There are people who believe they have a divine right to rule over you. Those people believe so because they're under an impression that this right is passed down to them. They also refer to what's in the Bible for this idea. So it doesn't matter what you think about the Bible. That's irrelevant to them.
The further they trace this inheritamce back to some ancient King or Queen, the more substantial the claim. If they can trace this back further to Jesus, King David or Solomon described in the Bible, as being called by God directly to rule, they assume this Divine right is bestowed on them too. At least some do.
But let's imagine we all came from the same first family. It's what I heard from genetic studies about the origin of our DNA that it's traceable to a single mother and father. The Bible also describes a first man and woman being directly called by God to take care of the world. So if we all derive from the first father and mother that held the original claim of custodianship over the world, everything else is irrelevant. This blood right has no substance.
There's another claim however.
There's the claim that we abdicate our right to self governence because we show we aren't ready for it. We show this by breaking a very simple rule.
This rule is found in all traditions, religions, kingdoms and secret societies etc. When it is absent, these collectives of people don't survive. It's why civilisations after civilisations fall. So it's highly valuable when it's properly in place. That's why it's called the royal law or the golden rule.
Simple ways to say this are "treat others as you would have them treat you" or "the sun shines on both the holy and the thief". If people are sufficiently capable to rule themselves and bring no harm to themselves, others and life in general, there's no reason to excercise authority over them.
Doing so makes it clear the so-called ruler has some interest at stake, and they pursue rulership over people because of bias or prejudice towards that interest. That also implies a different sets of rules. One for rulers one for the ruled. But that's not the job of rulers, the job is about applying rules consistently. Remember, treat others (with the same rules) as you seek for them to treat you (by those rules).
So the actual divine right to rule is based on our remaining in honour to that simple rule. When we demonstrate ourselves to be in dishonour, by our prejudice, bias, self interest, we abdicate our right to rule. That act is a handing over our sovereignty to intermediaries between us and the divine, those whom might call themselves guardians, who take care of our free will for us until we can demonstrate integrity and humility. While we deny that, and truth is, there's so much disinformation promoted obscuring these simple ideas, we are saying we are not ready for further revelations.
So if the Queen of England for example is found to have bias and prejudice based on pursuit of her personal, financial or social interests, she abdicates her office.
The point is however the Queen took her oath to claim her office. Have we? I think we should.