Enric

ch7: this is, this is, soap opera taken from 'The Dynasty'..... every second chance, an unknown child pops out of woodwork.

the Prince of Wales (another George) looked like this (when at his best, I think): http://www.royaltyguide.nl/images-families/welfen/hannover2/1762%20George-2.jpg In other words, a bit fattish blond..... Those Hanovers were prone to become obese. This Prince in his later years.....

ch13: what an anarchy that Portuguese kingdom was... and the british.... the medicine was still? at a stage that they assigned health to humors of body btw, humors of town generally indicate possible contagious..... and also it could derive from perception of atmosphere... still, a Wilcox releasing smell in the town, would be good enough a reason to go to fresh country atmosphere. I am looking forward to hearing what the kinsmen the Dukes will do

ch6: teenage boys.... but, it's that epoch.

ch12: what overflowing politeness

they were not exactly this much modern in their legal stuff in those days. Obligations to recusal were not as well precedented as today. Power was often abused. The thing which prevented some from abusing theirs was their honor, not some formulations in laws - and some others were prevented in some cases by fear of reprisals from relatives and friends of the abused. And, 'intentional endangerment or loss of life' tastes too much of a modern formulation, in light of them being in an epoch when men received lashes as punishments. Things were much more arbitrary in those days. To be blunt, guys did well if they pre-emptively killed a commander whom they had reason to fear to endanger them....

ch17: happy family reunions.... in spades.

ch10: not only dangers of war, but back-stabbing....

that's nothing incredible. in addition to outlooks being hereditary, also tastes are known to be somewhat hereditary. in the history, there has been a lot of marriages between step-siblings. When a woman found a man sexy and the man found that woman to be sexy (both being widoed....), it was not too unusual that the man's son found the woman's daughter (= step-mother's daughter by an earlier husband) sexy and vice versa. [they are not related by blood, so their marriage was legally permitted] the same with for example a man's son and his step-mother's niece. these sort of tastes and resemblances, were a contributing factor why in family histories, some two families seemed to have formed long-time repeated marriage partnerings. Pools for brides and bridegrooms to one another. plus, again within permitted degrees of consanguinity: a guy could find his first cousin, niece of his own mother, to be attractive....(it happened not too unusually in the past) they are legally allowed to marry, in most places. [and, many have observed along history that people married a spouse who resembled that one's parents (of opposite sex).] -------------------- My paternal grandmother came from a family whose earlier generations for at least four generations, had at least one marriage in each generation to a certain other family lineage. something of slightly differing variants of a nephew marrying his uncle's wife's niece. ------- in the world of genealogy, these sort of things are also known. an ongoing example of over a *millennium* (not only a century but a millennium), is that the lineage of Japanese emperors seemingly liked to marry with members of a family named Fujiwara. It started in about the 700s CE (if not even earlier), and repeated in almost each generation - and in about the year 1900 there still was at least one such marriage: the future emperor Yoshihito married a lady called Sadako from Kujo-Fujiwara family. [this couple was the paternal grandparents of the current emperor of Japan]

ch4: was this actually the first lesbian scene in the series....

It does not look to me like the soap opera reported all Dallas residents as owners of oil wells [it chose a subset of people there as its protagonists, and not even all of them owned oil wells] and not that it depicted all Dallas residents wearing cowboy hats and boots. and so forth. That soap opera concocted a plausible family, to do such things. The soap opera presented a bunch of plausible happenings.Things which were plausible per se.

there's a fundamental disagreement brewing in that view. because, Dallas was quite plausible a story concoction; and had all sorts of elements american people were very capable of living as their own, or seeing as a more or less familiar life. practically all soap operas need to be plausible. The genre is such. A soap opera would probably not succeed, if it loses plausible texture and plausible plot. It's a totally different thing that a portion of real life is left OUT from soap operas; those portions which are sorta tedious. So they display glamorous sides and such.

if a story has quite a many (unrelated) incredible happenings, then usually the impression from that story would be that it's lunatic, too much insanity. many readers will have difficulty in getting in such a story, let alone living it through eyes of some protagonist.

ch9: hm. subjugation....

ch16: quite nicely. poor boy. actually, I would so much like to hear much more about Lou...

some sarcasm: that's a recipe which is going to make you a popular and widely-read writer of stories. Hoskins self-irony: there should exist requirements for readers. desirably, a competence test. nobody shoulld be allowed to become a reader, if not first pass a reader's licence examination. it is only those who hold a regularly renewed card of competence, who could be allowed to be readers of stories.

Nope. I could bet that you have not published any widely-read fiction. The ultimate goal of a fiction is to entertain the reader. A fiction reader attains optimum enjoyment from reading when the reader becomes so engrossed in the story as to reach an almost trance-like state (the 'readers's trance' as it is put by some) That is why making or leaving glitches in the text is usually a bad idea. Among undesirable glitches, are meaningless things (the texture od the story) that are unbelievable. The texture being plausible, then some really meaningful thing can be a manifestation of miracle. The reader's 'trance' is -usually- best achieved by so deeply immersing the reader into the POV character that the reader experiences the events of the story as that character, instead of just riding along as a spectator. You can ask yourself how well the trance is retained glitchless, if there comes some meaningless detail which the reader may start to wonder why just this is this sort of miraculous and rare occurrence. Besides, a story placed to a not-so-recent past, tends to have -and is often aimed at or aimable at- plenty of such readers who enjoy a verisimilitude of the historical context. That verisimilitude is carefully achieved, does not harm those readers who are not interested in that, but is really a tool to attain those readers who belong to the niche of historical fiction (and/or alternate history).

you seem to equate the terms 'not plausible' and 'impossible'. However, they are not synonymous. A scarce number of things which are not plausible, are possible. It is rare, it is unusual, but such exceptions happen. The term 'implausible' in a usual terminology refers to what does not conform to expected patterns of human behavior. Such things may still be theoretically possible. Plausibility is an assessment people make on basis of their general experiences and such things. Not everything which is possible, is a part of ready experience. remember an old adage that sometimes (though, I'd say, very rarely), reality is more miraculous than.... so, your claim about obdurate comes from your misconception of impossible being the same as not plausible. And I do not appreciate such accusation.

From my part, I have been despairing over some people's ignorance here about knowledge of demographics, and ignorance about results of genealogical research. Then, from such ignorance, and misguided ideas concocted from whatever, rather than from real knowledge, have come some obdurate claims from some of those people that things (which I know to be unusual, even implausible) are happening. Particularly if they can find a misappropriated, wrongly interpreted occurrence in their own family tree - which tree they do not however seem to know exhaustively enough (so, a selective sample-taking for one's purposes takes easily place) It has become amply established that those some do not actually know genealogy, nor demographics, well enough. I see no reason to yield to claims which are contrary to research results, and which claims by deeper analysis turn out to be unwarranted. Have you Jeremy considered to respect research knowledge in these matters? or are you obstinately going to present parts, skewed, of your only-by-half-known family tree, to justify unusual occurrences ?

now that JP himself is over 60 years old, and recently made the feat of having sex with Matt, it is funny to read what were the twentyish JP's thought (in early 1960s) in the opening chapter of CAP: ".....Other days I'd come in and the other stall would be occupied by one of the old trolls that lurked around here. Old men, men over 50, who lurked here hoping a young college guy wouldn't notice how ancient they were, or wouldn't care, and let them suck his dick anyway. Those trolls would camp here for hours, ruining the place for the rest of us."

I gather from Jeremy's writing elsewhere that his cousin Stacey is a daughter of his uncle, while his cousin Heather is a daughter of his aunt. and that Stacey and Heather are not siblings. Plus that each of these families had more chilödren than these Jeremy used as examples of pairings. So, the situation in Jeremy's extended family (where already those cousins are distributed to different aunts and uncles) is not similar as that a-bit-implausible fiction which I critiqued: it is not that usual that two siblings of *different* genders, would have their all children in synchron as pairs. As said, stochastics -and the additional factor that a male sibling is usually in different rhythm than a female sibling in their lives- usually makes children more distributed. The CAP story actually gave originally me an impression that Billy could been a couple years older than JP. a bit older at least. It looks like your extended family is pretty numerous. And thusly it is not that unusual that some of the children born to either sisters of near age, or to brothers of near age, happen to be born near one another. From that listing you gave, I detect that you were speaking of at least four different aunts and/or uncles, as the parents who are blood-related to you. aren't there any of your cousins who are NOT born as near pair of one of the kids of your parents? I would think that in a normal situation, there'd be a few of your cousins who are not in timely pair in that way. The unusualness I critized, is in much part because these two fictional siblings, Gail and Jack (who are of opposite sex), would not have but two kids each, AND both have a big gap between first and second kid: ten years of no birth in either family; and both ALWAYS have a kid in time-pair with another. by the way, are those siblings who are your aunts/uncles, themselves born in near years from one another ? and, does this big number of siblings and aunts and uncles in each generation, happen to correlate with them coming from 'poor folks' ? (there are clear differences in demographic behavior of one hand well-to-do families, and on the other hand low-class families. In the latter, to express some things bluntly, the persons -both men and women- are not good at concentrating at obtaining good education, but they tend to get pregnant already around 20 or before, and have a bigger number of kids)

JJ and Marie and John are kids of women of this family. They may have better synchron. Brad, the father of Will, was elder by some years than his step-sister, mrs Hobart. So, his first kid and Claire's first kid being of almost same year is not implausible. Will is seemingly younger than the eldest kid of his step-aunt though the aunt is younger than Will's dad. Plus, Brad got a special start anyway, getting the rare opening to breed a kid despite of being gay. That would anyway creat an exception to demographic 'normalcy' Poor Claire, you put her through childbirth twice in 11 months.... No wonder she won't have any more kids; right It's not impossible to have kids within 10 or 11 months, it's just heavy, and most women try to avoid that sort of rapidity. in addition, breast-feeding the earlier kid, prevents somewhat effectively the next pregnancy, until...

and, were the siblings who became one as parent of you and your sis, the other the parent of your cousins, of different genders ? I concede willingly that same sex, ie either two brothers born in near years, may marry in near years and have kids even in synchron; and two sisters born near years, to marry near years and have kids even in synchron; BUT, if the siblings are of opposite sexes and born near years, then normally the sister marries earlier and the brother some five years or so later. And consequently, their kids are usualy not exactly in synchron. an exception of this, according to my demographical and genealogical data, is many lowest-class families where both sons and daughters start (because they are dork and not cautious, they tend to forget to use condoms) to make kids already in late teens. There are a number of forced marriages in late teens among boys of such social class. but this exceptionality certainly is not usual for europeans above the lowest social class, and neither to americans of upper class.

nope, these sort of family trees occur all the time in history (today is a different matter). That a man (Jim) espouses his first cousin's daughter, is quite possible, and happened often in the past - both in commoner communities where class distinctions and inward-orientation caused clannishness, as well as within aristocracy. In all states, a man is allowed to marry his dirst cousin's daughter - there is no real incest in that. Some restrictive US states proscribe marriages between full first cousins (which is sorta old-fashioned restriction, coming from eras of control) while the rest of US states allow full first cousins to marry. That's the demarcation line - and thusly, nowhere in USA is any proscription against once-removed-first cousin's marriage. I am very aware of several clannish groups researched by me, where many marriages took place between second cousins or first cousins once removed, or approx that level of consanguinity. and consequently, children of such marriages had similar ancestry trees as JJ. parents of Gail and John Gail 'Tonto' - - - her brother John 'Jack' William Beatrice r Jim (Jack's son) JJ see, nothing at all difficult in drawing the family tree. --------------- is the following possibly in some way difficult: Francis of Coburg, duke duchess Victoria - - her brother Ernest, duke of Coburg and Gotha queen Alexandrina Victoria m her first cousin Albert, prince consort (son of Ernest) 'Victoria of the United Kingdom' Edward VII and his 8 siblings ------------------ or the following: Maria Luisa of Parma, queen consort of Spain Maria Isabella of Spain, queen consort of Sicily Luisa of Sicily - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - her sister Maria Cristina of Sicily, queen consort and regent of Spain m her maternal uncle infante don Francisco, youngest son of Maria Luisa of Parma - - m her maternal uncle, king don Fernando VII, eldest surviving son of Maria Luisa of Parma infante don Francisco, king-consort of Spain m his first cousin, Isabel II, queen regnant of Spain (daughter of Maria Cristina and Fernando VII) technically, a number of children....

it is intriguing to compare Stef with his father Steven. the old adage 'apple does not fall far from the tree', is it really true? Steven has thus far displayed no tendency to be very promiscuous and a real sex maniac. Which is different than Stef. Would Stef have gotten that from his mother? Stef's business acumen is nowhere yet displayed in Steven. I gather Steven was not a teenage entrepreneur by his nature.... poor Barry. seems we did not get familiar with his more annoying traits. My recollection of the guy what he was like in CAP and so, was just a man meek and ordinary. Barry's father was alive. oh well. So, that guy was brother of the sometime-mentioned uncle Jacob. right? but where's uncle Jacob now? So, the real money came from Tonto. Should have guessed. It's well known that judges, while often well off, are not exactly in way to become billionaires. A judgeship rather is an occupation for an educated descendant of blue-blooded family, owning some remnants of much earlier family money and properties. Quite often, judges are in generations when much of the earlier wealth had been lost, and replaced with 'good standing' and aristocratic demeanor, as well as high education. I am somewhat suprised that Jim was so much older than JP. They did not give such an impression in CAP. Besides, Jim should have started to have his own kids before the age of 30. Rather, perhaps even as early as when 22 or something.... And I find it odd that these two pairs of cousins happened to be born so tightly as pairs. Billy and JP same age - and Jim& Steven same age. Not plausible. Stochastics should have distributed them a bit more. my impressions were that Steven as oldest, Jim could well be some five years younger than him. And Billy should rather be one or two years older than JP. Besides, Billy strted to have kids in 1957 or so. It would be more fitting, had he been born already in 1934.... Because, men found their families usually only some years after turning 20. Assuming Gail and Barry (who were siblings) to been born in years near one another, and knowing that women start family some years younger than men usually, Steven and Jim could more plausibly have some years between them, Jim being younger. funnily enough, the tale brings to see that really, cars were huge piles of metal in those days. rolling heaps, and not yet designed for sleekness and compactness.