Troupe listed as relative of Lois?

[Clois Never Dies]

Why was Troupe listed as a relative of Lois on her VRA Bio?

I'm not 100% down with comic-lore but my understanding was Troupe is married to Lucy? But obviously in the SV universe this hasn't happened yet, so why is he listed as a relative?

[xrayvision]

Because the writers have no clue about the comics. Knowing them, they'd retcon Pete into Ron Troupe if they'd ever get SJ3 back. Or they'd have Phil Morris go from playing Martian Manhunter to playing Ron Troupe. I think Joe Morton would have made a great Ron Troupe but he already played Dr. Hamilton.

[Audrey229]

Because the writers have no clue about the comics. Knowing them, they'd retcon Pete into Ron Troupe if they'd ever get SJ3 back. Or they'd have Phil Morris go from playing Martian Manhunter to playing Ron Troupe. I think Joe Morton would have made a great Ron Troupe but he already played Dr. Hamilton.

Actually, I think the writers have a fairly decent knowledge about the source material. We've seen photographs of the comics closet in the writer's room.

I think it was probably meant as a little Easter Egg shoutout for those who took the time to read the file. I highly doubt it was meant as anything more than that.

[jon-el87]

The file lists "Samuel Troupe" as a relative of Lois Lane. In the comics, Samuel is Lucy's son with Ron Troupe. Assuming the same applies to Smallville, then Lucy met Ron at some point, slept with him and got pregnant. Hence, why the Troupes are listed as relatives of Lois Lane.

We saw Lucy Lane twice: once in season 4 (spring of 2005) and once in season 10 (Thanksgiving of 2010). We have no idea of what she was up to during the five years between her two appearances. Personally, I quite like the hint that Lucy might have had a kid, somewhere between 2005 and 2010. It means that things have been going on in her own life, in those five years. Lucy haven't been in suspended animation, during her absence. She's had experiences of her own, from an in-universe perspective, during those five years between "Lucy" and "Ambush". It creates the feeling that the guest characters have lives of their own, and that they don't just vanish into thin air, when they're not around Clark & friends (just because we never see them again). Even if they're never brought up again (ex. the girl in "Red", Jessie Brooks*), they're still out there, living their lives (independent of Clark).

There is no reference to Lucy having a son in "Ambush", but we don't know all the details. Maybe he's with his father's family. Maybe Lucy kept her out of wedlock pregnancy secret from her father (meaning that she had not yet informed Sam Lane that he's a grandfather). Maybe Lucy got pregnant in her teens, and Sam Lane arranged for someone to take care of the kid for her (as she already had enough problems). Maybe Lucy and Ron got married (and had a son) in secret, not wanting Sam Lane to know about it (see his treatment of Clark in "Ambush" as a possible reason for why). The thing with minor characters is that we only get a brief glimpse into their lives, through their interactions with Clark. Not to mention, screentime is constricted by how long that the episodes are allowed to be. So, you can't throw in a scene, where Lucy talks about everything that she's been up to, between 2005 and 2010, and why her son (whom she didn't have in 2005, but Lois would know about, because he's Lois' nephew) isn't with her.

* From an in-universe perspective, Jessie and her dad probably went to another town or city, assumed new names; with Jessie starting over at a another school. The big question mark is if the people hunting them ever found them, or if they were allowed to live in peace.