I always wondered...

Post by **Severeth** » 03 Jul 2009

The Holloways had two daughters; Nora and Elle.

If most of the founding families only have two children (one of which will subsequently be sacrificed), and if that child is a female, would they still have to carry on the pact?

Consider this; SH:H's events never happened except for Nora's murder. Elle goes on to marry somebody from a different family. Her surrname is changed. Would it still be down to her to sacrifice a child? The child would be born from a Holloway with an altered surrname.
Now consider it this way; Elle and Alex married. Would it be down to them to sacrifice one of their children, or two?

What about Fitch? I thought Scarlett was his only child...? Who would be the next Fitch to go, unless he had a brother with children?

Excuse me if this has a really easy answer and I'm failing to see it. It's 3am and I'm groggy as Hell.

Post by **Hannah** » 03 Jul 2009

It's likely that the only families that had two children were the Holloways and the Shepherds. Or not. Elle and Alex were around the same age, as Scarlet, Josh, Joey and Nora were all around the same age as well. The families might've decided to reproduce at the same time (or some kind of voodoo could've determined that they would have a certain number of kids at certain times).

Now, we don't see Fitch's or Bartlett's wives, so it can be assumed that they might have other children that are hanging out with their wives. Lack of them appearing doesn't mean they exist, though. Fitch and Bartlett seemed to be experiencing a greater amount of grief than Holloway, so it's possible that they didn't have any other children to fall back on. Or maybe they were human and not completely nucking futs.

I would also like to point out something that I realized after typing up all that garbage. Holloway is female and, as she's the one performing the ritual, it's probable Elle wouldn't have to change her surname. I'm not sure what would have went down if she married Alex (daaaw, they have so much in common), but things weren't planning to go that way to begin with. It's likely nothing would change, or they'd possibly have to sacrifice a child each.

What strikes me as odd is that Margaret wasn't training Elle to succeed her. Margaret seems like the kind of person who would do that.

Post by **AuraTwilight** » 03 Jul 2009

If most of the founding families only have two children (one of which will subsequently be sacrificed), and if that child is a female, would they still have to carry on the pact?

It'd assume so. It's not uncommon for the male to take the female's surname if the woman is higher in society or has a social obligation to tradition.

Now consider it this way; Elle and Alex married. Would it be down to them to sacrifice one of their children, or two?

Either they would have to sacrifice two, or they wouldn't be allowed to marry.

What about Fitch? I thought Scarlett was his only child...? Who would be the next Fitch to go, unless he had a brother with children?

In my head, I imagined that Fitch had a divorced wife who got custody rights of another child who would get to live on, but that's just my idea.

I suppose Fitch could just have a kid after the sacrifice to make up for it. Nothing says an heir has to be named at the time of the sacrifice, there just needs to be a proper sacrifice for the next generation when their turn comes.

What strikes me as odd is that Margaret wasn't training Elle to succeed her. Margaret seems like the kind of person who would do that.

She seems to dote on her alot. Maybe he was hoping for Elle to eventually move out of town so she could escape her fate, or she was going to have a third child to be an heir.

Post by **Arsonist** » 05 Jul 2009

Holloway's seem to be strictly a matriarch of blond, attractive women who age well. Their founder, Muriel Holloway was a woman and as are their two newest heiresses, Margaret and Elle.

We know Margaret is a Holloway, because she is the one doing the killing, her husband is mentioned, so apparently, he likely took her last name.

As others haw said, Martin and Sam probably have other children, otherwise, shit would have hit the fan earlier in SG. Since one of the main problems of Shepherds was that they no longer had a heir to their family name.

About Margaret not training Elle, I find it odd too. But what's even stranger is that Elle would have to kill her thirty to fifty year old child in her seventies/eighties. So, it's possible that Elle wouldn't even have to kill her child, but her daughter would. And if that's the case, Margaret would have no problems training her.

She seems to dote on her alot.

Not according to Elle's blog. Sure, she lets her be friends with Alex and was rather nice and warm to him, but that's hardly dotting. She seemed to have treated her kids equally.

Nora's diary is not used in the game or in the offcial site, therefore it doesn't count. But even if it did, I wouldn't take the words of an upset nine/thirteen-year-old as an absolute truth. It seemed to me she was exaggerating. Especially considering Elle complained about the same thing. Margaret has trouble showing emotions, it's natural considering she is expected to put her duty and love for her community before her love for her children.

Post by **AuraTwilight** » 05 Jul 2009

About Margaret not training Elle, I find it odd too. But what's even stranger is that Elle would have to kill her thirty to fifty year old child in her seventies/eighties. So, it's possible that Elle wouldn't even have to kill her child, but her daughter would. And if that's the case, Margaret would have no problems training her.

I totally forgot about that; Elle's generation would be skipped. It's up to Elle's daughter to kill Elle's granddaughter.

Not according to Elle's blog. Sure, she lets her be friends with Alex and was rather nice and warm to him, but that's hardly dotting. She seemed to have treated her kids equally.

I didn't mean that she lavished her with gifts or anything, but it's pretty clear that she was warmer to Elle and let her get away with more. Compare to the unused dialogue from Nora's diary.

Nora's diary is not used in the game or in the offcial site, therefore it doesn't count.

That's pretty hamfisted bullshit, I'm sorry to say.

But even if it did, I wouldn't take the words of an upset nine/thirteen-year-old as an absolute truth. It seemed to me she was exaggerating. Especially considering Elle complained about the same thing. Margaret has trouble showing emotions, it's natural considering she is expected to put her duty and love for her community before her love for her children.

It seemed pretty clear to me. Yea, Nora's reaction was a bit over the top, but it didn't seem like she was distorting the actual events or anything.

Post by **Arsonist** » 10 Jul 2009

I didn't mean that she lavished her with gifts or anything, but it's pretty clear that she was warmer to Elle and let her get away with more.

And yet, according to Elle, she hardly talked to her.

That's pretty hamfisted bullshit, I'm sorry to say.

So I guess then everyone knew Alessa survived and that the fire wasn't accidental? Good to know.

Post by **Mace63** » 10 Jul 2009

Sorry for being off-topic, but what is the Nora's diary you guys are talking about? I mean, where can I read it?

Post by **AuraTwilight** » 10 Jul 2009

So I guess then everyone knew Alessa survived and that the fire wasn't accidental? Good to know.

The fuck does that have to do with anything?

Sorry for being off-topic, but what is the Nora's diary you guys are talking about? I mean, where can I read it?

There's a thread on this forum where someone looked into the game data of Homecoming and found all of this information that wasn't used in the game, like audio interviews between Walter Sullivan and a psychology, Nora, Scarlet, and Joey having diaries, stuff like that. I'll try and find it for you.

http://silenthillforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=17050

Here it is.

Post by **Mace63** » 10 Jul 2009

^Thank you so much for searhing it up for me, AuraTwilight!

EDIT: There seems not to be anything mentioned about Nora and other kids's diaries though, or I'm missing something?

Post by **Arsonist** » 16 Jul 2009

The fuck does that have to do with anything?

Unused bit of Alex's comment.

Upon receiving the map, subtitles would read; Alchemilla hospital? I heard that several years a go, a girl was brought in here after a fire. Who would do that to a defenseless child? (more or less paraphrasing, except for the last sentence)

So, it is implied that he, and therefore everyone else knew that the fire was no accident. "Who would do that to a defenseless child?"

Further more, why would the Order bring Walter to a shrink? Especially to a shrink who's family has been opposing to the Order for generations. Especially if he's suffering from a bad case of having-an-angel-stuck-in-your-subconscious-compelling-you-to-summon-god.

If it's not in the game/guide book/official site, it's not in the canon. They have a reason for cutting it out after all.

Post by **AuraTwilight** » 16 Jul 2009

So, it is implied that he, and therefore everyone else knew that the fire was no accident. "Who would do that to a defenseless child?"

Or he assumed it wasn't an accident based on no evidence. Alex is a little bit paranoid, as his interactions with other people seem to imply. And if he admits accidents can happen, then he'd have to admit something more horrible to himself.

Further more, why would the Order bring Walter to a shrink? Especially to a shrink who's family has been opposing to the Order for generations. Especially if he's suffering from a bad case of having-an-angel-stuck-in-your-subconscious-compelling-you-to-summon-god.

Nothing says the Order made Walter see a shrink. Maybe it was a police psychologist, or a teacher at med school requested it.

If it's not in the game/guide book/official site, it's not in the canon. They have a reason for cutting it out after all.

Fine, then the bodies in SH2 and SH3 aren't James and Angela since you need camhacks to confirm it.

Post by **The Adversary** » 16 Jul 2009

You realize how ridiculous that is, right? No? Well . . .

James and Angela's model were actually usedÂ°. The dialogue in Silent Hill: Homecoming was deliberately removedâ€”not obscured.

When you order a BLT and 86 the tomato, do you still say, "I ate a sandwich w/ bacon, lettuce, and tomato on it"?

Â° Note, also, the bodies aren't actually James and Angelaâ€”they are the same models; they are not the same peopleâ€”so the argument is even less reasonable.

Post by **Arsonist** » 16 Jul 2009

Alex is a little bit paranoid, as his interactions with other people seem to imply.

I'm not being sarcastic, but I must have missed it. He isn't suspecting Judge Holloway even as she's sitting free, with blood all around her, ranting about the importance of the family. Honestly, he struck me as naÃ¯ve rather then paranoid.

Nothing says the Order made Walter see a shrink. Maybe it was a police psychologist, or a teacher at med school requested it.

You must not have heard the audio of it. Judging by the voice he can't be older then twelve. And even twelve seems a bit generous. He sounds nine to me. So, no med school or cops involved.

Also, what MMY said. C'mon Aura, that was a total cop-out. I expected something better.