My wife and I have recently seen The Queen—the movie, that is, not the monarch herself. I haven't seen her in person since I was 6 or 7 years of age and she came to visit our hometown in England.

I was reminded of this by another movie we saw recently, a rare gem from New Zealand that was available for rent at our local video store. The name of that movie was Her Majesty, which told the story of a young girl in New Zealand back in 1954 when the British Empire was still fairly intact. The queen, having only recently ascended the throne, was making a tour of the empire. The young girl in the movie was determined that the queen should visit the small town of Middleton, New Zealand, and began a one-girl campaign of daily letter writing to Buckingham Palace. Her letters resulted in "Her Majesty" visiting the small community.

In contrast, The Queen is a more adult drama, focusing almost exclusively on the events that took place in the week between the death of Princess Diana and her funeral.

Princess Diana's death was the first major crisis confronting the new government of Prime Minister Tony Blair. His party had won a general election in early May of 1997. Princess Diana was killed less than four months later. Mr. Blair at that time was still quite popular. The queen's popularity was to be severely tested in the days following the death of her former daughter-in-law.

It should be remembered that meetings between the queen and her prime ministers are kept confidential, so nobody knows exactly what was said between Tony Blair and the queen during the week leading up to the funeral. Palace insiders, however, have been quoted as saying that the movie gets it right. Both the prime minister and the queen come out looking good, which is not the case for everybody else involved.

It is often forgotten outside the United Kingdom that Tony Blair is the leader of Britain's Labour Party. As a socialist party, many of its members are naturally antimonarchy, seeing monarchy as an antiquated system of privilege. Tony Blair dismisses the idea of Britain without a monarchy as "unthinkable." This view is not shared by his wife, Cherie, who is of Irish-Catholic background.

Duty before self

The film highlights the dilemma of Queen Elizabeth II not only during the week of the crisis, but also at other times—duty must always come before self! Today, to most people, that is an antiquated outlook on life. But it's the way the queen was brought up.

My mother was born just a few days after the queen. She had the same outlook on life—duty before self! Her family always came first. This was clearly a virtue among many of their generation.

In contrast, the apostle Paul writes of our era, "But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves..." (2 Timothy 3:1-2). Self-centeredness rules!

Jesus Christ showed the contrast, when He condemned the style of leadership common in the gentile world. "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave—just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many" (Matthew 20:25-28).

An attitude of service is required of any leader seeking to serve people successfully.

Queen Elizabeth, then Princess Elizabeth, turned 21 while in Johannesburg , South Africa. She, her sister and her parents, King George VI and his wife (also named Elizabeth, who became known as the queen mother after her husband's death), were on a tour of the empire specifically to thank the various nations that composed the British Empire for the contributions they had made to help Britain during World War II.

Speaking to the peoples of the empire on April 21, 1947, on the occasion of her coming of age, Princess Elizabeth uttered the following: "I declare before you all that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great Imperial family to which we all belong...God help me to make good my vow and God bless all of you who are willing to share in it."

Elizabeth, who became queen upon the death of her father less than five years later, has certainly lived up to the commitment she made. However, she was not able to preserve the "great Imperial family" she spoke of, for the empire was transformed during her reign as its component parts received full independence. Earlier in her speech she had spoken of "the British Empire which had saved the world, and 'has now to save itself,' and of making the Commonwealth more full, prosperous and happy" (Ben Pimlott, The Queen: A Biography of Elizabeth II, 1996, p. 117).

Of course, no human government is perfect. That adjective can only be used to describe the coming Kingdom of God, which will be established at Christ's return (Isaiah 9:6-7). But the fact remains that the period of British rule in much of the third world gave the various peoples political stability that they have not experienced since, parliamentary government (which has frequently been abolished during periods of dictatorship) and economic development. These benefits have mostly gone backwards in the four decades since independence.

Bible prophecy emphasizes the role that the modern descendants of Israel would play in the world in the period before Christ's second coming. Israel told his son Joseph that his name would be named upon his two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh (Genesis 48:16). In other words, they are primarily the Israel of today. One of these two sons, Ephraim, was to become "a multitude of nations" (Genesis 48:19). The other son, Manasseh, "also shall be great" (verse 19).

"Ephraim" means "fruitful." A great deal of economic development took place throughout the world during the British colonial period. Some of the most successful economies of today were initially developed as British territories.

"And thus he set Ephraim before Manasseh" (verse 20). Ephraim's greatness came before Manasseh's. The British Empire was the fulfillment of the prophesied "multitude of nations." Common values were shared throughout the empire, but no institution was more important in holding it together than the British crown, to which all its member countries owed a common allegiance.

It wasn't until Queen Victoria (who ruled from 1837 to 1901) that the modern monarchy emerged and became popular, partly as a result of Victoria 's personal dedication to duty before self. This attitude set the trend for future monarchs. Only Edward VIII (1936) succumbed to the vanity of self before duty, as evidenced by his affair with, and then his marriage to, a twice-divorced woman, costing him the throne.

The monarchy has played an extremely important role in the long political stability of those nations that have retained a direct link to the crown. They have enjoyed a greater period of longevity than the peoples of other nations. Not since 1689 has Britain suffered any political upheaval.

Fifteen other nations in addition to the United Kingdom have retained a direct link to the crown, making Queen Elizabeth II the monarch of 16 fully independent countries. Her ceremonial role in the other 15 is filled by a governor-general, but the loyalty is to the queen herself, who visits the various nations regularly.

The 38 other former British colonies that make up the Commonwealth of Nations all have presidents. Many of them have suffered through periods of instability since independence, including decades of brutal dictatorship.

Another new movie, The Last King of Scotland, highlights this contrast. The film is set in Uganda, a country that went from Elizabeth II to Idi Amin in less than a decade. Idi Amin seized power violently and had an estimated 10 percent of the nation's people killed. The movie title is inspired by his irrational desire to be the king of Scotland.

The American historian James Truslow Adams predicted the troubles that would come from the demise of the Empire in his history, The British Empire 1784-1939, published in 1940. Writing during the Battle of Britain when the British Empire seemed in danger of falling, he warned that "the possible overthrow of the British Empire would be a catastrophe scarcely thinkable. Not only would it leave a vacuum over a quarter of the globe into which all the wild winds of anarchy, despotism and spiritual oppression could rush, but the strongest bulwark outside ourselves [outside the United States] for our own safety and freedom would have been destroyed" (p. 358).

In view of the developments of the last five decades, it is interesting to note an irony in the movie The Queen. Concerned that polls showed that one quarter of the British people had turned against her during the week that was the subject of the film, the queen expressed concern to the prime minister.

The irony? Any politician would be ecstatic if only 25 percent of the population was against him or her! Politicians on both sides of the Atlantic and around the world could learn a lesson from Queen Elizabeth, who has been serving the people longer than any of them: If you wish to remain popular, be sure to put "duty before self."

For a deeper understanding of the role of the English-speaking nations in Bible prophecy, please request our free booklet The United States and Britain in Bible Prophecy from our office nearest you or on the Web at www.wnponline.org. WNP