MovieChat Forums > Star Wars (1977) Discussion > "Princess" Leia makes no sense

"Princess" Leia makes no sense

posted a year ago by avortac4 (3478)
2 replies | jump to latest

I put 'princess' on quotes, because when your whole KINGDOM explodes, it's kinda hard for you to be a princess anymore, RIGHT?!

Let's look at this logically. They took Luke and Leia to different planets, so Vader wouldn't find them. How the heck does some kind of 'foster child' become a legitimate princess, wouldn't her lineage be completely different?

More importantly, why would a king and queen agree to adopt some stranger's child as their own and let her become a princess?

Then we have the whole idea of someone WANTING to send a someone into hiding.. by making them BECOME ROYALTY?! It's not very inconspicuous, you know.

Why wouldn't they just be together anyway, did they assume one of them would be found, so the other one would still live? Why would they even think it's important for them to live and be so hidden, maybe Vader would've been a good father, and possibly not even become so evil if he had a family to take care of?

When you think about all this, it makes absolutely no sense, unless you look at it from the point of view of some goofball that wanted to write a 'space version' of old war movies, old adventure serials and 'knights and princesses' with some kind of 'magic force' as well.

The existence of 'the force' makes almost everything else make NO SENSE already, but introduction of light sabers, princesses and the droids completely destroy any logic and reason anyone's motivations or actions might have othewise had.

It's hard to take a story, movie or a plot seriously, when everything you think about for five seconds falls apart and logically couldn't happen.

Why does Obi-Wan know Chewbacca's name - does he speak wookieish - but not Han's name (notice how HE has to introduce himself)? Does he frequent the bar and has met the wookie before, but just hasn't happened to meet Han, who is ALWAYS RIGHT NEXT TO HIM?

I can't watch movies anymore, because no one seems to care about internal logic, characters' motivations or just making ANY KIND OF sense. Sigh.

P.S. Forgot to mention how these people that decided to hide Vader's kids and separate them and somehow were able to hide the FACT that he HAS kids from a POWERFUL FORCE USER that can 'feel presences' (except when it comes to Leia), were misandristically unfair - so very realistic in that sense - and gave Luke a CRUMMY, poor farmer life on a desert planet with no people or nature, and let Leia become a friggin' PRINCESS OF A WHOLE PLANET! Why be so unfair?? Let both kids thrive in similarly uplifting and rich environment, damnit!

P.P.S. Also forgot to add to my original point, that surely these people would've MADE SURE that Leia CAN'T become any kind of rebel (why would a princess even have motivation to, or even be told about the rebellion, or even be able to be accepted as a legitimate rebel, and how did it even happen, and why didn't anyone stop it immediately, etc..? If she just followed some 'bad boy hunk rebel', then why isn't she with him instead of hooking up with Han? Why is 'Han' pronounced so inconsistently anyway?)?

Wouldn't they have told the king and queen to NEVER let her become a rebel under any circumstances, or .. I mean, how much were these people winging it, what was their agenda, EXACTLY?!

[–] 123Guy (6189) a year ago

oh lordy, you again? :D
learn to be ENTERTAINED already

[–] MAGolding (1096) 3 months ago

"More importantly, why would a king and queen agree to adopt some stranger's child as their own and let her become a princess?"

There are many examples in the Roman Empire of an Emperor without a son adopting a man to make them their heir and the next emperor.

So I see no reason why a king and queen couldn't adopt a daughter, especially if they had sons expected to be heirs to the throne.

It was also common to claim that a monarch was not really the rightful monarch because he wasn't the son of the previous monarch. In many eras a royal woman had to give birth in public with dozens of witnesses watching to see that the baby actually emerged from her. And yet in some cases enemies of the child claimed they had been smuggled into the birthing room and weren't actually the child of the mother. Enemies of the monarch would use that in their propaganda about them.

So the people who believed those stories could believe that if a king and queen were childless they might pretend to have a baby and heir to the throne just to spite whoever was next in line for the throne or to make the king more secure on the throne, or whatever. And if people could believe that some people could have motives for having a fake child, maybe a small proportion of people actually might have motives to fake having a child.