Monarchy did NOT evolve from representative government. Monarchy is a REGRESSION back toward tribalism!
Example: Saddam Hussein was the "monarch" over Iraq. Most people hated him.
They didn't hate the fact that there was a monarch. What they hated was the fact that the monarch was from a different tribe!
Most people in those primitive, ****hole countries are DELIGHTED when their own tribe has conquered all the other tribes!
They LOVE it when the members of their own tribe get all the power and privilege!
------------------------------
My use of the label "evolved" was careless and I withdraw it. Nevertheless, representative governance
usually preceded Monarchy, commencing in ancient times, as history attests.
Examples include the Greek Assembly predating the Kings of Macedon and the Roman Senate, likewise w/its Emperors.
More critically, Monarchy has produced far more o/s leaders and statesmen than representative governance down thru history. Various Royal houses of Europe are testament to that reality; among them the House of Hapsburg which ruled Austria, Hungary
& Spain as well as the Holy Roman Empire, for hundreds of years.
Additionally Carolingian rule in France was transformative as were the Houses of Plantagenet, Lancaster & York in England.
The type of rule is irrelevant while the quality of national leadership is critical.
We are currently addicted to assholery, choosing Bush, Clinton, Obama, Trump and Biden for our last 5.
Reflect on what our present condition might be, had a clone of Julius Caesar been available to lead us instead!!!