'Significant' facts

[M.J. Prior]

Stefan Persson:
> * Barks has only used Ludwig once, and that on a cover. 
Barks has used Ludwig once in a one-pager with Grandma: 'Flowers are 
flowers'.  
> * Van Horn has not used him at all.
Van Horn has drawn Ludwig at least once in a 'family tree' (along with 
Flintheart and Magica) which can be seen at Gilles's page.
But none of these facts is significant, 'cause your final remark still stands: 
Authors who don't use a character very often can hardly be regarded as 
significant authorities on that character. (Unless perhaps they've invented 
the character. You can't, for example, ignore the fact that Barks is the 
creator of Rockerduck, although he has used him only once.)
I don't know if it's wise to mingle in this discussion, but I do have an 
opinion on the subject.                                                                  
(Dutch readers know how much value can be attached to 'opinions'.) 
(Oh, this is an injoke about a statement by our Prince, and recently by 
staatssecretaris Nijs. It's not meant to be offensive.)
The question started with Sigvald's remark that a webpage about 
Ludwig von Drake lacked an "important fact" (I use these "marks only to 
quote) namely Ludwig's supposed marriage to Matilda McDuck. 
I think it's not about how important such 'facts' are, but about how well-
known they are. The author of the Von Drake-site is most likely no 
member of DCML, may not have taken any interest in Duck-Family-
Tree-sites such as Duckhunt and Calisota Online and may even not be 
interested in Don Rosa-stories. (Which is why I *did* find out about 
Ludwig being supposed to be married to Matilda, cause I *am* 
interested, but this "Bill at VonDrake.com" probably didn't.)
We, DCML members with an interest in Don Rosa-stories, do know 
about this supposed marriage, but that doesn't make it an well-known 
fact, or even an official fact. Even if it will be shown in a story or a 
cartoon it may not become well-known, only 'official', for what it's worth.
You can't blame anyone who is dedicated to Von Drake-cartoons but 
not to Don Rosa-stories  for omitting a 'fact' that he's not very likely to 
encounter. You can't blame anyone for not taking an interest in Don 
Rosa-stories or in Don Rosa-related pages.
And I think you can't blame an economic magazine for estimating 
$crooge's fortune at 8.2 billion dollars, for being ignorant of the fact that 
$crooge is really a fantasticatrillionaire, which is, I'm afraid, not very well 
known. I, for one, was glad to see $crooge listed along with Charles 
Foster Kane and Jay Gatsby and other well-known American 
characters.

Gilles Maurice:
> Do you think i should give names to his parents in my duck family 
> tree? (even if i specify that it's unofficial). 
Why not? If you like the names and the site they stem from, I don't 
directly see why you shouldn't use them in your tree, especially since you 
haven't any other names and since they sound 'ducky' enough. Canard 
and Mallordy von Drake would fit in very well!                              
(Note that Bill gives Ludwig a brother, too.)

I think it's a very enjoyable site! 
Semi-off topic: in the lowest picture on the page with Ludwig's 
biography (http://vondrake.com/vondrake/index.htm) Ludwig looks (to 
me at least) a bit like Back to the Future's dr. Emmett Brown. 
(Whose family emigrated to America in the early 20th century and was 
first called von Braun. I think they were supposed to come from 
Germany, but it could also have been Austria :)

Last bit: at first I thought that Don Rosa wanted to give Ludwig a place 
in his Family Tree only because of that sole Barks-onepager. 
In a mail to DCML in april this year Don Rosa wrote that he liked 
Ludwig as a character. I wonder if Don would have thought about 
including Ludwig in the tree if Carl Barks hadn't used him at all. If he 
would have gone as far as wanting to include a character in the tree just 
because he liked that character. And suppose Don would have *liked* 
Fethry, maybe he wouldn't be opposed to Fethry's being in the tree 
(except for the fact that Barks never used Fethry, of course).

Ooo, this is getting sooo trivial and verrry (fethry?) insignificant.

And Gilles, why don't you let Biquinho be Whitewater's son in your 
tree? If you don't know who B's parents are and if it's nowhere stated 
that B is *not* W's son, and since B is Fethry's nephew and W is 
supposed to be F's brother, then B could very well be W's son.

Michiel Prior.