Huh? I mean, monarchy was fine and dandy if you lucked into a wise, benevolent monarch. But history is chock full of monarchs who basically were looking to advance their own interests and glory, and the welfare of the powerless peasantry of their own country be damned. Also, if you were unfortunate enough to be in a country adjacent to a kingdom that was aggressive (which was really most of them), you most certainly were threatened by them.
"Choice"? It was the "choice" of those who had enough support from the military castes to force their rule upon others, who were generally not involved in that "choosing". Rule of the strongest.
There were literally hundreds of (overwhelmingly unsuccessful) peasant revolts in medieval European history alone
------------------------------
While all are entitled to their opinions, history deals in reality not gossip.
Man's earliest cultures were tribal/communitarian in form.
Then nation/state governance began evolving slowly in the extensions
of the Fertile Crescent around 7000 BC. primarily in Egypt and Persia.
Governance/rule became hierarchical w/the Family Unit as the template,
derived from the Natural Law; along w/a pyramidal class system and Monarch.
This largely persisted for some 9000 years, until the modern era.
Mankind's greatest advances/achievements occurred under Monarchy
such as the dawn of western civilization under Greek Kings, such as
Philip of Macedon and his son Alexander, as well as many Roman Emperors;
giving birth to the Art and Science of Europe which transformed our world.
If nothing else, Monarchy represented continuity and stability while recognizing
that Men are imperfect and unequal. Yet the modern world, in thrall to democracy,
has bought into the horse manure that we are all equal and good guys.
The destruction and devastation that has occurred across the globe since the
French Revolution is mute testament as to which governance was superior for Man.
