The Stuarts tended toward personal rule; afterward, monarchs tended to defer to Parliament. If any monarchs were being tyrannical, it's the former.
Parliament, being a body representative of the governed, had every right to determine who and under what conditions the de jure chief executive would be. Would you have preferred a nice long bloody war?
The American Revolution had nothing to do with who the monarch was. It was a matter of principle, that nobody should be taxed without a voice in the decision to levy that tax (but tell that to DC...), and later American envoys to the United Kingdom stated that had the colonies been given fair representation in the Commons and the Lords, they would not have rebelled. It was the British assertion of their supposed right to legislate for their colonies without those same colonies having any voice in the decision that sparked the rebellion.
I am a fan of monarchy, and I prefer it to (almost) any form of republic, but I favour parliamentary constitutional monarchy, in which Parliament exercises the legislative power and determines through the confidence mechanism who shall exercise, de facto, the executive power, and the monarch, while still the de jure chief executive, actually wields only the reserve powers and then only at direst need.