Why No Kings In The Saga?

Discussion in 'Star Wars Saga In-Depth' started by JediNdaCity, Jul 1, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Moderators: Darth_Nub, Lt.Cmdr.Thrawn
  1. whoblowsthere Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Jul 15, 2004
    I used to think Bail was King of Alderaan or at least part of the Royal Family there until I found out he was a Senator. I wonder how "Princess" Leia came along. Does it have to do with her mother being a former queen?
  2. Darth-Seldon Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 17, 2003
    star 6
    Bail Antilles is not from that planet.
    Bail is just a first name. I heard it is just like David or Mike, a regular name in the galaxy.

    Oh and just for everyone's information, because I hate being told that I'm wrong when I am not.

    The following comes from the office Edition of
    Webster's II New Riverside Dictionary: Revised Edition
    copyright 1996
    page 513
    of the paperback edition

    "Pharaoh also Pharaoh, n. A king of ancient Egypt."

    Thats it! No mention of administration.
    Pharaoh is simply another way of saying King
    just as Tsar is.

    The Pharoah is the King, the King is the Pharaoh, they are congruent.

    -Seldon
  3. Jedi_Monk Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Feb 13, 2004
    star 3
    Bail Antilles is not from that planet.
    ???
    According to the SW1 script, the two nominees for Supreme Chancellor, besides Palpatine, were: Ainlee Teem of Malastare and Bail Antilles of Alderaan.
  4. Darth-Seldon Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 17, 2003
    star 6
    My mistake I was thinking of Wedge Antilles.

    However my point remains, Bail is just a name.
  5. Jedi_Monk Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Feb 13, 2004
    star 3
    It's too much of a coincedence that both (all) of the male Alderaanian senators are named Bail. My guess is, Bail's a form of prince, and that Alderaanian princes cut their teeth in the senate before taking power on their homeworld.

    Early EU, such as the ANH radio dramatization, also backs up the supposition that Bail is a title, as Leia's father is often referred to as Prescot Organa.
  6. Emperor_Windy Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jan 25, 2003
    star 1
    Palpatine has ties that are closer to Emperor Caesar Augustus rather than Hitler...


    The Roman Republic had a pair of Consuls that ruled much like the GFFA Republic's Supreme Chancellor ruled...elected by the Senate and could be given emergency dictatorial powers in emergency situations.


    Caesar was part of a triumverate and used the civil war over Julius' death as a political means to gain absolute power...He crowned himself Emperor shortly afterwards...The Roman Empire wasnt a cruel state however and the people came to adore certain emperors and despise others...No "Rebel Alliance" formed because life in Rome continued much as it had during the Roman Republic



    So to be honest, most people make comparisons of palpatine to hitler because they were both power hungry despots...But in terms of their rise to power, Palpatine has much more in common with Caesar Augustus than anyone else
  7. Darth-Seldon Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 17, 2003
    star 6
    I'm not saying your wrong about the Roman/Palpatine connection but it can just as easily be argued the other way.

    Hitler decided to gain power by taking over the Weimar Republic from the inside. So he and his party grew in popularity by denoucnicing the dictated peace of WWI.

    To become Chancellor, Hitler had to really manipulate things.

    History Lesson begins
    Franz von Papen became the Chancellor of Germany while Hindenburg was President. Neither wants Hitler in power. Then comes the July 31st elections where the Nazis win 230 seats in the Reichstag. Von Papen did not like the outcome of the election so there was a new one on November 6th, the Nazis now have 196 seats. Eventually through a series of events Kurt von Schleicher a friend of the presidents tries to become Chancellor. Von Papen hates Hitler but he joins with him in order to get back at Schleicher. Von Papen who does not want Schleicher as chancellor tries to convince Hindenburg to appoint Hitler.

    Any way Hitler became Chancellor by manipulating von Papen and by gaining more support from the country for his anti-peace treaty, anti-communist approach.

    Then there is a fire at the Reichstag. Article 48 gives emergency powers in times of trouble. Hitler gains complete powers and rules till the end of WWII. The fire is blamed on the communists but some say the Nazis started it so Hitler could declare article 48.

    Then Hitler consolidated power.

    Eventually Hitler's third reich was ruled by one man. His empire ended with him, as did Palpatine's.

    Both manipulated people and events.
    The fire at the Reichstag
    could be compared to the Clone Wars.

    Using Von Papen could be like using Amidala to become Chancellor.

    In the end they were both cruel to their people. Palpatine hated aliens, Hitler hated so many people.
    Hitler put his people in camps, Palpatine invaded his people by using his fleet and by using the Death Star.

    There were those in Europe who opposed Hitler.
    There were those in the galaxy who opposed Palpatine.

    They were both one men empires that died after they themselves died.

    To say that the two have nothing in common is to turn your back on historical fact.

    I know that Palpatine and Rome have a lot to do with eachother. However the Hitler connection is also strong.

    -Seldon
  8. Emperor_Windy Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jan 25, 2003
    star 1
    yeah, i shouldnt have indirectly hinted at Hitler and Palps having no similarities... hell, GL probably had both Rome and Germany on his mind when he wrote SW
  9. DARTH LOEAK Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Feb 13, 2000
    star 2
    In the original script of Star Wars there was a King Kayos.
  10. Darth_Thump Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 26, 2002
    star 2
    Perhaps it could have something to do with the fact that Knights are usually associated with honour, chivalry etc, everyone else in the story who has a title is either portrayed as villains or weak in character with the exception of the Queens;

    • Emperor Palpatine
    • Chancellor Vallorum
    • Governer Tarkin
    • Senator Binks
    • Count Dooku
    • Viceroy Guneray

    So the heroes of the PT are Knights, serving the greater good etc, and the title of King gives the impression of powerful and wise ruler. Having a king could have complicated things ie, establishing the heroes, plus the whole good guys being outnumbered etc.

    And the heroes of the OT are commoners you could say, neither of noble blood or politically tied. It is this which makes them so appealing, a farmboy and the smuggler who save the galaxy.

    In the Star Wars novellisation, the prologue is taken from the Journal of the Whills and quotes Liea as saying, "They were in the wrong place at the wrong time, naturally they became heroes". A king would be much less appealing IMO.


    n.b. Granted Padme is a senator in Ep II and III, but she has already been established in Ep I as a queen, so it seems as if she's the odd one out being a *good* senator.

  11. Onizuka Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Nov 9, 2003
    star 1
    Isn't King and Emperor the same thing? The male supreme ruler.
  12. Darth_Balor Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Jan 7, 2001
    actually an Emperor is a higher rank than King, if you take the German Empire for example, each state had their own king, ie King of Bavaria, King of Saxony, etc. and the German Kings would elect the Emperor of Germany from among themselves. Once an Emperor was chosen the Kings would have to swear alliegence and loyalty to the Emperor.

    An Emperor is seen as more of a King of Kings.

    thats the theory anyway. Doesn't always happen in practice. lol
  13. EMPEROR_WINDU Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 23, 2002
    star 5
    Germany isnt the best example to take when looking at something like that...it's the exception rather than the rule...Louis XIV also known as the Sun King of France would have every bit as much power as Emperor Caesar Augustus...both ruled by themselves...it's called absolutism...so to say a King is less of a title than Emperor isn't totally accurate
  14. Jade87 Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Aug 20, 2004
  15. Onizuka Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Nov 9, 2003
    star 1
    So you can say Palpatine is the King of the Star Wars (OT) galaxy, right? Since he was the male supreme ruler and nobody has more political power than him at the time.
  16. EMPEROR_WINDU Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 23, 2002
    star 5
    Emperors do USUALLY rule with more political clout than a King, in Earth history at least
  17. JediNdaCity Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    May 14, 2002
    star 3
    I was watching an interview with John mcCain last weekend and the guy asked him, "So, what are your future plans?" Referring to a bid for president in 2008 and he replied, "Oh, I think I'd like to be Emperor." and then started laughing.

    Creepy.

    He even has that dead face look Palpatine has. LOL
  18. GrandAdmiralJello Moderator Communitatis Litterarumque

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Nov 28, 2000
    star 10
    He crowned himself Emperor shortly afterwards...


    Nope. There was no such thing as 'Emperor' in the Roman sense. The position of the Roman Emperor, so to speak, was an extraordinary concentration of very normal powers in one being.

    Caesar Augustus was basically invested with an extraordinary array of authority by the Senate. Yet he ruled justly and fairly.

    Augustus had authority. Not power. There's a big difference between the two. ;)

    Isn't King and Emperor the same thing? The male supreme ruler.


    You could not be more wrong.

    A king rules a kingdom. He rules with royal authority, and has the specific medieval monarchical styles of address and rule. They are addressed as "Royal Majesty".

    An Emperor rules an Empire. Imperial dignity is superior in status to that of royal authority. Traditionally, no state ever used the imperial moniker save for the Roman Empire and her successor the Byzantine Empire (which was still called the Roman Empire, back in her day). Later, states that saw themselves as a latter-day Rome began calling themselves Empires (See Russia and the Holy Roman Empire). Eventually, everyone decided it was cool to have an Empire and many other states followed the imperial form of address.

    The imperial dignity, however, is vastly superior to that of royal status. Consider the state of Imperial France, where Napoléon I vested himself with the imperial dignity, rather than the inferior status of the kings of France.

    thats the theory anyway. Doesn't always happen in practice. lol


    Wrong. The Holy Roman Empire elected its Emperors, and the Holy Roman Empire did not have subordinate kings. It had minor princes.

    In any case, that's the feudal usage of the term and is an improper and incorrect usage of the term 'Emperor'.

    Louis XIV also known as the Sun King of France would have every bit as much power as Emperor Caesar Augustus...both ruled by themselves...it's called absolutism...so to say a King is less of a title than Emperor isn't totally accurate


    Also false.

    Louis XIV's absolutism is a medieval construct and has nothing to do with the notation of the Roman idea of 'Emperor', which was an extraordinary concentration of power into a single person.

    Absolutism is not the same.

    Caesar Augustus, in any case, did not rule on his own. He wisely allowed the Senate and the Popular Assemblies to continue their own governance, and merely used his 'authority' to interject and have his wishes undertaken.

    So you can say Palpatine is the King of the Star Wars (OT) galaxy, right? Since he was the male supreme ruler and nobody has more political power than him at the time.


    No. The Galactic Empire is not a kingdom. The Emperor rules by fiat, not by his royal blood. He is cannot ever be addressed as a king of any sort.

  19. EMPEROR_WINDU Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 23, 2002
    star 5
    Caesar ruled on his own in much the same way as Palpatine ruled on his own before ANH, sure the Senate was there, but he was in charge...


    Im not talking bloodlines here...Napolean didnt take the name King because of the insane amount of hate for the royal family...Which is also why the Romans never had a king


    Later Roman emperors did rule on their own, so did The Sun King... Titles dont mean a thing, power does
  20. Master_Rebado Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 31, 2004
    star 2
    Quote: "Pharaoh also Pharaoh, n. A king of ancient Egypt."

    Thats it! No mention of administration.
    Pharaoh is simply another way of saying King
    just as Tsar is.

    The Pharoah is the King, the King is the Pharaoh, they are congruent."




    With respect, the title 'Pharoah' can refer to King of Egypt though it's original meaning specifically refers to a Divine Child of Amen-Ra on earth with the "king" aspect added sometime during history.

    The ancient Pharoahs were regarded as Deities not kings.

    There were Ptolemaic Kings of Egypt that never had the title 'Pharoah' as they were not of the line of Pharoahs.

    In Alexandria there were Kings of Egypt whilst in Memphis there were Pharoahs also existing as rulers at the same time.

    A Pharoah personally commanded the treasuries of Memphis which were far more richer than even the papyrus based economy in Alexandria.


    It is the Ptolemaic period that diluted the title of Pharoah somewhat.

    Before that time,the name 'Pharoah' did signify absolute rulership of all Egypt with Divinity bestowed to it also.
  21. Chaotic_Serenity Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 10, 2004
    star 4
    *ignores pharoah debate*

    Why does it have to be that everytime a name is repeated, it just has to point to some kind of conspiracy or title? Could it just be that Bail is a common name on Alderaan? Think about it. A highly respected and beloved member of the royal family has the name Bail. I can't imagine it would be an insult to share a name with him. Personally, I like the idea that *gasp* not every character in the series has a unique name. It's like how Leia names her youngest son Anakin or Luke name his son Ben in the EU - it isn't a crime to reuse something.
  22. Jedi_Ford_Prefect Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 9, 2003
    star 4
    Eh. Monarchies are a pain in the ass, anyway. Male leaders, especially.

    To quote Ringo Starr: "God save the Queen, if you know what I mean. We don't really need a King."

    21 today. Damn I'm depressed.
  23. Obi Anne FF admin Celebrations, Europe

    Administrator
    Member Since:
    Nov 4, 1998
    star 7
    My theory on Alderaan and its royalties have always been that it started out as a sovereign kingdom, with a king/queen. When it joined the republic the royal family kept the power, but downgraded the title from king to viceroy instead, just like India had a viceroy but was part of the British empire. Normally the use of king and republic in the same state is contradicting, choosing the title viceroy made it clear that Alderaan was an integral part of the republic/empire, but still remained independent when it came to more internal affairs.

    Also I have the theory that Bail is an hereditary name in the royal family, Bail Antilles could be a relative to Bail Organa, but not directly part of the inner royal family.
  24. Master_Rebado Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 31, 2004
    star 2
    ^ Good point there... it is entirely conceivable that Alderaan had a tradition of Royal Family just as England does to this day - England had monarchs with either absolute power or partial rule with parliament up until King George III in the 1780's.

    After George the thirds' son was appointed Prince Regent during his last period of madness the monarchy became(and remained) what it is in the UK to this day - a constitutional monarchy.

    Bail Organa is a Senator and also at the same time a head of a Royal Family.

    Senators in the Galactic Republic do not rule the system they are representing, so being head of the Alderaan Royal Family could be a titular thing with no "powers" as such.

    In relation to a Constitutional Monarchy,they still officiate at openings of Parliament and hold a certain amount of responsibility in matters of State i.e. The Queen has the Privy Council(which is a royal decree which can overturn rulings of the Highest British court if a party applies to that council).






Moderators: Darth_Nub, Lt.Cmdr.Thrawn
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.