[Dr. Sivana]

I don’t know. How many monarchies were not based on the premise of tyranny?

By definition, one-person-rule is tyrannical.

THAT depends on how expansive "rule" is. A fascist, military, or Communist dictatorship is FAR more expansive than most of the Christian Monarchies of the Middle Ages. And our own Republic is getting there (think COVID restrictions).

Kings had their own checks and balances, just different ones. It was the nobles in the 13th Century that got Magna Carta signed, but the King was still a King.

When King John refused the Pope's selection for Archbishop of Canterbury and seized church lands, the Pope placed England under interdict for six years, and John himself was excommunicated. John negotiated to get both lifted.

The English Common Law that we thankfully inherited was forged under English Monarchies.

[muir_redwoods]

You’re entitled to your opinion but, by definition, if DNA determines your leader, you’re dealing with a tyrannical government.