proposals to revoke 300-year-old ban on Catholic monarchs -what a laff

So some people are saying that a Roman Catholic or a Muslim should be able to come to the English throne. What I find amusing is when you think a bit more about this: "Jeffrey Jowell QC, a constitutional expert, added: 'The law is incompatible with the present culture of equality, [which] is in itself a much stronger constitutional principle, though unwritten. That justifies the removal of those aspects of the Act of Settlement which offend the principle of equality.'" (quoted in Constitutional experts rally behind proposals to revoke 300-year-old ban on Catholic monarchs | Politics | The Guardian. It's a laugh because the principle of equality would surely mean that a commoner should be able to inherit too? Oh, but that would be a republic* ...!!!

It won't get anywhere of course because in surfacing this debate the more fundamental questions about monarchy and constitution would be raised, and that could upset the status quo a bit severely (US readers note British understatement).

And we should note the reaction of senior CofE figures "... insist that having a head of state who is not a member of the Church of England would inevitably lead to disestablishment and the unravelling of a complicated ball of sometimes ancient legislation, with attendant arcane property disputes - a process which would take up considerable parliamentary time for a Labour government which took seven years to abolish fox hunting."
That, in my naive judgement is an exaggeration (for example a non CofE monarch would not of necessity change the position of bishops in the house of Lords). But nevertheless would be a further and symbolically important weakening of establishment.

The Independent brings a detail to bear that helps to understand better what the equality thing is really about: "Mr Bryant .... In a pamphlet published last week by the Local Government Association, he argued that forcing the monarch to swear to preserve the Church of England and uphold the Protestant line of succession almost certainly represented a breach of human rights. "
However, it is not forced: if they can't or won't do it, they don't get the job. Simple. The real issue is whether it is fair to discriminate that way. But once that issue is opened up, of course, discrimination on the basis of bloodline is hard not to include in the picture. Perhaps that's the aim: to open that debate without seeming disloyal?

*Obviously not quite as straightforward as that; the longer unsoundbitten version is this, the principle of equality should mean anyone could be head of state, and the most likely way to make sure that this was fair would be elective, and that would be republic. Of course the Ollie Cromwell route could be taken, but that would also be a human rights problem.