We mostly hear and talk about Guru Nanak and Guru Gobind, and I was curious about the other 8, like how they were chosen, what happened during their reign, etc. And I was quite shocked to learn that after the 3rd or 4th Guru, all of them were related by blood. For example sons, or uncles, or son in-laws, etc. To me that seems a bit Monarchist. Now I know they all went through their own "trials" because some had brothers who were not chosen - "because of their practice of miracles" and other sins. But still the search for the next Guru was never that far to look for - all in the family. I really find it hard to believe, that no other person (yes even female) outside the Guru's bloodline, was ever qualified to be the next Guru - to pass the torch if you will. To continue the teachings of their predecessors. History is pretty clear that religious history (Sikh, Hindus, Muslim, Jewish, Christians) was male dominated. But then again, most of history was. My timings might be off but when Guru Gobind declared that there shall be no other physical Guru, and that what was in the SGGS was final, was that after or before he lost his sons. The reason I ask this is because, was his decision to end the line of Gurus because the didn't have anyone he "trusted" that was blood related to pass the "torch" to? Or did he for-see something else.