Folks, I always wanted to know has ever been considered royalty? No on earth, but you know like a kryptonian prince.

If he was royalty, the people of Krypton would have listened to Jor-el

Yeah you got a point there.

No, I wouldn't like that. It sounds so cliche for some reason. Plus it doesn't fit Krypton's system. It takes away from Jor-El's torment, for wanting to save a planet that doesn't listen to him, I mean if he was the king, his infuence would be better.
I can't really explain it but Kal-El being a heir to the throne doesn't add anything since he is the heir to Krypton's civilization anyway.

I never saw anything in Krypton's culture or society that indicated that there was a monarchy or ruling family in there. The council seems to be the ruling authority and though it may not be democratic per se, Krypton's hierarchy doesn't seem anything like a feudal monarchy. Besides, it makes more sense for Krypton to be governed by a council than a monarchy given how far advanced they were compared to humanity in general.

Krypton didn't have a monarchy. In the comics they were governed by the Science Council of which Jor-El was part of or if you go by Man of Steel they were governed also by a Council made up of the Leadership Caste.

Not to my knowledge. Sometimes Krypton portrayed as a society divided on casts, with noble Houses. In this instance Kal-El could be considered as an heir to the House of El; but it wouldn’t have any political/power ramifications. Jor-El, though often portrayed as a member of ruling Council, didn’t have any sway over it.

He was certainly in the nobility, or at least the Kryptonian equivalent of it. In almost every incarnation of Superman, the House of El was extremely powerful, influential, and in some cases, even seemingly regal. In Man of Steel, for instance, there were twelve major families on Krypton, El, Zod and Ul being three of them.

An oligarchy or democracy is no more advanced or primitive than a monarchy or autocracy.

@reactor: Democracy is still more fair than the monarchies and autocracies of the past no?

Depends on your viewpoint or approach, and also depends on the individuals in power. For better or worse, propaganda colors many concepts. I'd say world history has better experience and exposure with various monarchies and dynasties, specifically failed or abusive ones, than the forms of democracies commonly exercised today.

There are certainly more liberties in democracies than absolute governments, without a doubt, but I don't necessarily equate that with overall systematic fairness, as there are also certainly millions - many justifiably - that have claimed to have been mistreated or otherwise unfairly dealt with in democratic government. So I'd say at most that there are more civil freedoms in a democracy, but is not by default fairer

I really can't see the validity in the notion that history has better experience with monarchies than democracies. In a democracy, there is at least a chance of civil freedoms and fairness. With absolute monarchies, such options are severely limited and many more have suffered under the banner of absolutism than any have ever suffered in a democracy.