The only institution that historically bound together the once great British Empire and Commonwealth of Nations at its peak was the monarchy. Most especially a monarchy freed from any attachment to and influence by Rome.

The monarchy remains to this day the only institution that binds the United Kingdom, its dominions and protectorates together as an entity.

Liberal-socialist elements within Britain have striven to tear down that institution for decades and sever Britain, those dominions and protectorates from their royal heritage. Now a British prime minister is proposing legislation that, taken to its limits, would eliminate the very foundation of true royalty, the British monarchy.

Speaking in Perth, Australia, on Friday, where he attended the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, Prime Minister David Cameron “maintained that the existing principle of male primogeniture is outdated, and has received a positive response from other Commonwealth countries to whom he wrote several weeks ago outlining his concerns. [H]e said: ‘Attitudes have changed fundamentally over the centuries and some of the outdated rules—like some of the rules of succession—just don’t make sense to us any more’” (Sky News, October 28).

In response, we received an e-mail on Friday from Philip Benwell mbe, national chairman of the Australian Monarchist League, which states the constitutional case against Mr. Cameron’s plan succeeding: “British Prime Minister David Cameron’s announcement that Commonwealth nations have approved a change to the rules of succession to allow firstborn daughters and heirs who marry Catholics to inherit the throne is wrong and is blatant politicking on his part. Despite the media headlines, nothing whatsoever has been changed.”

And it really can’t. In legal and constitutional terms, Mr. Cameron simply cannot succeed, for, as Mr. Benwell correctly observes:

The British prime minister wants to end what he terms “discrimination” within the British monarchy against Roman Catholics, but the changes he proposes are virtually impossible to implement because the monarchy is a Protestant institution, in a similar manner to the way in which the monarchies of Belgium and Spain are Catholic institutions.Over 300 years ago, the English Parliament established what is termed the “Protestant Succession,” requiring future monarchs to be in communion with the Church of England. These provisions are contained in several acts, but mainly the Coronation Oath Act (1688) and the Act of Settlement (1701).According to these acts, the Queen was required to take an inviolable life-long oath at her accession to: “… solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God, profess, testify and declare that I am a faithful Protestant, and that I will, according to the true intent of the enactments to secure the Protestant succession to the throne of my realm, uphold and maintain such enactments to the best of my power.” Whilst no one parliament can bind another, the oath taken by the Queen cannot be set aside and would therefore explicitly prohibit her from giving assent to any act of the British Parliament which would rescind those laws relating to the Protestant religion.

However, this begs the question that, if the present aggressive drive by Rome to take over the Church of England were to succeed at some time in the future, a Protestant monarch would be left without a Protestant Church of England of which to be head and for which to fulfill that coronation vow.

Even so, regardless of the constitutional, judicial and canonical reasons that would seem to render the prime minister’s plan void, there is a far, far higher guarantee against this nefarious plot succeeding.

The ultimate reason why it cannot succeed is that the very One who created the monarchy that currently holds the throne in Britain has, believe it or not, instituted that seat of royal power forever!

There is a very profound reason as to why Mr. Cameron and those given to the idea of changing the rules of succession to the British throne believe that “some of the outdated rules—like some of the rules of succession—just don’t make sense to us anymore.” They simply do not understand the God-ordained heritage of that throne!

Revealing his gross ignorance of the reality surrounding the British monarchy, Mr. Cameron continued, “The idea that a younger son should become monarch instead of an elder daughter simply because he is a man, or that a future monarch can marry someone of any faith except a Catholic—this way of thinking is at odds with the modern countries that we have become.

“Nor does it make any sense that a potential monarch can marry someone of any faith other than Catholic.”

Then with a profoundly pontificating air, the prime minister blurted out: “The thinking behind these rules is wrong. That’s why people have been talking about changing them for some time. We need to get on and do it.”

Well, we shall see about that. Mr. Cameron simply does not know that he is flying in the face of a much higher power than human flesh when he dares to fiddle with the ancient institution of the British monarchy.

Of course those familiar with the republican movement that is behind the initiative to change the rules attached to the British monarchy realize that its motives go far beyond just changing those rules. They go to the very heart of the survival of the monarchy.

As the e-mail that we received from the Australian Monarchist League states: “The British prime minister’s proposals are not really about discrimination, for all religions aspire to protect their beliefs and can therefore be said to discriminate. What Mr. Cameron is actually proposing is to end the Protestant Succession and ultimately the monarchy in England.”

Here’s why Mr. Cameron cannot succeed in destroying the British monarchy.

The historic reality is that Britain’s royal throne had its beginnings with a Jewish shepherd boy over 3,000 years ago.

“Now therefore so shalt thou say unto my servant David, Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I took thee from the sheep cote, from following the sheep, to be ruler over my people, over Israel” (2 Samuel 7:8).

The genealogy from ancient King David to Queen Elizabeth ii is very clearly and precisely documented in a combination of biblical and secular records for any real student of such matters to clearly prove.

The guarantee of that throne being destined to exist in all perpetuity from its Davidic foundation is recorded by the Prophet Samuel. Speaking of the line of descent from David through King Solomon his son, Samuel wrote of its divinely decreed continuance: “He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever”! (verse 13).

In fact, believe it or not, the very fact of the sun rising and setting tomorrow is an absolute guarantee that that throne will never lack a monarch to sit upon it!

“Thus saith the Lord; If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night and that there should not be day and night in their season; Then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne …” (Jeremiah 33:20-21).