Royal Guard other Clone issues put to rest (ROTS Visual Dictionary spoilers)

Perhaps the Royal Guard refers just to the run of the mill Imperial Guardsmen, while the Imperial Guard also includes the regular guys and the Sovereign Protectors?

 

Unless you're of the shcool of thought wherein there are two types of SSD, with one being of the Iron Fist/Reaper variety--the more familiar 8,000 meter "little" guys--and the other being the Executor-class which might or might not include the Lusankya in addition to the Executor herself.

 

It would explain why they felt the need to clarify Super-class into Executor-class in the Black Fleet Crisis....

 

There's no reason why there would be two ships of virtually identical aesthetics, but of two different sizes.

But, of course, there's a reason why there would be two space stations of virtually identical aesthetics, but of two different sizes?

 

Unless the Empire's so incompetent that they'd make two entirely different designs for no reason at all.

Well, you could argue that they did that with VicStars and ImpStars.

More seriously, coming at it from the point of view of developing the universe from scratch, two classes is stupid. However, if something's going to be retconned I prefer a solution that invalidates as little text as possible.

 

I think we're going to hikack this thread with this discussion.



Anywho, Matt Trias had a really great set of points about this wherein basic elements of plot would have to be changed in order to make all SSDs into 17,600 meter long monsters. The Iron Fist encounter is, in and of itself, implausible at best with an 8km Super Star Destroyer, along with the surrendering of the Lusankya (although the Lady Lucy is perhaps even more problematic than even the notorious Lady Ex, but for different reasons), and the monumentally difficult encounter between the Night Hammer and the Galactic Voyager. All of these events strain the suspension of disbelief to critical levels with ships that are "only" 8,000 meters long--with ships in the neighborhood of twise the size and substantially greater firepower and defensive prowess, they become literally and logically impossible in Matt's opinion (and I agree).

This is, of course, only one school of thought on the subject. I simply find it to be the easiest and most plausible solution.

Also, as for multiple ships of similar aesthetics but greatly different sizes, remember the Allegiance/Shockwave-type Star Destroyers?

 

Daala, incompetent though she may have been, was locked up in the Maw for decades, and wasn't surprised about ships such as the Shockwave, remember. And if Shockwave is indeed an Allegiance-type ship, those puppies seem to have been in much more common usage than any other > ISD sized battleship of which I am aware.

 

Good point about Kratas... Although is not it possible that his reactions were just as much playing to the vanities of the renegade ex-Imperial warlord that was playing de facto host to the duo?

 

Well, Daala was willing to play politics inasmuch as she was willing to form her own group out of the ashes of the warlords' holdings before reporting in to High Command (well, what was left of it) out in the Rims, but your point is duly noted.

 

By mathematical definition, if A belongs to the set Z and Z has some property H, then all A have the property H because A is in the set Z.

Now, just to be clear you're understanding this... if B belongs to the set Z and B has some property G, that does not imply that Z has property G or that anothing else in Z--such as A--has the property G.

You see, set theory shows that if the larger definition has a property then any member of that definition must also share the properties, otherwise it could not possibly fit in that definition. If some monarchs can serve terms, it follows that some queens can. However, just because queens are female does not suggest that monarchs are female because queens are a--as you said--subset, and therefore less inclusive.

It's really nice of you to flaunt your intellectual prowess. However, I', afraid you priovided little to your argument there.

Set theory is good when used to describe attributes of nature which is so often, orderly. It is also good logic.

However, as history so often testifies to, logic and order rarely go hand in hand in human affairs. Set theory is good for the natural sciences, but not necessarily for the analysis of political institutions. For that we have only tradition and history to rely on.

I am only using history and tradition, and by all accounts GL went against that and created a new tradition in Star Wars.

The king of Malaysia is elected for a 5 year term. After which, another king is elected. I've got a good Malaysian friend who can corroborate this and furnish me with more details, if you'd like me to ask.

Not true. "King" is what the title Yang di-Pertuan Agong is translated to in English. It means "Supreme Head", "Supreme Ruler" or "Paramount Ruler". The person who is elected to that position must be a Sultan from one of the nine states of Malaysia. In any case, the position is largely ceremonial.

Now that that's out of the way, let me explain my comment about you not accepting tradition as being the measuring stick, despite the fact that you wish to change something precisely because tradition contradicts it.

We have seen traditionally that kings and queens usually do not serve terms. If they do such as in the case above, they usually have very little power and the role is largely ceremonial. Not only that but in the case above, the people serving in that role are sultans which is above a king. Also, it must be argued that king is not necessarily the best equivelent of that particular Malaysian monarch.

In any case, the position of Queen of Naboo fits none of those traditions. Amidala was a commoner elected to that position. A position which does not seem ceremonial. She appears to have power to negotiate with other nations and has control of her world's security forces. In my oppinion, for all intents and purposes she should not have been called a Queen. That should be another case of incorrect use of language.
***************************
In any case, who's to say that Palpatine isn't some royal? We know of many powerful houses in the Republic. We have Counts, Barons, and what not. We have plenty of minor nobles and royals. Perhaps Palpatine is an archduke or something.

His Imperial and Royal Majesty Palpatine.

Ah. Aha. Wonderful.

Yes, you all have me. I just want him to be everything he can possibly be.

And no, they do a terrible job of fixing stuff. You just glossed over my examples and said "Yes, they do". I do not know what EU you have been reading.

Rather than throwing out old material, or using the excuse that it's a colloqialism, provide new info that makes it make sense. When they try the former, it looks like trash because half the writers still use the older materials. Plus, I just hate going against movie material if it's not necessary. If the movie material is deemed erroneous, then what measuyring stick do we use to analyze Star Wars?

The creator for better or worse should have the final say so, and if he wants to call them

 

I don't think Naboo has any hereditrary aristocracy (could Palpatine have possibly been elected King of Naboo a while back?)

 

I've always wondered if they gave him some kind of royal capacity to honor him after he became Emperor.

 

Well of course Emperor Bonaparte had his elite royal guard,common sense be damned. Kenner called them the Emperor's Royal Guard and thats how i likes em.