While small troops of chimps can have their more dominant males, and the same with gorillas and their silverbacks, being a proper King requires more than simply being better at combat compared to your peers. It requires keeping thousands, if not millions, of people in check and obedient to your edicts.
Are there many historical accounts of how hereditary rule emerged?
I would question your implied premise that hereditary rule is generally exceptional or regarded as oppressive. Hereditary chieftaincy is known from prehistory and observed in societies all around the world. It's about as close a thing to instinct as anyone could label anything in human social practice. Moreover, what people want from political systems is reliability and predictability -- hereditary systems have the fabulous virtues that you don't have to fight over who is boss and the government has an inherent bias to long-term thinking.
I'd have a peek at accounts of things like the origins of the Ottoman Empire or the Manchu Chinese. Essentially 'tribal' origins, building up into expanding and collective polities. I'm not sure what you mean by a 'proper king' though... how many people would you have to rule for that? Some have 'conquered' an existing bureaucracy and administration (see the Manchu/ Qing), others built up their kingdoms from scratch. In general I'd say that codes of honour and kinship were pretty crucial, particularly in how they built up networks and hierarchies of loyalty.
Perhaps what you're getting at is how rulers legitimised themselves once they were king using religion etc., but I also question the premise that there's much more than force and family-group instinct at work. Plus ofc the patriarchy.
There were a few Roman emperors of humble birth (the Eastern Romans eventually reverted to using a word that meant king, so I hope this works for you). Every one of them became emperor through the military, which for a lot of it's history, was generally technocratic.