Ich habe mal wieder ein Problem.Ich weißes ist viel, trotzdem hoffe ich , dass mir jemand helfen kann. Ich muss Fragen zur britischen Monarchie beantworten. Könnte bitte jemand mir die Texte korrigieren oder sagen wo ich was falsch gemacht habe und wo noch Kommas hinzu müssen? 1.It is strange that in the 21st century still there is a British monarchy. Since 1952 is Queen Elisabeth II. the head of state of England. The British nation can see some of the monarchy's historical anachronismus that is obsolete and unacceptable. Another obsolete attitude is, if only the sons of the monarch is able to come on the throne. The Act of Settlement restricted the succession to the throne. The sons inherit for the daugthers and the first-born son inherits for their younger brothers.It is incomprehensible why the sons would privileged. But there are attempts to change the law. The question is why girls should not be able to come on the throne. Besides the princesses can handle better with the public. That they prefer the prince go back to the times when the ownership of land must defend his land. But 13 years after the Discrimination Act there are female monarch and prime- minsiter. Another aspect is that the husband of the queen is not authorize to bear the tittle king. For example, Prince Philip is not able to bear the tittle Prince ( Duke of Edinburgh). He still goes behind the Quen. The orders are discriminated against men and women. Each king and queen must be Protestant. The Royals, who are Roman- Catholic or marry a Roman-Catholic are excluded of the succession to the throne. This goes back to the arrangement of 1701. The aftermath one non- Protestant on the throne might be, that there is no archibishop (and bishop) of Canterbury and no Downing Street to ponder. These whole things are a insult too large-part of the population. It is a restriction of the gender and religion.
2.Kommentar über Zitat.
The author writes about the British Royals and that the British nation have elected them and that they have to trat the royals differently. My opinion is: Why are there royals? What are they doing? I am not interested in these things. As far as I can see they do not work so much. The Queen, for example: What she is doing? Did she work hard in her life? Because at her age she looks very well. The most kings and queens get their royal tittle with their birth. Only Lady Diana- Princess of Wales was a good woman. She has tried to do a lot for the poor people. Her sons are good, too. They are like their mother. They are trying to help poor people. but about the other British Royals you do not hear so much. Another argument is that the royals have a lot of scandals like Fergie now. On the picture in the text you can see Princess Anne in Uganda, where she works for Save the Children Fund. I think she is doing a good job. Other people think that the royals are very important and that they do so much. But I do not understand why they are so important. So I do not agree with these people.
3.Was kritisiert Prinz Charles und wen greift er an?
Prince Charles criticizes the professors of architecture, who found out through a 30 years of experimented with new materials that a man is a machine. ButPrince Charles criticizes the building planner and archticts, too, who believed that the buildings should reflect the new spirit of the age. He finds the new public and commercial buildings ugly, dull and heartless. In his opinion that he must done something but he was too young earlier. He did not imagine himself that the buildings would destroy one day. For him it is an attack on the old principles that affected the music,education, architecture and art. the architecture of the fifties and sixties do not arrive a few regions. Prince Charles thinks that they have ended up with Frankenstein monsters because they are unpopular- out of the professors of architecture, who find these good. The people, who do not find this good must live with these. The architects want that the buildings reflect a high technology. With it is the past irrelevant. But Prince Charles warns against that the man(hier im Text Mensch) can forget the past, lost their souls and the buildings can lost their souls, too. If you give up the principles of 2, 500 years of architecture, then suffer the population. The buildings only show the technology of the moment until it comes someting new.
4.Prince Charles uses the words uglyness, mediocrity, dull and heartless in order to show his negative attitude against the new buildings and architectures. That is the stylistic part. He is not contended with the heartless town planning. He uses the words Frankenstein monster and he describes that the professors of architecture found out after experiments- that the man is a machine. Besides he is of the opinion, if they deny the past, they lost their souls and the buildings lost their souls, too. It is important that they (do) not give up the old principles of architecture. The buildings should reflect the high technology today and the people are suffering under it. Prince Charles finds the new ideas of architecture are an attack on the old principles of architecture.
5.The "Frankenstein" metaphor says that it is without a character, alien and largely unloved. The pictures onthe page 115 show how was the development in London in the years 1930,1960 and 1989.There were not any big houses and tower blocks in 1930. In 1960 there were more big houses and tower blocks. But the development was bigger in 1989. There are a lot of big houses and tower blocks now. I find London beautiful in 1989. But I can agree with Prince Charles that the people do not be allowed to forget the past of architecture but I find the "Frankenstein"metaphor not appropriate for the year 1989.
6.Kommetar -vielleicht hat von euch jemand eine Idee, wie es besser klingt?
On the old airport in my city they build an extension. Then the airport would be the BBI-Airport and it would be the biggest airport in Berlin and Brandenburg.The airport in Tempelhof would closed last year and the airport in Tegel would close in the year 2011 or 2012. That is sad because I find Tegel very good and I find it better, if there are two airports in Berlin. But the new airport should be finished in 2012. It would build a longer railway line that you can come faster to the airport as earlier. Besides they build a new railway station under the airport. The railway line would be 405 metres long and 60 metres wide and will have an area of four football fields. The railway station has six platforms from where people can come from the stair right to the railway station place. You are by the chck-in-counter in a few minutes. Because of the airport would cut down a few trees but they would planted on the other place new. I believe that I have read that it would planted four new trees for one cut down tree. The archtiecture office that plans all is the Bechthoff company and the architects are Mr. Bechthoff, Mr.Derfer and Mr. Steffen.
Wann weiß ich wann Queen und Royals groß und wann klein geschrieben wird. Damit habe ich wohl Probleme.
Vielen Dank im Voraus für eure Mühe
LG