There have been elected monarchs in the real world. And at young ages, too, if that's the only choice the various competing powers can agree on who they think they can control.
So, dredging the memory banks here - there are noble families among the Naboo. Those families send their children to special schools where they learn about governing. From there, I think it was just electoral politics. If your kid did well, and you had the money, they ran for office.
I'm just arguing that neither elected monarchs or young monarchs are logical fallacies; we've had both in real-world history. So while I think STAR WARS is full of stupid story moments, it's stuff like being expected to believe that the Jedi are a near-forgotten relic of history...
...and then shown that they were a thriving, widespread thing only a generation back, so lots of people who are alive would know of them. Lucas barely thought any of this stuff through.
But some of it is based on history he was aware of; that stuff's more credible.
The Prequels came out when I was an adult with my own money, so I bought a lot of the lore books that Lucasfilm was putting out everywhere. So, I sort of remember the whys of things. Sort of.
The impression I got is that "queen" is just what they call their elected head of government, and they elect a new one every few years. It's a confusing use by Lucas, and it feels like he just decided Anakin had to fall in the love with a "queen" for some reason, but she's basically a President.
yeah. it felt like lucas was trying to shoehorn a democracy (episode 1) into the aristocracy he had created (episode iv) 20 years earlier. probably to highlight the distinction between republic & empire (a la ancient Rome).
Possibly to connect to Princess Leia, who WAS a member of a hereditary monarchy, though one that seemed a lot more like modern European "nobility" -- they wave at crowds, they act as symbols, but they have at most social authority, not legal.
yes. that's how i saw it. leah was a princess (who doesn't want to rescue a princess, right?) so her mother needed to be a queen, her father, therefore must have been a king, yet he is a member of the imperial senate. then he blows all of that up by having her be adopted.
And then Leia gets secretly adopted anyway, so the royalty stuff doesn't come into play via Padme anyway. Thematically it connects, sure, but it's such a bizarre way to plot that.
in a space fairing society, it seems pretty irresponsible.
i mean, we barely even let 14 year olds drive in our society.
it's not like we haven't had such young rulers, in the past, but we have moved on from that. i don't even think any country with the vote allows minors to do so.
Comments
I'm just arguing that neither elected monarchs or young monarchs are logical fallacies; we've had both in real-world history. So while I think STAR WARS is full of stupid story moments, it's stuff like being expected to believe that the Jedi are a near-forgotten relic of history...
But some of it is based on history he was aware of; that stuff's more credible.
I read the first two novels. I don't think I've read any others, though I may be misremembering something.
ugh.
So making Padme into someone out of Flash Gordon and Barsoom (which were where Lucas started) was there for him to use.
That's what I get for only seeing these movies once, when they were new.
i mean, we barely even let 14 year olds drive in our society.
it's not like we haven't had such young rulers, in the past, but we have moved on from that. i don't even think any country with the vote allows minors to do so.