[Aaron]

I wonder, when Tolkien says "Monarchy", would his ideal state of Monarchy be a later Anglo-Norman model of hereditary rule, or an earlier English elective Monarchy, where - as I understand it - Kings needed the consent of a Witan, a primordial parliament, in order to be crowned?
I agree with such a model myself, as I see the title of "King" or "Queen" as having deep cultural significance here in England. But I can not believe that Tolkien would overlook the problems of hereditary rule, the growing detachment from real people and the like.

For instance, when one looks at say Prince Charles, could you say he was connected with his people? Or had ever undergone real hardships? Whereas an earlier King like Alfred was not so removed from the plight of his people, and was both military commander and judge. Why, there is even a story of two common folk coming to the King to resolve a land dispute, but the King was in the bath, and so, as he sat in the tub, he heard their cases and rendered judgement then and there! Could you imagine a modern day Windsor monarch being so at ease with the English working classes?

Tolkien was an educated man, but one shaped by hardship, who bettered himself and pulled himself up by the bootstraps. Would he really have liked a decadent Royal class who worked half as hard as he, and reaped twice the benefits?