Quagmire's longevity

[Fethryfan]

I was finally able to read Barks' "Heirloom Watch", and this question fell in my head

Scrooge was named his great-uncle Quagmire's sole heir in the 1950's, when Scrooge himself was a man around 86 years old, if not older! How could a man born in the late 18th century be alive until half of the 20th century? Quagmire would have to be at least 160 years old when he died.

We know the McDucks can live long (Scrooge lived 100 years and Jake's status is debatable, i believe he is still alive), but i didn't knew one would live so long. How is that possible?

[TheMidgetMoose]

Good question, though I don't know if there's a good answer. Perhaps it would be wise to consider what the minimal age difference is between Quagmire and Scrooge. I'm going to writing theoretically in the next few sentences, as I know what I am about to say is not supported by in-universe. Anyways, it's possible and not unbelievable at all that one could become a father at the young age of 18. If this the age at which Scrooge was born to his father and Scrooge's father was born to his father, then that would put Scrooge's grandfather (Quagmire's brother) at age 36 upon Scrooge's birth.


The age gap between siblings can be quite large, especially if they are half-siblings. If one's mother was 18 when they were born, they could theoretically have a younger sibling 22 years younger than them, as women can bear children up to and even beyond 40, though that's not particularly common. A man can still conceive children for quite sometime. If what I've read is correct, former United States president John Tyler fathered his youngest child at age 70, a whopping 45 years after his eldest child was born! I'd say it's possible, though certainly not common, for there to be a 50 year age gap between half-siblings.

Based on all this, hypothetically speaking, if Fergus was not shown by Don Rosa to be much older than 18 at Scrooge's birth, Quagmire could be 14 years younger than Scrooge, if Scrooge's grandfather was 36 years at his birth and Quagmire is his much younger half-brother.

However, as I've already alluded, all sources indicate that Fergus was much older than 18 when Scrooge was born. I think it was in A Letter From Home that Fergus's tombstone was shown with the birth year of 1835. Rosa believed Scrooge was born in 1867, which would put Fergus at age 32 when his son was born. I think I've heard before that Titus (Fergus's father) was born in 1810, but I'm not sure way this came from. If we ignore that and assume that Titus was 18 when Fergus was born, we now have an age gap of 50 years between Titus and Scrooge.

As I've already covered, Quagmire could hypothetically be as much as 50 years younger than Titus, though this would only really work if he was a half-sibling. Thus, Quagmire could be the very same age as Scrooge. This is unlikely, but if we consider it a possibility that he is Scrooge's age, then it is certainly no far stretch to assume that he was about 10 to 15 years older than Scrooge, which fits with him dying in the 1950's.

All of that said, there's one major factor I've failed to account for: information about Titus's father. What do we know about him? Does anyone know if there's any information about Titus's father (Scrooge's paternal great-grandfather) that would disqualify him from having children at an advanced age? This website has led me to believe that I TL 690-A states that Scrooge's great-grandfather "Pampero" McDuck was still alive in 1848, but I don't own the relevant story and can't verify that information. If all this true, then Quagmire could have been born in 1849 or so, which would make him about 18 years older than Scrooge and put him dying at a few years over 100.

[Fethryfan]

Oct 23, 2019 1:10:38 GMT TheMidgetMoose said:

Good question, though I don't know if there's a good answer. Perhaps it would be wise to consider what the minimal age difference is between Quagmire and Scrooge. I'm going to writing theoretically in the next few sentences, as I know what I am about to say is not supported by in-universe. Anyways, it's possible and not unbelievable at all that one could become a father at the young age of 18. If this the age at which Scrooge was born to his father and Scrooge's father was born to his father, then that would put Scrooge's grandfather (Quagmire's brother) at age 36 upon Scrooge's birth.


The age gap between siblings can be quite large, especially if they are half-siblings. If one's mother was 18 when they were born, they could theoretically have a younger sibling 22 years younger than them, as women can bear children up to and even beyond 40, though that's not particularly common. A man can still conceive children for quite sometime. If what I've read is correct, former United States president John Tyler fathered his youngest child at age 70, a whopping 45 years after his eldest child was born! I'd say it's possible, though certainly not common, for there to be a 50 year age gap between half-siblings.

Based on all this, hypothetically speaking, if Fergus was not shown by Don Rosa to be much older than 18 at Scrooge's birth, Quagmire could be 14 years younger than Scrooge, if Scrooge's grandfather was 36 years at his birth and Quagmire is his much younger half-brother.

However, as I've already alluded, all sources indicate that Fergus was much older than 18 when Scrooge was born. I think it was in A Letter From Home that Fergus's tombstone was shown with the birth year of 1835. Rosa believed Scrooge was born in 1867, which would put Fergus at age 32 when his son was born. I think I've heard before that Titus (Fergus's father) was born in 1810, but I'm not sure way this came from. If we ignore that and assume that Titus was 18 when Fergus was born, we now have an age gap of 50 years between Titus and Scrooge.

As I've already covered, Quagmire could hypothetically be as much as 50 years younger than Titus, though this would only really work if he was a half-sibling. Thus, Quagmire could be the very same age as Scrooge. This is unlikely, but if we consider it a possibility that he is Scrooge's age, then it is certainly no far stretch to assume that he was about 10 to 15 years older than Scrooge, which fits with him dying in the 1950's.

All of that said, there's one major factor I've failed to account for: information about Titus's father. What do we know about him? Does anyone know if there's any information about Titus's father (Scrooge's paternal great-grandfather) that would disqualify him from having children at an advanced age? This website has led me to believe that I TL 690-A states that Scrooge's great-grandfather "Pampero" McDuck was still alive in 1848, but I don't own the relevant story and can't verify that information. If all this true, then Quagmire could have been born in 1849 or so, which would make him about 18 years older than Scrooge and put him dying at a few years over 100.

There is a story that mentions Scrooge's great-grandfather, Potluck McDuck, who was a prospector in the USA

[Fethryfan]

Thinking about it now, i don't think i should be too surprised about that. My great-great-great-aunt was 23 years younger than her sister (my great-great-grandma) and died when i was 12

[Hector]

Also, technically, an uncle can be younger than the nephews!

[Fethryfan]

Oct 23, 2019 21:55:27 GMT Hector said:

Also, technically, an uncle can be younger than the nephews!

Exactly, my great-great-great-aunt was 2 years younger than her nephew, my great-great-uncle

[drakeborough]

My idea is that Quagmire died several decades before the events of "Heirloom Watch", though I can't say why it took so long for Scrooge to be named his heir. Even when reading the story for the first time, I never thought Quagmire had just died, possibly because in other stories the recent death is always mentioned.

[Baar Baar Jinx]

Oct 27, 2019 15:53:13 GMT drakeborough said:

My idea is that Quagmire died several decades before the events of "Heirloom Watch", though I can't say why it took so long for Scrooge to be named his heir. Even when reading the story for the first time, I never thought Quagmire had just died, possibly because in other stories the recent death is always mentioned.

I always had the impression that Quagmire had been dead for a while as well. Also, this story suggests that Gideon doesn't exist and that Matilda is dead (and that Rumpus hasn't yet been revealed to be Scrooge's half-brother), since all of them would potentially be heirs to Quagmire's estate.

[Fethryfan]

Oct 27, 2019 15:56:22 GMT Baar Baar Jinx said:

Oct 27, 2019 15:53:13 GMT drakeborough said:

My idea is that Quagmire died several decades before the events of "Heirloom Watch", though I can't say why it took so long for Scrooge to be named his heir. Even when reading the story for the first time, I never thought Quagmire had just died, possibly because in other stories the recent death is always mentioned.

I always had the impression that Quagmire had been dead for a while as well. Also, this story suggests that Gideon doesn't exist and that Matilda is dead (and that Rumpus hasn't yet been revealed to be Scrooge's half-brother), since all of them would potentially be heirs to Quagmire's estate.

Or Scrooge was very close to his great-uncle

[Baar Baar Jinx]

Oct 27, 2019 16:24:26 GMT Fethryfan said:

Or Scrooge was very close to his great-uncle

Yes, you have a point ... perhaps it was Quagmire's wish that his fortune go only to Scrooge, ignoring all his other surviving descendants (although why would Quagmire insist that Scrooge prove himself "a true McDuck" in that case? It suggests he didn't even know him).

[drakeborough]

There was an Italian Mickey story in which a Scottish family passes their fortune to their heirs while skipping a few generations to avoid paying the succession tax too often, as they were very stingy. Maybe it was something like that.

[That Duckfan]

Oct 27, 2019 15:56:22 GMT Baar Baar Jinx said:

Oct 27, 2019 15:53:13 GMT drakeborough said:

My idea is that Quagmire died several decades before the events of "Heirloom Watch", though I can't say why it took so long for Scrooge to be named his heir. Even when reading the story for the first time, I never thought Quagmire had just died, possibly because in other stories the recent death is always mentioned.

I always had the impression that Quagmire had been dead for a while as well. Also, this story suggests that Gideon doesn't exist and that Matilda is dead (and that Rumpus hasn't yet been revealed to be Scrooge's half-brother), since all of them would potentially be heirs to Quagmire's estate.

My assumption was that Scrooge was named heir based on his being the next-of-kin. He's older than Mathilda, so he gets preference. And it's not as if Quagmire's estate (as it is eventually revealed) lends itself to being divided in two.

My theory is a little more complex.

The watch, being one of the two heirlooms from grandfather Seafoam, had become part of the McDuck family legacy by Quagmire's time. Unfortunately, Quagmire's only issue was his daughter, who would not carry the family name. By the time of Quagmire's death, circa 1870, it was clear that the future lay in the hands of Dingus and his boys: Fergus, Angus, and Jake.

As such, Quagmire divided his inheritance, bequeathing his watch to his brother/nephews. Except for the ruby, the only non-essential part of the heirloom (and coincidentally, the only precious stone in the family that wasn't a piece of dentistry). He passed the ruby on to his daughter, who in turn passed it on to her child. This child, Scrooge's second cousin, died in old age and with no descendants in 1955.
Scrooge and his second cousin don't exactly know one another very well -- if at all. Presumably, the mother died young, some time before 1885, severing the family connection. After all this time, it's not unreasonable to ask whether Scrooge even owns the watch anymore -- in either case, bequeathing a gemstone to a virtual stranger with no strings attached seems a little dubious. They should be able to show that they have a real connection, a claim. You might as well gift it to the local charity.

So Scrooge, as next-of-kin in the clan McDuck, becomes the heir apparent to his great-uncle Quagmire McDuck's sole estate. So why didn't he mention his cousin's name? Well, presumably Scrooge has more of connection with his great-uncle -- some fleeting memories from early childhood perhaps, mentions by his father and uncle -- than with this distant, non-McDuck member of the family.

[Scroogerello]

Oct 27, 2019 15:56:22 GMT Baar Baar Jinx said:

Oct 27, 2019 15:53:13 GMT drakeborough said:

My idea is that Quagmire died several decades before the events of "Heirloom Watch", though I can't say why it took so long for Scrooge to be named his heir. Even when reading the story for the first time, I never thought Quagmire had just died, possibly because in other stories the recent death is always mentioned.

I always had the impression that Quagmire had been dead for a while as well. Also, this story suggests that Gideon doesn't exist and that Matilda is dead (and that Rumpus hasn't yet been revealed to be Scrooge's half-brother), since all of them would potentially be heirs to Quagmire's estate.

Note that the story says Scrooge was *named* sole heir to Quagmire’s estate. That means there were other potential heirs, but Quagmire selected Scrooge out of them.

Also, distribution of the estate always happens (relatively) soon after someone dies, so Quagmire did die recently in Barks’ story. I bet Barks simply didn’t realize that Quagmire would have to have been pretty darn old to have a 70-something grandnephew. I suppose that’s the real (boring! ) answer this topic’s question.

[crazycatlord]

Apr 13, 2020 22:14:23 GMT Scroogerello said:

Also, distribution of the estate always happens (relatively) soon after someone dies, so Quagmire did die recently in Barks’ story.

My uncle-great-grandfather (died in the end of the 1970s, I think) had lands that even today were not divided between my mother, may aunt and some distant cousins; and  my great-grandfather (died in the 1940s, I think) had lands that my grandma and her nephews only divided in the 1990s (when they sell the land - money is more easy to split than lands); my paternal grandfather died in 1995, my paternal grandmother in 1997 and my maternal grandmother in 2011 - today, almost all of the estates remains undivided.

Could easily be imagined that in a rural and clanish society (like Scotland an hundred years ago) the distribution of a estate could be indeed very slow (much physical goods instead of money; complex family trees, etc.).

[Scroogerello]

Apr 14, 2020 1:22:22 GMT crazycatlord said:

Apr 13, 2020 22:14:23 GMT Scroogerello said:

Also, distribution of the estate always happens (relatively) soon after someone dies, so Quagmire did die recently in Barks’ story.

My uncle-great-grandfather (died in the end of the 1970s, I think) had lands that even today were not divided between my mother, may aunt and some distant cousins; and  my great-grandfather (died in the 1940s, I think) had lands that my grandma and her nephews only divided in the 1990s (when they sell the land - money is more easy to split than lands); my paternal grandfather died in 1995, my paternal grandmother in 1997 and my maternal grandmother in 2011 - today, almost all of the estates remains undivided.

Could easily be imagined that in a rural and clanish society (like Scotland an hundred years ago) the distribution of a estate could be indeed very slow (much physical goods instead of money; complex family trees, etc.).

Still, the inheritance of the estate must have happened long ago; ownership of the property was transferred from your late uncle to his surviving relatives soon after his death, even if they took/are taking ages to divide it amongst each other (they’re currently all co-owners of the entire estate as long as it remains undivided).

Also, note that in the story, Quagmire’s attorneys (McHawk, McChicken, etc) serve as his executors; it would have been impossible (and highly illegal) for an executor to hoard an inheritance and keep it from its beneficiary for many years.

Regardlesss, as I was saying, these kinds of scenarios were certainly NOT what Barks had in mind while writing this story—instead, he was using the common cartoon trope of “mysterious relative dies and leaves main character an inheritance”.