So now we're changing the whole "Do you remember your mother? Your real mother" speech to be pretty much pointless just to make the prequels work? No. I'm not ****ing doing that. The scene with Leia and Luke had meaning because Luke was asking about his own mother, who he knew took care of Leia. I'm not changing a great scene in a good film just to justify ****ty writing in a bad one. Especially when RotS makes no attempt to clarify the stupid discrepancy they've introduced. What's the point of this change? How does it improve either film in any way to make that speech a mistake?
It doesn't. I don't think it was a good change either, although I wouldn't go so far as to call RotJ a great film. It's by far the weakest film of the OT. I don't even agree it's that good a scene, because the whole "btw Leia is Luke's sister" thing is one of the dumbest things about the movie. That and the teddybears.
The point I'm making is that the assumption that Leia's recollection there is correct and true is exactly that: an assumption. It's a good assumption, but at no point is it shown or explicitly stated that it's fact. Childhood memories aren't known to be especially reliable.
Does it make the story better? No, but it is believable. If we're ok with ignoring the prequels because they make the Star Wars worse, can I or can I not ignore the bits of RotJ I find idiotic, like Leia being Luke's sister and the army of teddybears? Because I think those two make Star Wars much worse than "Leia doesn't actually remember Padme" and "it turns out the old Jedi were kinda dumb".
Actually I think that last one is one of the best things the prequels did. Suddenly Star Wars wasn't as black and white as originally presented in the OT.
As an aside: I think the novelization of RotS is a better story than RotJ. The RotS novelisation is genuinely good, and it's what convinced me that there was a good story in that movie, under all of Lucas's poor character writing.