Olympus had fallen" formula.
Or the "Olympus Has Fallen" formula (or more accurate, its equivalent ITTL) involves Prime Ministers instead of Presidents.
 
Or the "Olympus Has Fallen" formula (or more accurate, its equivalent ITTL) involves Prime Ministers instead of Presidents.
Very possibly, but the loss of Prime Ministers often doesn't have the same emotional punch as loss of the President or Monarch often does as head of the Executive (even if the PM is de facto head of the Executive). I think that PM's would end up featured more often when they are based around real people who were seen to be significant. The office doesn't have quite as much emotional power.
 
I'm not sure how big of a change this would be. Japan and the United Kingdom are both monarchies and have large film and media industries. We can look to them as examples. Doctor Who, Sherlock Holmes, James Bond, etc exist with scant references to monarchism, and they could just as easily take place in republics. So why is it that popular franchises made in what are republics OTL could not be made in monarchies? Sure there would be some changes, but I think overall things would stay the same.
Well, if you discount Sherlock's whole shooting the monogram "QV" into the wall of his residence, or that there's a James Bond called "On Her Majesty's Secret Service". Point taken.

Historical dramas about the royalty might be more common as there is more of a connection to them. And there are some new story telling opportunities. Like, legal dramas about the royal family on trial, or spy thrillers about the kidnapping of the crown prince, or political thrillers about a new, young, visionary king, or what have you. But overall stories that don't interact with politics much can be functionally identical, and stories that do will just happen to take place in monarchies rather than republics.
Makes sense
It is essentially the inverse of what we have OTL, where the human faction is generally a United States stand in and the aliens are all colorful representations of different and largely bygone government systems.
I remember one episode of a cartoon from years ago where the Crown Prince of some fictional country gave up the crown to be the first elected president of their country after spending some time in the USofA

In OTL, the Star Wars example literally has the good guys calling themselves "Rebel Alliance" (and formally "Alliance to Restore the Republic"). In the ATL, such heroes would be loyalists of the true Emperor, fighting against some depraved usurper who has instituted some kind of despotism rooted in an appeal to radical ideology, which is ("of course") a false-face for corruption and cruelty.
Except for purposes of irony, I agree that legitimists calling themselves the "Rebel Alliance" seems weird. Even the OTL legitimist groups had cooler sounding names (White Rose Society, Armée des Emigres etc).

the Joker would be the main antagonists
Mistah J needs a hole in the ground not a cell with a revolving door in Arkham. But take your point.
 
A society where monarchies exist and are widely accepted would presumably be one which is less focused on breaking free of oppressive societal expectations and "being your true self". So instead of coming-of-age stories where the main character chafes at society's restrictions but eventually ends up coming to accept their true self, we'd probably see the opposite -- characters who start off wanting to be free from societal norms, but gradually come to see the value of doing your duty and of being a productive member of society.
 
A society where monarchies exist and are widely accepted would presumably be one which is less focused on breaking free of oppressive societal expectations and "being your true self". So instead of coming-of-age stories where the main character chafes at society's restrictions but eventually ends up coming to accept their true self, we'd probably see the opposite -- characters who start off wanting to be free from societal norms, but gradually come to see the value of doing your duty and of being a productive member of society.
Paternalism and “social order”
 
A society where monarchies exist and are widely accepted would presumably be one which is less focused on breaking free of oppressive societal expectations and "being your true self". So instead of coming-of-age stories where the main character chafes at society's restrictions but eventually ends up coming to accept their true self, we'd probably see the opposite -- characters who start off wanting to be free from societal norms, but gradually come to see the value of doing your duty and of being a productive member of society.
Except in cases of Disney princesses.
 
What would a monarchist “Throne Pact” ideology that is explicitly monarchist without being generic right wing dictatorship look like? Paternalism and a emphasis on “social order” (using norms to uphold Traditional behavior instead of laws) and societal duty (. Any social reforms would be presented as “all groups can Contribute to Society”. The National Conservative vision of TradGermany! would look something like this
 
What would a monarchist “Throne Pact” ideology that is explicitly monarchist without being generic right wing dictatorship look like? Paternalism and a emphasis on “social order” (using norms to uphold Traditional behavior instead of laws) and societal duty (. Any social reforms would be presented as “all groups can Contribute to Society”. The National Conservative vision of TradGermany! would look something like this
Noblesse Oblige on steroids, perhaps.
 
What would a monarchist “Throne Pact” ideology that is explicitly monarchist without being generic right wing dictatorship look like? Paternalism and a emphasis on “social order” (using norms to uphold Traditional behavior instead of laws) and societal duty (. Any social reforms would be presented as “all groups can Contribute to Society”. The National Conservative vision of TradGermany! would look something like this

During the middle ages, kings were often seen as the natural allies of the commons against the nobility, since over-mighty nobles tended to both oppress the peasantry and ignore the king's commands. (During the Peasants' Revolt, for example, one of the peasants' demands was that the king should do away with the nobility altogether and rule his people directly.) Updated to the present day, I guess that might take the form of a hierarchical and socially-conservative society with a strong social safety net, pro-labour laws, and well-funded public services.
 
During the middle ages, kings were often seen as the natural allies of the commons against the nobility, since over-mighty nobles tended to both oppress the peasantry and ignore the king's commands. (During the Peasants' Revolt, for example, one of the peasants' demands was that the king should do away with the nobility altogether and rule his people directly.) Updated to the present day, I guess that might take the form of a hierarchical and socially-conservative society with a strong social safety net, pro-labour laws, and well-funded public services.
I need to change my pants 😛
 
A society where monarchies exist and are widely accepted would presumably be one which is less focused on breaking free of oppressive societal expectations and "being your true self". So instead of coming-of-age stories where the main character chafes at society's restrictions but eventually ends up coming to accept their true self, we'd probably see the opposite -- characters who start off wanting to be free from societal norms, but gradually come to see the value of doing your duty and of being a productive member of society.
Didn't the Bildungsroman predate the French Revolution though?
 
During the middle ages, kings were often seen as the natural allies of the commons against the nobility, since over-mighty nobles tended to both oppress the peasantry and ignore the king's commands. (During the Peasants' Revolt, for example, one of the peasants' demands was that the king should do away with the nobility altogether and rule his people directly.) Updated to the present day, I guess that might take the form of a hierarchical and socially-conservative society with a strong social safety net, pro-labour laws, and well-funded public services.
How would it respond to the influence more liberal societies ?
 
Top