[Madam Corvax]

As for making a great social statement by having a democratically elected child-queen, I'd rather have a great story. No matter how fantastic the universe, George is stretching our suspension of disbelief to the breaking point by doing these things again and again. If only Lucas would have done some research and planning ahead before writing the PT a lot of these problems might been avoided. But we'll never know, cause it's obvious he doesn't give a shit...

I completely agree.Sometimes I notice that people get carried away in their discussion on some topics, like this one, and try to find justifications for what is only sloppy writing and I-don't-give-a-damn-they-will-buy-anything-as-long-as -it-is-branded-Star-Wars-attitude. GL genuinely cannot write, he just crams ideas he thinks are cool - like elected 12-year-old queen. Much as I am into political correctness and women's position in politics etc, I just don't buy it. A 12-year-old, regardless of the gender, is not fit for ruling.

[njamilla]

that guy just thought that America was the centre of the universe and everywhere else may as well have not existed.

I lived in Japan for 4 years. And I'd say there there is a fair degree of ethnic superiority in the Japanese. Being an American, it was these kinds of experiences which helped me begin to look at my own culture with the same kind of distant observation, and I'll admit that it's very easy for Americans to see themselves as the center of the universe. When I wrote Shimmering Sword, a friend of mine from Australia pointed out my Americano-centric passages. He helped me understand that there's something about SW that transcends world cultures.

George is stretching our suspension of disbelief to the breaking point by doing these things again and again. If only Lucas would have done some research and planning ahead before writing the PT a lot of these problems might been avoided. But we'll never know, cause it's obvious he doesn't give a shit...

Breaking suspension of belief is a good argument against an elected monarchy. If it pulls you out of the movie, then it shouldn't be there. But there's also the argument that in this other universe, they do things differently, which helps distance the SW universe from our real universe. The concept does play to the fairy tale aspect of the movie, which is part and parcel of the SW experience. We don't really have Knights running around our galaxy. And it's ironic that in two modern democracies (the US and in India), the Bushes and the Ghandis have such unbelieveable political and (I would say) dynastic power.

I thinks it's kind of clever that George pulls the Naboo Queen from a simple family. Often in modern democracies only the elite, wealthy, and educated have the realy opportunity to front themselves into politics. And it's interesting that two of the most rigid organizations -- the military and the religious -- are usually more successful in raising ordinary people with simple backgrounds to the highest ranks. In both the military and in institutions like the papacy and the rabbinate is ability and merit cause for advancement, not gentry or political ambition.

As for GL's shitty writing, well, he's not a historian, nor is his forte writing, which he admits is the worst thing he would prefer to be doing. Perhaps he just lucked out with ANH. It's my belief that the other influences in ESB and ROTJ helped make the OT a better storyline. It was an adventure. The PT is supposed to be a history lesson on how Vader became a badass. It hasn't been the greatest story, but it could've been a lot worse. He never really believed that he would ever be able to tell the whole story.

I for one would have preferred to have seen competing Jedi and Sith orders with a major lightsaber battle at the end. Something more like LOTR in scale. Maybe when I get the pulpit and the money.

[Helena]

The whole concept of a democratically elected King, Queen, or Prince is not such a far fetched idea.

I'm sorry, but yes it is. The whole point about a monarchy is that it's a hereditary system.

Dynasties have historically come into being through force of arms. One family wins a war, usually with the bulk of supporters who impose their will on a minority. What's the technical difference between a bunch of elite aristocrats electing their king and a popular suffrage electing their president or prime minister?

Er, the fact that in one case it's a few elite aristocrats choosing the sovereign and in the other it's the entire country? Besides, even if a dynasty is chosen by some form of popular vote, once it's in place it remains just that - a dynasty. There's no room for further elections.

The rules for monarchical transferance of the crown differs from one country to the next, and while I'm not that familiar with European monarchies, it is my understanding that there have been monarchs that have been elected in the same manner that modern democracies have elected their leaders.

Really? I'd love to see just one example of this.

So GL decided on having the Queen elected. If it works for the people of Naboo, why not? A group of 5 men appointed the president of the United States in 2001. Explain that to the rest of the world. Worse has happened in history. What?!? A Sith in charge of the Galactic Senate? Is that any different than a Freemason or a member of the a secret society made up of alums from Yale or a bunch of brown shirts getting an influential governmental post?

I think you're slightly missing the point, which is that Amidala is not a queen. 'Queen' is a hereditary position. An elected leader is, by definition, not a queen.

Part of the reason GL chooses a monarchical nomenclature in the PT is to evoke a sense of medieval grandeur when royal and imperial courts were the centers of political movement. The opulent costumes reinforce this as well. The starkness of OT starships and clothing reflect a different period of social development in the SW universe.

Look, you can have a modern liberal democracy or you can have a medieval-style absolute monarchy, but you can't have both - they just don't fit together. Seriously, imagine the public outcry if George Bush or Tony Blair started building themselves palaces and wearing clothes studded with diamonds! Lucas should have picked one or the other and stuck to it.

As for a child-leader like Queen (Senator) Amidala, or a 18-year-old Princess Leia. What a great social statement about women and their posibility for enlightened social service. Again, (and I'll admit I'm a Democrat), is this any different from a president who has run every company he controlled into the ground? (That's G. Bush, if you didn't know.) One of the reasons the old guard in many countries fail to reform is because there aren't enough fresh bloods being infused into the political system. OK, they're not as experienced, not as knowledgeable, not as successful, but that's what advisors are for. There have been many modern democratic campaigns all over the world where the candidate takes advice from recent college graduates. Old age equates with wisdom as much as youth equates with beauty. There's plenty of room for interpretation, and often it's a question of one's point of view.

Gender has nothing to do with it - the point is that Amidala is simply too young. A college graduate as leader would be one thing, but a fourteen-year-old? Seriously, where do you think the cut-off point should be - ten? Three?

I'm sorry, njamilla, but I really have to disagree with everything you say. A fourteen-year-old elected queen is just a really, really stupid idea - no sane person would ever come up with a political system like Naboo's. I think you might understand this better if you lived in Britain, and saw the trouble we have reconciling even our own limited monarchy with a democratic system.

[Jordan]

I think you're slightly missing the point, which is that Amidala is not a queen. 'Queen' is a hereditary position. An elected leader is, by definition, not a queen. 

See this is what I thought. I can't recall any country in history that has elected a King or Queen to rule over them for a given amount of time. I think of blood line.

I've been reading a book called RVBION, by Tom Holland. It's about the fall and rise of the roman empire. Either a republic with elected consuls stood in power, a King (in the beginning) or a dictator.


To call the the consuls kings, or the dictator king, or even a General in command of the 5th legion King, Queen whatever.... It just doesn't flow.

The terms are so well defined and scribed in peoples heads that to tamper with them would be absurd.

This post has been edited by Jordan: 17 July 2004 - 08:01 AM

[Just your average movie goer]

I understand both sides of the argument on this one. I'll have to sit on the fence. But anyway, elected Queen or not, Episode II has more than enough flaws for us to pick on.

I thought of another one just tonight...

Before the Yoda/Doofus lightsabre fight, Count Dookoo says to Yoda:

"Master Yoda. You have interfered with our affairs for the last time."

The last time? When was the first time? What the hell does this mean? Last time these two met, they were supposedly chums on the Jedi council.

Another example of really shitty dialogue, as if Lucas didn't have enough already. Kind of like Dookoo's line to Obi Wan. I saw a great fanfic take on this. I can't remember all the details but the exchange went like -

Dookoo - Join me.
Obi Wan - In what?
Dookoo - I don't know. Whatever. Doesn't matter. We're all Ian McDiarmand's pawns anyway.

This post has been edited by Just your average movie goer: 17 July 2004 - 09:23 AM

[Madam Corvax]

as for N'Sync... It warms my heart to know that at least two girls are NOT swooning for them.

To change the subject from politics...
Well, I did swoon for Mark Hamill though for quite a long time...until I saw ESB and his new nose. And then I began to swoon for Harrison Ford, until I saw his lousy acting in ROTJ. And then I was past the swooning age anyway.
But were I to decide now, I must say I was more of a "Luke girl" rather than "Han girl".

[Just your average movie goer]

Ah, a Luke-girl. It is nice to hear that Mark Hammil has some female admirers. The poor guy did get a bit shafted in missing out on the large female fan club that other male movie stars get.

[HK 47]

Breaking suspension of belief is a good argument against an elected monarchy. If it pulls you out of the movie, then it shouldn't be there. But there's also the argument that in this other universe, they do things differently, which helps distance the SW universe from our real universe. The concept does play to the fairy tale aspect of the movie, which is part and parcel of the SW experience.

That is were you are wrong. Doing things differently is one thing, doing things that are absolutely inexplicable is something completely different. Every fantasy world, no matter how strange, needs logic, structure and a fair sprinkling of common sense, certain rules that we as an audience can adhere to. This is what George lacks in his writing (amongst other things...). A democratically elected child-queen is stretching it too far, it simply doesn't work. Your arguments seem to hinge on the assumption that a positive message makes a good movie. It is irrelevant how good intentions were or how politically correct it seems, it's still horribly bad because it's impossible to believe. Especially when introducing the US constitution to the mix.

For a contrasting comparison, look at Galadriel of Lorien. Also a beautiful fairy-tale queen (an elf with magical powers no less) who is perfectly believable in the Middle-Earth setting. Her age, position, motivation and characteristics makes sense, because it works with the rest of Tolkiens world. Now imagine Galadriel commenting on her second term of office...

[barend]

as for N'Sync... It warms my heart to know that at least two girls are NOT swooning for them.

To change the subject from politics...
Well, I did swoon for Mark Hamill though for quite a long time...until I saw ESB and his new nose. And then I began to swoon for Harrison Ford, until I saw his lousy acting in ROTJ. And then I was past the swooning age anyway.
But were I to decide now, I must say I was more of a "Luke girl" rather than "Han girl".

awwwwwwwww....

[Helena]

That is were you are wrong. Doing things differently is one thing, doing things that are absolutely inexplicable is something completely different. Every fantasy world, no matter how strange, needs logic, structure and a fair sprinkling of common sense, certain rules that we as an audience can adhere to. This is what George lacks in his writing (amongst other things...). A democratically elected child-queen is stretching it too far, it simply doesn't work. Your arguments seem to hinge on the assumption that a positive message makes a good movie. It is irrelevant how good intentions were or how politically correct it seems, it's still horribly bad because it's impossible to believe. Especially when introducing the US constitution to the mix.

For a contrasting comparison, look at Galadriel of Lorien. Also a beautiful fairy-tale queen (an elf with magical powers no less) who is perfectly believable in the Middle-Earth setting. Her age, position, motivation and characteristics makes sense, because it works with the rest of Tolkiens world. Now imagine Galadriel commenting on her second term of office...     

Exactly. Just as it would not make sense for Aragorn to set up a multiparty democracy at the end of Return of the King, a romanticised monarchy does not work in the quasi-futuristic setting of the Star Wars movies - especially when the 'monarch' is elected. There is simply no such thing as a democratic monarchy, it's a contradiction in terms! Leia was a princess, yes, but she didn't dress like something out of The Mikado and she didn't go on about elections and terms of office - I always assumed her family was a constitutional monarchy, which would have made a lot more sense.

To change the subject from politics...
Well, I did swoon for Mark Hamill though for quite a long time...until I saw ESB and his new nose. And then I began to swoon for Harrison Ford, until I saw his lousy acting in ROTJ. And then I was past the swooning age anyway.
But were I to decide now, I must say I was more of a "Luke girl" rather than "Han girl".

Han for me - though I never really 'swooned' over either of them, to be honest. Those 70's hairstyles, oh dear...

[njamilla]

monarchy is that it's a hereditary system

A monarchy refers to a single sovereign. A hereditary system of government refers to a dynasty.

There's no room for further elections
Tell that to King John of England, who because of pressure from the aristocracy that supported his monarchy was forced to give up many of his prerogatives when he signed the Magna Carta. A dynasty can be removed either through elective means or through force of arms. A king can abdicate his position to a representative government.

I'd love to see just one example of this

Elected Monarchy

"King Haakon VII of Norway: Prince Carl was unanimously chosen king of Norway by the Storting, the Norwegian parliament, and confirmed in a plebiscite by the Norwegian people on November 18, 1905." link

King Juan Carlos I was restored as the king of Spain by a democratically elected parliament. The Spanish Constitution, which provides for a monarchy, was approved in a referendum by 88% of eligible Spanish voters. link

All European monarchs lost their power to parliaments at some point. European sovereigns receive their title and authority only by acts of elected parliaments. If a king or queen in installed by parliament, the people have in fact elected their sovereign through their representative in parliament.

I think you're slightly missing the point, which is that Amidala is not a queen. 'Queen' is a hereditary position. An elected leader is, by definition, not a queen.

A queen is not by definition a hereditary position. It is simply a title for the female sovereign of a monarchy. As I said before, international law sees no distinction between a sovereign representatives of a states, be he/she a president, a king/queen, pope, Emperor/Czar, prime minister. In the SW universe, Queen Amidala of Naboo would be equivalent to President of Malastare if he/she/it were the officially recognized leader of that planet or system.

you can have a modern liberal democracy or you can have a medieval-style absolute monarchy, but you can't have both - they just don't fit together.

You presume that Queen Amidala is an example of an absolute monarchy when it’s very clear that there is some mechanism on Naboo which retains the title of Queen while still maintaining a democratic institution in which the people have an indirect (via representatives) or direct (plebiscite or referendum) election of their leader.

In fact you can have both a liberal democracy and an absolute monarch concurrently. England in the 1600s had Charles I, who claimed absolute authority through his crown, and parliament led by Oliver Cromwell. No, they did not get on with each other because philosophically they did not agree on the derivation of their authority - Charles from God, Cromwell from parliament and the people - but for many years this state of government did co-exist. Eventually it did lead to civil war.

Seriously, imagine the public outcry if George Bush or Tony Blair started building themselves palaces and wearing clothes studded with diamonds!

You’re confusing the authority of office with the trappings of a regal office. A sovereign is the leader whether he/she/it wears a Western business suit, a courtly robe, or a military uniform.

A college graduate as leader would be one thing, but a fourteen-year-old

History is replete with examples of teenage sovereigns. Some actually exercised their direct rule. Others had to wait until some legally established age of ascension. You’re focusing on age as requisite for rule, while actual ruling political systems focus on legality, authority, and often tradition.

I'm sorry, njamilla, but I really have to disagree with everything you say. A fourteen-year-old elected queen is just a really, really stupid idea - no sane person would ever come up with a political system like Naboo's. I think you might understand this better if you lived in Britain, and saw the trouble we have reconciling even our own limited monarchy with a democratic system.

You’re welcome to disagree with me, but it’s not one individual’s say in what is a stupid idea for electing a queen, much less who is sane or not in coming up with a political system like Naboo’s. And, my living in the US in no way prevents me from understanding the struggles of monarchy and liberal democracy. You may not like GL’s creation of an ambiguously elected queen, but there’s nothing unprecedented in it human history. What is important in the maintenance of a sovereign is de facto rule and/or de jure authority, not their title, not their age, not their manner of election, not their clothing style.

There is simply no such thing as a democratic monarchy
European monarchs have little pretension these days for absolute authority. All are well educated in the history of their nation and most are fervent supporters of liberal democratic institutions. A constitutional monarchy is in fact a democratic monarchy in form and in action. Whether citizens like the idea of a monarch or not, the mechanism for the existence of a political leader and a titular leader have been set in place for decades in modern nation-states. And it works.


a beautiful fairy-tale queen (an elf with magical powers no less) who is perfectly believable in the Middle-Earth setting.
An elf fairy tale queen certainly fits the expectations of the traditional fantasy cliche. SW, with a democratically elected Queen, raises issues of democratic processes and threats of dictatorships. I thoroughly enjoyed LOTR for its story, but in terms of political systems, at least the political systems in SW are more intellectually challenging than those of Tolkien’s world.


The concept of a Queen in the PT is as appropriate as Jedi Knights in the OT. The directorial license to include Knights in a universe where royalty in a futuristic setting still has currency is very much in line with the fairy tale stories and legends that come from medieval times. If you think that’s anachronistic, fine. But just because a democratic monarch isn’t within your experience doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have plausibility within the context of the SW universe. If you can accept knights who fight with light sword, why not a planet that has government which has politically evolved into a democratically elected monarch?

[Paladin]

The last time? When was the first time? What the hell does this mean? Last time these two met, they were supposedly chums on the Jedi council.

Good point. Actually, that scene reminded a lot of the cartoons I used to watch when I was a kid. Like Scooby Doo or TMNT. You know, whenever the heroes get into a fight with the bad guys they throw lines like that.

[HK 47]

Njamilla, you're failing to address the core points here. You spend a lot of effort proving that there have been instances of child monarchs or democracy combined with monarchy in our world. Sure there is, in my country as well. Of course, the King has no real power at all.
But that's not the point, the point is: This doesn't justify Georges stupid ideas. You're grasping at straws here. George doesn't have a masterplan and it is painfully apparent. He alters his structure and systems to fit the moment, not with afterthought.

thoroughly enjoyed LOTR for its story, but in terms of political systems, at least the political systems in SW are more intellectually challenging than those of Tolkien’s world.

Intellectually challenging? What can I say, yes they certainly are...

If you can accept knights who fight with light sword, why not a planet that has government which has politically evolved into a democratically elected monarch?

No, no, no! You fail to address the problem. Not a "democratically elected monarch", a "democratically elected child-queen" who quotes the US constitution... THAT is the problem.

This is what you should ask yourself: "If you can accept knights who fight with light sword, why not a planet that has government which is ruled by a democratically elected child-queen whose government is a mix between a fairy-tale kingdom and the US government".
The answer is: "Because the latter doesn't make sense and it is one of many reasons why the PT sucks." Again: Reason and logic in sci-fi and fantasy movies are critical to maintaining suspension of disbelief

You’re welcome to disagree with me, but it’s not one individual’s say in what is a stupid idea for electing a queen, much less who is sane or not in coming up with a political system like Naboo’s.

Oh, but there's more than one of us you know...

[Xombie]

There is no intrinsic reason why a 14 year old elected queen of a planet would be completely out of the question. Consider just one possibilty: Not everyone can run for ruler, only select royal families are eligible (in fact, a civil war between these families is the reason ultimately elections as a solution were arrived at in the first place. Term limits too.) Queen Amidala is young but the other families have done a poor job and are viewed as corrupt. Further, it is well understood that when you vote for a ruler you get more than just that one person, you get all the advisors and bureacrats associated with that family just like with the Kennedy and Bush dynasies. She may just be 14, but don't worry, the thinking goes: older steadier hands will be at the reins.
No, the problem is not that the political system is inexplicable. It's that George Lucas is too stupid to realize it needs an explanation.

[Helena]

njamilla, none of the examples you've given are even close to Naboo's system. Even in the case of Norway, the monarch doesn't actually govern - and although the monarchy was set up by popular demand, the throne is passed down to the first king's descendants, rather than having elections every few years to choose a new king. Like it or not, heredity is an essential part of any monarchical system.

A queen is not by definition a hereditary position. It is simply a title for the female sovereign of a monarchy. As I said before, international law sees no distinction between a sovereign representatives of a states, be he/she a president, a king/queen, pope, Emperor/Czar, prime minister. In the SW universe, Queen Amidala of Naboo would be equivalent to President of Malastare if he/she/it were the officially recognized leader of that planet or system.

What does international law have to do with it? You're right in the sense that the US could vote to rename the title of President to 'King' and he would still be recognised as the country's leader, but it doesn't make it any less of a bloody stupid idea.

You presume that Queen Amidala is an example of an absolute monarchy when it’s very clear that there is some mechanism on Naboo which retains the title of Queen while still maintaining a democratic institution in which the people have an indirect (via representatives) or direct (plebiscite or referendum) election of their leader.

No, I'm not presuming anything of the sort. Naboo does not, in fact, have any sort of monarchy - it has a presidential system. There is absolutely no reason to call Amidala a 'queen' except that George Lucas thinks it sounds more romantic.

The problem is that in some ways, Amidala acts lika an absolute monarch. The kind of lavish expenditure she indulges in might be feasible for a 14th-century Japanese Emperor, but it would never be tolerated under a democratic system - no, not even a constitutional monarchy. I shudder to think what the reaction would be if our Queen started acting like that!

In fact you can have both a liberal democracy and an absolute monarch concurrently. England in the 1600s had Charles I, who claimed absolute authority through his crown, and parliament led by Oliver Cromwell. No, they did not get on with each other because philosophically they did not agree on the derivation of their authority - Charles from God, Cromwell from parliament and the people - but for many years this state of government did co-exist. Eventually it did lead to civil war.

You're undermining your own case here. For a start, England in the 1600s was not a 'liberal democracy' or anything remotely like it. And even so, as you yourself point out, the system collapsed because it didn't work!

History is replete with examples of teenage sovereigns. Some actually exercised their direct rule. Others had to wait until some legally established age of ascension. You’re focusing on age as requisite for rule, while actual ruling political systems focus on legality, authority, and often tradition.

Yes, there are many examples of teenage sovereigns. However, there is not a single example of a democratically elected fourteen-year-old sovereign, for the simple reason that no one in their right mind would elect a fourteen-year-old as their leader!

European monarchs have little pretension these days for absolute authority. All are well educated in the history of their nation and most are fervent supporters of liberal democratic institutions. A constitutional monarchy is in fact a democratic monarchy in form and in action. Whether citizens like the idea of a monarch or not, the mechanism for the existence of a political leader and a titular leader have been set in place for decades in modern nation-states. And it works.

No, a constitutional monarchy is not the same thing as a 'democratic monarchy' - there's nothing democratic about it. I should know, I live in one! The government is democratically elected, not the monarch. And Amidala is not just a 'titular' leader, she's also the head of government - in other words, a President.

An elf fairy tale queen certainly fits the expectations of the traditional fantasy cliche. SW, with a democratically elected Queen, raises issues of democratic processes and threats of dictatorships. I thoroughly enjoyed LOTR for its story, but in terms of political systems, at least the political systems in SW are more intellectually challenging than those of Tolkien’s world.

'Intellectualy challenging'? You have to be kidding me. Have a look at this exchange of dialogue between Padme and Anakin in Episode II:

PADMÉ: You really don't like politicians, do you?

ANAKIN: I like two or three, but I'm not really sure about
one of them. (smiling) I don't think the system works.

PADMÉ: How would you have it work?

ANAKIN: We need a system where the politicians sit down and
discuss the problem, agree what's in the best interests of
all the people, and then do it.

PADMÉ: That is exactly what we do. The trouble is that
people don't always agree. In fact, they hardly ever do.

ANAKIN: Then they should be made to.

PADMÉ: By whom? Who's going to make them?

ANAKIN: I don't know. Someone.

PADMÉ: You?

ANAKIN: Of course not me.

PADMÉ: But someone.

ANAKIN: Someone wise.

PADMÉ: That sounds an awful lot like a dictatorship to me.

ANAKIN: Well, if it works...

If you truly find this sort of kindergarten-level politics 'intellectually challenging', I don't think there's any point in us discussing this any further.