Talk:Leia Organa Solo

Sources Not Yet Covered
Leia is going to be a tough article because she is involved in every major plotline. Anyone with the guide to characters could setup a good structure for the article, and then we should list character developments and major actions/adventures that have yet to be covered and the source they originate from. --SparqMan 15:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Origins secret
"Organa's relationship to Darth Vader was kept secret; publicly, she remained known as the biological heir to Bail Organa, and thus the Royal House of Alderaan." In the NR era? Vader was known to be Luke's father, and Leia known to be Luke's sister. 1+1=2. Am I missing something? --SparqMan 12:07, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there is an assumption that Luke and Leia are half-siblings? I don't know - haven't read much post-ROTJ EU. QuentinGeorge 12:20, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * It may just be out of place and intended for the pre-GCW section. Pretty sure that after ROTJ, everyone knew. --SparqMan 13:28, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Could be that they just never publicly revealed that Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader were the same person. I can understand why you might not want it revealed your father was a mass murderer. --User:SFH

About the infant used to portray the Skywalker twins in Ep. III
Changed the following paragraph, adding information about the previously unidentified infant. The source for this information is the e-book from StarWars.com: http://www.starwars.com/episode-iii/release/publishing/img/thefinalchapter.pdf

Leia was played by actress Carrie Fisher in the Original Trilogy, as well as by Aiden Barton (editor Roger Barton's son) as an infant in Revenge of the Sith. Leia was also played by Ann Sachs in the 1980s radio drama.

Age
Leia is really 18 in Episode IV, A New Hope, even that Revenge of the Sith is 19 bby, the story of Episode III could had been one year long. I'm glad you asked. I remember when hasbro came out with the Star Wars Triaba Game for Episode IV, V and VI (Back in 1997). One question was how old was Luke when he first meet Obi-Wan. It said that the answer was 18.
 * And what do you base that on? MarcK 19:17, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Also I got a game from Toys R Us called Top Thumb, and it had cards for alot of Star Wars Charaters. On the bottom it told what there age was from the movie we last seen them in (In the order of I, II, IV, V, VI, this was one year before Episode III came out). For Luke and Leia, it said 22, and since they were last seen in Return of the Jedi (which is 4 ABY) it means they were 18 in A New Hope. (UTC)
 * So? The actual movie has more credit than these cards, and the movie happened in 19 BBY. Luke and Leia were born in the movie. Two and two make four. Demented Smiloid 20:09, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Those cards are superseded by the movie. As a note, the ANH novel says Luke is 20 and Leia is 18. Movie always trumps EU. Luke and Leia are 19 in ANH. No argument. QuentinGeorge 21:43, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I agree that they are 19 in ANH, but I was just wondering. Where they 19 years old since it was released in 1977, or were they 18 and just before ROTS came out, did Lucas decided to make them a year older for some reason?
 * The were listed as born 18 years before ANH in the The Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels, so I guess it wasn't changed until before Episode 3, like you said. I guess he didn't want to have the Clone Wars drag on for another year. If anyone really wants to retcon it, maybe they could say that they're 19 during film #4, but they were born 18 years before A New Hope. According to Star Wars Timeline Gold, the early chapters of the radio drama take place before the film itself, but are still part of A New Hope.-LtNOWIS 00:18, 18 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * In early EU Luke and Leia were 20 in ANH (see ANH novelisation), the "18" age was something that came later on. QuentinGeorge 00:22, 18 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to be a pest, but I got another question, How many days were there from the Battle of Coruscant to the birth of Luke and Leia, were these two events days apart or months apart. Maybe Luke and Leia could be 18 1/2 or 18 3/4.

in on of the Star Wars Insider issues (I think # 85 the one with the 3 cover clone trooper) someone asked the same question the answer was RotS takes place in the course of 4 days, they did say this was a guess since they used sunrise's and sunset's from Coruscant to count the days. --sithlord123 13:34, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * It was Star Wars Insider 84, and the timeline that Pablo Hidalgo provided shows it takes place over nine days. jSarek 19:40, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Quote
Like Luke surely this article needs a quote at every section..it looks much more impressive.im gonna start finding some quotes. Jedi Dude
 * I think we should stick with one "opening quote"....but which one? Neither - another one altogether? Anyone? QuentinGeorge 06:12, 4 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * More things -- quotes for example -- are always good. If don't like the comitee one, there are many others... --Master Starkeiller 12:16, 4 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * "More things are always better" you say? Not true. We try to stick with one quote on any article. – Aidje talk 14:07, 4 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Why? Why only one when there are so many? --Master Starkeiller 14:21, 4 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Because one leading quote looks neater. Any additional should go in the body of the article. QuentinGeorge 20:23, 4 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * If it's a policy, I don't mind... One quote, two quotes... I see no problem... --Master Starkeiller 18:46, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Show some respect!
Come on, why ,must this page be called: "Leia Organa Solo? Why not just "Leia Organa," out of respect for her actual name? Adamwankenobi 00:33, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC) OK, I see what you mean. Ideally, however, the fair solution would be that: a man and woman would marry, but would either create: a new name they would both take, or, each keep their last names and name their children as follows: girl takes woman's last name, boy takes father's last name. This would avoid the massive names you refer to. Adamwankenobi 12:08, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Um...because she's married to Han Solo and thus that's now her name? MarcK 00:35, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Rather, she married him and chose to accept his surname as her own in addition to her adoptive name. Generally we use "Terran" naming conventions unless another method is specified. If Leia suddenly chose to formally go by "Leia Skywalker Organa Solo", we'd start using that name. --SparqMan 03:12, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't believe a character as strong as Leia or Mara Jade would do that. But, of course, her character was created by earthy humns. Adamwankenobi 09:06, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why it is a sign of "weakness" to take a new name upon marriage. QuentinGeorge 09:12, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * How should I put this? Um, it is a sign more or less of your willingness to let someone else exert control over you, or at least it is symbolic of giving in or allowing the superiority of someone. That's really what's so horrible about it. And the thing is, the vast majority of the women in the world are brought up believing they are inferior to the guys (yes, this is coming from a male, albeit one who sees things objectively). So that really is the reason why the custom of "taking a different name" developed, becuase of the man's feeling of superiority, and womens feeling of inferiority. This then, of course became written into the Star Wars continuity into a civilization beings which I feel, would have advanced far beyond the earthly human track of thought. So, when I say "show some respect," I mean show respect of a person's (in this case a fictional character's) individuality. Adamwankenobi 10:27, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Errr......no. QuentinGeorge 10:37, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Can you give me a logical reason for your point of view? Adamwankenobi 10:43, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Modern Western marriage practices do indeed arise from old patriarchal customs, but they've lingered despite the fact that patriarchy in modern Western society is greatly diminished. So, a woman can feel no inferiority whatsover with respect to her husband and still take his name just because "that's the way it's done," or to conform to the beliefs of others that "that's the way it's done."  And the GFFA is, in many respects, even more conservative than our world, since it's a fairy tale, and fairy tales are almost always conservative; you'll note that homosexuality is completely unaddressed, and premarital pregnancies and/or bastard children are almost completely absent from the canon (with the exceptions of Mynar Devis, Jangotat's progeny, Khaleen Hentz's child, and possibly a few others).  So it's quite reasonable to expect that the GFFA would keep a conservative view of an institution like marriage, regardless of the strength and equality of the female characters. jSarek 11:01, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * JSarek said what I was going to rather eloquently, I think. Might I add it doesn't seem be a hard and fast rule - see Sola Naberrie, whose children took her surname rather than that of Darred Janren. Regardless, if the concept of a surname is to exist at all, somewhere along the line the child has to take one parent's alone, otherwise after enough generations we'd all have massively long hyphenated names. Anyway, back to my original point - calling her "Leia Organa Solo" isn't disrespectful because it's what Leia calls herself. If we really wan't to shed the "patriarchal influence" she should be Leia Naberrie. QuentinGeorge 11:13, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... It's not such a bad idea. But at the same time it can also cause confusion. For example, a man's last name is Smith and his wife's last name is Jones. So if their sons are given the last name Smith from their father and their daughters Jones from their mother, is that family gonna be called the Smith family or the Jones family? Sounds more of like two different families living under the same roof even though they are closely related. Like what JSarek said, modern marriages today still use patriarchal customs, despite the fact that in today's society men and women are both treated equally. But then, who knows? In the future it might be different from today. So in today's world, let's just keep it the way it is. Otherwise a family would end up having too many last names which might be hard to even keep track of. - Divinity 11:04, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * This is all getting completely off-track. Case in point, from Dark Tide I: Onslaught, quoting Borsk Fey'lya:


 * "...And so, it is my distinct pleasure to welcome back to this chamber a woman who has been more at home here than anyone else in the senate's history. I present to you Leia Organa Solo, envoy from Dubrillion."


 * Next case. MarcK 11:24, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)

OK OK.how about this. her name is: Master Princess Leia Amidala Naberie Skywalker Organa Solo Fireball93 02:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Height
So, how tall is Leia exatly? Both Databank and The New Essential Guide to Characters state that she's 1.5 meters, but here it says 1.56. And when you look at the Internet Movie Database entry on Carrie Fisher, it gives 5'1 (1.55 m) as her height. Shouldn't the height of the character be equivalent to the height of the actor? --Tinwe 13:17, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)

What is the difference? Only by a quarter or so of a meterFireball93 02:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Uh... A quarter of a meter is a lot. A meter is about three feet, making a quarter of a meter around 9 inches (I know that's not exact, but it's close within an inch or two). If you're talking distance between planets, nine inches is nothing. When you're talking heights of people, it's rather substantial. --Thorvindr 01:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless 5 cm is not nine inches. It's two inches. QuentinGeorge 02:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it's that important really, I just find it interesting that there are more than one version of Leia's height floating around (and we aim at accuracy, right?). Besides, I like to nitpick :) --Tinwe 20:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Birth name
Where does the information about her birth name being Leia Amidala Skywalker come from? If that's correct, why isn't Luke's birth name "Luke Amidala Skywalker" then? --Tinwe 09:50, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe it's from the ROTS VD. And I have no clue about Luke's naming. At least we know they have the decency to name their children using both parents' last names. Adamwankenobi 09:56, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Adamwankenobi 11:29, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC) I'm not trying to say anything like that. Until an official source gives his original name, his birth name is only "Luke," and his later name is "Luke Skywalker." Actually, to me, if they are going to use that naming format, they should have named Luke "Luke Naberrie Skywalker" and Leia "Leia Naberrie Skywalker." Adamwankenobi 11:42, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * It IS from the ROTS VD. However, it doesn't say Luke's name though. But this doesn't mean that ALL characters name their kids using both the father and mother's last names. Cause most the characters are always referred with their father's last name, just like most people here in the Real-life world. After all, the Star Wars universe is written by humans from Earth. So they tend to follow many of the traditions earthly humans have. But there are a few cases of people taking their mother's last name such as Ryoo and Pooja Naberrie as well as Tenel Ka. Since the ROTS VD officially states that Leia's birth name is Leia Amidala Skywalker, we should leave it the way it is. - Divinity 10:29, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Luke's not "Luke Amidala Skywalker" because...Amidala is likely Leia's MIDDLE name, not a hyphenated surname. (since Amidala is NOT Padme's surname). In that case, Luke can't have the name Amidala because he's male. So the kids weren't given both surnames, since Padme didn't use her surname at that stage. QuentinGeorge 10:59, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with QuentinGeorge. Besides, Amidala is actually a female name, and is not Padme's REAL surname as it is actually her name of state. Which is why Luke is not named that way. - Divinity 11:14, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * "Amidala" is the last name Padme took when she was elected Queen. Once again, since it was written by earthly humans, this seems to reflect the customs of royalty on earth.
 * No, it's NOT a last name. It's a regal name - like how "Prince Albert" became "George VI". It's definately not a surname, and is never used as such in any source. And FYI - Royalty on Earth don't have surnames. For example Prince Charles is NOT Charles Windsor or Charles Mountbatten-Windsor. QuentinGeorge 05:49, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * So are you trying to say that Luke's full name should be "Luke Amidala Skywalker" then? Whether or not it is officially stated anywhere in whatever Star Wars reference books. It is not officially stated whether parents name their children using both last names or not in the Star Wars universe. - Divinity 11:37, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Alright, fine! I get what you mean. But at this moment let's just keep it the way it is officially stated, ok? - Divinity 11:48, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Which is why plainly "Amidala" in Leia's name ISN'T a double-barrelled surname. It's a middle name Padme gave her daughter to honour the name Padme assumed as Queen. If she wanted to honour her own family, Padme would have passed on the *actual* surname - Naberrie - like her sister Sola did. QuentinGeorge 05:49, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Heh, it seems I managed to kindle some discussion here :) Thanks for all the replys, I always thought (incorrectly, it seems) Amidala was Padmé's last name, since as a senator she was known as Padmé Amidala. But if Amidala was Leia's middle name, when did Padmé give it? She seemed to die pretty quickly after Leia was born, and we never heard her give her daughter any other name than Leia. But it's fine by me if the name is left as it is, since it comes from an official source. --Tinwe 15:20, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Younger twin sister?
I didnt want to edit before discussing. in the first paragraph its written that Leia is the "Younger twin sister" of Luke. How can she be younger if they are twins? Because she was born later? This seems too trivial to call her "younger", but then again ive known few twins in my life.
 * Well, she is technically younger, only becuase she was born only a few seconds after he was. Adamwankenobi 04:06, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)

hot
she looks hot in the bikini. do you have any pictues of her naked? I want to see her tits
 * Another worthwhile, informative comment from the users too incompetent to even bother registering - Kwenn 22:28, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * The bikini really hurt ROTJ in the long run. It gets really irritating after a while. -- SFH 22:32, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)

You should be banned! Fireball93 02:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

 * Should Leia have a Jedi character infobox? I think so. Eyrezer 02:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Me too. I thought we are going with the "latest" affiliation? The last time I checked, she was a Jedi... In fact, I think I'll go and change it now. If someone wants to complain, you know the address. --Tinwe 17:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur as well. Adamwankenobi 17:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Episode IV hair
Do we have some sort of article&mdash;either IU or OOU&mdash;about Leia's distinctive hair style in Episode IV? If not, I think we are lacking in a rather important part of Star Wars Culture. Especially in light of it's return in Episode III. -- SFH 04:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC) http://starwars.wikicities.com/wiki/Image:Liana.jpg VT-16 18:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I remember seeing a woman playing an Alderaanian Senatorial Aide (cut from TPM) who wore similar clothing and hairstyle. So i don't think it's strictly a fashion-statement from Naboo. VT-16 13:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * In the Revenge of the Sith: The Visual Dictionary, it points to Senator Amidala's bun hairdo and describes it as a "coiffure from Naboo." Sounds clear enough to me. Cutch 17:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Looking at her picture, the aide's hairstyle is more similar to the one Padme has in AOTC, with more bows:
 * So? She is either from Naboo, or got her hairstyle from Naboo. But the ROTS:VD explicitly stated the origin of that "bun" hairstyle is Naboo. Cutch 18:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Very well, then. I was just making an observation. VT-16 22:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I guess that came off pretty testy. Sorry. Cutch 22:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That's alright. :) VT-16 23:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Organa "Solo"?
Why do we have to have the Solo in the title, instead of just Leia Organa? Leia Organa fits in with all phases of her life, whereas Leia Organa Solo only fits as her name after she marries Han Solo. An achronological name is better. --Andrettin 19:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see Forum:CT Archive/Article naming conventions. &mdash;Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, those points do make sense. Thanks! --Andrettin 16:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)