A letter to the Sunday Times, the first paragraph of which was published on 1st May 2011.

Rather than barring Catholics specifically from the throne, the 1701 Act of Settlement stipulates British sovereigns be “heirs of the body of the Princess Sophia, Electress of Hanover, being Protestant” (“Race is on to change law of succession”, News, April 17).  The act thus excludes all those who are not of the Protestant faith, not just Catholics.  This is consistent with the requirement that the sovereign is also the supreme governor of the Church of England.

It is also not the case as stated in the article that “endorsement” is required from the Commonwealth of any changes in the succession law.  It is entirely a matter for the 16 realms which retain the British monarch as their Head of State to decide individually.  This is because Headship of the Commonwealth itself is a quite separate matter: there is no formal provision for that post to be filled by the British monarch after the present Queen.

A letter to the Times which was published on 31st March 2009.

William Rees-Mogg (Comment, Mar. 30th) perpetuates two common errors about the Act of Settlement and its possible amendment.  The Act stipulates that British sovereigns shall be “heirs of the body of the Electress Sophia of Hanover, being Protestant”.  The Act thus excludes from the throne all those who are not of the Protestant (Christian) religion, not just Roman Catholics.

If any amendment of the Act were seriously contemplated, it would not require “the whole of the Commonwealth to agree”.  It would require the agreement of only those countries which retained the British monarch as their head of state at the time of the change (16 at present).

Headship of the Commonwealth itself is a quite separate matter; there is no formal provision for that post to be filled by the British monarch after the present Queen.

A letter to the Daily Telegraph which was published on 17th July 1999.

Chris Patten asserts that “every citizen has a primary loyalty to democratic government” (article, Sept. 15th).

But, if he deigned to ask them, he would find that most British citizens believe they have a primary loyalty to a country called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and its symbols, the Crown and Union flag.

Mr Patten might also acknowledge that one main principle of democracy is that majorities prevail where there is disagreement with minorities.

The history of Northern Ireland in the past 30 years is that the view of the majority (those who want to uphold the state) has been consistently set aside by successive British governments in favour of the minority (those wanting to destroy it).  Mr Patten’s report is no exception.

On Breakfast with Frost last weekend, Mr Patten said: “I don’t think anybody can really agree that a name or badge actually affects the quality of policing”.

If that is so, why will Mr Patten not accept, as a self-proclaimed democrat, that the will of the majority should prevail in these matters?

His report justifies its wish to remove United Kingdom symbols by reference to 40 per cent of the people of Northern Ireland who are Roman Catholic, and then refers to that part of the community “which does not acknowledge the legitimacy of the state” as if they were one and the same thing.

In fact, past evidence of polls is that a substantial proportion of Roman Catholics do support the British connection, though for obvious reasons they tend not to proclaim it.

Instead of carrying out the promised sham “consultations”, why not test the matter in a referendum of the Northern Ireland people and see how many people in a secret ballot support keeping Crown and Oath in their police force – in line with police forces in the rest of the United Kingdom?