Regarding Guinevere, I have never read the A Twisted Tale, so are there actually any illustrations of Guinevere in the book? And what is exactly said about Guinevere's relation to Leodegrance and Camile? I assume, Leodegrance is Guinevere's father?
With regard to Arthur, I read the previous post in which he was discussed. I am fine to add him (and then also Ector, Kay and Uther) though the evidence is a bit thin.
Regarding Guinevere, I have never read the A Twisted Tale, so are there actually any illustrations of Guinevere in the book? And what is exactly said about Guinevere's relation to Leodegrance and Camile? I assume, Leodegrance is Guinevere's father?
With regard to Arthur, I read the previous post in which he was discussed. I am fine to add him (and then also Ector, Kay and Uther) though the evidence is a bit thin.
I won't be able to get quotes for verification until I get home in a few hours, but I remember enough to answer until then:
There are no illustrations in the book at all, it's entirely text. As far as I'm aware, there's no illustrated version.
That's correct on Camile and Leodegrance; Camile is a good friend of Merlin's. He mentions that her daughter went missing years ago (Shocking plot twist, it's Guinevere). Merlin, upon meeting Guin, quickly puts together that she's Camile's daughter. Leodegrance, to my memory, is only mentioned once in that same conversation.
Basically, Mim kidnapped Guin from Camile and Leodegrance when she was a baby and raised her into her teenage years.
Arthur's link is a bit more tenuous, but still pretty reasonable; they end up in the modern day due to magic, trying to track Merlin down. A few references are made to the legend of King Arthur, and of Lady Guinevere. I can't remember if much specifically is said so say they married, but the implication is definitely there. I'll get the specific quotes when I get home.
The only one I'm not sure of is Uther. While he is brought up in the book, it's not really in relation to Arthur. It's just off-handedly mentioned that King Uther mysteriously disappeared. I'll double-check to see if there's anything more than that, but the link is only really there if you already know of who he is, which is something we typically don't do in this tree. I'll verify the details when I get home
Resident autistic, diabetic duck fan.
I love hearing about bizarre/obscure Disney works - recommendations welcome!
The only one I'm not sure of is Uther. While he is brought up in the book, it's not really in relation to Arthur. It's just off-handedly mentioned that King Uther mysteriously disappeared. I'll double-check to see if there's anything more than that, but the link is only really there if you already know of who he is, which is something we typically don't do in this tree. I'll verify the details when I get home
But we have (kind of) another reason to link Uther to Arthur. The name Uther Pendragon is namely mentioned at the beginning of The Sword in the Stone movie, as well as ZT 039. See here. And while Arthur/Wart's surname is never stated in the movie or any comic (as far as I am aware), it has ever been mentioned on the Disney.com website that Pendragon is Arthur's surname. That doesn't prove that Uther is Arthur's father (or even that they need to be related), but I think it still supports the theory.
Update: from the Return to the Isle of the Lost: A Descendants Novel, we have also Arthur's son called Artie. I don't know if Artie's mother has ever been mentioned.
I read Zio Paperone e l'eredità enigmatica - the story in which Edipo Duck appears. In his castle hangs a portrait of what appears to be an ancestor. In the Swedish version, this ancestor is known as Nikodemus von Anka (Nikodemus McDuck (Edipo is a McDuck in the Swedish version)).
Anyways, I can't find Nikodemus on the tree. I'm curious as to what his surname is in the original version.
The only one I'm not sure of is Uther. While he is brought up in the book, it's not really in relation to Arthur. It's just off-handedly mentioned that King Uther mysteriously disappeared. I'll double-check to see if there's anything more than that, but the link is only really there if you already know of who he is, which is something we typically don't do in this tree. I'll verify the details when I get home
But we have (kind of) another reason to link Uther to Arthur. The name Uther Pendragon is namely mentioned at the beginning of The Sword in the Stone movie, as well as ZT 039. See here. And while Arthur/Wart's surname is never stated in the movie or any comic (as far as I am aware), it has ever been mentioned on the Disney.com website that Pendragon is Arthur's surname. That doesn't prove that Uther is Arthur's father (or even that they need to be related), but I think it still supports the theory.
Update: from the Return to the Isle of the Lost: A Descendants Novel, we have also Arthur's son called Artie. I don't know if Artie's mother has ever been mentioned.
Ahh, excellent finds! I'll admit, I haven't watched the movie in a bit, so that slipped my mind. While it's still a mite circumstantial, I think all of the info combined, especially that Disney site bit, make it a reasonable assumption that Uther is still Arthur's father.
I haven't read the novel myself, but I believe there's no mention of Artie's mother.
I read Zio Paperone e l'eredità enigmatica - the story in which Edipo Duck appears. In his castle hangs a portrait of what appears to be an ancestor. In the Swedish version, this ancestor is known as Nikodemus von Anka (Nikodemus McDuck (Edipo is a McDuck in the Swedish version)).
Anyways, I can't find Nikodemus on the tree. I'm curious as to what his surname is in the original version.
He's on the tree as Edipus Corsaro
Resident autistic, diabetic duck fan.
I love hearing about bizarre/obscure Disney works - recommendations welcome!
Okay, so I'm just spitballing at this stage, but to hell with it, why not?
So, I've made the argument for Little Helper and Mad Ducktor - the significance of those two is that while they're both spawned from Gyro, they aren't exactly biological clones. If this goes ahead, then I feel like it's worth noting the other major section - past lives.
The reason I bring it up is because, like with those two, it's a bit more loosely defined. However, I do think there's merit in including them.
This begs a question of how it would be represented should they be added. Again, this is more spitballing, as we're already looking at adoptive relatives and clones - I'm mainly just throwing it down now rather than later.
Maybe something like a squiggly line?
Again, not a major concern, but while we're looking at the rest, might as well throw this in the ring
should we consider dickie duck as an adopted granddaughter of Scrooge, and add Goldie's family to the tree?
Okay, so I'm just spitballing at this stage, but to hell with it, why not?
So, I've made the argument for Little Helper and Mad Ducktor - the significance of those two is that while they're both spawned from Gyro, they aren't exactly biological clones. If this goes ahead, then I feel like it's worth noting the other major section - past lives.
The reason I bring it up is because, like with those two, it's a bit more loosely defined. However, I do think there's merit in including them.
This begs a question of how it would be represented should they be added. Again, this is more spitballing, as we're already looking at adoptive relatives and clones - I'm mainly just throwing it down now rather than later.
Maybe something like a squiggly line?
Again, not a major concern, but while we're looking at the rest, might as well throw this in the ring
should we consider dickie duck as an adopted granddaughter of Scrooge, and add Goldie's family to the tree?
As much as I'd like to, we don't have any concrete evidence of the connection, to my knowledge. I have Dickie and some Goldie relatives in a 'Potential Relatives' section, along with Crapilloga and Douglas - characters who have grounds for such an assumption, but there's no definitive answer.
If there are any sources which confirm the connection between Scrooge and Dickie, I'm all for adding her and the O'Gilt family!
Resident autistic, diabetic duck fan.
I love hearing about bizarre/obscure Disney works - recommendations welcome!
Having had a very quick skim through the Brazilian version, I don't think we'd need all 1,000. The thing about the clone section is that it's meant to showcase characters who, while being 'clones', are their own unique beings. While it seems one can infer that all of the clones would be unique, we don't actually have proof of that. That being said, I wouldn't be averse to adding the ones that we do see in-story, but I'll leave that decision to mkr
Resident autistic, diabetic duck fan.
I love hearing about bizarre/obscure Disney works - recommendations welcome!
EDIT TO ADD: I haven't been able to read it myself, but might D 2005-261 have some adoptive relatives? I ask because of the name being a parody of Wuthering Heights, which has a fair amount of adoption in it.
EDIT TO ADD: I haven't been able to read it myself, but might D 2005-261 have some adoptive relatives? I ask because of the name being a parody of Wuthering Heights, which has a fair amount of adoption in it.
I checked the story, but there are no adoptions.
Thank you for both!
Regarding the Helpers, I think you're spot-on about them needing to be made more-or-less the same way as our Helper. Given the story context, coupled with the existence of the cave Helper (Who is literally just sticks on fire) it stands to reason that they're the products of similar intelligence transfers. As such, I'd agree with them being added as 'clones' of their respective Gyros
Resident autistic, diabetic duck fan.
I love hearing about bizarre/obscure Disney works - recommendations welcome!
Quick update: I have the skeleton of the index done. More specifically, I've lined up everything in the main tree with the index, so it matches correctly. I may have missed a few sources, will recheck the thread. There's still a formatting issue - more specifically, for some reason, issues with some of the text colours. I can go through manually and fix it, which shouldn't take too long, but still a bit of a delay. Next, there's the photos section - that'll be quickly enough done, as I just have to remove any of the ones that have been put on the tree.
That's the main stuff to be done - all of the relatives are on as intended.
I suppose, being blunt, my main question is how soon we intend to add the likes of the adoptive relatives, clones and newly discovered ones. I ask because, should it be soon, I might just load in the 'skeleton' index and do all of the major tidying after the next big update. If later, I could do the tidy-up now, but delay the release.
As a side-note, as was requested previously, the next update is going to, hopefully, be a rolling one - that meaning I should be able to keep the document to one link, rather than a new one every time. Not 100% certain on that, but I should be able to get that working.
And even more minor side-note, I kept the generation system as that seemed to be preferred. We've gotten a high number, I'll say that much
On the side, regarding adoptive relatives, I've been working on basic trees for the Looney Tunes relatives that would be added if we accept the point of Granny being an adoptive parent in Baby Looney Tunes - that mess was my doing, so I intend to take as much of the work on that one as possible However, one short has me very perplexed, so I'd appreciate input:
Naughty Neighbours has Porky and Petunia to be married, which will end the war between their families - the Martins and the McCoys. The issue is, as you can see in the video... pretty much none of them are pigs. Large number of ducks, funnily enough, but we get cats, cows, you name it. They're clearly designated as family in-universe - so should we assume them to be blood relatives? It's a bit of a doozy - Porky also has to be added, so I need to figure out both sides.
Resident autistic, diabetic duck fan.
I love hearing about bizarre/obscure Disney works - recommendations welcome!
I suppose, being blunt, my main question is how soon we intend to add the likes of the adoptive relatives, clones and newly discovered ones. I ask because, should it be soon, I might just load in the 'skeleton' index and do all of the major tidying after the next big update. If later, I could do the tidy-up now, but delay the release.
I have already added most of the newly discovered ones to my own file of the family tree. The same for the adopted relatives (at least the Disney ones). The only thing that still need to be checked for is where we need extra adoption lines for the Donald/HDL ancestors, but that wouldn't take too long. So, if it is just that, the tree can be updated in relative short term.
However, if those baby Looney Tunes (and by extension their own trees) need to be added with the new update, it's going to take much more time before there will be any update of the tree.
As for clones, I am still not entirely sure what to do here, as we don't have a good definition for what should be included. Which is very relevant, especially regarding that story with 1000 clones of Fethry. So, for the moment I am not adding any clones yet to the tree.
I don't know what works best for you (and gives you less work)? If you prefer, I can soon update the tree with the newly discovered ones and the Disney adopted relatives. But if it works out better for the index to first sort out those Looney Tunes trees, I will delay any update.
Naughty Neighbours has Porky and Petunia to be married, which will end the war between their families - the Martins and the McCoys. The issue is, as you can see in the video... pretty much none of them are pigs. Large number of ducks, funnily enough, but we get cats, cows, you name it. They're clearly designated as family in-universe - so should we assume them to be blood relatives? It's a bit of a doozy - Porky also has to be added, so I need to figure out both sides.
Maybe they aren't blood relatives, but if they are regarded family they would maybe need to be added anyways as a kind of large adopted family or so. Though we have already different species on the tree, so the fact that they are ducks/cows/cats cannot really be proof that they are not related.
The only way around it, is if you see "family" here as a kind of community of people living together in the same area with shared values/customs/identity, but not necessarily being related or being adopted. Though for other stories (like the one with the Mockssons and Ankfälts) we didn't see it in that way and just added them all because they are family.
I suppose, being blunt, my main question is how soon we intend to add the likes of the adoptive relatives, clones and newly discovered ones. I ask because, should it be soon, I might just load in the 'skeleton' index and do all of the major tidying after the next big update. If later, I could do the tidy-up now, but delay the release.
I have already added most of the newly discovered ones to my own file of the family tree. The same for the adopted relatives (at least the Disney ones). The only thing that still need to be checked for is where we need extra adoption lines for the Donald/HDL ancestors, but that wouldn't take too long. So, if it is just that, the tree can be updated in relative short term.
However, if those baby Looney Tunes (and by extension their own trees) need to be added with the new update, it's going to take much more time before there will be any update of the tree.
As for clones, I am still not entirely sure what to do here, as we don't have a good definition for what should be included. Which is very relevant, especially regarding that story with 1000 clones of Fethry. So, for the moment I am not adding any clones yet to the tree.
I don't know what works best for you (and gives you less work)? If you prefer, I can soon update the tree with the newly discovered ones and the Disney adopted relatives. But if it works out better for the index to first sort out those Looney Tunes trees, I will delay any update.
Naughty Neighbours has Porky and Petunia to be married, which will end the war between their families - the Martins and the McCoys. The issue is, as you can see in the video... pretty much none of them are pigs. Large number of ducks, funnily enough, but we get cats, cows, you name it. They're clearly designated as family in-universe - so should we assume them to be blood relatives? It's a bit of a doozy - Porky also has to be added, so I need to figure out both sides.
Maybe they aren't blood relatives, but if they are regarded family they would maybe need to be added anyways as a kind of large adopted family or so. Though we have already different species on the tree, so the fact that they are ducks/cows/cats cannot really be proof that they are not related.
The only way around it, is if you see "family" here as a kind of community of people living together in the same area with shared values/customs/identity, but not necessarily being related or being adopted. Though for other stories (like the one with the Mockssons and Ankfälts) we didn't see it in that way and just added them all because they are family.
What I'll do, so, is upload the current tree, just because my current file is so outdated regardless - it's up to you if you want to split the new additions across multiple updates or save for a big one, but since I've got the bulk of reworking done, it should go fast enough anyway. It'll just look a tad untidy at the minute, but I can rejig it once we have the next big update pushed through.
Regarding the Baby Looney Tunes connection, I'm honestly at a point where it makes more sense to me to add it than not. Looney Tunes 'canon' is so fluid that the narrative isn't really all that cohesive to begin with. If it was some kind of massive disconnect, like with Wizards of Mickey, I'd get it, but it's no more contradictory than having, for example, both The Life and Times of Scrooge McDuck and La Storia e Gloria della Dinastia dei Paperi on the tree together. As mentioned, though, that's my mess - I've been gathering sources and scans for as many relatives as I could find. I still have a fair amount of characters to find, and I've to go through a list of the ones I couldn't find scans for. If it's easier, I can try to construct the trees myself? I'll wait until I've sourced all of the missing relatives (I'd have never thought Sylvester and Tweety had so many...) but I can do that much
For clones, while not a strict 'definition', I think it should be a prerequisite that we actually see the clone. I think we can all agree that any exact copy is a wasted addition - they never really hold any value as their own being in these stories, and rarely even survive beyond their first appearance. To me, the value of adding distinct clones is that they're not just copies - they fundamentally require the original being to exist, but they are also not the original being. Going with Webby as an example - she's a clone of Scrooge. However, she's not Scrooge. May and June are clones of Webby, but they are very much their own people, with their own desires and personalities that make them May and June, not just Webby 2 and 3. Regarding the Fethry clones, the issue comes down to two things - what we know of the cloning process in-story, and how we behave regarding unseen clones. I'll preface that my information comes from the Brazilian version, so I don't know if it's 1:1 with the original, but: Gyro explains that the device is a cloning machine, but it makes the 'clone' slightly different:
With you, the clonestochastic machine!
"What a weird name!"
Not so much: it derives from the words "clone", that is "copy", and stochastic, which means "casual".
I manufactured it to instantly create varieties of roses!
See, in the blink of an eye, the machine reproduced two copies of the original rose... but different from each other!
The Fethry clones all look massively different, and are all named differently (It's usually just Pena and whatever it is, like Pena Hamlet, Pena Lapis, Pena Borracha etc etc). It IS the case that there are supposed to be 1,000 of them - Donald asks how many of them there are, and that's the response he gets:
So that does complicate things. Technically, as you point out, the unseen clones should be included on the grounds that we have proof in-story that they'd be different from Fethry. However, my argument would be that, even though we know them to be different, we don't see them.
While that doesn't apply to clones, here's my logic: The family tree is for family members. Family, primarily, meaning blood or genetic relatives. A clone, in many respects, does fit this definition - they cannot exist without some kind of derivation from the original.
However, ultimately, exact copies aren't really new characters - going back to the Ducktales '17 example, the Gyro clones aren't their own people. They are exact copies of Gyro, to the point that the original Gyro may be dead, and nobody really cares because of how exact the copies are. With someone like Webby or the Mad Ducktor, this is different - though clones of Scrooge and Gyro, they are very clearly not Scrooge and Gyro. Though born from a piece of the original, they are distinct beings, with their own appearances and personality that make them distinct from Scrooge and Gyro.
As such, I believe they merit a place on the tree - they are, in a clear sense, 'related' to the original, and are sapient beings (Not just automatons like Scrooge's Substitute). Though the relation is unconventional, it does, logically, fit the purpose of the tree.
Getting back to the Fethry story and its relevance... The clones of Fethry are explained as being different beings, looking at the actual purpose of the machine. For context, the clones were made by the Beagles placing a feather in it - they thought it was Scrooges, but it was actually Fethry's. The clones are clearly distinct in terms of visuals and physiology. Regarding personality, they also seem to recognize themselves - while their names are pretty dull, they still give themselves distinct names unprompted. A very interesting point is that the Fethrys, at first, don't seem to be aware of him - they meet Fethry and while they can tell there's a connection, Pipe Fethry asks what his name is. Some, by necessity, are also clearly different in personality - there's some kind of Zombie/Frankenstein Fethry, as well as a sleepy Fethry.
Going back to purpose, though, and why I believe such clones should be added - it's that they are their own distinct beings, not just copies of the original. We see them in action not just as copies of the original, but as their own beings. The reason my list also has Ludwig's female clone from House of Mouse, despite only being a brief cameo, is that she's like Ludwig, but also not interested in him, and goes off to be her own person. An important element of distinction is being able to see them as a different person - this is why I'd be against the unseen members of the 1,000 Fethry clones being included. We know, logically, that they're not Fethry - but we don't know what the differences are. Some could be the exact same, but with one of the hairs being an inch shorter. It's getting into the territory of what makes two beings different, but my point is more that we don't see them, which cuts out a major factor in including them in the first place. Pena Borracha is pretty similar to Fethry - however, we can see that he's a literal door. Clearly distinct. If we don't see a clone, we don't know how or why they'd merit inclusion - and as such, I'd argue they don't merit inclusion.
I don't know if I've articulated that right, but essentially: Exact clones shouldn't be added because they add nothing to the tree. Distinct clones should be added because they technically fit as related, and are their own beings. Only sapient clones should be added - as in, characters who are seen to have independent thoughts and feelings. An unseen clone shouldn't be added because we can't verify that they meet all of the above criteria.
As bizarre as it is, I think I'll just count them as blood family. Given how these stories tend to go, it would make sense (Sense in quotation marks). I'll figure out the specifics after - still have lots of tracking down to do. Apologies to ask more, but this clip also has me not sure of how to interpret it:
This is from The Looney Tunes Show - long story short, Lola thought Bugs proposed, despite them barely knowing each other yet, and he didn't have the heart to say no to her. The wedding is organized pretty much immediately. The question is how the guests should be interpreted; in-context, it would make more sense if they were family (Lola's family in the series are shown to be pretty eccentric, sharing some of her quirks and being very passionate, for lack of a better word). Plus, some seem more clearly indicated as such, like the elderly figures sitting with Lola's parents. I'll rewatch the episode, but I don't remember anything being said about the other guests - should they be assumed as family?
Final note, as a thank you for reading this far: NEW SPREADSHEET
Resident autistic, diabetic duck fan.
I love hearing about bizarre/obscure Disney works - recommendations welcome!
The question is how the guests should be interpreted; in-context, it would make more sense if they were family (Lola's family in the series are shown to be pretty eccentric, sharing some of her quirks and being very passionate, for lack of a better word). Plus, some seem more clearly indicated as such, like the elderly figures sitting with Lola's parents.
I never remotely imagined we'd get this far into Looney Tunes family continuity; as has already been pointed out, while there may be bits of continuity here and there, there really is almost no *ongoing* continuity from one Looney Tunes story or series to another.
Speaking of Lola's family, one good example is her dad, Walter Bunny, in The Looney Tunes Show (TLTS): a pompous, rich, big and stocky rabbit who lives in a mansion and is alternately very fond of Bugs and—when anything goes wrong—insanely blustery and offended. One of Lola's predecessors was Lula Belle Bunny in the 1940s comics (originally Lulu Belle, named as such in the Barks Porky story), and the dad character started with her. There were some major Looney Tunes-related blogs discussing the comics in the late 2000s when TLTS was in development, so obviously someone saw Lula's dad and thought "Lola needs parents... he'll do." He's almost identical from the 1940s comics to 2011 animation, even his clothes are similar.
So you can't try too hard to follow continuity when it doesn't exist... you'll break your brain.
(And yes, one could conceivably claim Lola and Lula are sisters, but I've only ever seen them treated as only children...)