Maybe that explains why I find myself more and more aligned with Alexander Hamilton’s thinking regarding that very issue. ;-)
The problem with representative government is that
a) it is not based upon the natural form of human social organization (i.e. the family);
b) most people are not intellectually capable of understanding the issues involved in making the decisions required to govern, and
c) most people are sheeplike followers, which makes them prey for smooth-tongued demagogues.
Eventually, all republics degenerate into mob rule as one charismatic demagogue seizes the power of the mobs and establishes a cult of personality. So long as a given republic is small and limited in its power, such a tyranny can be escaped or contained. But in a world like ours, where continent-spanning empires wield the power to kill and oppress people on a vast scale, the danger of a “people’s leader” coming to power via the ballot box is just too great.
A Christian king is limited in power politically by his coronation oath, and militarily by the loyalty of his independently-armed vassals. Should a given king transgress his oath, the Church may sanction him or withdraw his authority to govern in the name of God, thus ending the duty of his subjects and vassals to obey him; in such cases, on or more of his vassals may legitimately take up arms against him and restore lawful government.