english text

can you tell me if this text has errors please:


Despite a moving forward searing in European policies, notably by the new parties which advocate more equality between all classes, some European countries uninterrupted to live under a monarchy with a king or a queen representative of history and symbols of the country
So Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, suede, Luxembourg, Great Britain and Spain kept a constitutional or parliamentary monarchy which reduces however the powers of the family royal.
What are real functions of the family royal? Have they really an usefulness in the government of the country? At first we shall see functions of the different monarches as well as them roles then we shall study the different dots negatives of such functions.

The different monarches of Europe exercise , mostly, a representative function foremost. The Queen Elizabeth II has as function to open parliamentary session, she reads then a speech of the throne but which is written by the prime minister. Everything the titles of decoration are awarded in its name. As she’s entitled to participate in political life seen that she doesn’t have the right to enter the room of villages, "The Queen of the UK is not representing the power or political view of tbe country She is only representing symbols of the UK such as the national flag or the national hymn. However in their history, the representatives of the monarchy played an important role. These different countries are close to their monarch due to the fact that they were saved by their souverain. For instance in Spain, the king Juan Carlos I has puts a stop to Francoism and establishes democracy. Or in Belgium, the king Albert II supports the historical unit of the nation by preventing the schism of the country because of the uninterrupted quarrels between the Flemish and Walloons. And finally The royal families put forward their popularity to weld links between countries as for instance numerous trips of the Queen Elizabeth II and of participating in not numerous movements of should link as for instance the tour of the prince Charles in Latin America with the intention of a mission intended for the promotion of the protection of environment.

In addition to his symbolic role, the kings and queens do not have real functions. In the United Kingdom for instance, queen doesn’t detains the executive power therefore does not act for the country in political domain, all decisions are make by the prime minister and by the Parliament. Their popularity are more made in the press with scandal than in political rubrics in newspapers. More considered today to be figure of public life, their slightest fact and gesture is made public, their slightest skid is announced in the whole world as for instance the scandal of the prince Harry which belonged in January, 2006, introduced on a party dressed in Nazi.Then three years later they can see a video where the prince adopts racist purposes. Being considered to be emblematic faces of the United Kingdom, this type of skid coute very dear to the family royal as well as in their reputation faced with the English people, which sees them as a model to be followed. They therefore have to act irréprochablement.
So their opinion is crossed to the fine comb, and makes the object of rumour, what causes certain debate as the scandal of the queen of Spain on the homosexual union, in November, 2008. During one interview, a journalist would have changed some purposes of the queen, for in finale to say that the homosexual union was not a true marriage. What caused a strong reaction of the popular party.


The European countries of monarchist tradition keep their king and queen in a symbolic and cultural purpose in most cases. The population is predominantly tied to these faces, it is for it that the skids of a royal family can entrainer of true debate.
Not being in charge any more a lot of political life of the country, they represent first of all their nation in eyes of the people and other countries.

Hi spylai,
I'm sorry, but we don't proofread texts, we translate them from one language to another.

Just to answer your question: Yes, the text is faulty.

can you just read and tell me if there are lot of errors please. It's not difficult

I just did that and already answered your question in my post above

there lot of errors or not ?

Like Lilian said in her first post ("Just to answer your question: Yes, the text is faulty" ), yes, there are lots of errors. It looks like an automatic translation to me and they are always full off errors.

these errors are they more grammar, vocabulary of time?

All of them.