Search FAQ

Login | Register


All times are UTC [ DST ]


It is currently 28 May 2017




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 
Author Message

Cafe5to2 Waitress
 Post subject: Squick.
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 23 Dec 2009
Notes left: 207
Last seen at: Silent Hill.
So I just noticed something while I was looking at some headstones in Rose Heights Cemetery.

Image

John and Sophie had a child who lived for eight years before dying.

Image

John was born in 1868 and died in 1901, at 33 years of age.

Image

Sophie was born in 1889 and died in 1920, at 31 years of age.

John died when Sophie was 12(!) years old and had previously impregnated her, probably just before he died. :shock:

Edit: I know this sort of thing happened in real life but it was quite a rude shock for me when I realized this was the case with a dead couple in the game, considering that the age gaps between other couples in the cemetery are much less. So kudos I guess to the guy who wrote the dates for the headstones.


Top
   
 

RESPECT
 Post subject: Re: Squick.
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 19 Jul 2003
Notes left: 19397
Last seen at: #lfk
It was probably a bailout marriage and pregnancy. John probably became ill and had to create an heir, stat, so he was married off to Sophie, banged her, and died. Otherwise the whole ritual would've been boned.

There's a bigger problem, though. The ritual occurs every 50 years after the first, in 1853. Meaning—Karen should have been sacrificed in 1903, making her birth year 1895. Sophie, her mother, would have been 6 years old at the time.

_________________
This post is the property of its author and is not to be used elsewhere without explicit permission from the author.

. . . AND THAT'S THAT.


Top
   
 

Gravedigger
 Post subject: Re: Squick.
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 05 Aug 2010
Notes left: 563
Last seen at: Nathan Ave.
^ If John impregnated Sophie so he coud have a hair, why would the child be sacrificed in the future? I'm not getting the picture here.

_________________
Image


Top
   
 

RESPECT
 Post subject: Re: Squick.
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 19 Jul 2003
Notes left: 19397
Last seen at: #lfk
Those are the two possibilities, and each present a problem. If Karen is the heir, she's dead at age 8. If Karen is the sacrifice, Sophie can't be the mother. Something doesn't add up.

_________________
This post is the property of its author and is not to be used elsewhere without explicit permission from the author.

. . . AND THAT'S THAT.


Top
   
 

Gravedigger
 Post subject: Re: Squick.
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 05 Aug 2010
Notes left: 563
Last seen at: Nathan Ave.
If I would go with the heir theory (as the sacrifice one is practically impossible) then I could apply the illness thing for the father and basically a random accident for the girl. However, the mother's death, also caused by an accident . . it would be the drop that spills the glass in RealityVille.

_________________
Image


Top
   
 

Cafe5to2 Waitress
 Post subject: Re: Squick.
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 23 Dec 2009
Notes left: 207
Last seen at: Silent Hill.
The Adversary wrote:
It was probably a bailout marriage and pregnancy. John probably became ill and had to create an heir, stat, so he was married off to Sophie, banged her, and died. Otherwise the whole ritual would've been boned.

Not if Frederick had a child.

The Adversary wrote:
There's a bigger problem, though. The ritual occurs every 50 years after the first, in 1853. Meaning—Karen should have been sacrificed in 1903, making her birth year 1895. Sophie, her mother, would have been 6 years old at the time.

Karen wasn't the sacrifice in 1903, it was Earnest.

The Adversary wrote:
Those are the two possibilities, and each present a problem. If Karen is the heir, she's dead at age 8. If Karen is the sacrifice, Sophie can't be the mother. Something doesn't add up.

There was another Holloway man, Frederick, who was born around the same time as John and died around the same time too.

The sacrifice in 1903 was Earnest Holloway, he could be Frederick Holloway's son.

We don't know when Earnest was born but we do know that Frederick was born in 1865 and died in 1900. It would just mean that his wife or some other Holloway (yes there were more) would have had to kill Earnest.


Top
   
 

Cafe5to2 Waitress
 Post subject: Re: Squick.
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 23 Dec 2009
Notes left: 207
Last seen at: Silent Hill.
Here we go:

Image

Please refrain from double posting in the future. -Aerith


Top
   
 

RESPECT
 Post subject: Re: Squick.
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 19 Jul 2003
Notes left: 19397
Last seen at: #lfk
Why didn't you post that to begin with. . . ?

_________________
This post is the property of its author and is not to be used elsewhere without explicit permission from the author.

. . . AND THAT'S THAT.


Top
   
 

Cafe5to2 Waitress
 Post subject: Re: Squick.
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 23 Dec 2009
Notes left: 207
Last seen at: Silent Hill.
The Adversary wrote:
Why didn't you post that to begin with. . . ?

I didn't know that you were gonna go off on a tangent about how the Holloways didn't have an heir and didn't have a sacrifice for 1903.


Top
   
 

RESPECT
 Post subject: Re: Squick.
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 19 Jul 2003
Notes left: 19397
Last seen at: #lfk
Tangent? really? The information you provided proposed a problem. I attempted to reconcile it. If the whole point of this thread was to note that Sophie was 12 when she had a child, then it's pretty unnecessary.

_________________
This post is the property of its author and is not to be used elsewhere without explicit permission from the author.

. . . AND THAT'S THAT.


Top
   
 

Cafe5to2 Waitress
 Post subject: Re: Squick.
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 23 Dec 2009
Notes left: 207
Last seen at: Silent Hill.
The Adversary wrote:
Tangent? really? The information you provided proposed a problem. I attempted to reconcile it.

The information didn't propose a problem, you did.

I'm not attacking you for being wrong, or for provoking further discussion, or whatever else if that's what you think. I am rather surprised that you expected me to provide the solution to a non-existent problem that you created before you created it.

The Adversary wrote:
If the whole point of this thread was to note that Sophie was 12 when she had a child, then it's pretty unnecessary.

That is the whole point of this thread.


Top
   
 

RESPECT
 Post subject: Re: Squick.
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 19 Jul 2003
Notes left: 19397
Last seen at: #lfk
>The information didn't propose a problem, you did.<
In the context of the information you provided, yes, it did.

>That is the whole point of this thread.<
Generally topics have more substance to them.

_________________
This post is the property of its author and is not to be used elsewhere without explicit permission from the author.

. . . AND THAT'S THAT.


Top
   
 

Gravedigger
 Post subject: Re: Squick.
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 05 Aug 2010
Notes left: 563
Last seen at: Nathan Ave.
From what I'm seeing here, John's and Frederick's date of birth and death are extremely close. I'm assuming that maybe they could have been brothers. Frederick died at the age of 35 and John at the age of 33. It was possible that a genetic disease was the cause of death. Maybe both of them had to be carriers of the sacrifice.

At the beginning, John was possibly honored as the carrier (maybe his older brother didn't want to assume such a responsability). It was expected then that John finds a spouse till 1903- maybe there was no obbligation for the child to be older in order to be sacrificed. John then, not having a spouse or failed in working it out with one, found a young girl at the last moment. He impregnated Sophie in 1901 when she was 12.

When daddy died, maybe 12 year old mommy got the cojones to stand up and refuse to give her unborn daughter to sacrifice in God's name. She might have escaped.

Therefore, responsability reached dear mr. Frederick Holloway's wife, since he was already gone to candyland in 1900.

In 1903 they succeeded to sacrifice Earnest.

Later, the pissed out order found Sophie's daughter Karen at the age of 8 and killed her out of vengeance towards Sophie and only in 1920 did a cold blooded gal similiar to Margaret find the blaspheming bitch and did to her the same thing that Margaret tried to do to Alex, after she almost screwed up their plans 19 years ago. Or maybe, if that wasn't the case, Karen was not killed by the Order but she died out of that illness inherited by her father (as, maybe, females are struck differently by it than males), while her mother was nonetheless abducted and murdered by the Order. And in the end everyone lived happily ever after . . until Adam came and screwed things up for everyone.

This is just a fun made story, based 100% on speculation, that could explain this mashup. You know, it wouldn't be strange if problems like this used to occur. Killing a kid exactly every 50 yrs is not a peace of cake.

_________________
Image


Top
   
 

Cafe5to2 Waitress
 Post subject: Re: Squick.
     
         
  User avatar  
     
     

Missing since: 23 Dec 2009
Notes left: 207
Last seen at: Silent Hill.
The Adversary wrote:
>The information didn't propose a problem, you did.<
In the context of the information you provided, yes, it did.

You didn't mention context.

If it makes you feel any better, here's the rest.

Edith Holloway (???? - ????)
Ann Holloway (???? - 1853)
Frederick Holloway (1865 - 1900)
John Holloway (1868 - 1901)
Nancy Holloway (1870 - 1899)
Henry Holloway (1885 - 1892)
Earnest Holloway (???? - 1903)
Robert Holloway (1887 - 1910)
Sophie Holloway (Married into family, wife of John) (1889 - 1920)
Karen Holloway (Daughter of John and Sophie) (???? - ????+8)
Lawrence Holloway (???? - 1953)

The Adversary wrote:
>That is the whole point of this thread.<
Generally topics have more substance to them.

Generally.


Top
   
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: