First, its Emmalines uncle. Its Richards father. And second, the movie isnt a sequel to a book. Its a sequel to another movie. And in the other movie, they are found alive. At the beginning on the second movie, they have not been found yet, and rediscovered, their bodies are in different positions and they are all dead. All we want to know is WHY. If they had died after the fact and the MOVIES told us that, it would be different. But they acted like they were never found and when they were they were dead. That sir, does not add up. Like, at all. I dont care what the books said, nowhere in the movies does it tell you that you need to read the book because we left sound crucial details out. Like, oh i dont know, the main characters DIED? We will just tell you that they lived and laugh when youre totally confused at the sequel. Which prooobably shouldnt even be called a sequel if the stories dont line up. It practically like calling it 'another blue lagoon'. thats how they remade cinderella 15 times, right? But even then at least the story line was the same.
In the book by Henry de Vere Stacpoole, the ending was left ambiguous. Whether the couple were unconscious or dead was not stated; however, the child was alive. I believe that the intention was that Richard and Emmeline died, but lived on in their child. The first film (1949) also ended ambiguously.
If Brooke Shields' mother had allowed her to do the sequel, they would have been alive and gone back to San Francisco. It would have been a much better film than this one.
"Life is uncertain, eat dessert first!" -HOMER J.SIMPSON