Surviving Duck family members

[RobbK1]

Jan 8, 2017 16:20:55 GMT Matilda said:

Jan 8, 2017 15:49:25 GMT Baar Baar Jinx said:

I agree with you fully on Matilda's eternal spinsterhood. I never liked the theory of Ludwig being married to her. This seems to have originated with Rosa, but honestly, they seem so mismatched. I'm not sure how Ludwig is related to Donald ... does he even need to be? If so, maybe on Humperdink's side? As to LGBT representation, I would've cited Matilda as a potential candidate, except that Rosa has a young Matilda lusting after cowboys, unless that's all an act.  And didn't Pothole have a lady friend in "Master of the Mississippi?" Jake, though ...

Donald introduces LVD to Daisy as his uncle in the Taliferro strip panel shown on his character page in INDUCKS. And didn't Donald call him "Uncle Ludwig" on Wonderful World of Disney? Others will know! Anyway, Rosa wanted to marry him to Matilda because he said it was the only way to get Ludwig to be Donald's uncle. But I'm not sure why one couldn't hypothesize another sister of Quackmore who somehow met the Austrian immigrant when he came to teach at the local university and married him. Four is not an excessive number of children for someone of Elvira's time and place. Does anyone know if there's a reason why Rosa didn't go this route?

But you're right, Matilda's lusting after cowboys doesn't fit with her being lesbian.

I've been OK with her being married to Ludwig--they could have married late in life and maintain pretty independent lives, especially when Ludwig is on sabbatical or traveling for research after retirement, as professors do. I could see her finding his bluster amusing. But I'm also OK with her remaining unmarried. I've given Matilda various lives in my mental fanfic.

I'll have to look at "Master of the Mississippi" again--I don't remember Pothole's lady friend. T

That should be the mid to late 1800s, my own grandparents' time.  My father's mother was one of 12 children, and my father's father was one of 10.  Each one of those families also had one additional child die in infancy.  Those 10+ children families were the norm, rather than the exception, for farmers before 1910-1920.  Those families needed as many farm workers as possible, and there were only the natural methods of birth control, which they would definitely NOT choose to use, given their need for help on the farm, and, in the case of non-farmers, more still-working sons to help support them in their old age.

[Scrooge MacDuck]

Indeed. If one is willing to include non-Barks characters, both Titus and Molly, and Humperdink and Elvira, had about ten children.

[RobbK1]

Jan 8, 2017 16:54:29 GMT Scrooge MacDuck said:

Jan 8, 2017 16:45:30 GMT RobbK1 said:

Well, Egmont didn't allow me to call Sadstone Gander Gladstone's identical twin brother.  If I wanted to use him in a story, he had to become an identical twin cousin.  Their reasoning was that the readers would wonder why he had never been around all thse years of comic book stories.  I gave a good reason for that: "He left (banished himself) so that his unnatural bad luck wouldn't continue to be a danger to his close family."  That explanation was not accepted.  So, it appears that close relatives to the major characters can't be used, except in flashbacks to long ago.

Yes, but you were trying to introduce a new sibling; whereas Shamrock's existence gives a reason for another brother to exist. This worked for Mickey's sister Amelia, who was allowed to appear in a couple of Egmont stories because Freddie and Mortie were already established character since the 30's.

Well, shouldn't Shamrock's existence, having the Gander surname, giving the reason for Gladstone's brother's existence allow me to introduce Gladstone's brother?  Isn't that the same situation as introducing Mickey's sister Amelia?

[drakeborough]

Jan 8, 2017 15:09:06 GMT Matilda said:

Yes, I vote strongly for AMJ's parents being alive and well. While some stories show them as living with Daisy (wasn't that the case in stories in the Dutch Daisy Duck comic?), it was firmly established in my child-mind by a Barks-drawn one-pager ("Small Fryers") that they just visited Daisy on occasion.

Even earlier than that 1-pager it was estabilished in their debut story (the Flipism ten-pager) that they live with their parents. Indeed, there seems to be a common misconception that everybody in the Duck and Mouse universe is living with their uncle or aunt, but in fact it seems people normally live with their parents, with HDL being the exception that confirms the rule. I guess the stories retroactively deciding Donald grew up with Grandma Duck reinforced this misconception in people's mind. Tough I hope it's not true that Dutch comics has her living with Daisy.

Jan 8, 2017 15:09:06 GMT Matilda said:

Is that theory proposed because we know AMJ's last name to be "Duck"? *DO* we know AMJ's last name to be "Duck"? Rosa didn't give them a last name on the English-language expanded Family Tree with the "Notable Characters" sidebars.

Well, you spared me the effort of opening a topic on this matter, which I planned to do. The topic would have been an ideal continuation of a discussion started many months ago in Joe Torcivia's blog (I was the anonymous user back then). My question (obviously) would have been: is there a story giving AMJ a surname? The Italian version of the family tree has both the Italian and original names, and as part of their original names they have the surname Duck. However, the same tree claims the English name of Gyro's Helper is "Edy" (a variation of his Italian name "Edi"), which is obviously untrue, so that tree should be taken with a grain of salt when it comes to original names.

Incidently, that discussion on Joe Torcivia's blog concluded that even though Barks created them, he wasn't the first to call them April, May and June, though in the end he used those names.

Jan 8, 2017 15:09:06 GMT Matilda said:

And do we know they are the offspring of Daisy's sister and not Daisy's brother?

The Flipism story implies they are the son of Daisy's sister.

Jan 8, 2017 15:26:48 GMT Baar Baar Jinx said:

not sure where Daphne fits in all this; she did visit Grandma's farm when Gladstone was very young in "The Sign of the Triple Distlefink" but Goostave was nowhere in sight

Many characters in "The Sign of the Triple Distlefink" are silhouettes, and I think it's implied Goostave is one of them.

Incidently, Don Rosa seems to have forgotten that he showed a cameo of Della in this story, since in at least a couple of occasions he justified her absence.

Jan 8, 2017 15:26:48 GMT Baar Baar Jinx said:

I'd like to know more about the context of that 1950s Dutch story that suggested that Gladstone's nearest living relative was Grandma; but even if that is the case, I would be willing to discount it.

I wonder if this story exists: Picsou Wiki says it's from 1950, but none of the three stories of that year featuring Gladstone shows that.

Jan 8, 2017 15:26:48 GMT Baar Baar Jinx said:

Re: April, May and June; has their last name ever been revealed to be "Duck?" We know they're Daisy's sisters' daughters (established by Barks in their first appearance), but apart from Rosa's off-page desire to make their father Daisy's brother (and thus give them the last name "Duck"), I'm not sure if that's ever been revealed.

Actually, it was HDL's father (not AMJ's father) that Don wanted to make the brother of Daisy.

Jan 8, 2017 15:26:48 GMT Baar Baar Jinx said:

Also, didn't Daisy's mother make a cameo in an early Barks ten-pager?

An old duck woman appears at Daisy's house in Barks' ten-pager from WDC 111 (1949), but it's not said if she's Daisy's mother or not. Daisy's parents appear in the short Donald's Diary (1954), but it seems the characters from this short are just actors playing roles. In fact, HDL are Daisy's brother here, plus Donald and Daisy supposedly meet for the first time.

Jan 8, 2017 15:26:48 GMT Baar Baar Jinx said:

I safely exclude it from consideration, as I would all things DuckTales-related. Donald never joined the navy, and the nephews never lived with Scrooge, in my mind. DuckTales is alternate-reality.

I totally agree with this.

Jan 8, 2017 15:26:48 GMT Baar Baar Jinx said:

For example, wouldn't Fergus' brother "Pothole" McDuck, apparently the first of the clan McDuck to emigrate to the United States, have had a family? He doesn't seem to in Life of Scrooge, but maybe he later got married and had kids. If he had any sons, that would put an end to Scrooge's claim to be "the last of the clan McDuck" (since daughters apparently don't count) but that might be a neat way to explain Gideon without violating the Rosa version of things, if you are so inclined (make him a cousin of Scrooge's and not a brother). And what about Jake; was he just freeloading off Fergus, or did he have his own family at some point?

In the unused sketches for "Life and Times" part 1, there is this page where a caption box says "Pothole and Jake never married!". Of course, one could say the caption box is telling the family history only up until that moment (1877) so they could have married later. Anyway, Jake seems still unmarried when we last saw him in 1896 (he died between 1900 and 1902) and Pothole seemed unmarried in 1890, when he was 61 (his death date is unknown, but he was still alive in 1900). Personally I prefer to think Scrooge is the last male McDuck, as it was said so in "The Old Castle's Secret", and it also adds an epic dimension to the character's backstory.

Jan 8, 2017 15:49:25 GMT Baar Baar Jinx said:

I agree with you fully on Matilda's eternal spinsterhood. I never liked the theory of Ludwig being married to her. This seems to have originated with Rosa, but honestly, they seem so mismatched.

Me, I like the idea of Matilda being married to Ludwig. It just totally makes sense:

*Ludwig was introduced as an uncle of Donald, but his last name isn't Duck or McDuck, so he must be an uncle by marriage. The only aunt of Donald that could have married Ludwig is Matilda.

*Matilda was created to be a married woman: the first version of Barks' tree had the business of Gladstone's adoption, and now that the idea was rejected the marriage with Ludwig would prevent her from be a spinster.

*Being both European, it makes sense they would be living in Europe, so it explains why we don't usually see them: they don't live in America.

I don't think they are really mismatched. To quote Alberto Becattini's character profile of Ludwig in a newspaper article I still have (Corriere della Sera, 4 April 2005): "[...] But even scholars have a twin soul. So, between an adventure and an enigma, Ludwig won and married Matilda, Scrooge's sister, capable of seeing over the smokescreen of his speeches the timid, tender and discreet charm of the scholar". Very poetic, I think. Plus, "A Letter from Home" doesn't contradict this, as Don said he figured the story happened on a day Ludwig was away for a lecture.

[Scrooge MacDuck]

Jan 8, 2017 17:20:34 GMT RobbK1 said:

Jan 8, 2017 16:54:29 GMT Scrooge MacDuck said:

Yes, but you were trying to introduce a new sibling; whereas Shamrock's existence gives a reason for another brother to exist. This worked for Mickey's sister Amelia, who was allowed to appear in a couple of Egmont stories because Freddie and Mortie were already established character since the 30's.

Well, shouldn't Shamrock's existence, having the Gander surname, giving the reason for Gladstone's brother's existence allow me to introduce Gladstone's brother?  Isn't that the same situation as introducing Mickey's sister Amelia?

Unless it is your opinion, I don't think Sadstone could be Shamrock's father. I don't think he'd ever be lucky enough to settle down and have a child, not to mention living in the woods in hiding is not the life Shamrock appears to be leading. So the only way for it work, granting that Sadstone could have a child, would be for him to have abandoned him or for the mother to have left Sadstone, and both are too sad for Disney to allow.

[Baar Baar Jinx]

Jan 8, 2017 17:25:39 GMT drakeborough said:

Jan 8, 2017 15:26:48 GMT Baar Baar Jinx said:

Re: April, May and June; has their last name ever been revealed to be "Duck?" We know they're Daisy's sisters' daughters (established by Barks in their first appearance), but apart from Rosa's off-page desire to make their father Daisy's brother (and thus give them the last name "Duck"), I'm not sure if that's ever been revealed.

Actually, it was HDL's father (not AMJ's father) that Don wanted to make the brother of Daisy.

You're right, of course, because otherwise we'd be talking about AM&J's parents being brother and sister. I knew that, not sure why I made that mistake there.

[RobbK1]

Jan 8, 2017 17:36:09 GMT Scrooge MacDuck said:

Jan 8, 2017 17:20:34 GMT RobbK1 said:

Well, shouldn't Shamrock's existence, having the Gander surname, giving the reason for Gladstone's brother's existence allow me to introduce Gladstone's brother?  Isn't that the same situation as introducing Mickey's sister Amelia?

Unless it is your opinion, I don't think Sadstone could be Shamrock's father. I don't think he'd ever be lucky enough to settle down and have a child, not to mention living in the woods in hiding is not the life Shamrock appears to be leading. So the only way for it work, granting that Sadstone could have a child, would be for him to have abandoned him or for the mother to have left Sadstone, and both are too sad for Disney to allow.

You are correct.  I had Sadstone leaving his entire family. as a teenager, so as not to further endanger them. But, regarding sad occurrences in not being allowed, I remember a 1953 Donald Duck story, drawn by Jack Bradbury, in which Donald and Huey, Dewey and Louie use the fact they they ARE orphans, to try to get money from him.  It was clear to me, that although they dressed in torn clothing, they were NOT trying to use the ragged clothing as a disguise as orphans, but, rather, using the FACT that they were orphans to try to get sympathy from Scrooge, so he would feel sorr for them and give them the money Donald wanted.  After reading that, I was convinced that Disney's explanation for Donald and his nephews having no parents in the stories ws because they were dead.

[drakeborough]

Jan 9, 2017 0:26:40 GMT RobbK1 said:

I remember a 1953 Donald Duck story, drawn by Jack Bradbury, in which Donald and Huey, Dewey and Louie use the fact they they ARE orphans, to try to get money from him

Can you identify the story? If it is a 1953 tale drawn by Jack Bradbury and featurning Scrooge, Donald and HDL, then it must be one of these eight stories. I would like to see the panel in which it is said they are orphans.

[sirredknee]

This story, first page:

coa.inducks.org/s.php?c=W+DD+++37-02

[drakeborough]

Thanks for the link. So, it is a 1954 story, but it doesn't make any difference. And it was drawn by Bradbury, like Robb remembered.

I see that in the Italian scan Donald says "Noi siamo dei poveri orfanelli che...". The American scan is too small for me to read the text, but it seems Donald's line include "little orphans".

That's interesting, as this is probably the only story to say Donald and HDL are orphans. Don Rosa wanted to make a reference to HDL being orphans in "Super Snooper Strikes Again", but this was deleted by the publisher. He thought maybe it was for the better, since that line would have become a burden if he later managed to think up of a way to have HDL's parents return.

[Scroogerello]

Jan 9, 2017 10:08:10 GMT drakeborough said:

Thanks for the link. So, it is a 1954 story, but it doesn't make any difference. And it was drawn by Bradbury, like Robb remembered.

I see that in the Italian scan Donald says "Noi siamo dei poveri orfanelli che...". The American scan is too small for me to read the text, but it seems Donald's line include "little orphans".

That's interesting, as this is probably the only story to say Donald and HDL are orphans. Don Rosa wanted to make a reference to HDL being orphans in "Super Snooper Strikes Again", but this was deleted by the publisher. He thought maybe it was for the better, since that line would have become a burden if he later managed to think up of a way to have HDL's parents return.

Here's a scan of what Donald says in that Bradbury story:


However, both Scrooge and Donald soon confirm that Donald just made his story up:


However, on the old DCF forum, one member claimed that in one Italian story (I believe it was this one: coa.inducks.org/story.php?c=I+TL++118-BP ) some notary pointed out that Donald is an orphan. I don't have the story, though.

[Baar Baar Jinx]

Jan 9, 2017 13:28:32 GMT Scroogerello said:

Here's a scan of what Donald says in that Bradbury story:
However, both Scrooge and Donald soon confirm that Donald just made his story up:

So let me get this straight: Donald tried to tell Scrooge that he and HD&L were all orphans? That's bizarre. Whether they are or not, it doesn't seem like something Scrooge would need to be told. You'd think Scrooge would at least know the basics of his own family's history!
Since Donald was ultimately revealed to be lying, though,  this story can't be cited as evidence of anything (or is it evidence that none of them actually are orphans?). And anyway, Donald is a grown man, and HD&L are being cared for by Donald, so do any of them meet the technical definition of "orphan" even if all their parents are dead?

[ASalminen]

Jan 9, 2017 10:08:10 GMT drakeborough said:

That's interesting, as this is probably the only story to say Donald and HDL are orphans. Don Rosa wanted to make a reference to HDL being orphans in "Super Snooper Strikes Again", but this was deleted by the publisher. He thought maybe it was for the better, since that line would have become a burden if he later managed to think up of a way to have HDL's parents return.

Actually, in the version of "Super Snooper Strikes Again" published in Fantagraphics' Don Rosa Library, HDL's line has been restored to say: "It was Unca Donald who took it upon himself to raise his three orphaned nephews." 

I guess that means either Rosa has since (after retiring, perhaps) changed his mind about the reference not being appropriate, or Fantagraphics accidentally published the original dialogue.

[Matilda]

Jan 9, 2017 13:58:58 GMT Baar Baar Jinx said:

Jan 9, 2017 13:28:32 GMT Scroogerello said:

Here's a scan of what Donald says in that Bradbury story:
However, both Scrooge and Donald soon confirm that Donald just made his story up:

So let me get this straight: Donald tried to tell Scrooge that he and HD&L were all orphans? That's bizarre. Whether they are or not, it doesn't seem like something Scrooge would need to be told. You'd think Scrooge would at least know the basics of his own family's history!
Since Donald was ultimately revealed to be lying, though,  this story can't be cited as evidence of anything (or is it evidence that none of them actually are orphans?). And anyway, Donald is a grown man, and HD&L are being cared for by Donald, so do any of them meet the technical definition of "orphan" even if all their parents are dead?

On your last question: I would say that an orphan is still an orphan (someone whose original parents have both died) even when s/he is being cared for or has been adopted by a new parent. An adopted child wouldn't generally be *called* an orphan, though. The word might only be used in explaining the child's history--but it would still be used in the present tense. "She's an orphan--both her original parents are dead." The definition only gets complicated for me when a child had fewer/more than two biological parents (in this brave new world) or when s/he was raised from birth by other people, etc. Adults are not generally referred to as orphans--the word implies that you are still dependent on parental care. An adult will sometimes say when their last living parent dies, "Now I'm an orphan"--it's a way of expressing the significance of the transition you feel when you become parentless. But no one else will call them an orphan.

[drakeborough]

Thanks for the images, Scroogerello. Anyway, Baar Baar Jinx already told what I was about to say regarding that "fake orphans" plot making no sense.

I don't have that Italian story so I can't check.

Jan 9, 2017 14:10:53 GMT ASalminen said:

Actually, in the version of "Super Snooper Strikes Again" published in Fantagraphics' Don Rosa Library, HDL's line has been restored to say: "It was Unca Donald who took it upon himself to raise his three orphaned nephews."

I guess that means either Rosa has since (after retiring, perhaps) changed his mind about the reference not being appropriate, or Fantagraphics accidentally published the original dialogue.

Very interesting. I would like to see a picture of it.

Anyway, the change from "Unca Donald has raised us well and cared for us all along!" to "It was Unca Donald who took it upon himself to raise his three orphaned nephews." is more than just replacing "us" with "his three orphaned nephews", so I guess the first line was reworded by the publisher, and the latter was identical to his original script. And it's intersting to note that this story was produced shortly after "Return to Xanadu", in which he wanted to show their parents alive but then changed his mind because he couldn't find a suitable way to have them return. Only two stories ("Incident at McDuck Tower" and "The Island at the Edge of Time") were produced between "Return to Xanadu" and "Super Snooper Strikes Again".

Did Don Rosa address the issue in an article of the Fantagraphics' volume? I also wonder if Fantagraphics' version is the first to restore the line: what did the line said in the previous edition, i.e. 2011's Walt Disney Treasury #2?