“Again, how can you possibly know that?”
Simple. No statements - public or private - have ever come to light. Ever. She has never called on her subjects - and they are HER subjects - to reject those evils.
“It’s highly likely that she has repeatedly done so in the strongest possible terms.”
Complete nonsense. If she had done so even once we would know about it by now. Queen Elizabeth II signed the 1967 Abortion Act. Why didn’t she refuse to do so as did King Baudouin I of Belgium? https://www.nytimes.com/1990/04/05/world/belgian-king-unable-to-sign-abortion-law-takes-day-off.html The answer is simple: Elizabeth is pro-abortion or too much of a coward to stick to any traditional Christian morality on the subject.
“Rather than speculating on those things she may not have done, how about celebrating one thing she undoubtedly has done - the subject of the posted article.”
There’s not much there to celebrate.
“What other modern Head of State in the developed world makes a passionate personal statement of Christian faith in an address to the nation, and does so year after year?”
The Pope. He is a head of state (Vatican City) in the developed world. You asked.
“Complete nonsense. If she had done so even once we would know about it by now. Queen Elizabeth II signed the 1967 Abortion Act.”
Game. Set. Match.
“What other modern Head of State in the developed world makes a passionate personal statement of Christian faith in an address to the nation, and does so year after year?”
The Queen does not profess her faith to advance Christianity, but to advance Liberalism as acceptable within Christianity. The socialists are trying to claim Christianity as compelling subservience to them. If you want to see a political leader talk incessantly about her alleged faith, look to none other than to Nancy Pelosi.
Your comment about the 1967 Abortion Act shows a misunderstanding of the Queen’s constitutional position. She had no choice but to give her Assent to the 1967 Act, or to any other Act. The fact that she did so says nothing at all about what she may have felt or said about it using the constitutional means available to her.
I think you overestimate the freedom of action, including freedom of public speech, available to the Head of State. In many respects she has less freedom of action than an ordinary British citizen.
Walter Bagehot in his classic study of the British constitution wrote what is now accepted as the definitive statement of the rights of the monarchy. Those rights are 'to be consulted, to encourage, and to warn'. No more than that, and no less. Bear with me if I quote what Bagehot said at slightly greater length:
"To state the matter shortly, the sovereign has, under a constitutional monarchy such as ours, three rights — the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, the right to warn. And a king of great sense and sagacity would want no others. He would find that his having no others would enable him to use these with singular effect. He would say to his minister: “The responsibility of these measures is upon you. Whatever you think best must be done. Whatever you think best shall have my full and effectual support. But you will observe that for this reason and that reason what you propose to do is bad; for this reason and that reason what you do not propose is better. I do not oppose, it is my duty not to oppose; but observe that I warn.” Supposing the king to be right, and to have what kings often have, the gift of effectual expression, he could not help moving his minister. He might not always turn his course, but he would always trouble his mind."
More recently, Halsbury's Laws adds an important clause to Bagehot:
"[The Queen] still has the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, and the right to warn. However, she also has the right to offer, on her own initiative, suggestions and advice to her ministers even when she is obliged in the last resort to accept the formal advice tendered to her."
I can only repeat that we cannot know what warnings of this kind the Queen has given to her 12 Prime Ministers, or to what degree those warnings may or may not have modified subsequent events.
There's a perfectly understandable tendency for those accustomed to an Executive Head of State to overestimate the rights and powers of this non-executive constitutional monarchy, and to project onto the monarchy responsibility for the actions or inactions of the state of which she is nominal head. Those powers are very limited.