Bitte um Korrektur

[saturn]

Hallo. Ich bräuchte bitte eure Hilfe.

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 The British nation can see some of the monarchy's historical anachronismus that is obsolete and unacceptable.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.

Ist das so richtig?
Vielen Dank im Voraus.

[Duckduck (Contributor)]

Hallo. Ich bräuchte bitte eure Hilfe.

1.

It seems strange that there still is a British monarchy - in the 21st century.
Queen Elisabeth II has been (the) head of state of England since 1952. Not a few British citizens feel that monarchy is an obsolete and unacceptable historical anachronism. They oppose the sometimes discriminating succession laws, for example if only the sons of the monarch are allowed to come to the throne.

This goes back to the arrangement of 1701. The Act of Settlement regularised the succession to the throne. The sons precede the daugthers and the first-born son precedes his younger brothers.

It is incomprehensible nowadays why the sons should be so privileged. But there are attempts to change the law. The question is why girls should not be able to come to the throne. There are people who think that women could get on with the public better than men. That they prefer the prince go back to the times when the ownership of land must defend his land (Ööh, wie belieben? Ich verstehe nicht, was Du hier sagen willst). But??? 13 years after the Discrimination Act there are female monarchs and prime-minsiters.

Another point of criticism is that the Queen's husband is not allowed to bear the title of king. For example,Prince Philip is simply Duke of Edinburgh. He still walks behind the Queen.

On top of that, every British king and queen must be Protestant. Those members of the family, who are Roman-Catholics or marry a Roman-Catholic, are excluded from the succession to the throne. 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 (Verstehe ich leider gar nicht...)

By a large section of the population all these points are considered a discrimination based on gender and religion.

Ist das so richtig?
Vielen Dank im Voraus.

Hui, doch ziemlich bunt, nicht?
Bevor Du die anderen Teile einstellst, schaust Du bitte selber nochmal drüber, ja?!

Grüße
Duckduck