To answer this question you are asking us to write the political history of your alien civilization, without knowing anything about them. We're not a brainstorming site. Asking us to write the history of your world for you isn't a suitable question for this site.

I don't understand why you think a monarchy is inherently luddite.

Do you want a monarchy (only defining feature: hereditary commander-in-chief, the monarch) or a more fully fledged feudal system (many, many positions in society hereditary, including a large hereditary semi-slave class)? The first one is pretty easy, the second not so much.

So Sweden doesn't have electricity? Is that what you're getting at?

look up constitutional monarchy, like the UK, Belgium, Spain, ect.

Uuhhh... Most of humanity's technological progress in the last 1000-1500 years has been made under the rule of a European monarchy, an Arab caliphate or an Asian dinasty. Age of Discovery? Scientific Revolution? Age of Enlightenment? And that's Europe alone. There's nothing inherently anti-science nor anti-progress in a monarchy.

Go ask Richard Branson why is he flying around in space on his Virgin Spaceship when he is a citizen of the United Kingdom ruled by the Queen.

Look up "benign dictatorship"

“Monarchy” and “Democracy” are not conflicting concepts. Unless you consider Spain, UK, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, etc. not democratic (and not "advanced" technologically) ?

@Cyril, in practice, I think you could consider most of those democracies, advanced, and not-monarchies. A figurehead king/queen without any powers (or next to any) isn't really meaningful.

Even still, many nations have had rapid modernization under an Absolute Monarch (consider Russia under Tsar Peter the Great and Catherine the Great. Or Japan under the Meiji Restoration, which was the start of Japan's Imperial Era when the Emperor had greater control over the government of Japan).

@stackoverblown To be pedantic, the Queen, and the British Monarchy hasn't ruled anything of value in a very long time. They are quite literally the Kardashians of the UK - nothing more.

@SnakeDoc The Queen still has a big say in legislation that affect her or her family's interests: The huge number of laws subject to royal vetting cover matters ranging from justice, social security, pensions, race relations and food policy through to obscure rules on car parking charges and hovercraft.

Depending on your criteria for 'better' there are plenty of good arguments for democracy being better than a dictatorship or monarchy, particularly in the long run, but there is nothing inherent in monarchy that will preclude scientific advancement so I have more than a little trouble understanding what you think the difficulty might be.

🤔 rather than simply 'monarchy' are you perhaps imagining a highly stratified social system with serfs, a single ruler, between them administrators (the nobles) and no room for innovators and scientists? .. not all forms of monarchy are like that & even in those that are you will find innovators & inventors among the nobles who will have some spare time to indulge themselves with a little scientific study so even in such a stratified society there will in the long term be scientific advance it can just be expected to take longer.

Isn't the question equivalent to: "How does monarchy hinder technical progress?"

Stargate made this, was super easy to implement. Aliens have higher-ups with "blue blood" that are the bosses. Over time the dominating "house" grew so big that they had many like "sub-leaders" (like corporals) around

@U.Windl "Isn't the question equivalent to" no it's not, not even a little bit, for some baffling and unfathomable reason it makes the absurd assumption that monarchy halts all technical progress, which is not the same thing as your suggested equivalent, it in no way asks 'how' it does that, it simply assumes this incorrect assumption is true and asks how to sidestep that nonexistent problem to allow spacetravel.