Yes, both Gladstone and Fethry are Scrooge's brother-in-law(Quackmore)'s nephews by blood, and thus Scrooge's sister(Hortense)'s nephews by marriage. No word for that relationship--you'd probably say "He's my sister's nephew" or possibly "He's my brother-in-law's nephew." Or conversely, Gladstone or Fethry would say, "Scrooge is my aunt's brother." The fact that this aunt's brother is not your uncle makes it clear that you're speaking of an aunt-by-marriage.
If they call him "Uncle Scrooge," that could be using the title in the loose way people often use familial titles. Technically he's not the uncle of either Gladstone or Fethry.
OT 1 (on Rosa and Fethry) If American comics - the only one Rosa could read, I am told - had seen "little or nothing" of "this Fethry Duck guy", how could he be so assertive in calling him "kinda irritating", and even expressing "thankfulness" for not having seen much of him. (Inconsistent judgment not just told to some friend in front of a beer, but written down on a goddam' editorial on WDC&S, for the history to remember.) That almost matches when he says "Mickey Mouse could be a great character if someone would do to him what Barks did to Donald" and ten minutes later "No, I've never read Gottfredson". I love so much this man's work, and also him in a way, for his intelligent and dedicated way of handling the duck world. But sometimes he comes out with these unjustified prejudices, and my arms fall. That's kinda sad (and irritating).
Pretty sure he has read Gottfredson at some time point, and... he seemed not to be impressed.
OT 1 (on Rosa and Fethry) If American comics - the only one Rosa could read, I am told - had seen "little or nothing" of "this Fethry Duck guy", how could he be so assertive in calling him "kinda irritating", and even expressing "thankfulness" for not having seen much of him. (Inconsistent judgment not just told to some friend in front of a beer, but written down on a goddam' editorial on WDC&S, for the history to remember.) That almost matches when he says "Mickey Mouse could be a great character if someone would do to him what Barks did to Donald" and ten minutes later "No, I've never read Gottfredson". I love so much this man's work, and also him in a way, for his intelligent and dedicated way of handling the duck world. But sometimes he comes out with these unjustified prejudices, and my arms fall. That's kinda sad (and irritating).
Pretty sure he has read Gottfredson at some time point, and... he seemed not to be impressed.
~6:30
In his commentaries for The Starstruck Duck in our version of the Don Rosa Library, he says something like "maybe if I'd grown up with the Gottfredson strips rather than the lame comic-books, Mickey could have become a character to me". So this implies he likes Gottfredson, or at least thinks he'd have liked it as a li'l one.
Post by Monkey_Feyerabend on Jul 29, 2017 7:43:45 GMT
In the Papersera forum at some moment between 2009 and 2011 he declared not having given attention to Gottfredson even when he could (someone was asking if he read the Gladstone reprinting of many of those stories in the 80's). In recent years he may have given a look at the Fantagraphic library, fine. But the attitude was from before, and a bit hard to deny. Come on people, look at that WDC&S page: as soon as the man was sure to be writing only for non-European readers (who could not be offended by a bad judgement about Fethry) there he is trash-talking about a character he probably did not know. (Then one wonders how could go unpublished in his own country for half a century Dick Kinney, arguably the best American Disney comics writer in the post-Barks/pre-Rosa era.)
Nothing bad, to be clear, I still love the man and his work. But nobody is flawless.
Post by Monkey_Feyerabend on Jul 29, 2017 8:03:38 GMT
As regards Fethry 's position in Rosa tree: nope, he is not a nephew-cousin, 'cause he is no son of no cousin of Scrooge. Yes, even Gladstone holds that kind of position, so the problem that I was raising for Fethry can be applied to Gladstone too. As a matter of facts, Rosa was clearly aware of this problem, hence he invented the story that Gladstone was adopted by Matilda - and that is (Rosa's) explanation why Scrooge ends up treating him like a real nephew. Apparently, when editing his tree, Egmont forgot to ask him to make up a similar story for Fethry.
NB: I always declare that I dislike discussions on duck relatives, and now I am writing a post of that kind: please, notice that the intent of this post is always to discourage you from taking too much seriously these stuff.
As regards Fethry 's position in Rosa tree: nope, he is not a nephew-cousin, 'cause he is no son of no cousin of Scrooge. Yes, even Gladstone holds that kind of position, so the problem that I was raising for Fethry can be applied to Gladstone too. As a matter of facts, Rosa was clearly aware of this problem, hence he invented the story that Gladstone was adopted by Matilda - and that is (Rosa's) explanation why Scrooge ends up treating him like a real nephew. Apparently, when editing his tree, Egmont forgot to ask him to make up a similar story for Fethry.
No, that wasn't Rosa's explanation, it was Barks' (for a family tree he made up for his own notes in the 70s). Rosa dropped it because he didn't like it.
Rosa went with the explanation in Barks' Race To The South Seas, where Gladstone calls Scrooge his mother's brother's brother-in-law.
Post by Monkey_Feyerabend on Jul 29, 2017 8:36:20 GMT
Wait, really? It was Barks who said that Gladstone was adopted by Matilda, whereas Rosa did not like it? That is interesting. So, in this affair Barks is the wise one, in that he recognized the need to explain that peculiar behavior of Scrooge. I was crediting Rosa with even more common sense than what he deserved on this problem.
But then why Scrooge treats Gladstone like a nephew, according to Rosa?
In the Papersera forum at some moment between 2009 and 2011 he declared not having given attention to Gottfredson even when he could (someone was asking if he read the Gladstone reprinting of many of those stories in the 80's). In recent years he may have given a look at the Fantagraphic library, fine. But the attitude was from before, and a bit hard to deny. Come on people, look at that WDC&S page: as soon as the man was sure to be writing only for non-European readers (who could not be offended by a bad judgement about Fethry) there he is trash-talking about a character he probably did not know.
I remember in one interview the cameraman made a similar comment (the way he spoke to non-Americans). I guess you are probably right!
Wait, really? It was Barks who said that Gladstone was adopted by Matilda, whereas Rosa did not like it? That is interesting. So, in this affair Barks is the wise one, in that he recognized the need to explain that peculiar behavior of Scrooge. I was crediting Rosa with even more common sense than what he deserved on this problem.
But then why Scrooge treats Gladstone like a nephew, according to Rosa?
He treats him as a nephew most of the time, but if memory serves, in Barks's south-seas-race story, Donald actually confronts Gladstone on the fact that he, Donald, is a closer relative of Scrooge's than him. In that story (which Barks had forgotten by the time he made up that peculiar theory with Matilda), his relation to Scrooge is clearly stated: "I'm his sister's sister-in-law's son" or some such).
Post by Monkey_Feyerabend on Jul 29, 2017 9:41:13 GMT
Yeah, I know, that's one of my favorite Barks's stories (read only recently from the Fantagraphic book). And the panel where Gladstone explains his relation to Scrooge was a joke. He declared a convoluted connection with Scrooge because that was funny to read. That panel in that story is the reason why people should not take too seriously the tree family stuff.
There is no possible way to reconcile Barks' Duck Universe, EVEN with itself!!! He has placed too many contradictions in his own stories. Several times Barks stated that Donald, Huey, Dewey, and Louie AND Gladstone are his ONLY CLOSE RELATIVES, to which he can leave his fortune. There are never any others to whom he can even consider leaving it, DESPITE his hatred at even the thought of leaving it to that no good, lazy, egotistical wastrel. THAT makes it clear that none of Scrooge's sisters, Della, Huey, Dewey and Louie's father, nor his half-brother, nor his other (Italian) brother, nor any one else who is reasonably close to him on any family tree is alive at the time Huey, Dewey and Louie are still small and young. Gus Goose is stated to be a fairly close cousin to Donald. He cannot be closer than Gladstone (and really must be at least one step removed). Scrooge surely would have hated giving his billions to the lazy lout, Gus Goose. But, he would NOT rather give them to the lazy and egotistical Gladstone more than Gus. So, we must conclude that if Gladstone, who was only a distant relative of Scrooge's, just related by marriage (roughly, son of the spouse of a distant cousin several times removed), was even considered to inherit Scrooge's money despite being literally hated, no other relative (other than Grandma - who is too old, and could expire any minute), is even remotely related enough to be considered for inheritance under Calisota or Duckburg law.
I defer to Barks' DETAILED description of Gladstone's relationship to Scrooge, spoken by Gladstone, himself, while bragging (and "proven" by Gladstone's lawyer having used that relationship to file a legal claim), rather than some unpublished "family tree" Barks hastily drew up for his own reference, which he never consulted while writing stories, and which has several contradictions from Barks' later printed stories.
My Duck Family Tree would go by relationships followed MOST by Barks in his printed stories plus inked non-published pages, and his penciled storyboards which were submitted. If it was a "tie" in numbers of occurrences for a given relationship, then, I would usually go by the earliest published or submitted scenario, or the one that would result in the least conflicts within The Barks-only Duck Universe.
This policy actually hurts ME, as it would not only rule out my OWN invented character, Sadstone Gander, from being Gladstone's identical twin brother (as I had originally submitted), but also would rule him out as Gladstone's first cousin (unless it were assumed that because Sadstone ran away from home to spare his family bad consequences of his bad luck, and stayed in hiding, that he was not a reasonable candidate, as he could not be found, or his bad luck would soon melt the fortune away).
So, There is no sound, logical way to choose a given configuration of a Disney "Duck Family Tree" that would be inherently "more correct" than any other one that is based on information presented in Disney comic book stories, and configured in a logical manner based on logical assumptions. It is basically open to personal interpretation. We all have a different point of view, based on different preferences.
Assuming that Scrooge is Gladstone's blood uncle is Scrooge McDuck is illogical if one believes the entire body of Barks' work is true.
I suppose it IS possible to believe that Gladstone's ridiculously good luck "compelled" some close relative of Scrooge's to legally adopt Gladstone, and then made that person die suddenly. But, then why did Gladstone's ridiculously fabulous luck not "make" Scrooge, himself adopt him, and have Scrooge die suddenly? Why, then, have Matilda have adopted Gladstone? And why did Gladstone argue with Donald that Scrooge was his own mother's brother's Brother-In-Law, when ADOPTED SON would be much closer legally, and, therefore, much more impressive when bragging? And then, if Scrooge so hated the thought of leaving his fortune to Gladstone, why in heaven's name, would he adopt such a despised, unlikable, unsympathetic character, in the first place.
Clearly, trying to make sense of Disney's Duck Universe is a loser's battle, and a great luxury, only available to the insane, or idle rich. I have no time for this. Despite quickly approaching my seventh decade on this earth, I still need to work to make my living, and can't really afford to waste my time on this fruitless effort.
I defer to Barks' DETAILED description of Gladstone's relationship to Scrooge, spoken by Gladstone, himself, while bragging (and "proven" by Gladstone's lawyer having used that relationship to file a legal claim), rather than some unpublished "family tree" Barks hastily drew up for his own reference, which he never consulted while writing stories, and which has several contradictions from Barks' later printed stories.
You raise an interesting point re: "Some Heir Over the Rainbow". Scrooge clearly mentions Donald, HD&L and Gladstone as his only relatives. This seems to be definitive proof that Hortense, Matilda, Quackmore and Della are deceased. I'm surprised this isn't cited more often.
Monkey_Feyerabend said:
But then why Scrooge treats Gladstone like a nephew, according to Rosa?
What do you mean when you say, "treats Gladstone like a nephew"? In Barks' (and Rosa's) work, Scrooge and Gladstone don't seem particularly close. In fact, DuckTales '87 (and comics that spun off from it) are the only place I can think of where Scrooge seems to have warm feelings for Gladstone (fortunately that seems like it'll be corrected in DuckTales '17). Yes, Gladstone does call Scrooge "Uncle", but I always viewed that as a smarmy way that Gladstone tries to curry favor and ingratiate himself with the richest man in the world, who isn't a blood relative. Scrooge actually takes offense when Gladstone refers to him as his uncle in "Race to the South Seas". I'm not sure what their relationship is like in Italian and other European comics, but Rosa would likely argue that he's sticking to Barksian lore.
And in that text piece accompanying Rosa's family tree in WDC&S#600, Rosa clearly states that the only way Ludwig can be Donald's uncle is by being married to Matilda. And my original point was, I disagree; there are several other ways, many of which have been discussed on this thread. On this, as well as Whitewater's placement on the tree, I think Rosa got it wrong.
Monkey_Feyerabend said:
And the panel where Gladstone explains his relation to Scrooge was a joke. He declared a convoluted connection with Scrooge because that was funny to read. That panel in that story is the reason why people should not take too seriously the tree family stuff.
I never thought Barks was being facetious while delineating the relationship between Scrooge and Gladstone in "Race to the South Seas". It was strangely specific for Barks, yes, but it seemed well thought out.
I defer to Barks' DETAILED description of Gladstone's relationship to Scrooge, spoken by Gladstone, himself, while bragging (and "proven" by Gladstone's lawyer having used that relationship to file a legal claim), rather than some unpublished "family tree" Barks hastily drew up for his own reference, which he never consulted while writing stories, and which has several contradictions from Barks' later printed stories.
You raise an interesting point re: "Some Heir Over the Rainbow". Scrooge clearly mentions Donald, HD&L and Gladstone as his only relatives. This seems to be definitive proof that Hortense, Matilda, Quackmore and Della are deceased. I'm surprised this isn't cited more often.
Monkey_Feyerabend said:
But then why Scrooge treats Gladstone like a nephew, according to Rosa?
What do you mean when you say, "treats Gladstone like a nephew"? In Barks' (and Rosa's) work, Scrooge and Gladstone don't seem particularly close. In fact, DuckTales '87 (and comics that spun off from it) are the only place I can think of where Scrooge seems to have warm feelings for Gladstone (fortunately that seems like it'll be corrected in DuckTales '17). Yes, Gladstone does call Scrooge "Uncle", but I always viewed that as a smarmy way that Gladstone tries to curry favor and ingratiate himself with the richest man in the world, who isn't a blood relative. Scrooge actually takes offense when Gladstone refers to him as his uncle in "Race to the South Seas". I'm not sure what their relationship is like in Italian and other European comics, but Rosa would likely argue that he's sticking to Barksian lore.
And in that text piece accompanying Rosa's family tree in WDC&S#600, Rosa clearly states that the only way Ludwig can be Donald's uncle is by being married to Matilda. And my original point was, I disagree; there are several other ways, many of which have been discussed on this thread. On this, as well as Whitewater's placement on the tree, I think Rosa got it wrong.
Monkey_Feyerabend said:
And the panel where Gladstone explains his relation to Scrooge was a joke. He declared a convoluted connection with Scrooge because that was funny to read. That panel in that story is the reason why people should not take too seriously the tree family stuff.
I never thought Barks was being facetious while delineating the relationship between Scrooge and Gladstone in "Race to the South Seas". It was strangely specific for Barks, yes, but it seemed well thought out.
Yes, I agree totally. The very specific details of Gladstone's distant relationship to Scrooge is proof that Barks wanted to make that point clear (and quite ironic, given Gladstone's bragging about it, and his desire to inherit Scrooge's fortune, DESPITE being fully aware of Donald's legally closer relationship. Moreover, Scrooge's hatred of Gladstone is made abundantly clear. There can be no doubt of either fact.
Post by Scrooge MacDuck on Jul 29, 2017 14:58:20 GMT
All this being said, I find that all the issues with who would legally have a claim to the estate are easily handwaved by the famously abysmally nonsensical state of law in Calisota.
