abstract: The adulation of Diana, even in the former American colonies, provides an object lesson in legitimacy. The British government traces its legitimacy to the crown, and Diana, Princess of Wales, has been a very visible symbol of the crown in recent years. Legitimacy is indespensible. Legitimacy is the difference between a State and an organized crime syndicate. I can confidently predict that, as irrelevant as the monarchy is to actual British government, and as unworthy is the conduct of most of that royal family, Britain would become ungovernable if the monarchy were abolished.

Skip Navigation

by William Gould

Amid all the hype surrounding the tragic death of Diana, Princess of Wales, it is worth considering why anybody would care. People are interested because Princess Di was a celebrity. She became a celebrity by attaining royalty, and she attracted a lot of attention by frequently appearing in public, and by being photogenic. The question remains, Why would an American care about the royal family of some other country, especially when the monarch has no actual governing authority. The present monarch is only a figurehead.

The answer is that figurehead is actually a very important office. It is from the crown that the British government obtains its claim to legitimacy. The source of legitimacy is not always be the same as the effective authority in civil government. The 19th century British political theorist, (and founder of The Economist, a news magazine) Bagehot, distinguished between the "dignified parts" and the "efficient parts" of government. Ray Sutton and Gary North distinguish between sovereignty (point one of Sutton covenant model) and authority (point two). In Britain legitimacy is invested in the crown, and governing authority in the Prime minister and House of Commons. In the United States legitimacy is invested in "We the people" and governing authority in the three branches of government. It is for this reason, that after a British election the monarch "invites" the winning party leader "to form a government." The government is theoretically subject to the crown.

Legitimacy is indespensible. Legitimacy is the difference between a State and an organized crime syndicate. I can confidently predict that, as irrelevant as the monarchy is to actual British government, and as unworthy is the conduct of most of that royal family, Britain would become ungovernable if the monarchy were abolished. It does not help The tabloid-style lives which most of the royal family lead, may severely strain their legitimacy after Queen Elizabeth dies.

The United States faces similar problems. Mostly because the throne of "We the people" is precarious. The growing perception that the judiciary will take all the big decisions, that elections are rigged, and that the elected officials are corrupt, and that actual governing authority has gone to an unelected bureaucracy, has sown doubt in the minds of the people. If "we the people" are not in charge, then these same people will no longer revere their govenrment. They will only then obey out of fear, and not of conscience. We are already seeing more of this when conscientious civil disobedience is practiced, and commended, over trivial matters of protest, and when tax evaders are not despised.

Both Britain and America need to reexamine where they have invested the legitimacy of their civil governments. Legitimate civil government is only from Jesus Christ (Romans 13:4). If the governments of the English-speaking world are to stand, they must abandon their autonomy and confess their subjection to Christ and His Law-Book for the nations. Otherwise the magistrate has no right to expect that the people will fulfill their duty to obey him.