Great question! I'm not an expert on the UB like these other guys but here is my two cents
I believe the Divine Right of Kings is erroneous and hurtful to society. The best way to steer ourselves straight of this error might be to consider a practical example. A great practical example is how Jesus dealt with the civil magistrate in the UB when his brother Jude had verbally exploded on a guard.
It repeatedly states that Jesus and Jude were delayed in their plans by this unnecessary happening. If Jude had held his tongue, being circumspect in his reasoning as his older brother Jesus was, Jude could've avoided being arrested and the prospect of losing his freedom.
In stark contrast, Jesus was calmly respectful to all authorities involved, both the guard, and the judge. He was diplomatic and congenial, yet he was not a doormat. He didn't hesitate to disagree with the authorities' decision when it came to the actual fact of his brother's freedom.
This is why, even though I personally believe in a politically minimal state
I don't go to the branches of government offices that I believe aren't necessary and throw rocks through their windows or try to steal property from them, that is, the very disorder most minimal state people are accused of wanting.
When I am pulled over by an officer, I don't tell him about my political philosophy, namely, that I used my own judgment - shape of the road - the car, amount of cars around me, potential danger to myself and others, condition of my tires, windspeed, etc. to determine that I was quite safe in driving 10 MPH over the limit. That is irrelevant. All I do is smile, look him in the eye, act congenially, and help him/her as best as possible to do their job which is to state my violation and cite me appropriately. This attitude of friendliness and willingness to cooperate has resulted in only two tickets out of the dozen or so times I've been pulled over, and warnings all the other times.
Cops are eager to reward good behavior, so-to-speak. Other authorities share this trait. Usually what the authority wants is to feel powerful and important. All the subordinate must do is respect this wish, and without flattering them, make sure not to violate it either. "Civil servants," even if they fail at being worthy servants, always want to feel like they are helping society. Police long to cite actual
criminals, and want to reward innocence. I think most cops probably feel pretty good about themselves when they can reward a non-criminal, while still making a show of their authority and power being acknowledged and appreciated. Everyone longs for that appreciation. Police are usually already appreciation-starved, which is probably why some snap and shoot at people that aren't threats. I'm not saying this gives them an excuse, only that people who hate the police never do themselves any favors when they show it quite too much, as Jude did.
I believe this attitude is what stems Paul's admonition to the Romans, namely, that they subject themselves to their civil authorities, their authority being derived from God. In modern language, perhaps Paul was trying to say:
"So that you don't bring reproach upon the Church or yourselves, never be unwilling to publicly demonstrate subjection to the governing authorities. To learn the process of respecting one's fellows in such a way fulfills the second and greatest commandment, developing a heart-attitude of love and respect for your fellows in government, even if the legitimacy of their authority is duly questionable." I made this idea up to justify civil disobedience to other Christians who misunderstand Paul. Whatever Paul did, the authorities didn't think twice about beheading him when the time came, and I highly doubt this reaction on part of the authorities was the result of a simpering Paul who wanted to follow their rules at any cost.
This is why I think the divine right of kings is such a heinous error. It seems as though people have taken an initially innocuous statement and turned it into a means for power over others--the exact opposite of what Paul intended. Paul wanted freedom internally and externally for his people, his Churches not to be arrested, maligned by others, or stymied for pointless and unproductive public demonstrations of rebellion against whatever authority happened to be governing over them at the time. Paul also said "As much as it is up to you, be at peace with all men." Outright subjection to civil declarations is not peace, but war. The war is between the self and who has a right to enact moral principles within that self. Jesus makes it clear in the UB, when it comes to ourselves and society the individual person must decide for themselves to do right or to do wrong; this is an evolutionary imperative. Morality cannot be forced from the outside, to do so more likely frustrates evolution than advances it. It is the individual decisions of God-knowing mortals that advance the race, not group decisions about what morals to enforce upon others.
Even Jesus, in response to the greatest rebellion in His universe, his immediate attitude towards such rebellion is stated in TUB as being one of non-interference. He wanted to give his straying son Lucifer every single chance to choose to turn away from evil, even if that brought the rest of us "the family," of his universe, lower for 200,000+ years. That's how much God values the role of the individual in choosing to do good on their own and not through coercion. It follows then, that it cannot be justified for a comparatively crappy government on Earth that they should deem to use the methods of force to create morality in the hearts of its people. Force is only a means to an end, but when force becomes the means AND the end
of creating change in society, as is often the case, this is, in my opinion, the quintessential essence of government devolution, and has often been the result of strict adherence to the doctrine of "the Divine Right of Kings."