By Bosco – Irish Sentinel Contributor –

Queen Elizabeth II is dead, and the eulogies are coming quick and fast. As an Irish Catholic and nationalist, I will pray for her soul, but I won’t indulge in the sycophancy that inevitably follows when a public person dies. Whatever is said here, is merely my opinion as I don’t know the internal mind of someone else but by their fruits you will know them.

What I term “the Diana effect”, coined from the cringeworthy expressions of personal grief for public figures, has already been let lose. One can never forget the embarrassing scenes of public displays of nauseating grief when Princess Diana passed away, individuals slobbering as if they knew Diana personally or that Diana would actually give a damn about them when the cameras were not flashing. That is not to say that the deceased Diana Windsor had empathy for people, who knows, maybe she did but the public’s response was quite apt for an age obsessed with celebrity and known for inauthenticity. The same display is emerging now with the death of Queen Elizabeth II of Britain.

However, I intend to focus on one major issue that is, predictably, being disseminated by the media in spades, that the deceased monarch was a fountain of faith and duty. Was she? I suppose it depends on duty to who and whose faith she defended.

One of the biggest distortions presently going around the internet, including Catholic circles, is that Elizabeth Windsor was a devout Christian. I don’t see the evidence for this at all. She went to Church on a Sunday and said her prayers, well so does Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi, and they are hardly exemplars of Christian belief given they actively promote every heinous action that is going.

My biggest grievance with the current narrative being presented concerns Elizabeth and her legacy. Elizabeth reigned during a period that Britain has lost its soul, dignity and culture. One of the titles that the monarch of Britain professes, is defender of the faith. Did Elizabeth defend the Christian faith?

One of the constitutional powers of a British monarch is to approve of legislation. When a Bill has been approved by a majority in the House of Commons and the House of Lords it is formally agreed to by the Crown. This is known as the Royal Assent. This turns a Bill into an Act of Parliament, allowing it to become law in the UK. While some may say the monarch has no real power when exercising this role, I would disagree. The failure to fulfil this role, to rubber stamp the legislation being “approved” will however have consequences for that monarch.

There have been 9 million abortions performed on innocent unborn babies in the UK since Elizabeth “approved” of the abortion legislation in 1967. As indicated earlier, many commentators will argue she had little choice, but again this is patently untrue. She had a choice but the choice would likely have resulted in a constitutional crisis and eventual abdication if she continued to refuse to sign the bill. Here is the issue however, Elizabeth Windsor preferred preserving her family’s dynasty over her duty as monarch. One of the principle duties of monarch, with reference to her title “ defender of the faith” was to defend the Christian faith. Abortion is the intentional killing of innocent unborn babies and is contrary to the most basic Christian principle found in the ten commandments, “ thou shalt not murder”. Murder, is the intentional killing, with malice aforethought, of an innocent human being. The unborn child is a human being and many pro abortionists, such as Peter Singer acknowledge this objective fact.

As a Catholic I am not defending the Anglican communion but even Lord Carey of Clifden ex archbishop of Canterbury lamented that the church he and the queen led, is a generation away from extinction. Why? Because the leadership in that Church welcomed the world and paid homage to the prince of the world, Satan. Instead of fighting for Christian principles and the consequences that might bring, the supreme governor of the Anglican Church, the English Monarch, failed to preserve the faith let alone defend it.

During her reign, Britain has become one of the most hedonistic anti-Christian societies in Europe. Elizabeth Windsor, like many Catholic prelates, abandoned their faith for advocates of social justice, for causes often in conflict with Christian teachings.

As regards British culture, well that too has been decimated and Britain is on the brink of societal collapse, as is the rest of Europe. The British monarchy isn’t the only royal house open to justifiable criticism. The Spanish, Dutch, Belgian and other European royalties have done the same, abandoning their duties to God and their nations, for thirty pieces times millions in silver and gold.

Of course with regard to Elizabeth Windsor, may God have mercy on her soul, her actions are not out of context of her family history. Her own grandfather, George V had promised refuge to his cousin the last Czar of Russia and his family only renege on it. George had been told that by granting asylum to his cousin the Czar, he might bring the communist revolution to Britain and in the process lose his own throne. George V put the preservation of his own family’s dynasty over a promise made to his cousin, that resulted in his relatives being murdered by zealous communists. Elizabeth, with her royal assent to the most pernicious of laws, laws that have resulted in the deaths of millions of her subjects, laws that have destroyed British culture and sovereignty, were calculatedly performed to preserve her own interest and those of her family. Rather than be dutiful for decades, Elizabeth was in dereliction of her duty and the same goes for every person in the west who held some degree of power and influence.

It is said that such criticism alienates those who admire Elizabeth, especially fellow nationalists from Britain, that such a commentary is an attack on a sacred institution. I say the opposite. It is no more an attack on an institution than the criticism I hold for the present pope is a direct assault on the papacy. In fact, it is an expression to hold these powerful institutions to account. Imagine if a powerful and influential person like Elizabeth would have refused to assent to the abortion laws in 1967? Yes, it would have caused a constitutional crisis but surely this would be better than rubber stamping with approval a moral crisis. Yes, such refusal to sign would likely have resulted in her abdication but imagine such an act of conscience would have said to the world? Instead of being seen as an attack on an institution traditionalists seek to preserve, maybe the same traditionalists need to scrutinise, as I do with the current pontiff, the person occupying the institution and a person leaving it in ruin.

May God have mercy on her soul as she will be judged for her abdication of the only duties worth mentioning, to God and nation with her embrace of the world and all it offered. I offer the same critique to other Europeans with similar power and influence. Shame on you all.