Post by mkr on May 4, 2024 7:52:29 GMT
So, in H 2016-040 there are several ancestors of Gyro from different time periods. They are Gnoef Peen (in one panel called Gnoef Wortel) from prehistoric times, there is Toet Ank Wortel from Ancient Egypt, there is Leonardo da Radice from the 15th century, there is Isaac Carrot from the 17th century, and Benjamin Carotene from the 18th century. There is also Mona Lisa, who is in love with Leonardo da Radice, but nothing is said if they ever married or so. And just for records, all these ancestors have their own little helper, called: Fakkeltje, Vetlampje, Kaarsje, Kandelaartje and Olielampje. Here are some scans.
There are also three ancestors of Donald, Scrooge and Gyro in H 29006. They are called Grompf, Groempf and the third one (that looks like Gyro) is unnamed. It is not told if or how these ancestors are related to eachother. Scans.
Then there is Donald's ancestor Paperin van der Paper, living in the Dutch city of Paperdelft from I TL 3314-5. He has an uncle Paperon van Paperen. I think it can be assumed that Paperin van der Paper married Rina van Paper, but that is not explicitly stated. Scans.
Finally, we have Scrooge's ancestor duca Quackarone from I TL 2789-4. Scan.
If a character is shown being legally adopted in any capacity, they should be counted. This applies to:
Danger Duck's adoptive parents from Loonatics - In the Pinkster
Joey from Daddy Duck.
Milone Paperone from I TL 197-AP is forced to legally recognize Paperin Meschino as his nephew (Though this could be understood as son for the tree).
If a character was not legally adopted, but either is shown to have been raised by a character on the tree, their inclusion should be considered. This applies to:
Bubba Duck from Ducktales. As a child who lives with Scrooge - and thus is his responsibility - he should be considered as being adopted by him. Though this may be arguable, I think it should stand on the grounds that he appears multiple times afterwards, so the adoption clearly stuck in at least that universe.
Cosette from I TL 1743-AP, who was raised by Jean Valduck. If we assume Cosette to be a fair inclusion, the Thénardiers would also warrant inclusion.
Monna Papera from I TL 197-AP - I haven't read, so am not sure if there's any indication of legal status, but she clearly adopted him.
Guinevere from A Twisted Tale: Set in Stone. Madam Mim took her in effectively the same way Gothel took Rapunzel in Tangled - she raised her for all of her childhood, and while it obviously wasn't legal, they both recognize each other as family in some capacity. She's also noted in the blurb as Mim's foster daughter.
The Bassottos family from I TL 1800-AP. They raised Anatrucculos, and while I don't recall legal status being mentioned (Will double-check), they were the ones to raise him from childhood to adulthood.
Note regarding the above: The rule, essentially, is that they're shown to have been responsible for or dependent on the relevant character for a significant period of time. This can be understood in either a single story where the relationship is shown to last many years, or multiple stories in which a relationship is displayed as being more than just a one-off or minor recurring thing.
Finally, assuming that a character is included, their blood relatives would obviously be relevant inclusions.
The only exception would be if, effectively, it was to spawn another family tree - so, for example, if Terrible Tom Thénardier is confirmed to be an ancestor of Pete, maybe just have an arrow trailing off to explain that connection.
A character would not be eligible if:
The adoption has no legal backing in-story and only lasts for one story/story arc.
The adoption is not elaborated on in any capacity (For example, Gilles Maurice's tree has Gene, who never appeared as part of the family again to my recollection, nor was he actually shown to be taken in by or live with Scrooge, unlike Bubba.)
These can be fine-tuned, but I think the general sentiment works - though I'm open to discussion on thatI think you give some reasonable criteria that we could work with. Though I would argue that any blood relatives of these adopted relatives should then be on the tree as well even if they spawn a family tree the size of Goofy's. The amount of relatives shouldn't matter for inclusion. Moreover, once we accept a character on the tree (be it by adoption or be it a clone), I think we should then apply to it the same rules as we have for any other relative that is already on the tree. So technically these adopted relatives could have other adopted relatives of their own, and also spawn a tree of blood related descendants and ancestors of their own. Not that we have any such extreme cases at the moment, but I wouldn't be surprised if we ever find in this way some connection to the Beagle Boys, Mickey, Goofy or maybe even Bugs Bunny...
Obviously, the cloning process can be pretty unrealistic - as such, there isn't as concrete a way to define it.
The ones we do have are all different in how they're portrayed; Webby was made using Scrooge's DNA. May and June were made using Webby's.
The Mad Ducktor was Gyro's negative side whose spirit was split off and gained his own body.
Phooey exists randomly due to 'spontaneous cell division'.
The Ludwig clone was a gag, but she's shown to be a different entity to Ludwig.
Then there's the question of Little Helper, whose sapience comes from Gyro, which is effectively the same as Mad Ducktor but without the... PK shenanigans
It's all fairly hard to define. I think the adoptive relatives have pretty reasonable criteria, but the clones are harder to identify.
Assuming Webby was added, I'd say it should solely be down to the 2017 continuum - she and Beakley are very clearly distinct characters from their 1987 counterparts. They have almost nothing in common with the originals, and should reasonably be understood to be separate, same with Bubba.Since this is all so hard to define, I would argue to still leave the clones out for the moment. Or at least first think of a better way to define this. There is also the problem of how a clone is put in the tree. I mean, should in the same generation as the one it is a clone from, or be in a generation younger like a child? Maybe child would be the prefered option here, but then we also would get May and June as April/Webby's children?
If no such similar event was shown for other incarnations of Little Helper, it could be understood that they're just intelligent AI or the like - effectively, they'd have the rule that the lookalikes fall under, where absence of proof makes them ineligible. I see the point that we have more information on Little Helper's creation than we would probably have on any other Little Helper like characters. Though I would argue that, for example in the context of H 2016-040, there isn't really any difference between Gyro's Little Helper and their variants from Gyro's ancestors. It is not stated in the story how they were created, but they are implied to be of a similar sentience level as Little Helper, and I think that in this context it wouldn't make any sense if they were created in a completely different way. By the way, in the story, these little helpers from the past all go together on a holiday to a tropical beach, together with Little Helper (without the knowledge of Gyro or his ancestors).
Thanks, but she is already on the tree, on which she is called Agathe, which is, I think, her Danish name.
There are also three ancestors of Donald, Scrooge and Gyro in H 29006. They are called Grompf, Groempf and the third one (that looks like Gyro) is unnamed. It is not told if or how these ancestors are related to eachother. Scans.
Then there is Donald's ancestor Paperin van der Paper, living in the Dutch city of Paperdelft from I TL 3314-5. He has an uncle Paperon van Paperen. I think it can be assumed that Paperin van der Paper married Rina van Paper, but that is not explicitly stated. Scans.
Finally, we have Scrooge's ancestor duca Quackarone from I TL 2789-4. Scan.
As for Adoptive relatives, I've been working with these criteria:
If a character is shown being legally adopted in any capacity, they should be counted. This applies to:
Danger Duck's adoptive parents from Loonatics - In the Pinkster
Joey from Daddy Duck.
Milone Paperone from I TL 197-AP is forced to legally recognize Paperin Meschino as his nephew (Though this could be understood as son for the tree).
If a character was not legally adopted, but either is shown to have been raised by a character on the tree, their inclusion should be considered. This applies to:
Bubba Duck from Ducktales. As a child who lives with Scrooge - and thus is his responsibility - he should be considered as being adopted by him. Though this may be arguable, I think it should stand on the grounds that he appears multiple times afterwards, so the adoption clearly stuck in at least that universe.
Cosette from I TL 1743-AP, who was raised by Jean Valduck. If we assume Cosette to be a fair inclusion, the Thénardiers would also warrant inclusion.
Monna Papera from I TL 197-AP - I haven't read, so am not sure if there's any indication of legal status, but she clearly adopted him.
Guinevere from A Twisted Tale: Set in Stone. Madam Mim took her in effectively the same way Gothel took Rapunzel in Tangled - she raised her for all of her childhood, and while it obviously wasn't legal, they both recognize each other as family in some capacity. She's also noted in the blurb as Mim's foster daughter.
The Bassottos family from I TL 1800-AP. They raised Anatrucculos, and while I don't recall legal status being mentioned (Will double-check), they were the ones to raise him from childhood to adulthood.
Note regarding the above: The rule, essentially, is that they're shown to have been responsible for or dependent on the relevant character for a significant period of time. This can be understood in either a single story where the relationship is shown to last many years, or multiple stories in which a relationship is displayed as being more than just a one-off or minor recurring thing.
Finally, assuming that a character is included, their blood relatives would obviously be relevant inclusions.
The only exception would be if, effectively, it was to spawn another family tree - so, for example, if Terrible Tom Thénardier is confirmed to be an ancestor of Pete, maybe just have an arrow trailing off to explain that connection.
A character would not be eligible if:
The adoption has no legal backing in-story and only lasts for one story/story arc.
The adoption is not elaborated on in any capacity (For example, Gilles Maurice's tree has Gene, who never appeared as part of the family again to my recollection, nor was he actually shown to be taken in by or live with Scrooge, unlike Bubba.)
These can be fine-tuned, but I think the general sentiment works - though I'm open to discussion on that
For clones, I'll admit, the reason I wanted to revisit this is because I'm not entirely sure of what the criteria should be, myself.
Obviously, the cloning process can be pretty unrealistic - as such, there isn't as concrete a way to define it.
The ones we do have are all different in how they're portrayed; Webby was made using Scrooge's DNA. May and June were made using Webby's.
The Mad Ducktor was Gyro's negative side whose spirit was split off and gained his own body.
Phooey exists randomly due to 'spontaneous cell division'.
The Ludwig clone was a gag, but she's shown to be a different entity to Ludwig.
Then there's the question of Little Helper, whose sapience comes from Gyro, which is effectively the same as Mad Ducktor but without the... PK shenanigans
It's all fairly hard to define. I think the adoptive relatives have pretty reasonable criteria, but the clones are harder to identify.
Assuming Webby was added, I'd say it should solely be down to the 2017 continuum - she and Beakley are very clearly distinct characters from their 1987 counterparts. They have almost nothing in common with the originals, and should reasonably be understood to be separate, same with Bubba.
Regarding Little Helper, I think it's worth noting that Little Helper would only qualify because of D 2001-143; it's not just that he's an intelligent being, but an intelligent being whose intelligence is directly shown to be from Gyro. Not in a 'created by' sense, but his ability to exist as a sapient being comes from the transfer of Gyro's intelligence.
If no such similar event was shown for other incarnations of Little Helper, it could be understood that they're just intelligent AI or the like - effectively, they'd have the rule that the lookalikes fall under, where absence of proof makes them ineligible.
I just read D8082 with Scrooge's great-aunt Jeanette/Sjaan, and you probably have her on your tree, but I can't easily check that. When I search for her name(s) on the forum, all I find is that Scroogerello mentioned her on an earlier thread, the "McDuck Family Tree" thread:
Also, Scrooge MacDuck, one character you might want to add is Scrooge's aunt from this story: coa.inducks.org/story.php?c=D++8082 . She's called "Jeanette" (alias "Sjaan") in Dutch.