“News” (in quotes because it’s questionable) has come out that the “star” (same quotes for the same reason) of the Twilight films may be a distant relative of Vlad the Impaler. Bing over at Happy Jihad’s House of Pancakes called him Sparkle Tits the Impaler, which I thought was quite hilarious. From the Yahoo article he referred to:
“Tracing Pattinson’s family back to Vlad was difficult research, but the pieces that unraveled created the perfect accompaniment to the Twilight Saga,” said Anastasia Tyler, a genealogist at Ancestry.com. “Without any myth or magic, we find royalty and vampires lurking in Pattinson’s life — making his story just as supernatural as the one he’s playing on screen.”
That’s just dumb. There’s nothing supernatural about genealogy. I’ll buy his possible relation to Vlad (Bing points out that a lot of people by now can claim the same), but Vlad Dracul was not a vampire. Vampires don’t exist. They don’t suck blood from their victims, they don’t lure delectable virgins into their gothic mansions by the means of mesmerism or sex appeal, and they sure as hell don’t sparkle when the sun shines.
The only reason this article exists is because someone wants a little fame by proxy. Right, Anastasia Tyler?
The Telegraph also picks up the “story” but gives credit to someone else for a similar quote:
Dan Jones, international content director of Ancestry.co.uk, said: “Without any myth or magic, we’ve found royalty and vampires lurking in Pattinson’s family history, making his story as supernatural as the one he’s playing on the silver screen.
“Family history is all about exploring family mysteries, whether you’re looking for celebrities or even vampires, all it takes is some digging.”
I wonder how that happened. Who said it first? Does anyone even care?