ST If Jedi Are Forbidden to Marry: The Role of Offspring in Episode VII

The Jedi, forbidding marriage, seem to have played a role in their own near-extinction. Lack of marriage seems to signal that they fully expect their own bloodlines to end, and that new recruits must always be plucked, with an element of chance, from the far reaches of space.

In this light, it is understandable that "The Son of Skywalker" would be such a point of controversy. It must have been a fairly big deal that a Jedi should have a son at all.

Now the rumors are swirling that the next installment will prominently feature the offspring of Luke and/or Leia. This suggests that VII will have to address the issue of "Marriage and Jedi."

It is certainly possible that Han and Leia may be parents before Leia faces any Jedi trials ... but will Jedi Law require her to choose between her husband and her service?

Is it possible that Luke will be granted some waiver of the Jedi Marriage Law, from the Great Beyond, via, say, Master Yoda?

 

I think the old Jedi doctrine was thrown out once they were all hunted down.

 

Yeah, it's Luke's order now. He doesn't need permission from Yoda to do anything.

Yoda: Luke, for Jedi, marriage is forbidden. Allow it the old order did not.
Luke: With all due respect, the old order also allowed themselves to be destroyed, a Sith to become Chancellor, and the galaxy to be plunged into darkness. I think I'll do this my way, just like on DSII.

 

Did Luke even know about that rule? His training with Obi-Wan/Yoda was quite abbreviated.

And even if he did, I don't think he would really enforce it. After RotJ, he only knows of one other person with Force potential, and if he tried to enforce that rule, I would imagine she would tell Luke to go shove it.

And heck, since they are so few Jedi, presumably he would want Jedi to get married and have kids to start replenishing the population.

 

As the only Jedi alive, we have to assume Luke would be the founder of any new Jedi Order, and he should decide what goes and what doesn't. If Leia trains to be a Jedi, Luke should decide when her training is complete and she deserves the title of Jedi Knight, just like Yoda did with him. He should also decide if the new Jedi will adhere to the no attachment rule as well as any other rules of the old Jedi. I don't think Yoda had enough time with Luke to have taught him every little thing about it and focused on training him to face Vader instead, which means Luke probably doesn't even know about the no attachment rule, though he may have learned about it later on, we just don't know. I doubt the Force ghosts would be consulted or that they should appear on their own for something that isn't a threat to the Force or to the peace of the galaxy.

 

What will be cool in EPVII is seeing Luke as a Jedi Master . Doing moves that were only seen in the prequels.

 

Well, when you're on the run all the damn time, you're bound to need some release...

 

Yeah, I really don't think that rule would carry over into whatever new establishment Luke has set up for the new generation of Jedi in this trilogy. Yoda probably never mentioned it to him and even if he did, I don't see Luke being one to try and enforce it to his own set of pupils. If he did know about it and actually liked the concept though, I think at the most, he would just apply that doctrine to himself. But since it looks like Gleeson might be his son, I find even that idea to be unlikely.

 

Luke was trained as an adult, perhaps uniquely amongst Jedi. He had already discovered the opposite sex before his training and had a lot of preconceptions about normal (if you could call living on a moisture farm normal) life beforehand. Although people do renounce desires of the flesh to become hermits, holy people and such, I can't see Luke doing this at all. He has a newly discovered sister and friends; has been through too much to just walk away from everything and as has been mentioned, may not even be aware of the many aspects of how things used to be done. If you're brought up from infancy to believe in one path, i.e. being a Jedi, there's every likelihood that you would not question that this is how things should be done. It's almost like a form of brainwashing. Luke doesn't have those preconceptions.

Obi Wan and Yoda agreed to train him despite him being an adult. OK they had rather a lack of choice in the matter, things were pretty desperate, and they saw it as his 'destiny' anyway. Obi Wan didn't train him as a child, although that may simply be because of his own lack of self-belief seeing how his last padawan turned out... Order 66 would've added to the trauma.

I think it's reasonable to assume that Luke would come to the conclusion with or without their help that training adults could be done and training since infancy would not be an essential pre-requisite, not least since it would mean taking people's babies and small children away from them once more. In a post-Imperial world I would doubt most Galactic citizens would even trust Force Users let alone give their kids to them.

That's why to me, the idea of any trained Jedi being his and the Solo's offspring would make sense not least because we know that Force-Sensitivity can be inherited. And if there is indeed a force-sensitive orphan character in the movie as well, Luke could give them a new life. Perhaps it may even be the discovery of such a person that kick starts the movie who knows...

It stands to reason as I see it that this is a 'Next Gen' movie. They must have kids surely... Perhaps the difference between love and attachment will be more clearly explained in this trilogy, or perhaps it doesn't matter nearly as much as the Old Order thought. It may even have contributed to the force being out of balance!

In the EU we see a Leia reluctant and distracted by other events, to be fully trained as a Jedi. I can't help but feel that this will not happen in the new timeline. I confidently expect her to be a fully-trained Jedi Knight, not least if Luke is serious about re-creating the Order in some form. Anyway, those are some of my thoughts...

 

Considering the fact Lucas created the rule of attachments just to make Anakin and Padme's relationship harder, I doubt we'll see it going further. The way I see it we have 2 possible options for ST- option 1: Daisy Ridley is our only Skywalker descendent, and when this trilogy is over if it's successful I can't see Disney not wanting to use the ST characters further. Using the rule of no attachments inhibits their future story telling if Ridley is to be a Jedi as we all predict. Can't see them letting the Skywalker line die with her. option 2 is Gleeson is Luke's son and likewise this rule has all ready been discarded. Either way, can't see the positives in using this PT based idea, something it seems we are trying to get away from.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I would love the third movie to end with the birth of Daisy's first child or twins, and make it a beautiful moment rather than born out of a tragic situation.

 

Only if it's a time gap. I don't want the final film in the saga to follow out female lead through pregnancy, and have her incapable of doing most things.

Amidala pretty much shriveled away on Ep 3 and showed up only to kiss, cry, give birth, and then die. I don't want that for our female Jedi lead.

 

Agreed. A 'nine months later' epilogue would suffice. Even an 'I'm pregnant' and we don't see the birth but share a beautiful moment nonetheless would work I think.

 

Refresh my memory but do we even know if Luke knows the rules of the old order? We know Yoda trained him but at that point the sith were in control of the empire. And time was short. Would Yoda have even wasted time about rules that SHOULDN'T apply anymore?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Why should the new Jedi Order be the same as the old one? Luke loved his father and sister, and that stimulated him to complete his destiny and become a Jedi. Even with the conception of the Jedi Order of the PT I never thought about the possibility of Luke not having a child. The only thing that is left to be explained is what happened in between and why Luke is having a child in the ST. We already know Luke will meet a new female friend in Heir to the Jedi, and we already know Domhnall Gleeson is part of the new cast. Given the fact that he appeared next to Luke and 3PO and that he is red haired, I think it is likely that he is playing the role of Luke offspring.

If Gleeson is Luke´s son, Luke probably was father a few years after the end of ROTJ. That would mean Luke met a girl and married her (or not) even before he even trained a Jedi.

 

Wow! Honestly I think they're just gonna go real simple and write whatever feels right and goes fast without thinking about what "the rest of the galaxy" thinks. There is no controversy or public opinion in the OT. Like someone said, Jedi law was just a tool for the story. It has no reason to be the center of anything in the ST. I think you're focusing on a Jedi order too much. VII is going to be about "normal" kids having adventures and slowly becoming aware of the Force. Not Jedi etiquette, that's for sure!

 

New Jedi Order. Not Old Jedi Order.

 

Probably not, but I think it stands to reason that he would want to find out more about them to avoid their mistakes.

 

Luke: Then I am a Jedi.

Yoda: No, first read this huge book you must.

 

IMO, the only real reason this rule even exists was to create a major obstacle for the Anakin/Padme romance, and to facilitate the story of Anakin going dark.

I must say, the logic of it all does seem silly. Midichlorians/force talent is genetically inherited, and everyone with force talent becomes a Jedi, who then cannot fall in love and have children -- therefore ensuring that force ability will be bred out of the galaxy eventually.

The writers can do whatever they want in the ST. They could make it so Luke doesn't even know about the rule, or he knows and doesn't care, or else they could make it that Luke does know about the "no attachments" rule and he wants to honor it. So many ways they could go with this.

I have gone on record as saying I don't think Luke will have a biological child but I think Leia will. To me, it's not about the "no attachments" rule, but rather where we left these characters at the end of ROTJ. Leia was in love and in a committed relationship; Luke was not. I do think there is a chance Luke will have a romance in the ST, and once that romance is established, maybe even a child in the later films. But I just don't see them giving Luke a major romance that happened entirely off-screen between trilogies.

I do hope the writers address the "no attachment" rule in the ST. At the very least, they could have a few lines of dialogue explaining why the Jedi don't observe it anymore, or else overturning the rule could serve as a major plot point in the ST. The characters cold argue and debate over the "no attachment" rule much as the fans have here.

As for Leia, two things. One, Leia was already in love before she ever found out she had serious force abilities. So was Anakin, for that matter, since he fell in love with Padme at first sight when he was a child. So a very intense attachment was already in place for Leia, and for Anakin, before either one ever gave a thought to becoming a Jedi. IMO, that's a major factor in those two characters having children. Though I trust Leia's attachment will turn out better than Anakin's did.

Second, if Leia becomes a Jedi I need to know it's because that is what she chose on her own. The idea that anyone born with force ability is obligated to become a Jedi seems no better than a form of slavery to me. I can't relate to these characters if they don't have free will.

 

Agree absolutely. The logic of no procreation is just bizarre in the light of what we know. The Jedi presumably knew force sensitivity could be inherited making it even stranger. Leia needs to be trained willingly; I'll be pretty disappointed with anything else.

 

The OP seems to assume, inexplicably, that a pair must be married to produce offspring.

Offspring do not depend on marriage for conception.

The Jedi forbade attachment, not romantic/erotic dalliances, and not reproduction.

Lucas has pointed out in interviews that he did not mean that the Jedi were celibate. They are encouraged to love, after all.

 

Will Luke Have a Child? If So, Where's Mom?

 

Another point to be considered is the EU. We all know what is the final state of the EU, but we know as well they claimed to take whatever they want from it and make it canon. We already suspect Ridley´s character is the daughter of the Solos. I wouldn´t be surprised if they did they same with the Skywalker line.

In fact, I do believe the state of the Skywalker/Solo families is attractive for the ST and Abrams/Kasdan probably like it in some way. Luke having a child with a death wife. Han and Leai being married and having a daughter with the best parts of both. That makes sense for the new movies. But I´m pretty sure as well the whole background and how did the EU got to this point is what the didn not want for the ST.

Right now we have a girl who seems to be the new Solo, and a ginger actor who could perfectly be the son of Luke. When further info comes out, we might see if both Ridley and Gleeson are part of the Skywalker/Solo family and if they have something in common with the EU offspring.

 

I'm aware of that interview but I think it's a safe bet that pretty much anyone who isn't aware of it and went to see the movies would assume that the Jedi neither marry nor procreate just from what they see on the screen. I also don't think Disney are going to go down the road of explaining GLs comments by us seeing the Jedi having sex outside marriage, this being a family movie. They'll either be married with kids or they'll be back to the rather boring PT Order strictures which I just can't see.