I’m not going to downvote this comment because it does a much better job than your previous few comments in actually grappling with what other people are saying. I was tempted to upvote it, but if the comment had come from somene else I would not have done so, and I’m not that inclined to reward karma to the most-improved. You’ll probably appreciate the instincts against that.
That said, there are still simple factual issues and other problems with this post.
Indeed, the Star Wars universe is a particular example of the universal rule that you are, these days, not allowed to have a hero who is born to be King
“Chronicles of the Necromancer” would be the only the most recent popular fantasy series that comes to mind involving a hero born to be king. Another example is in the Abhorsen series where one of the main characters is the sleeping prince who is restored to his kingship. Now, you could point out that in both these series there are powerful females also. In the first example, the protagonists love interest a warrior princess. And in the second one the protagonists for most of the books are female necromancers. But that’s a distinct situation from what you are claiming here. The point is that having heros born to be kings is more than ok in the current literature.
The lines you quote make sense in a society where the Jedi are a ruling aristocracy, or a powerful part of a ruling aristocracy, and Luke is born to be King. Since star wars is not set in such a society, they don’t make any sense
I’m not sure I understand this. Do you mean to assert that the lines themselves don’t make sense? Or that they don’t make sense for the purposes that they are being used as an example? In any event, you seem to be using an extremely narrow notion of aristrocracy. The point is that merit, power and being a person that matters are all inherited in the blood in Star Wars. Whether such people are in charge of the government is a nitpicky distraction.
And if one really wants to go there, note that in the Expanded Star Wars universe Leia becomes the prime minister of the New Republic, and everyone who tries to unseat her is portrayed as evil or incompetent.
I’m not going to downvote this comment because it does a much better job than your previous few comments in actually grappling with what other people are saying. I was tempted to upvote it, but if the comment had come from somene else I would not have done so, and I’m not that inclined to reward karma to the most-improved. You’ll probably appreciate the instincts against that.
That said, there are still simple factual issues and other problems with this post.
“Chronicles of the Necromancer” would be the only the most recent popular fantasy series that comes to mind involving a hero born to be king. Another example is in the Abhorsen series where one of the main characters is the sleeping prince who is restored to his kingship. Now, you could point out that in both these series there are powerful females also. In the first example, the protagonists love interest a warrior princess. And in the second one the protagonists for most of the books are female necromancers. But that’s a distinct situation from what you are claiming here. The point is that having heros born to be kings is more than ok in the current literature.
I’m not sure I understand this. Do you mean to assert that the lines themselves don’t make sense? Or that they don’t make sense for the purposes that they are being used as an example? In any event, you seem to be using an extremely narrow notion of aristrocracy. The point is that merit, power and being a person that matters are all inherited in the blood in Star Wars. Whether such people are in charge of the government is a nitpicky distraction.
And if one really wants to go there, note that in the Expanded Star Wars universe Leia becomes the prime minister of the New Republic, and everyone who tries to unseat her is portrayed as evil or incompetent.