SPECULATION Why Luke Skywalker has to have had a child.

Is that really very important? They are Skywalkers, no matter what they call themselves.

But they can call themselves anything they want to. Some Americans who had their surnames altered by a clerk on Ellis Island a hundred years ago revert back to their ethnic names. My own dad took the surname of his adoptive father, who actually never adopted him formally. People can take any last name they want, it depends on whom they identify with. I even had a couple of friends who took parts of both their last names to make a brand- new surname after they were married.

 

The whole point of a surname is to be biologically stuck with it and to carry on the legacy, and changing any part of that or marrying into it, doesn't make you part of that name unless your offspring also have it z

 

That's your interpretation of it. World history would suggest that isn't the only, or even primary, one. Kingdoms have risen and fallen over bloodlines that at times are traced through the maternal side.

I do genealogy for fun and also donate my time to nonprofit foundations who need to track down legal heirs. I run across a lot of family books- the latest was the Stovall Family in America. This lineage originates with Benjamin Stovall who came to the US in 1684 as an indentured servant. There are hundreds of people in that book, a great many of them not named Stovall. But they all identify as Stovall because he was so prominent in the history of Virginia.

Just like all of Anakin's descendants can identify as a Skywalker no matter what their names actually are. They are all Skywalkers.

Until the invention of the GEDCOM file, family historians used a horribly complex numbering system designed to track lineage down through the generations, no distinction being made between male and female descendants. If heritage depended on a name, there'd be no need for any of that. And, of course, this was well before today's feminism and DNA tests.

And then there's the Sons and Daughters of the American Revolution. To apply to those groups, you have to prove you are a descendent of a Revolutionary War soldier. It does NOT matter if you trace it through a female or male descendant, and it's always been that way. If the SAR doesn't care, why do you?

Any serious family researcher will have a handful of books on their shelf- all with different family names. And they are a descendant of ALL of those families. Their identity depends on which branch they, well, identify with.

 

I think the Skywalker name has to be passed on, because people are uncreative and think they know what's best for a movie.

They like what's familiar, especially in a movie series like this....despite the fact that the OT was more of a character piece that tossed in a twist at the end....for some strange reason people want the same twist so they can be like "woah. I told you so...I bet no one else saw that coming." When in reality we all knew from day one.
So now the new movies gotta retread those lines, so now people freak out when they see finn pop up, cause he can't be related...well, they hope not...unless he's landos kid.


It's not just skywalker, it's all of em....and it's lame as all hell. They've done all they can to delude the force and make it not so special when compared to a last name. Hopefully this new series gets it right.

 

Yes, it may have to be passed on for a practical marketing reason. To a certain extent they have to make things obvious as hell. Although, it would introduce the need for a contrived-feeling plot to have Luke to marry just so we can have a person in this generation with "Skywalker" for a surname, IMHO.

There are other ways to achieve that goal. Rey doesn't even HAVE a last name right now. She could choose Starwalker at some point in the future. That also calls for a contrived-feeling plot, but one that could be occur organically through the course of the movie(s). Finn doesn't have a name, either. What if he ends up feeling so close to Luke that he adopts his name?

Daisy has said that we'll know her parentage by the end of the movie. But we still might not know her name.

What's ironic is that we can't tell who she is from the script. To me, that means her journey is the same whether she's a Skywalker or a Solo.

 

I generally like your thoughts on this subject, but I'll throw a caveat in with respect to the whole "material world" side of things as they relate to children. Sure, we might like to think that Luke is above all earthly pleasures associated with sex. However, I would argue that there is no more selfless an act than being a parent (whether biological or otherwise). I do not think that Luke would be (or should be) above and beyond the selfless adventure of having and raising children. Luke's OT journey was all about love (for his father and sister) overcoming evil. I see no problem with him developing love attachments to a mate and ultimately children, as both (should) involve putting others before your own self interests... to me, a very "Jedi" thing to do.

I actually really love this because it would return a certain mysticism and accessibility of the Force to all that I really enjoyed as a kid. Regardless of whether we call everyone who taps the Force as such "Skywalker children," the notion that we can all, no matter our background and upbringing, rise above and become something greater. A farmboy, a princess, and a pirate/smuggler can unite and through their love (the true power of the Force, in my mind) overthrow and topple the evil Empire. Perhaps the same for a desert rat scavenger and a defected Stormtrooper.

This conception of the Force as accessible to anyone has great appeal for me.

 

I would think that Luke of all people would realize the downside of the original Jedi order's requirements. Luke would likely realize that not having attachments would be a huge mistake for a Jedi. It was Luke's attachments to his friends that lead him to Bespin, and although that time it didn't work out so well, it did work later. Remember it was Obi-Wan and Yoda who wanted Luke to kill Darth Vader, but it was Luke's attachment to his father that prevented him from doing it, and on the flip side it was Vader's attachment to his son that made him kill the Emperor. I wouldn't be surprised at all if there is a new Jedi order that they no longer have that requirement.

 

I hear you about the selflessness of parenting; I don't think I'm communicating my idea well enough. It's not that Luke the Jedi is going "I do not care about having children" but how he goes about doing that in his understanding of things. Imagine something like this:

You're standing there with Luke, and he says "I need to have children, and a family" and so he walks off, marries a woman, have teh sex, kids are born. You walk up to Luke's house and he's sitting with his kids, and he says "Now I have children, and a family". Okay now rewind the scene and...

You're standing there with Luke, and he says "I need to have children, and a family" and so he walks off, builds a Jedi school. teaches the Jedi way, and younglings are born. You walk up to Luke's school and he's sitting with his padawans, and he says "Now I have children, and a family".

It's not that the second Luke is above having kids, but that his understanding of having kids is "above" the former Luke's understanding of having kids; so it's expressed abstractly instead of materially; or luminously instead of crude-matterly. Both Lukes really do have children and a family, they're material in the former case, abstract in the latter; but both equally as real, and the abstract is arguabley the stronger and "more real" of the two types of bond even in the sense Luke's padawans (abstract children) are as strongly bound to Luke as material children would be, and likely even moreso.

In this sense both Rey and Finn can be Skywalkers in a sense that is just as real as being material children of Skywalker, and perhaps even considered more "real" Skywalkers than actual material children. It lets us continue the name Skywalker in a way that is "above" material things, so we don't need a material wife or children, open the doors to a freely open family for anyone to join and be considered "true" family, plus it makes great metaphoric use of the very name "Skywalker" in the sense that we're walking above the material world. It's a perfect gameplan JJ would be a fool not to head this direction.

 

I don't disagree with you at all... In fact, I love what the concept generally means in terms of the connection and accessibility of such a "family" with the Force:

I have just never agreed with those that suggest Luke could not, or should not, have a wife and biological children because of the old Jedi code of which he had no personal knowledge and to which, I believe, he should not have felt any loyalty... But I love all of your thoughts on this subject about the true Force Family of "Skywalkers."

 

Same. The only reason I believe people are denying that is that, but, considering Luke was the only remaining Jedi after Yoda died, he doesn't have to go with the rules that were put before him. He is the Jedi of a new era, he can make new rules.

 

Luke will "adopt" Finn at the end of Episode 7 or 8 and he will say "Finn Skywalke"

 

I thought he'd adopt Chewie . .

 

well really Chewie's last name is Solo

 

I thought it was Chewbacca Chewbacca .

 

nope its Solo because he has a life dept to Han maybe he undertook the Solo name at some point Chewbacca Solo

 

Luke may follow the Jedi order and not have had any children. However according to most of the leaks it leans towards Rey being Lukes daughter.

 

Remember, Luke doesn't know the entirety of the Jedi code so he molds it to his/Kenobi/Yoda's beliefs...they won't mess it up for him and he furthers the Jedi cause, so, in a sense, he understands both sides of the force (Like Palpatine) and decides what to do from there .