Princess Leia Not A Princess?

maybe, dark_jedi_kam, she is just expressing how she feels about her loss, but by all rights she is a princess!

and this is the movie forum so stick to movie ish

 

Both the EU and the bible are not valid sources for proving any point in the Movie forums.

Learn to spot sarcasm.

 

"Learn to spot sarcasm. "

I got the sarcasm. I was playing along. and please don't bash the EU.

 

I can bash whatever I want to bash. The have an entire thread devoted to it in the TPM forum and bashing is rampant in the AOTC boards.

But that might ever have been bashing. Siting the EU as factual in the Movie boards is against forum policy. Telling you that the EU is not a valid source of proof in a movie forum is not bashing. If you can't handle that, then you should come to the movie boards. They have an entire section devoted to the EU where you can talk about it as fact to your heart's content.

It isn't acceptable here.

 

It isn't acceptable here.

Yes it is.

Let's look at the policy, shall we?

EUers. No stating that EU is canon or the ONLY correct solution to a question. You may present an EU answer as an answer, but not the "right" answer. You may know everything about what goes on in the EU, but some people have never heard of it. They may be looking for a number of different theories on an answer, and to present yours as the absolute, is the wrong way to do things.

So you are right about the EU not being considered a valid answer in these forums, but we can still present an EU answer. It is then up to the fan to decide whether he or she will accept it as an answer or not.

 

They have an entire section devoted to the EU where you can talk about it as fact to your heart's content.

It isn't acceptable here.

I was addressing the use of EU as fact. I never said it wasn't allowed here at all. Using it an indisputable proof isn't acceptable.

Moreover, it is completely irrelevent to the point I was making.

Using the EU as proof doesn't fly here. You can use it as an example, but not everyone really cares if the EU says. Just as not everyone cares if their is a similar instance in the bible. Not everyone here believes its valid. So using it as an example won't get you very far.

 

I was addressing the use of EU as fact.

Well since "It isn't acceptable here" wasn't part of the other paragraph, I got confused and thought you meant EU as a whole wasn't acceptable in the movie forums.

Using the EU as proof doesn't fly here. You can use it as an example, but not everyone really cares if the EU says. Just as not everyone cares if their is a similar instance in the bible. Not everyone here believes its valid. So using it as an example won't get you very far.

Yes, I agreed with you in my last post when I said "So you are right about the EU not being considered a valid answer in these forums".

 

Geez, it's an example from a book. If they had referenced Robert Jordan or something it wouldn't have bugged anyone.
And this is really off-topic.

 

I wasn't stating that it was fact. i said aaccording to the EU. Plainly that is not saying it's a fact.

 

Gay-LenKenobi,

Bible, Bible, Bible, Bible, Bible, Bible, Bible, Bible.

Sounds to me like the word Bible is a harmful to you as silver to a Werewolf. It was just a simple reference and you go off on a tangent.

Anyway, I didn't read the AOTC Novel, so was the man in the Captain Nemo turtleneck in AOTC ever identified by name? He wasn't in the movie, that I can remember. So since we don't even know for sure that said person was Leia's adopted father, then we don't know that she wasn't the daughter of a King. Or that in the Lucasan world that the daughter of the elected leader on Alderaan isn't refered to as "princess" in the same way Amidala, while elected is called "Queen."

 

The person didn't even cite the Bible, I'd like to point out. The fact that Moses was part of the Egyptian royal family is a pretty well-known belief among archaeologists.
Well, in the credits he's credited as Bail Organa. And the novels don't hold much water anyway. Owen and Obi-Wan were brothers in the ROTJ novelization.

 

And they still are brothers. Just not biological ones.

 

Well, maybe, but in the strict movies-are-canon arguments that are always taking place on these boards, the novelizations aren't considered canon.

 

Leia was still a Princess after Alderaan was destroyed. She was adopted into the Royal Family so she was part of the Royal Family and had every right to hang on to her title. Period.

~Crystal~

 

On an interesting note...Since the rest of Leia's adopted family probably died when Alderaan blew up...wouldn't she technically be queen (of the survivors) afterwards?

Or are all queens in the GFFA elected?

 

That was hardly a tangent. In relation to the GFFA, the bible is completely irrelevent. I made a sarcastic comment that another source that is commonly unaccepted in these parts would be a better reference than a book associated with an Earthly religion. Chill.

Maybe someone is far too eager to pounce when they think someone is challenging their belief system.


"The person didn't even cite the Bible, I'd like to point out. The fact that Moses was part of the Egyptian royal family is a pretty well-known belief among archaeologists. "

If that person comes forward and proves they read that 'fact' when reading archaeological texts, then I might care. But they most likely read it in the bible or another source of bible stories. Moses is most commonly known as a bible figure, not a member of an Egyptian royal family.

Any precedent set in an Earthly institution has no bearing on events in the GFFA. In SW, a Queen can be elected, so you can throw out pretty much any possibility of referencing any monarchy known on Earth as an example of why Leia must or must not be a real princess.

If you can find an example of an adopted daughter who's planet is destroyed and her adoptive family is killed elsewhere in the EU, then you would have a better case.

Americans are so sensitive when someone rejects the bible in any form. This is an international board. People here may not all accept your bible. They are going to dismiss it or simply not feel that any example from it is valid. Jumping down their throats is not the way to handle it maturely.

Neither is repeating a word in a taunting way like a 5 year old would.

 

Up!

 

I agree with crystal417, Leia was adopted into the Royal Family of Alderaan, and made a Princess. Regardless of true identity or the destruction of her planet, Leia is always a Princess. Adoption is just as legal as being born into a family.

~*~Jedi Leia~*~

 

I consider movie novelizations canon unless they directly contradict the movies, in which case the movies take precedence. That's just me, but Owen and Obi-Wan are not brothers in any known shape or form so far as we know, and I foresee no way in which Lucas will make them as much in Ep. III. If he does, I'll eat my words.

Now, considering that Bail Organa was also apparently elected king, there is no difference between calling Leia a princess based on her adoption and calling her a princess based on her being the daughter of a former queen. With our world's perception of royalty, neither case makes sense. In the GFFA, maybe it does. Maybe it's a sign of respect, calling the children of elected royalty by titles. Just out of curiosity, why does Leia start rejecting her title? Because she's not really Bail's daughter (she doesn't know who her mother was, last I knew), or because Alderaan is gone? I read EU now and then, but I haven't read about this.

 

Trying to explain titles and royal connotations like Queen and Princess in the Star Wars world using Real World definition will never work. You just have to accept that Lucas called them Princess and Queen and not try and explain or justify it.

 

The Organas are a royal family without question. I don't know whether or how Alderaanians elect their rulers but if they do, they're limited to the family. People in the movies address Leia by Your Royal Highness all the time. As for the whole Moses thing, there's a movie that calls him The Prince of Egypt. Even though it's just a movie, Leia is Princess of Alderaan in the same way Moses is the Prince of Egypt.

Anyway, what's up with the contraversy over the Alderaanian throne? I read Dark Force Rising and I know Jorus C'boath played a role in settling it but I forgot why it happened.

 

I agree with DDH. Who cares if Leia the 'princess' is the same as the kind of princess in our world.

 

Enigma_X

The main reason she stopped using it because she became Chief of State. And people were using it against her (NJO)

 

The Republic's original structure was as follows:

Supreme Chancellor

Chancellor's Aide

Senators

----------

Many worlds had different forms of governments.

Naboo had a Democratic Monarchy in which a new queen was chosen every certain amount of years. This queen has complete control over her people and may be present in the Senate and may speak for her people, as can the senator.

Alderaan has a Vice-roy.

Tattooine is ruled by an organization.

Each one has it's own and not many are the same. This means that maybe the child of a Vice-roy or of a Senator automatically becomes a prince or princess of their planet and is able to keep that title even if they find new residency.


~Bôba Fe++

 

Amazing how far people try to get with an argument that leaks like a sieve.

All canonical evidence points to Leia being a Princess before and after the destruction of Alderaan, it would seem- although it's not made entirely clear- because of her adoption by Bail Organa, Viceroy of Alderaan.

Keep in mind the general public probably doesn't know she's the daughter of Padme Amidala Naberrie. Even Leia didn't know who her mother was. Therefore, Tarkin, Vader, the Rebel commanders on Yavin, General Dodonna, General Rieekan, and so on must be referring to her as a Princess by right of being daughter (adopted or not- as far as I know adopted children have the same rights and so on as biological children) of Bail Organa.