Many of those I'd write off to Tolkien being a product of his times. At least his heroes seemed to have many ideals which are still accounted virtuous.
Tolkien's monarchism, though - even in the days of the Old Testament, it was obvious that hereditary monarchy never, ever worked for long. Because the heirs of great men always regressed to the mean. Pretty damn fast. (After King George III, Britain mostly solved that problem by turning their hereditary monarchs into mostly-symbolic figureheads.) And Tolkien served in the hellish trenches of WWI - a war which dug deep, dark graves for both hereditary monarchy and European superiority.
Hmm...in many ways, I could argue that Tolkien's fantasy writings were mostly escapism for him - to a old-fashioned romantic utopia, where "land of milk and honey, and the kingdom is powerful and prosperous, and the king is always good" was at least possible. And consider the massive decline in the real Britain's fortunes between Tolkien boyhood (~1900), and LOTR's publication (~1955)...
Tolkien called conlang'ing (and by extension, worldbuilding?) "the solitary vice": a phrase which would have had a different denotation in his Edwardian childhood than the rather literal denotation we ascribe to it.
Lagniappe: https://www.reddit.com/r/conlangs/comments/8f425o/sex_in_you...
Exercise for the reader: how solarpunk would wider europe be now, if the British Empire and the German Empire (and their descendants) hadn't played Sith Master/Apprentice games, not once but twice, last century? (1914-1918 and 1939-1945)
Well, there are two products-of-their-time: the writer and the reader.
Grendel
The Persian Version
Snow, Glass, Apples
(I have half a mind to write an epistolary short story from the point of view of one of Winston Smith's coworkers at the Ministry of Truth, dismayed about Smith's paranoiac reactions to normal office routine —colleagues transferring, etc.—, his labile personality[0] in general, and his conspiratorial mindset[1] in particular. All the objective events of Parts 1 and 2 can easily be explained much more rationally than in Smith's interpretations, but Part 3, being so explicit, has thus far resisted such treatment)Lagniappe: "there can be no peace until they renounce their Rabbit God and accept our Duck God" https://www.newyorker.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/141201_...
EDIT: also, Bulgakov's hard-boiled detective version of the gospel (his who-dun-it has a pragmatic advantage in that although christians and jews both still exist, no extant groups claim to belong to the Senatus PopulusQue Romanus)
[0] consider how quickly he hooked up with somone who merely dropped papers in front of him?
[1] want someone to kill people in a random pizzeria for conspiracy reasons? Smith's your man.
I like the idea. I think the part 3 can co-exist the new interpretation of parts 1 and 2 -- Smith can be a conspiracy nut amid mundane reality but Big Brother's security apparatus nonetheless exists and for some reason eventually gets interested in Smith.