Further to Lib-Dem MP Evan Harris's unsuccessful Private Member's Bill to amend the Act of Settlement and announcements that, although Mr Harris's Bill did not receive Government support, the Government is proposing to bring forward its own proposals to amend the Act, it seems to me that hardly a day passes without there being some call from one quarter or another for the 1689 Bill of Rights and 1701 Act of Settlement to be amended or repealed to allow the monarch to be, or marry, a Roman Catholic.

In December 1999, for example, Former Secretary of State for Scotland and a Past Chairman of the Scottish Conservative Party, Lord (Michael) Forsyth of Drumlean, unsuccessfully tabled a motion in the House of Lords ‘that an humble petition be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty may be graciously pleased to allow that Her undoubted prerogative and interest may not stand in the way of the consideration by Parliament during the present session of any measure to remove the bar on a person who is not, or who is married to a person who is not, a Protestant to succeed to the Crown'.

Three years later, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, the Roman Catholic Primate of England & Wales called for an end to the constitutional bar on Members of the Royal Family marrying Roman Catholics and excluding themselves from the line of succession in the process, whilst three days prior to the Cardinal's call Kevin MacNamara (then Labour MP for Hull North and a well-known apologist for republican causes, introduced a Ten Minute Rule Bill in the House of Commons to amend Section 3 of the Treason Felony Act 1848 in order to establish that it is no longer an offence to express an opinion either in favour of republicanism or advocating the abolition of the monarchy; to amend the Act of Settlement 1701 to provide that persons in communion with the Roman Catholic Church are able to succeed to the Crown; and to amend the Oaths Act 1978 relating to the parliamentary oath to avoid MPs having to swear an oath of allegiance to the monarch before taking their seats in the House of Commons. Whilst MacNamara's Bill shamefully received a Second Reading by 170 votes to 32 it, thankfully, did not proceed any further and failed to become law; nevertheless, the high number of MPs who voted for its Second Reading should be cause for concern for anyone and everyone who supports the monarchy.

Both during the Queen's Golden Jubilee in 2002 and the 400th Anniversary of the Union of Crowns in 2003, there were further calls for either the dissolution or, at least, the deprotestantisation of the monarchy. In 2005 both Former Northern Ireland Office Minister and Labour Peer Lord (Alf) Dubs and Ann Taylor (Labour MP for Dewsbury) unsuccessfully introduced Bills in the House of Lords and House of Commons respectively to amend the Act of Settlement and make provision about succession to the throne and royal marriages, whilst shortly before the marriage of HRH The Prince of Wales and Camilla Parker-Bowles, Cardinal Keith O'Brien Primate of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland made a scathing attack on the Act of Settlement describing its ban on the monarch, and the heir to the throne from being (or marrying) a Roman Catholic as 'hurtful' and 'discriminatory'.

The Cardinal said 'It is a matter of regret, surely, that had Mrs Parker-Bowles been a Catholic, Prince Charles would have lost the right to succession to the throne … and that's hurtful. Here in Scotland, one in five of the population are equally loyal Catholics. So why should Prince Charles, or any heir to our throne, not be able to marry not just someone of the Anglican Faith, but someone who is a Muslim or a Roman Catholic'?

The answer to the Cardinal's question – which must be echoed throughout the land to counter his claim – is that as the monarch is also Supreme-Governor of the Church of England and Defender of The (Protestant Reformed) Faith, it would be irresponsible and unconstitutional for the heir to the throne to be – when he/she succeeded to the throne – theoretically Supreme-Governor of one church whilst belonging to another (or any other faith for that matter) and Defender of one faith whilst embracing the doctrines of another religion which is diametrically opposed to the teachings of the Reformed Faith he/she professes to defend. Whilst the ecumenical movement has done much to mask the division between the teachings of the Protestant and Roman Catholic Churches, there remain fundamental differences between them, not least who is Head of the Church (Christ or the Pope) and the way of personal salvation, which makes it imperative that there be no change to the Act of Settlement, lest the United Kingdom cease to be an independent and, albeit nominally, 'Protestant' state and become merely a satellite of the Holy See.

Indeed, in his excellent paper entitled 'The Sovereign Community of the Realm', published as a special report for the Queen's Golden Jubilee, Alistair McConnachie (Editor of SOVEREIGNTY) correctly observed that "the Act of Settlement of 1701 decrees that the monarch cannot be a Roman Catholic, and neither the monarch nor the heir to the throne can marry a Roman Catholic. This may seem anachronistic, in our multi-religious society today, but there is – whatever one may think of it – a reason.

"At the Queen's coronation oath she is asked, ‘Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland … and of your Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs? … Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgements? … Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law'? The Protestant doctrine is that the national monarch is supreme governor, next under God, of all estates in his or her realm.

"At the Pope's coronation it is said to him, ‘Receive the tiara adorned with three crowns, and know that thou art Father of Kings and Princes, Ruler of the World, and Vicar on Earth of Jesus Christ'. The Roman Catholic doctrine is that the Pope has international authority over all national monarchs. Thus, the Protestant and Roman Catholic conceptions of monarchy are quite different. A practising [Roman] Catholic monarch would submit to the Pope as the highest temporal and spiritual authority in the land, and this would have religious, constitutional, political and social implications for the country – although the extent to which these would impact upon an increasingly secular society, is indeed arguable".

Accordingly, it is imperative that constitutional monarchists and unionists (in all parties and none) act now to champion the Protestant succession, and oppose any and every attempt to further either to repeal the Act of Settlement or diminish/extirpate the Protestant basis of the Coronation Oath.

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!