Saga Details on Leia remembering her mother.

I'm watching ROTJ now and Leia just said she remembers her mother by images and feelings.

-Images that could have been shown to her of Padme by her adoptive parents.
She may not have been told who exactly her mother was (so she wouldn't discover that she was married to Vader and he is her father). But images and such are probable. As her adoptive parents would want her to know of her real mother.

-Feelings, who knows. Maybe since the force is in Leia as well, she could have gotten things passed down from Anakin and Padme that give her a sort of connection to her parents. Or at least her mother. NOT Vader.
Or she just remembers her mom from stories told to her by people who knew her and that's why.

I dunno. Like had no idea who his parents were.
I'm led to believe Lies was at least told some details about her parents. Just not big details that would jepordize her life.

 

The current idea seems to be that Leia senses Padme through the Force - perhaps in her earliest moments, perhaps later on or throughout her life ("through the Force, things you will see; the future, the past, old friends long gone").

Also keep in mind, though, that when Return of the Jedi was made, the intention seems to have been that Luke and Leia's mother would have lived to take Leia to Alderaan, dying when Leia was two.

 

I mentioned in another thread that Lucas' original intention was to have Padme survive the prequels. He changed it at the last minute to give Anakin's fall more emotional weight.

 

Do you have a source on that? I'm curious, because I'd read elsewhere that at another point he'd intended to have Anakin gravely wound her more seriously (so as to cause her death slightly later on).

 

From the Wikipedia article on Padme...

"Film historian Laurent Bouzereau reports that the second draft of the Return of the Jedi screenplay contained dialogue where Obi-Wan Kenobi explains to Luke that he has a twin sister. She and their mother were "sent to the protection of friends in a distant system. The mother died shortly thereafter, and Luke's sister was adopted by Ben's friends, the governor of Alderaan and his wife."

 

Any explanation why Luke was abandoned by his mother?

 

That's the theory I go with. I figure she was having visions through the Force and misinterpreted them as actual memories.

 

Not in that article, no...but the film says Luke & Leia were raised apart so Vader and Palpatine would have a harder time finding them.

 

This could be complicated. While you're right that in this description, Padme (or whatever her name would have been at that point, if there had even been one figured out) would have survived Anakin's fall to the dark side. But we don't know, in that version of the story, if she would have been present for the lava duel as she is in ROTS. From some of the early descriptions of the prequel story 1979-1981, it sounds like Luke and Leia would have already been several years old by the end of the prequels. And it sounded like Mr. and Mrs. Skywalker were in different locations for part of that time period, so it's difficult to say exactly what the deal was. Padme/Mrs. Skywalker could have died in that Episode III, but it might not have been in childbirth and also might not have been as a result of Anakin's actions.

 

Thank goodness Lucas changed his mind. It still makes no sense to me that Padme would keep one twin and give the other away. I see only two other alternatives - 1) she survives the twins' birth and attempt to raise them in the far corners of the galaxy, until her death; 2) she gives away both twins at the same time.

 

Meh...this is retconning. It's obvious that originally it was meant that Leia knew her mother for a short period. As in, she was alive. I will grant you that your theories work about "seeing old friends" or using the Force to remember (although why didn't Luke remember images of Padme then?). I also like the idea that maybe Organa and his wife showed her images of her and told her what kind of person Padme was. I'm not saying it's a plot hole perse. As you all showed it can still work, but still...retconning.

 

Not exactly. It says they were hidden but doesn't explain why they were separated. Frankly, it was a bit absurd to give Luke the surname Skywalker and hand him over to Anakin's stepbrother if you were trying to hide him. It seems like the only one they were really trying to hide was Leia while almost offering up Luke as the sacrificial lamb. Remember, Anakin did not know there were twins so he may have figured the coast was clear once he took out Padme's kid.

I think the reality is that GL conceived of making Leia the sister of Luke after Star Wars was made and they've been doing a patch job ever since.

 

It's sort of like hiding him in plain sight. It helps that Tatooine is so remote that no one would think to look there. Plus, we don't know just how common the name Skywalker is; maybe not as much as Antilles, but maybe not rare, either.

Finally, why would Vader and Palpatine waste time looking for someone whom they think died with Padme without ever being born?

 

I don't suppose they would. However, the cat was out of the bag when Luke reached a certain level of acclaim by blowing up the Death Star. Suddenly, everyone's aware that there's this Skywalker kid wreaking havoc. It's not going to take them long to figure out what happened and that the son of Skywalker lives.

Meanwhile, Princess Leia is able to strut her stuff in the Galactic Senate and zip around the galaxy delivering rebel intelligence under an assumed name. Dare I say, she might have attracted a bit more attention as Princess Leia Skywalker than she did as Princess Leia Organa.

 

well they weren't going to hide them forever

 

You can fill in the inconsistency however you'd like. While it's not explained in the film directly (unless you take Leia's eyes being open being a sign), the Force can always be used as an excuse. The only theory I flat-out disagree with is that Leia was actually talking about her foster mother. It kinda takes away the impact after Luke prompts her to remember her real mother.

At least the plot is honest at this point; that is the period where Vader and Palpatine find out. Though it still makes you wonder about a few things; hiding under the name Skywalker worked out, but didn't Obi-Wan know Luke would be a hero to the Rebellion someday? Using that name while fighting against the Empire was part of what did him in. Then again, this is more retcons we're talking here.

 

But what does Luke achieving fame as the destroyer of the Death Star have to do with him being hidden on Tatooine for nineteen years? Judging from what happened, I'd say that the Lars and Obi-Wan achieved their goal by keeping him hidden for so long, until the time came for him to join the Rebel Alliance.

What inconsistency?

 

You're right about the first part, but if Yoda had his way, Luke's family status would have been kept hidden and Luke would never have learned of his family ties. His animosity towards Vader would have made it much easier for Luke to help take down the Empire. Yoda and Obi-Wan both did not want Luke to find out about Vader being his father at this stage.

Like it's been said, Leia was supposed to remember her mother in Return of the Jedi, but in Revenge of the Sith, she isn't given much time as a newborn child. Not trying to bash ROTS, they did the best they could when tying together these loose ends imo, but to many viewers, this can lead to some confusion; just look at all the posts here about it.

 

Before the PT, I swear there was reference to her somewhere as Lady Skywalker. Either in a novel or sourcebook of some kind. That kind of put a different spin on who the character was and what kind of development there was going to be.

 

The Noghri in the Zahn trilogy addressed Leia as 'Lady Vader', also there was that subplot in The Black Fleet Crisis which had Luke being conned by someone who said his mother was a member of her race, she might have used the term 'Lady Skywalker'. Were either of those what you were thinking of?

 

Could have been either...haven't read those in ages. Thanks for the references.

 

As far as I can tell, it can't be anything but the Force. I do take Leia's open eyes as a sign of her being more aware, but there are others factors to consider, too: Luke is born first and then held close to Padmé until she dies. Then, he starts crying like a baby while Leia remains quiet.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that Padmé's death was more traumatic for little Luke than it was for Leia and that his vague, Force induced memory of it was therefore suppressed.

Ultimately, though, it makes little difference whether or not we know why Leia remembers Padmé when Luke does not, since it has no bearing on the plot. It's just an interesting detail for us to speculate about.





Feelings are beautiful
/LM

 

They really should have just let Padme live in the PT. I get that Lucas was trying to wrap up all loose ends, but killing her off was so unnecessary. She could have died between Episode III and IV. There is no one here that wouldn't have assumed that. It also would have been much more of a "tear jerker" that Padme was forced to separate her children for their survival.

As I said before - you all aren't wrong by saying that it was the Force (a bit convenient...) or that Bail had given Leia photos of Padme (a literal interpretation on "Just images really.") and told her about the kind of person that Padme was. Thus Leia saying that she was "kind" or whatever.

But what irks me is the death of Padme wasn't necessary - even if it works.

 

I strongly disagree. Padmé was one of the three lead characters in that trilogy. To have her die offscreen would simply not have worked in Star Wars.
She could have died in a different manner, of course, but she definitely had to be killed off.





Death is necessary
/LM

 

Why would it not have worked in Star Wars? It could have worked and it was what was hinted at in the OT. (Unless the PT's time line shifted a bit and the focus was more on the youth of the Skywalker children). But I don't see why she definitely had to die, other than for the sake of wrapping up plot lines onscreen. As I said before - I have no doubt that any of us would doubt what happened to her between III and IV. Do we really need to see it?