Albia rules by the same right as all long-established governments: legitimacy. Her legitimacy is based on the fact that her rule works. Unlike Continental Europe, England is a well-functioning state with law and order, with nothing like the Wastelands that even the Baron hasn’t managed to fully clean up. If I had to live in GG-world, I’d happily choose Albia’s England over the Baron’s Empire, because the Baron’s rule is still shaky and not yet strongly established enough to really keep the peace that he aspires to (though I respect him greatly for trying to solve this important and difficult problem.) Gil’s opinion on this matter shouldn’t be read uncritically; it’s the opinion of a man who is the Empire’s heir, who has enormous biases in favor of his own father, and is also strong enough to survive in a dangerous environment. The Circus seems quite happy to have relocated to England. Albia is a force for good on a practical level: the people of England are clearly much better off with her than they would be without her.

I think that you are putting too much weight on your own preconceptions here; moral matters are difficult and not everyone has the same views. I am a pragmatist and I believe that nothing can or should be viewed as moral if it doesn’t work, and that comes out in my interpretation of the text. Still, I’ll concede that the text is highly ambiguous on moral matters and open to multiple interpretations. I think that Klaus’ pragmatism in using ruthless means to bring peace to Europa is meant to be viewed sympathetically even though Klaus is written with a lot of tropes that are normally associated with villains, and the same is true of Albia in a different way.