Hal Bush has correctly sniffed out my facetiousness in suggesting that SLC
may have illegitimate heirs.  Behind that weak attempt at wryness, though,
lies my curiosity about what those writing on this thread hope to
accomplish.  Given the facts presented here, O'Neill cannot be a direct
descendant, nor can anyone else for that matter.  But why does O'Neill, or
his publicist, think that such a claim is of value?  Why did he choose to
name Twain as his ancestor?  Why not Eugene O'Neill?  So my concern is less
with the facts of whether he is or not, but what motivates such a desire
and public claim.  In this, O'Neill shows his relation--by temperament--to
Jesse Leathers, Twain's maternal relative who claimed connection to English
aristocracy.   Do others think similarly, or am I alone in my interest in
matters other than factual.

By the way, in light of Andy's notice that O'Neill's now the teammate of
Roger Clemens, the latter was a teammate of a Boggs and a Buckner, all
managed by a Morgan (Twainish characters if not eponyms) on the Red Sox.

--LH




At 08:14 AM 4/7/99 -0600, you wrote:
>>There are no direct descendants of Samuel Clemens.  Most of us are
>>descendants of his brother.
>>Ellen Clemens Smart
>
>
>I guess it all boils down to the term used in the original post, "direct
>descendant":  is that the exact wording of O'Neill's claim?
>
>If so, there appear to be 2 possibilities:
>
>1.  Lawrence Howe's idea:  there may be "some evidence of an illegitimate
>branch of SLC's family tree that leads to O'Neill; those dalliances with
>saloon girls might have generated an heir."  If this is to be taken
>seriously, I am a bit surprised that no one has (so far) taken much issue
>with it.  Does anyone know of any evidence, hearsay or even the glimmer of
>such, that Twain did have an illegitimate child at some point?
>
>2.  O'Neill is quite mistaken.
>
>If that is NOT the the exact wording, there are also only 2 possibilities:
>
>1.  Andy Hoffman's suggestion, which was my original reaction as well --
>O'Neill has some connection as a distant relative, not direct descendent.
>This is very plausible -- and I would also like to know the exact
>connection.
>
>2.  O'Neill is quite mistaken.
>
>--Hal Bush
>