It may indeed be an error - it's been shown that the Topostorie books can be slightly edited, as seen with Archie O'Fly, but regardless, here's what my version has Daisy saying: "Pare che qualcuno, una volta, abbia tentato di mangiarla!" (She's making a joke about the pepper that Donald used to pacify the dragon)
So basically not very different in Italian as in German only the "qualcuno" is a "Tante" in the German version. I think we would need other translations of the story in order to know which version is more true to the original (English?) script.
The aunt is also in the Dutch version. But are they relatives to the Ducks? It looks like a fantasy story to me.
So basically not very different in Italian as in German only the "qualcuno" is a "Tante" in the German version. I think we would need other translations of the story in order to know which version is more true to the original (English?) script.
The aunt is also in the Dutch version. But are they relatives to the Ducks? It looks like a fantasy story to me.
Interesting - strange that the Topostorie volume seems to make random changes. I wonder if the original Italian mentions an aunt and it was altered, like with Archie O'Fly?
As for the story, it was most-likely conceived as a fantasy story - however, Topostorie 13 cements it as being real in-universe. He and Daisy are using a cronocamera invented by Gyro; it's a device that allows you to see a story of an ancestor - you need to put in an artefact from the time period and a feather.
For this one, Donald and Daisy both put in a feather, and the artefact is a 'genuine dragon claw' given to him by Ludwig.
Resident autistic, diabetic duck fan.
I love hearing about bizarre/obscure Disney works - recommendations welcome!
Almost done with the index - still ticking away. Just trying to verify something as someone that hasn't read the 'Paperino il Paladino' stories:
Duckolde has her first appearance listed as I TL 2132-1P Duckstan has his first appearance listed as I TL 544-AP Donald 'the Paladin' has his first appearance listed as I TL 247-AP
I went back to check these, and according to a few sources, both Duckstan and Duckolde (Or, at least, Messer Gastone and Madonna Paperina) appear in I TL 247-AP. Does anyone have access to these stories to confirm?
EDIT: From what I understand, the story does indeed just have multiple Daisies and Gladstones. Messer Gastone and Madonna Paperina are different people to Gastolfo and Paperotta. Strange, but manageable
Yes that seems all correct. I TL 247-AP indeed has other Daisy/Gladstone look-a-likes than the other stories. Messer Gastone and Madonna Paperina marry eachother at the end of I TL 247-AP, so that's probably why the other subsequent stories needed other Gladstone and Daisy look-a-likes...
These Messer Gastone and Madonna Paperina are currently not on the tree, but maybe they need to be. Madonna Paperina is the niece of Ducca Paperone. And it might be that this Ducca Paperone is an ancestor of Scrooge. He is not said to be an ancestor in I TL 247-AP, but in the German translation of the frame story I CWD 19-A. But since the German version of that frame story all messed it up (by only publishing a part of the frame story and by not publishing it together with I TL 247-AP) I didn't want to include Ducca Paperone, Messer Gastone and Madonna Paperina based on this German translation. If anyone has the Italian original of I CWD 19-A that might clarify some things.
So, regarding Topostorie 13 - the cronocamera requires two things to work: an object from a specific era and a piece of DNA.
The object tends to be something that Donald got from Ludwig, and the DNA is a feather each.
I can confirm the following:
I M 2-4 (Una Semplice Questione D'Arte): Only Donald's feather is used. A Daisy expy is pictured, but not actually present in the story.
I TL 2709-6 (Zio Papirone e gli Inviti del Faraone): Both Donald and Daisy's feathers are used. Story has expies of both Donald and Daisy.
I am collecting information on all ancestors that currently still fall outside the range of the tree, so they can be added in a future update.
I read I TL 2709-6 in German, but what are the Italian names of the ancestors? And are the Donald and Daisy look-a-likes also implied to be cousins in the Italian original (both having the Scrooge look-a-like as their uncle)?
What are the Italian names of the ancestors in I M 2-4? I assume the Donald ancestor is simply called Paperino? The story is part of a series Paperino Agente Segreto Preistorico in which the same Donald look-a-like appears. Is the Daisy look-a-like pictured in Topostorie 13 maybe the same one as the Daisy look-a-like appearing in some of the other stories of this series?
I'll start with 'Topostorie 42: Alberi... di Famiglia'
Much like Topostorie 13, this one collects a group of stories and adds a framing device.
In this book, we see everyone leaving Duckburg Stadium after a sports game between Duckburg and Mouseton (Which ended in a draw). After a discussion/argument, Gladstone remarks that mediocrity is in Donald's DNA, and it was also in that of his ancestors since the dawn of time (...Jesus man, that's a little far)
This leads to them discussing ancestors; I won't go into much outside of what's relevant, as a lot of them are already on the tree.
Which ancestors appear in I PM 221-1?
And what are the Italian names of the ancestors in I TL 2030-2? I have this one in German, so I have already scans for this one.
So, regarding Topostorie 13 - the cronocamera requires two things to work: an object from a specific era and a piece of DNA.
The object tends to be something that Donald got from Ludwig, and the DNA is a feather each.
I can confirm the following:
I M 2-4 (Una Semplice Questione D'Arte): Only Donald's feather is used. A Daisy expy is pictured, but not actually present in the story.
I TL 2709-6 (Zio Papirone e gli Inviti del Faraone): Both Donald and Daisy's feathers are used. Story has expies of both Donald and Daisy.
I am collecting information on all ancestors that currently still fall outside the range of the tree, so they can be added in a future update.
I read I TL 2709-6 in German, but what are the Italian names of the ancestors? And are the Donald and Daisy look-a-likes also implied to be cousins in the Italian original (both having the Scrooge look-a-like as their uncle)?
What are the Italian names of the ancestors in I M 2-4? I assume the Donald ancestor is simply called Paperino? The story is part of a series Paperino Agente Segreto Preistorico in which the same Donald look-a-like appears. Is the Daisy look-a-like pictured in Topostorie 13 maybe the same one as the Daisy look-a-like appearing in some of the other stories of this series?
I'll start with 'Topostorie 42: Alberi... di Famiglia'
Much like Topostorie 13, this one collects a group of stories and adds a framing device.
In this book, we see everyone leaving Duckburg Stadium after a sports game between Duckburg and Mouseton (Which ended in a draw). After a discussion/argument, Gladstone remarks that mediocrity is in Donald's DNA, and it was also in that of his ancestors since the dawn of time (...Jesus man, that's a little far)
This leads to them discussing ancestors; I won't go into much outside of what's relevant, as a lot of them are already on the tree.
Which ancestors appear in I PM 221-1?
And what are the Italian names of the ancestors in I TL 2030-2? I have this one in German, so I have already scans for this one.
Regarding I TL 2709-6: The Daisy expy is named Papirina. The Donald expy is named Papirino. The Scrooge expy is named Papirone.
Papirina and Papirino being cousins is outright confirmed; Papirino refers to him as 'Zio Papirone', and Papirone refers to Papirina as 'cara nipotina' (Dear little niece).
Regarding I M 2-4: The Donald expy shares his name (In Italian he's Paperino) Scrooge also shares the same name (He's Zio Paperone) The Daisy expy is unnamed - she only appears in a single background photo. I checked one of the other issues, and it's definitely the same character that appears in, at the very least, I M 23-2. There's a Gyro expy, but nothing is said about his relation to the others - and he's not named in the story.
Regarding I PM 221-1: There is a Donald ancestor, but he's unnamed; Ludwig specifically mentions that his name was lost, so for convenience they'll call him Paperino. He has an uncle, a Scrooge expy - he's also unnamed.
Regarding I TL 2030-2: The Daisy expy is named Paperasia. Her uncle, the Scrooge expy, is named Paperocle. The oracle, a Grandma Duck expy, is referred to as Paperasia's grandmother - she's only ever known as 'L'Oracolo di Delfi'. Paperasia also refers to her great aunt Papereide who went mad after thirty years of prophecies. Then there's Paperasia's great grandmother, Paperippa, who went mad and could only recite the same nursery rhyme.
Paperasia is in love with a Donald expy, Papereo. His status is unclear; they don't marry by the end of the story - however, the Topostorie volume does imply that he's an ancestor of Donald's, though not with too much clarity. Gladstone asks how 'that sort of Scrooge' made 'your' ancestors pay. The 'your' is vostri, meaning you (plural) - it's not out of the question that he was saying it formally, but it seems a bit odd to me. At the end of the book, Scrooge says "Neither Paperasia and Papereo have paid the moral and material damages to Paperocles!" - which confirms, in this context, that Paperocle is also a Scrooge ancestor, as he's talking about all of their debts to him - and Donald is in the shot. It's not explicit confirmation that Donald and Papereo are related, but the implication is there.
Also present is B 830041, which is a sequel to B 810040. I have the Italian version for the former, and the Brazilian version for the latter. Since they're Brazilian stories, I'll use those names: Fethry is a descendant of Pena Rubra, a viking who lived in the 10th century.
Now, here's an odd one - both stories have a Scrooge expy, Patinhaf, and I don't think he was supposed to be a relative. Pena Rubra and Patinhaf never refer to each other as relatives (Unless I missed it), but Topostorie 42 does, indeed, make him an ancestor of Scrooge.
There's no direct confirmation, but he makes it clear that Fethry owes him because of his ancestor owing a debt to Scrooge's - and that would have to mean that Patinhaf is Scrooge's ancestor. Unrelated, but I'll also mention that Fethry warns him to "Watch out for the dog!" and Scrooge's immediate response is "I'll kidnap your dog, wherever it is, as an advance payment!" - everyone in this book just woke up and chose violence
I pulled the Brazilian above from Historia de Patopolis, so while I'm on that note: B 860215 features some ancestors - Donald is mocking Daisy and Grandma, so Madam Mim turns him into a pig. She then explains that, having been to prehistoric times, she knows the truth about the cave ducks on display at the parade. Now, my Portuguese isn't very strong, but I know that Daisy explicitly mentions liking her ancestor, so I'm extrapolating based on that: There's a Daisy ancestor who, as far as I can see, goes unnamed.
Her mother and father are present, but they're unnamed - she calls them Mamae and Papai.
The Daisy ancestor falls in love with a Donald expy, Donalgorg. They live together and act like a married couple, but since this is prehistory, they didn't actually marry
One thing baffles me, though, so maybe someone who speaks Portuguese could help me to understand this one: Madam Mim stops the story to say this to Grandma Duck: "Vocês sabiam que foi essa nossa ancestral que descobriu a escrita?" As far as I understand, that means our ancestor... is she implying that she and Grandma are related? Or is there some kind of turn of phrase I'm missing here?
I may have more info rattling around, but that's everything from these two books If there's any further info or scans needed, just let me know
Resident autistic, diabetic duck fan.
I love hearing about bizarre/obscure Disney works - recommendations welcome!
Regarding I TL 2030-2: The Daisy expy is named Paperasia. Her uncle, the Scrooge expy, is named Paperocle. The oracle, a Grandma Duck expy, is referred to as Paperasia's grandmother - she's only ever known as 'L'Oracolo di Delfi'. Paperasia also refers to her great aunt Papereide who went mad after thirty years of prophecies. Then there's Paperasia's great grandmother, Paperippa, who went mad and could only recite the same nursery rhyme.
Paperasia is in love with a Donald expy, Papereo. His status is unclear; they don't marry by the end of the story - however, the Topostorie volume does imply that he's an ancestor of Donald's, though not with too much clarity. Gladstone asks how 'that sort of Scrooge' made 'your' ancestors pay. The 'your' is vostri, meaning you (plural) - it's not out of the question that he was saying it formally, but it seems a bit odd to me. At the end of the book, Scrooge says "Neither Paperasia and Papereo have paid the moral and material damages to Paperocles!" - which confirms, in this context, that Paperocle is also a Scrooge ancestor, as he's talking about all of their debts to him - and Donald is in the shot. It's not explicit confirmation that Donald and Papereo are related, but the implication is there.
In the German version, the Scrooge look-a-like says in one panel that the Donald look-a-like is his nephew (see here). Is that also in the Italian original?
One thing baffles me, though, so maybe someone who speaks Portuguese could help me to understand this one: Madam Mim stops the story to say this to Grandma Duck: "Vocês sabiam que foi essa nossa ancestral que descobriu a escrita?" As far as I understand, that means our ancestor... is she implying that she and Grandma are related? Or is there some kind of turn of phrase I'm missing here?
I read this story before, and I also didn't understand what this is meant to imply... For Grandma it's not so problematic. On the tree, she will be related anyhow to these prehistoric ancestors due to all other connections we already have. But then there is Madam Mim. Which you wouldn't expect to be related.
However... There is one other possible (though a bit far fetched and indirect) family connection between Madam Mim and the Ducks. As you know, Cleopat-Perina from I TL 750-A is said the be the great-grandmother of Cleopatra. And it happens to be that in S 67037, it is implied that Madam Mim is a cousin of Cleopatra. See this post by farmspirit for some more information on that story. Although there have been multiple Cleopatra's, both stories seem to refer to the same famous Cleopatra.
Regarding I TL 2030-2: The Daisy expy is named Paperasia. Her uncle, the Scrooge expy, is named Paperocle. The oracle, a Grandma Duck expy, is referred to as Paperasia's grandmother - she's only ever known as 'L'Oracolo di Delfi'. Paperasia also refers to her great aunt Papereide who went mad after thirty years of prophecies. Then there's Paperasia's great grandmother, Paperippa, who went mad and could only recite the same nursery rhyme.
Paperasia is in love with a Donald expy, Papereo. His status is unclear; they don't marry by the end of the story - however, the Topostorie volume does imply that he's an ancestor of Donald's, though not with too much clarity. Gladstone asks how 'that sort of Scrooge' made 'your' ancestors pay. The 'your' is vostri, meaning you (plural) - it's not out of the question that he was saying it formally, but it seems a bit odd to me. At the end of the book, Scrooge says "Neither Paperasia and Papereo have paid the moral and material damages to Paperocles!" - which confirms, in this context, that Paperocle is also a Scrooge ancestor, as he's talking about all of their debts to him - and Donald is in the shot. It's not explicit confirmation that Donald and Papereo are related, but the implication is there.
In the German version, the Scrooge look-a-like says in one panel that the Donald look-a-like is his nephew (see here). Is that also in the Italian original?
One thing baffles me, though, so maybe someone who speaks Portuguese could help me to understand this one: Madam Mim stops the story to say this to Grandma Duck: "Vocês sabiam que foi essa nossa ancestral que descobriu a escrita?" As far as I understand, that means our ancestor... is she implying that she and Grandma are related? Or is there some kind of turn of phrase I'm missing here?
I read this story before, and I also didn't understand what this is meant to imply... For Grandma it's not so problematic. On the tree, she will be related anyhow to these prehistoric ancestors due to all other connections we already have. But then there is Madam Mim. Which you wouldn't expect to be related.
However... There is one other possible (though a bit far fetched and indirect) family connection between Madam Mim and the Ducks. As you know, Cleopat-Perina from I TL 750-A is said the be the great-grandmother of Cleopatra. And it happens to be that in S 67037, it is implied that Madam Mim is a cousin of Cleopatra. See this post by farmspirit for some more information on that story. Although there have been multiple Cleopatra's, both stories seem to refer to the same famous Cleopatra.
In the relevant panel, Scrooge says "Lo so bene, dato che ho lo stesso problema con quello sfatico di Papereo!" This is in reference to the other guy, who had been speaking to the Oracle about his nephew who will soon inherit all of his possessions. So good catch - I missed that part
As for Mim, that's fascinating! I can't speak for S 67037, but I can confirm that the one in I TL 750-A is the 'famous' Cleopatra: The museum director explains that Cleopat-Perina is the great-grandmother of the famous Cleopatra. Donald asks if that's the Cleopatra of the serpent, and the director affirms, while taking out "the little snake that killed her". If there's any doubt, the Opera Omnia book further explains that it's specifically Cleopatra VII. It'd be interesting to track down the Australian version of S 67037 - it might have a clearer answer as to whether or not the Mim relation is a joke or not. I'd absolutely love to have Mim on the tree, though; the only question is where on earth you'd place her, given her dubious age
EDIT: So, um, update. I may have sourced the English version of S 67037. And I may have ordered it - though with how the site works I have to get the total verified before I can properly purchase it. But, uh... yeah, we might have a concrete answer on this one soon.
Don't y'all be judging me, I'm not going to pass up the chance to have Madam Mim on this dang tree
Last Edit: Jun 30, 2023 21:39:40 GMT by alquackskey
Resident autistic, diabetic duck fan.
I love hearing about bizarre/obscure Disney works - recommendations welcome!
Don't y'all be judging me, I'm not going to pass up the chance to have Madam Mim on this dang tree
It's not Mim I'm concerned about... it's the implication that we now have to look for all of *her* relatives as well!
That was in my head, but I couldn't pass up the chance to get her in there, even if it makes things a little complicated
At least Mim probably doesn't have too many hidden relatives. I'm absolutely dreading the day someone finds some obscure source that ties Goofy in to the family, then all hell will break loose
Resident autistic, diabetic duck fan.
I love hearing about bizarre/obscure Disney works - recommendations welcome!
So basically not very different in Italian as in German only the "qualcuno" is a "Tante" in the German version. I think we would need other translations of the story in order to know which version is more true to the original (English?) script.
The aunt is also in the Dutch version. But are they relatives to the Ducks? It looks like a fantasy story to me.
It's "aunt" in Norwegian too. So that's pretty much definitely what the original script said.
It's not Mim I'm concerned about... it's the implication that we now have to look for all of *her* relatives as well!
That was in my head, but I couldn't pass up the chance to get her in there, even if it makes things a little complicated
At least Mim probably doesn't have too many hidden relatives.
So, as relatives of Mim there are at least:
Cousin Lucky, first appearance in W BB 1-03.
Cousin Ivã Mendonho from B 810074. Ivã's mother Minusa mentioned in the same story is also called a cousin a Mim.
Cousin Lina from B 890009.
Cousins Euclides, Acácio and three other cousins from B 820360. They are all ghosts.
Uncle Grim Grinta mentioned in S 67038.
Aunt Mingálvia from B 790239 and B 870072.
Aunt Griezelda from H 95138. Also mentioned in H 2020-248.
Great-aunt Cordula mentioned in H 2017-213.
A prehistoric ancestor in B 800109.
Then there are also Madam Mim's granddaughters from the book Return to the Isle of the Lost: A Descendants Novel. One granddaughter, from the book Escape from the Isle of the Lost: A Descendants Novel is called Mad Maddy.
And then there is also a 1972 live-action special called Spooks and Magic. This features Phyllis Diller, who is said to be a niece of Madam Mim. So, if live-action films also count, then she should also be included, just as:
Phyllis' mother (an undead mummy)
Phyllis' father
Medusa (of whom Phyllis is also said to be a niece)
And yeah, once you have Medusa, there are also:
Stheno, said to be the older sister of Medusa in Hercules and the Gorgon, part of Hercules: The Animated Series. This Stheno is also seen in the Hercules movie itself.
Euryale, the third of the three Gorgon Sisters, besides Medusa and Stheno/Fury. They appear in the TV animated series American Dragon: Jake Long.
That was in my head, but I couldn't pass up the chance to get her in there, even if it makes things a little complicated
At least Mim probably doesn't have too many hidden relatives.
So, as relatives of Mim there are at least:
Cousin Lucky, first appearance in W BB 1-03.
Cousin Ivã Mendonho from B 810074. Ivã's mother Minusa mentioned in the same story is also called a cousin a Mim.
Cousin Lina from B 890009.
Cousins Euclides, Acácio and three other cousins from B 820360. They are all ghosts.
Uncle Grim Grinta mentioned in S 67038.
Aunt Mingálvia from B 790239 and B 870072.
Aunt Griezelda from H 95138. Also mentioned in H 2020-248.
Great-aunt Cordula mentioned in H 2017-213.
A prehistoric ancestor in B 800109.
Then there are also Madam Mim's granddaughters from the book Return to the Isle of the Lost: A Descendants Novel. One granddaughter, from the book Escape from the Isle of the Lost: A Descendants Novel is called Mad Maddy.
And then there is also a 1972 live-action special called Spooks and Magic. This features Phyllis Diller, who is said to be a niece of Madam Mim. So, if live-action films also count, then she should also be included, just as:
Phyllis' mother (an undead mummy)
Phyllis' father
Medusa (also said to be a niece of Phyllis)
And yeah, once you have Medusa, there are also:
Stheno, said to be the older sister of Medusa in Hercules and the Gorgon, part of Hercules: The Animated Series. This Stheno is also seen in the Hercules movie itself.
Euryale, the third of the three Gorgon Sisters, besides Medusa and Stheno/Fury. They appear in the TV animated series American Dragon: Jake Long.
I do think that Mim's inclusion warrants some questioning on sources moving forward; there are some issues that arise with the current system, I think.
I think it's fine up until Spooks and Magic - there are some issues that crop up here, and some that I was wondering regarding Cleopatra as well. At what point do we allow for inferences based on the real world? Like, say, Cleopatra VII is on the tree because of the fact that she's related in-universe. Do we take the information in a vacuum and only accept what's seen in comics canon? Would we have to look at actual history? I'd imagine that it's just what's available in the comics that we look at, as that would make the most sense.
But Phyllis Diller is a real person from recent memory - there's actual documentation of her family. To me, it feels kind of squicky to include that - or do we go with the idea that this is a fictional version who just shares her name? So, none of her actual family go on the tree because they're not referred to in Spooks and Magic? That feels more palatable to me, at least. This is mainly just something I'd like to understand for clarification - but I'd much prefer if this was the way it was handled. As long as it's exclusively the fictional version, and we don't draw any info from her real life or anything like that.
Finally, there's the question of sources. There hasn't been much of a limit thus far, but it seems that the general ground rule is that it has to be based in 'Mickey & Friends' media - the only exception has been the characters from The Aristocats, but the link is explicitly made in House of Mouse. Mim complicates things a bit, but many of the sources are fairly self-contained - though I don't know enough about Descendants to say that with absolute certainty. However, I'd question the inclusion of the likes of Hercules or American Dragon: Jake Long. The problem, as I see it, is that mythological figures are a little too broad to include, unless it's limited to a specific universe/version of the character - otherwise, you'll get a stream of random inclusions that don't really fit properly. So, for example, Medusa is included because she's a relative of Phyllis Diller, through Madam Mim [...very strange sentence ] As such, we should probably only use that version of Medusa or, being generous, Medusa as she exists in the Duck/Mouse universe comics. If we include every version of Medusa, it goes far beyond the original scope and kind of distracts from the main point, I think
Plus, it's canonically the case that different versions of mythological figures exist in different universes - for example, Triton in The Little Mermaid is not the same character as Triton as he appears in Hercules. Making specific assumptions based on other universes would complicate things, I think.
Apologies for the longpost, but I felt this was an important point to make
Resident autistic, diabetic duck fan.
I love hearing about bizarre/obscure Disney works - recommendations welcome!
I do think that Mim's inclusion warrants some questioning on sources moving forward; there are some issues that arise with the current system, I think.
I think it's fine up until Spooks and Magic - there are some issues that crop up here, and some that I was wondering regarding Cleopatra as well. At what point do we allow for inferences based on the real world? Like, say, Cleopatra VII is on the tree because of the fact that she's related in-universe. Do we take the information in a vacuum and only accept what's seen in comics canon? Would we have to look at actual history? I'd imagine that it's just what's available in the comics that we look at, as that would make the most sense.
But Phyllis Diller is a real person from recent memory - there's actual documentation of her family. To me, it feels kind of squicky to include that - or do we go with the idea that this is a fictional version who just shares her name? So, none of her actual family go on the tree because they're not referred to in Spooks and Magic? That feels more palatable to me, at least. This is mainly just something I'd like to understand for clarification - but I'd much prefer if this was the way it was handled. As long as it's exclusively the fictional version, and we don't draw any info from her real life or anything like that.
Finally, there's the question of sources. There hasn't been much of a limit thus far, but it seems that the general ground rule is that it has to be based in 'Mickey & Friends' media - the only exception has been the characters from The Aristocats, but the link is explicitly made in House of Mouse. Mim complicates things a bit, but many of the sources are fairly self-contained - though I don't know enough about Descendants to say that with absolute certainty. However, I'd question the inclusion of the likes of Hercules or American Dragon: Jake Long. The problem, as I see it, is that mythological figures are a little too broad to include, unless it's limited to a specific universe/version of the character - otherwise, you'll get a stream of random inclusions that don't really fit properly. So, for example, Medusa is included because she's a relative of Phyllis Diller, through Madam Mim [...very strange sentence ] As such, we should probably only use that version of Medusa or, being generous, Medusa as she exists in the Duck/Mouse universe comics. If we include every version of Medusa, it goes far beyond the original scope and kind of distracts from the main point, I think
Plus, it's canonically the case that different versions of mythological figures exist in different universes - for example, Triton in The Little Mermaid is not the same character as Triton as he appears in Hercules. Making specific assumptions based on other universes would complicate things, I think.
Apologies for the longpost, but I felt this was an important point to make
These are all very relevant questions and remarks indeed. And also not something of which I can now say what is the best approach. It requires some more thoughts and opinions of everyone here. But just my initial comments based on some of your remarks:
Pyllis Diller is indeed a real person. But in the live-action film she plays a character called "Phyllis Diller". She plays a witch and she does not play a copy of herself. So, it seems to me that if this character is said to be related to Madam Mim then that is something that we would need to consider. Also, the father and mother are not her real father and mother (at least I hope for her, her real mother was not an undead mummy), but the father and mother of the character Phyllis Diller. So if Phyllis Diller is included then these parents, according to that same live-action movie, should I think also be included. Though any real relatives of the real Phyllis Diller of course not. Similar as that any real realtives of Cleopatra VII should not be included unless they also appear in a Disney comic or so.
That still leaves the discussion if that live-action film is a valid source. That all depends on what we consider valid sources. If any official Disney publication (cartoon, comic, live action, tv series, video game, book, etc.) is a valid source, then this film is a valid source, just as that Descendants, Hercules, American Dragon, and so on would be valid sources. If we want to limit it in one way or another that is of course possible. But note that we currently already have various things that are not comics as sources, like a video game (for Uncle Fergus), books (such as for some relatives from Small World Library Book Series, or the book about Nonna Jenny) and various animated TV series (DuckTales, it's reboot, Quackpack, House of Mouse, etc.). So the question is, which official Disney publications, if any, should then be excluded?
Then about your point "Do we take the information in a vacuum and only accept what's seen in comics canon? Would we have to look at actual history?". This is a good question. It basically already determines if we consider the Cleopatra from S 67037 the same one as the Cleopatra from I TL 750-A. Since we need some real world facts about Cleopatra to merge the two characters from these two stories. The connection made between the Medusa in Hercules and the Medusa from Spooks and Magic, basically does something similar. Maybe we need to be more strict here, but the question remains how strict.