Scrooge's Heirs

[Rob Klein]

The talk about the blood relationship distance of Gladstone to Scrooge
brought to my mind some inconsistencies and contradictions even within
Barks' own work.  

In 1949 "Race to the South Seas" Barks defines that relationship as
follows:  Uncle Scrooge is "Gladstone's Mother's Brother's Brother-in-Law".
  That is not even a distant BLOOD relationship.  That is a very distant
relationship by marriage.  There is No nation on this DCML that would
recognise or award an inheritance for such a weak relationship.  He would
have the same right of claim (none) as anyone off the street.  he could
only inherit through specific instructions (will or testament) of Scrooge.

Yet, in WDC 155, Barks has Scrooge disgusted with the fact that Donald,
Huey, Dewey, Louie and GLADSTONE are his NEAREST RELATIVES.  Therefore,
Scrooge's parents, sisters and brothers, nieces and nephews and all other
cousins must have died (as must have Donald's parents).  I also remember
Huey, Dewey and Louie reminding Donald that they are orphans in one or two
Taliaferro strips; and Donald and all three Boys reminding Scrooge that
they are ALL orphans in a Jack Bradbury drawn long Donald Duck story in
1953 (can't remember which - but it was so Scrooge would be shamed into
letting them enjoy his fancy estate (including swimming pool).

So, perhaps all this talk of Scrooge's sisters being alive at the same time
as Huey, Dewey,and louie are old enough to talk, is inaccurate.  Or,
perhaps it is best to leave the "Magic World of Barks' canon open to any
story situations which do not provide MAJOR contradictions (which not even
CASUAL Fans could stomache), and not try to tie down the history and
relationhips so tightly that current writers cannot be as innovative as
posible.

Donald's parents must have died.  I assume Donald's sister Della (Dumbella)
also died (as must the Boys' father) - else why would the Boys have stayed
with Donald after visiting him (as almost strangers) when she WAS alive? 
As Don Rosa implied, there are contradictions in Barks; so, in order to
derive a coherent history, one must discard some of the information.  It is
clear that once some Barksian information is thrown away, the non-
scientific derivation of a history is therefore tainted.  It is therefore
only good for interest and amusement, but cannot be considered "gospel".


Cheers,  Rob klein