The CAP Timeline

[Hoskins]

Thanks, Mark. That really organizes it. You forgot Robbie's two older siblings, but damned if they never really made any appearance in this series.

 

Oh, and don't forget. You need to have Marcel in there for Generation 3 as Jeff Haye's second son.

 

It's kinda funny how complicated the family relations are. Stefan calls Brad his nephew, but they're really cousins. J.P. sees J.J. as like a grandson, but J.P. is really J.J.'s uncle. So on and so forth.

 

 

HA!

 

JJ is also a first-cousin-two-times-removed from his own father. I think. It makes my brain hurt: Tonto is his grandmother via Bitty. Tonto is also the sister of his, uh, grand uncle (?) Jack Crampton, who is also his grandfather via Jim Crampton.

 

::ow::

Edited January 28, 2010 by Hoskins

[Mark Arbour]

Children of JP and Isidore Crampton: Andre Charles (Ace) Clerrault (biological father: Andre Clerrault Sr.); Claire Crampton; William (Billy) Crampton (biological son of Jeff Hayes). Ace married Cassandra (Cass), Claire married Jackson (Jack) Hobart.

 

Wasn't Billy Claire's twin?

 

 

Yes. I forgot all the genetic shit regarding twins, but they're twins that were conceived by two separate fathers at the same time. Don't you remember the threesome?

 

HA!

 

JJ is also a first-cousin-two-times-removed from his own father. I think. It makes my brain hurt: Tonto is his grandmother via Bitty. Tonto is also the sister of his, uh, grand uncle (?) Jack Crampton, who is also his grandfather via Jim Crampton.

 

::ow::

 

 

That gets a little twisted, but it is eastern Ohio.

 

 

[amBIguoustwo]

That gets a little twisted, but it is eastern Ohio.

 

 

LOL! Not quite West Virginia, though.

 

 

 

[Mark Arbour]

LOL! Not quite West Virginia, though.

 

 

 

 

 

Not quite. Only Brian actually hails from that state.

[Mark Arbour]

 

This is a picture of Zanesville, Ohio's "Y" bridge. This was my vision of Claremont's "Mill" with the West Hills in the background

[methodwriter85]

JJ is also a first-cousin-two-times-removed from his own father. I think. It makes my brain hurt: Tonto is his grandmother via Bitty. Tonto is also the sister of his, uh, grand uncle (?) Jack Crampton, who is also his grandfather via Jim Crampton.

I always loved that line from Man in Motion, where Brad tells J.P. that Jim is J.J.'s father, and J.P. goes, "So J.J.'s a Crampton?" I loved the irony of that line- J.J. is a Crampton but will be raised as a Schluter, while J.P. is a Hendrickson but was raised as a Crampton.

 

It'll be interesting when J.J. finds out the truth, I'm assuming, when he's somewhere around 17. I know it'll be a few stories off, but I really Mark will have a great time writing J.J. He reminds me a lot of what Stefan would have been like had Stefan been given an easier upbringing.

Edited January 31, 2010 by methodwriter85

[mmike1969]

Not quite. Only Brian actually hails from that state.

 

I thought it was Western Pennsylvania. His mom worked in Washington County Records Dept.

 

Chapt 22, If it Fits... :wacko:

[Mark Arbour]

I thought it was Western Pennsylvania. His mom worked in Washington County Records Dept.

 

Chapt 22, If it Fits... :wacko:

 

By golly, you're right.

[mmike1969]

By golly, you're right.

 

You are just confusing me... :wacko:

 

But I will still read your stories

Edited January 31, 2010 by mmike1969

[Enric]

JJ is also a first-cousin-two-times-removed from his own father. I think. It makes my brain hurt: Tonto is his grandmother via Bitty. Tonto is also the sister of his, uh, grand uncle (?) Jack Crampton, who is also his grandfather via Jim Crampton.

 

 

no good genealogist ever lets this sort of things to disturb.

I guess you would have a hurting brain session if you take a look at the pedigree of king Carlos II of Spain, or at the pedigrees of Isabel II of Spain and her husband Francisco de Borbon....

 

It's not far from the reality that Isabel II was genetically almost a sister of her said husband. They however did not share even one parent, they simply shared all their grandparents....and their mothers were nieces of their fathers.

 

it's after all eastern Ohio... oops, central Spain

[Enric]

they really are an adulterine lot. So many being sired by others than husbands of their mothers.

That is somewhat too unlikely. Women were not that much in cuckooing the nests of their husbands.

 

But, it's an easy (too easy?) ingredient for plotlines and drama. Like those over-easy as seen since the series Dynasty.... Every second chance, an unknown child popped up out from the woodwork. Old Blake Carrington had surprisingly many children, compared to what was the original reality.

 

 

I tried to add some info:

 

 

 

 

 

Generation 1- Marie de Grand Pre and John (Jack Crampton). William (Bill) and Marjorie Hendrickson. Barry and Gail (Tonto) Schluter (sister of Jack Crampton). Fred and Alice Hayes.

 

Generation 2- Children of Jack and Marie Crampton: James (Jim) Crampton and John Paul (JP) Crampton (biological son of Bill Hendrickson). Jim Crampton married Donna Hendrickson(daughter of Bill and Marjorie Hendrickson). JP Crampton married Isidore de Guipry. Children of Barry and Gail (Tonto) Schluter: Steven Schluter and William (Billy) Schluter. Billy Schluter married Janice. Children of Fred and Alice Hayes (that have been mentioned): Aaron, Nathan, Arnold (Arnie), Frank, and Jeff. Frank married Brenda.

 

Illegitimate children: Brian Parnell, son of Bill Hendrickson.

 

 

 

 

Generation 3-

 

Children of Jim and Donna Crampton: Richard and Vanessa.

 

Children of JP and Isidore Crampton: Andre Charles (Ace) Clerrault (biological father: Andre Clerrault Sr.); Claire Crampton; William (Billy) Crampton (biological son of Jeff Hayes). Ace married Cassandra (Cass), Claire married Jackson (Jack) Hobart.

 

Children of Steven Schluter: Stefan Schluter (mother: Annette Bordet)

 

Children of Billy and Janice Schluter: Nicholas Schluter, Beatrice (Bitty) Schluter, and Bradley Schluter (biological son of Kevin Carmichael). Brad Schluter was raised by JP and Isidore Crampton as their son.

 

Children of Frank and Brenda Hayes: Robert (Robbie) Hayes.

 

 

 

 

Generation 4-

 

 

 

Children of Ace and Cass Clerrault: Courtney Clerrault

 

Children of Claire and Jack Hobart: Marie and John

 

Children of Beatrice Schluter (Raised by Brad Schluter and Jeanine Graves): Darius (biological father: unknown Iranian), Jeremy (JJ) Schluter (biological father: Jim Crampton).

 

Children of Brad Schluter: William (Will) Schluter (biological mother: Jeanine Graves)

 

Children of Robbie Hayes: Matthew Carrswold (biological son of Laura Mercer Ingraham), adopted by Dr. Edward and Amanda Carrswold.

 

 

 

 

[Mark Arbour]

they really are an adulterine lot. So many being sired by others than husbands of their mothers.

That is somewhat too unlikely. Women were not that much in cuckooing the nests of their husbands.

 

But, it's an easy (too easy?) ingredient for plotlines and drama. Like those over-easy as seen since the series Dynasty.... Every second chance, an unknown child popped up out from the woodwork. Old Blake Carrington had surprisingly many children, compared to what was the original reality.

 

 

 

 

It may be unlikely, but these are really really slutty people. I wish I had more friends like them.

[Enric]

It may be unlikely, but these are really really slutty people. I wish I had more friends like them.

 

well, to be slutty could be (in part and in regard to some) a hereditary trait.

 

And, now I reveal a secret: precisely that hereditary trait runs in many aristocrats.

 

commoners in general are much more chaste.....

 

 

one of main reasons why aristocracy has an overabundance of slutty genes, is the fact that throughout the world, 'mercenary' women have used their wiles (and had an ambition) to get into beds of powerful men, and to receive plenty of material good in recompense (yep, this can be read as like as a natural prostitute's approach). Those women were not interested in beds of powerless and poor men..... Sometimes they made it as far as wedded wife. Quite often, they were mistresses (there were rules often which prevented marriage). Their children often ended up as part of aristocracy (because of the powerful positioon of the father/lover). And they continued the heredity of their mothers.

 

 

So, if you sometimes read news or hear gossips that some aristocrat or royal has had extra-marital sex..... that's no surprise, as they are genetically quite much programmed to be greedy and slutty.

 

 

this leads to a tentative idea that JP's family members are amazingly much like hereditary aristocrats.

 

 

 

btw, if someone wants more people who are slutty, as friends; my advice is to have friends among hereditary aristocracy....

[Mark Arbour]

well, to be slutty could be (in part and in regard to some) a hereditary trait.

 

And, now I reveal a secret: precisely that hereditary trait runs in many aristocrats.

 

commoners in general are much more chaste.....

 

 

one of main reasons why aristocracy has an overabundance of slutty genes, is the fact that throughout the world, 'mercenary' women have used their wiles (and had an ambition) to get into beds of powerful men, and to receive plenty of material good in recompense (yep, this can be read as like as a natural prostitute's approach). Those women were not interested in beds of powerless and poor men..... Sometimes they made it as far as wedded wife. Quite often, they were mistresses (there were rules often which prevented marriage). Their children often ended up as part of aristocracy (because of the powerful positioon of the father/lover). And they continued the heredity of their mothers.

 

 

So, if you sometimes read news or hear gossips that some aristocrat or royal has had extra-marital sex..... that's no surprise, as they are genetically quite much programmed to be greedy and slutty.

 

 

this leads to a tentative idea that JP's family members are amazingly much like hereditary aristocrats.

 

 

 

btw, if someone wants more people who are slutty, as friends; my advice is to have friends among hereditary aristocracy....

 

 

Enric,

 

I'm surprised at you. What a huge omission. You forgot about the handsome young men that did the same thing. History is full of stories of kings and nobles with their "favorites", as the French called them.

 

My own anecdotal experience tends to substantiate your hypothesis. All of my friends who are "blue bloods" are the sluttier ones. Hmmm...maybe I should go back to my family tree and look for more illustrious branches.

 

 

[Enric]

Enric,

 

I'm surprised at you. What a huge omission. You forgot about the handsome young men that did the same thing. History is full of stories of kings and nobles with their "favorites", as the French called them.

 

My own anecdotal experience tends to substantiate your hypothesis. All of my friends who are "blue bloods" are the sluttier ones. Hmmm...maybe I should go back to my family tree and look for more illustrious branches.

 

 

 

 

it is no omission in the context. I was talking about heredity and conveying those genes to next generations. As sad as the fact is, gay mignons were biologically incapable of conveying their slutty genes to aristocratic generations descending from their male lovers. Namely, there's the sad impossibility of a male being incapable of getting pregrant. A pity, but what can I do....

 

That said, occasionally a gay mignon who had managed to finagle a good position for himself for long enough time, had opportunity to marry off his nieces and nephews to members of aristocracy. For example, by promises of leaving his own (king-granted) property as inheritance to said niece/nephew... although a nephew or niece had not as many genes of the gay slut mignon (than would a child of a female mercenary mistress have), still the uncle's some genes (and some slutty ones at that), as well as presumably some gayness genes, passed forward to aristocracy in later generations...

but, that was a rarer and more stilted mechanism than the one based on greedy slutty prostitute-like women passing onwards their slutty genes to aristocracy via their own children...

[methodwriter85]

Mark, did Nick ever get married and have kids? You feel like as an aspiring politician, he'd want the image of a doting husband and father to use. It would be hilarious if Nick had a son or something and he messed around with J.J. or Will and it was absolutely horrible. The cousins-fooling-around-thing seems to be a common. Well, not in my case- the only male cousin I have is in his late 30s and not cute at all.

[Enric]

Well, not in my case- the only male cousin I have is in his late 30s and not cute at all.

 

you seem to have a small family.

I think it's not usual to have only one male cousin....

 

one usually gets cousins both in father's side and in mother's side.

and, most of people call all degrees of cousins as cousins....

 

such as, also an elder first cousin's kids are cousins. and so forth.

 

my two nephews have (on the other side, their mother was youngest of her siblings) first cousins who are old enough to have started to produce their kids a few years after the birth of my nephews. so, of course those regard one another cousins.

 

my maternal uncle married secondly at a time when his several nieces and nephews were young families.... so, the three kids of that uncle's that marriage have a few batches of cousins who actually are kids of their first cousins. naturally they are cousins to one another. One boy and one girl of those even actually go to the same class, being born the same year and resident in the same 'suburb': the boy being son of the girl's first cousin. certainly the boy does not call the girl as his aunt (technically she could be classified as aunt in second degree), except if he wants to tease

 

so, Jeremy, you do not have even other sorts of male kin who are nearer your age?

 

 

----------------

 

talking about cousins and sexual attraction: there are research indications that people find their relatives attractive, because they have resemblance. That in turn would in cases of close relations be overridden with Westermarck effect - without which, there'd be many pairings between too close relatives. If and when that's true (about the inherency of sexual attraction), then the cousinal sex escapades have an explanation.

[Mark Arbour]

you seem to have a small family.

I think it's not usual to have only one male cousin....

 

one usually gets cousins both in father's side and in mother's side.

and, most of people call all degrees of cousins as cousins....

 

such as, also an elder first cousin's kids are cousins. and so forth.

 

my two nephews have (on the other side, their mother was youngest of her siblings) first cousins who are old enough to have started to produce their kids a few years after the birth of my nephews. so, of course those regard one another cousins.

 

my maternal uncle married secondly at a time when his several nieces and nephews were young families.... so, the three kids of that uncle's that marriage have a few batches of cousins who actually are kids of their first cousins. naturally they are cousins to one another. One boy and one girl of those even actually go to the same class, being born the same year and resident in the same 'suburb': the boy being son of the girl's first cousin. certainly the boy does not call the girl as his aunt (technically she could be classified as aunt in second degree), except if he wants to tease

 

so, Jeremy, you do not have even other sorts of male kin who are nearer your age?

 

 

----------------

 

talking about cousins and sexual attraction: there are research indications that people find their relatives attractive, because they have resemblance. That in turn would in cases of close relations be overridden with Westermarck effect - without which, there'd be many pairings between too close relatives. If and when that's true (about the inherency of sexual attraction), then the cousinal sex escapades have an explanation.

 

I don't think it's unusual not to have many, or any, cousins. Family sizes are pretty small, on average. I only have one sibling.

[methodwriter85]

I don't think it's unusual not to have many, or any, cousins. Family sizes are pretty small, on average. I only have one sibling.

 

Right. I mean, my dad had two siblings, and 3 kids is considered a fairly big family these days. My dad had 3 kids- my two sisters and me. My uncle had three kids- 2 girls and one boy who are all in their 30s now. Then my aunt had a daughter who is my age, and a son who would be about 11 now. So yeah, no age-appropriate male kin to get with. My family isn't very fertile- right now my two sisters and one half-sister have 2 kids between them, and they're already in their late 20s/early 30's.

[Enric]

Right. I mean, my dad had two siblings, and 3 kids is considered a fairly big family these days. My dad had 3 kids- my two sisters and me. My uncle had three kids- 2 girls and one boy who are all in their 30s now. Then my aunt had a daughter who is my age, and a son who would be about 11 now. So yeah, no age-appropriate male kin to get with. My family isn't very fertile- right now my two sisters and one half-sister have 2 kids between them, and they're already in their late 20s/early 30's.

 

this obviously depends on limitations of viewpoint....

 

Jeremy, do you have no kinsmen from your mother's side of the family?

(you have mentioned only your father's siblings....)

 

then, you mention that your father's sister has a son who is about 11 years old. In my terminology, and in usual genealogival terminology, that boy is your cousin.

But, obviously not to you, since you in your view have only one male cousin, son of your father's brother....

 

I have an inkling that there could be a view -a really archaic view- that a person's real lineage only consists of the patriline, an unbroken line of males. That a son of an aunt is not of one's lineage (not really consanguineous, not of the same blood) because the aunt, a woman, breaks the male line. and, of course, in that viewone's mother's kin are not of one's family because the connection would be via a female, the mother, who breaks any male line.....

But that one's father's brother's son is of the same lineage because he is equally of that unroken line of males.

So, that looks like a limitation of viewpoint.

 

another limitation of viewpoint is to require that only exactly first cousins are cousins. People tend to have second cousins, and first cousins have often kids - who are first cousins once removed. and so forth.

 

I don't think it's unusual not to have many, or any, cousins. Family sizes are pretty small, on average. I only have one sibling.

 

I know what I am talking about. The number of your cousins is not dependent on number of your siblings. (siblngs rarely produce cousins to one)

 

One has cousins from several sources. Descendants of oner's mother's siblings. Descendants of one's father's siblings. Second cousins and their descendants. Some count third cousins too...

 

It is usually a rarity if there exist only very small number of all of those - counted together.

 

Yep, exceptions happen. And they are usually rare.

 

Whereas *usually* people have several cousins.

Edited February 1, 2010 by Enric

[methodwriter85]

I didn't mention my mother's side of the family because they live in a foreign country, as my mother is an immigrant from the Phillipines. I have no memories of my mother's side of the family, and the last time my family set foot in the Phillipines was 1986. We don't really know anything about that side of the family, and how its changed and grown since the 1980's.

 

As for the 11-year old cousin, I haven't seen my aunt since about 1993, so again, I've never met the guy and it's hard to think of him as family since I've never met him. My side of the family- we're the black sheep, as my father's side of the family won't have anything to do with us. I generally just tend to think of my immediate family, and my brother-in-laws, as family. I don't really have any extended family in my life. And it's long, sordid story why this is so, and I don't want to get into it.

 

Moving on.

 

Again, Mark, you should have J.J. hook up with Nick's drip of a son. It'd be hilarious.

[Enric]

I didn't mention my mother's side of the family because they live in a foreign country, as my mother is an immigrant from the Phillipines. I have no memories of my mother's side of the family, and the last time my family set foot in the Phillipines was 1986. We don't really know anything about that side of the family, and how its changed and grown since the 1980's.

 

As for the 11-year old cousin, I haven't seen my aunt since about 1993, so again, I've never met the guy and it's hard to think of him as family since I've never met him. My side of the family- we're the black sheep, as my father's side of the family won't have anything to do with us. I generally just tend to think of my immediate family, and my brother-in-laws, as family. I don't really have any extended family in my life. And it's long, sordid story why this is so, and I don't want to get into it.

 

-

 

Again, Mark, you should have J.J. hook up with Nick's drip of a son. It'd be hilarious.

 

however, this sordidity aside, you anyway have many cousins, and presumably actually a big bunch of cousins. The obstacle only being that you do not know them..... but, not knowing them does not mean they do not exist nor that they weren't your cousins.

(which sorta proves what I stated about the usualness of having many cousins)

 

there's a distinct possibility that your mother's siblings and aunts and uncles in the Philippines have managed to produce a big number of descendants.... It'd be prolly a safe bet that there you have at least ten male cousins, of various degrees of cousinhood.

 

I have these funny imaginative visions, you Jeremy starting to be interested in your filipino heritage and going there and finding several male cousins..... ensues things which Mark would describe as slutty...

 

 

as to *not* knowing one's cousins: that's fodder for story plots. Just as Caleb is fodder to story plot because he was long unknown even to his half-brother....

 

if JJ (or Will) hooks up with uncle Nick's son, well, they probably do not know one another too well from the past.

 

That all actually is good for story plausibility: the Westermarck effect does not obstacle, because sexual attraction should actually be expected between blood cousins who do not know one another....

Mark could write a cavalcade of estranged families having sons who meet one another and start sex between cousins... that many estranged (or lost, or unknown) siblings as there have been in these stories.

Edited February 1, 2010 by Enric

[Enric]

Hmmm...maybe I should go back to my family tree and look for more illustrious branches.

 

 

 

I am most curious

 

well, now that you have had time to take a look at your pedigree, did you find slutty ancestors and ancestresses?

(or, at least, upper-class ones who could be believed to been slutty)

 

 

----------------

 

I have checked my own pedigree already long time ago. The overall conclusion about sluttiness: there are no ancestors and ancestresses of mine in the recent three centuries who were born outside marriage. I was most astonished. It's surely a rarity, knowing that the number of ancestors checked is several hundreds. People cannot be that chaste.... in general. And, in general, population are not that chaste. But the fact remains: I have no bastards in my ancestry (as far as researched parts are concerned, and cautious limitation to 'since the 1700s')

 

So, my all ancestors were amazingly honorable. Or, if they had bastards, something like social customs prevented them to marry into lineages I come from. My ancestral lineages seem always to been those of legitimate child's.

[in the social context, an illegitimate would have usually had only a lower-class life than the parent... so, there was some social custom set at work in determining those lineages]

 

This all makes me to conclude that probably, I have not inherited much in the way of slutty genes. [my ancestors have been more capable of keeping it in their pants...]

Also, I have a hypothesis that this sort of heritage has helped members of my family in various generations, to have completed education. which in turn helps in career, and so forth... It is sociologically somewhat known that strong impulses to have sex, militate against completing one's education. One of mechanisms: having kid or kids, makes a person to drop from education (or not to start higher degrees) and instead go to earn money by working. Plus, restless relationships at an age when one should complete studies, tend to make that more difficult.

[Mark Arbour]

I am most curious

 

well, now that you have had time to take a look at your pedigree, did you find slutty ancestors and ancestresses?

(or, at least, upper-class ones who could be believed to been slutty)

 

 

 

I did. And that explains so much.

[methodwriter85]

JJ is also a first-cousin-two-times-removed from his own father. I think. It makes my brain hurt: Tonto is his grandmother via Bitty. Tonto is also the sister of his, uh, grand uncle (?) Jack Crampton, who is also his grandfather via Jim Crampton.

 

I just realized that Tonto is actually J.J.'s GREAT-grandmother. Man though, that J.J. has some complicated geneaology. I would pity the guy for having to do a family tree. His cousins Marie and John will have it much easier.

Edited February 6, 2010 by methodwriter85