Page 2 of 2
sandpiper - Apr 13, 2006 1:47 pm (#241 of 333)
Well, yes I expect so. Do you know where I could post a query about this for someone here to have a look at the problem?
Choices - Apr 13, 2006 4:30 pm (#242 of 333)
Edited Apr 13, 2006 5:32 pm
Check out "Questions for the Hosts" - Under Important Messages - about 11 down.
Amilia Smith - Apr 13, 2006 4:36 pm (#243 of 333)
Edited Apr 13, 2006 5:37 pm
Also try Corrections or Questions to the Lexicon.
Ann - Apr 15, 2006 5:18 am (#244 of 333)
sandpiper, I think you're right--the older Lexicon references say the Marauders started Hogwarts in 1971, the more recent ones say 1970. You could reconcile this with the dates for Bellatrix on the Tapestry by arguing that Sirius doesn't actually say in GoF that Snape hung out at school with Bellatrix. He just says he used to hang out with a gang of Slytherins that included her. It might have been after Hogwarts (surely Sirius would still think of them all as Slytherins)--or perhaps Rodolphus Lestrange was a few years younger than Bella, and she came back periodically to attend parties or something. One could explain that away--it's harder to deal with Jo's saying that Snape is 35 or (and?) 36 at the time of GoF.
Actually, I think this is probably one of those places where Jo was not counting right (she does that, occasionally, and usually blames it on not being good at "maths"). Alternatively, the information on the tapestry might be incorrect--Bellatrix's dates weren't readable in either of the published photographs; they were supplied by someone called "Aberforth the Marauder," who attended the auction preview and took surreptitious notes. Many of those dates are unlikely (for example, Sirius's grandfather Pollux seems to have had his first child at age 13), and Bellatrix's may be a mistake as well.
I've always suspected that the Marauders and Snape started school in 1971. I know the arguments for 1970, but Jo seems to like to use even numbers to help herself keep track. On the other hand, the fact that Regulus was born in 1961 (according to "Aberforth") does suggest that Sirius was born in 1959. Two-year spacing of births is pretty normal.
Deb Zawacki - Apr 15, 2006 4:12 pm (#245 of 333)
Well, by chance does JKR ever post here under one of her nicknames--she said she reads it but does that extend to the forums--??
Amilia Smith - Apr 15, 2006 7:30 pm (#246 of 333)
I don't know if she reads the forums or not, but she has said that she does not post on any of them.
sandpiper - Apr 16, 2006 2:07 pm (#247 of 333)
Edited by Apr 16, 2006 3:24 pm
Hi ann. As far as I could see, the older HP reference (chart has a copyright date 2003), said their start year was 1970, whereas more recently updated pages said 71. It may be that this has fluctuated back and forth?
I agree there may be a problem about acuracy of the reported tapestry, but people here seem confident in the information.
The quote from Sirius is: 'Snape knew more curses when he arrived at school than half the kids in seventh year and he was part of a gang of Slytherins who nearly all turned out to be death eaters.' Sirius held up his fingers, and began ticking off names. 'Rosier and Wilkes-they were both killed by aurors the year before Voldemort fell. The Lestranges - theyr'e a married couple- theyr'e in Azkaban. Avery....'
yes, you could explain away this statement any number of ways, but what it says at face value is that there existed a gang of Slytherins including Snape and Bella. Yes, it would appear they were not both at school at the same time for very long, but being there together is what would be assumed from the statement. It would not be clear how Sirius might have known who was part of the gang if it was death eaters meeting outside school, or how he would know people who had alread left but used to bepart of the gang. But yes, if Lestrange was younger that might explain it.
However, this is making arguments to try to reconcile this particular information with the others. The 'face value' date ought to have equal value to the 'face value' dates from the other arguments, and then consider which are most readily adjustible. I agree, that the Snape's age statement is least in line with a possible birth year for him of 58. However, it is still in range, if he was 35 or 36 at the start of the school year in GOF. In fact, I think all the references are still 'in range' with 58, just taking the implied range without assuming any of them are actually wrong. I personally think the circumstances of the Snape quote are the ones most likely to contain an error on JKR's part, assuming she did not have time to prepare an answer to the question. I do not think Snape's exact age was relevant to the plot of GOF, so no reason for her to have it in her mind. I can imagine she might think in terms of how old people are at the start of a book, more readily than how old they are at the end.
I find the wording of her description of Sirius' age when imprisoned as strange. Why not say exactly 22, if that was the case? She had as much time as she wanted to prepare text for her website (I presume?), and she is an author, so I would expect her words to say what she meant. She inserted an extra word, 'around', which was not necessary if his age was anywhere in the range 22 years and 1 day to 22 years and 364 days. I think, her vagueness was deliberate in the context of the quote to emphasise Sirius' youth. Hence deliberately saying 'around 22', instead of 23 (and 1 month). Looking at it the other way, if he was born later he could have been only 21 when imprisoned. If that were the case, then it would have been completely against what she was writing about him being young to have deliberately tacked on an extra year with an 'about' to explain it. (Of course, it might be that she had not pegged his age exactly at all at the time she wrote the website piece.)
Chemyst - Apr 16, 2006 2:28 pm (#248 of 333)
Edited Apr 16, 2006 3:30 pm
I am not particularly fond of this explanation either, sandpiper, but— if Snape was so advanced as to know more curses when he arrived than half the kids in seventh year, there is the possibility that he skipped a grade.
sandpiper - Apr 16, 2006 2:34 pm (#249 of 333)
Re JKR posting, I remember reading something she said or wrote, where she said that once upon a time she did enter a discussion, and was completely ridiculed by those taking part.
sandpiper - Apr 16, 2006 2:42 pm (#250 of 333)
How would skiping a grade help? he would still be at school in the same years as would be expected from his actual age. It would only mean the others ages would have to be adjusted in line with Bella's age, but not his. But this really only comes under the head of finding ways to explain away the information and hence ignore it, and requires us to invent some new circumstance to explain it. The art must be to try to explain everything with the fewest invented facts about the stories.
Skipping grades does not happen in British state schools, though it might in a private one. But also, we have no reason to think that Snape was espesially good at any subject except curses.
Choices - Apr 16, 2006 5:00 pm (#251 of 333)
If anyone could skip a grade it would be Hermione, and she hasn't.
Ann - Apr 16, 2006 8:17 pm (#252 of 333)
I think, in saying Sirius was "around 22" when he was arrested (on 1 November 1981) she probably meant he was between 21 and 23. I would suspect that's becausee she had James' and Lily's timelines worked out, and couldn't at the moment remember when Sirius's birthday was, vis a vis November 1 (which is something we still don't know). But someone who was 22 in November 1981 would, unless their birthday was in September or October (a small--1 in 6--chance), have started Hogwarts in 1970 and have been born in 1959.
It's also interesting that Dumbledore says, in the first chapter of PS/SS (also 1 November 1981), that the wizarding world has had "precious little to celebrate for eleven years." That's an odd statement, when you think about it. You'd expect him to round it off to ten, assuming that Voldemort's rise was gradual. But since he says eleven, without further explanation, it rather suggests that there was some big event that marked the beginning of the first war; and that if the Marauders did start school in 1970, it would have coincided quite closely with the beginning of their schooling.
I agree that they don't seem to be much into letting student skip years at Hogwarts, and that if Snape did, it wouldn't matter much anyway.
sandpiper - Apr 17, 2006 3:07 pm (#253 of 333)
Hmm, but that implies a run of bad events for eleven years. Now according to tapestry, Bella was born 51 and so left school either summer 70 or summer 69. Assuming for the sake of argument she was late in the year and left at the end of Snape's first year, 69-70. That would be a run of eleven years bad things happening...After her and the 'gang of slytherins' graduated and became death eaters?
Deb Zawacki - Apr 17, 2006 4:55 pm (#254 of 333)
She was not referring to this forum about being mocked--chat on LC or another site. She says that she loves the lexicon though-- I wonder if she finds the speculation here humorous.
Solitaire - Apr 18, 2006 10:09 am (#255 of 333)
According to the Lexicon timeline on him, Riddle was openly using the name Voldemort by 1970. That seems to be when he really began gathering followers and building his power base. I suspect his first reign of terror began around that time, with his newest recruits.
Madame Pomfrey - Apr 18, 2006 12:24 pm (#256 of 333)
Ok,Am I reading the tree right? Sirius' fathers name was Orion and he died the same year as Regulus 1979?
Nathan Zimmermann - Apr 18, 2006 1:11 pm (#257 of 333)
Madame Pomfrey, you are reading the tree correctly. I have wondered whether Orion Black died of grief at the loss of Regulus.
Madame Pomfrey - Apr 18, 2006 1:44 pm (#258 of 333)
Yes,its strange they died in the same year.All we really know of Orion is that he fortified Grimmauld Place.But why?Could it be possible that he,like Regulus, changed his mind about Voldemort and was trying to hide from him?
Julie Aronson - Apr 18, 2006 5:28 pm (#259 of 333)
Hmm. That makes some sense, Madame Pomfrey. In fact, I really like that idea. Sirius talked about how evil his mother was, but, at least to my memory, was pretty much silent about his father.
Deb Zawacki - Apr 18, 2006 7:17 pm (#260 of 333)
Edited Apr 18, 2006 8:18 pm
Didn't Sirius say somethig to the effect that his parents were proud of Regulus but they weren't Death Eaters and while they may have favored pure bloods didn't agree 100 percent with everything Voldemort did--I'm paraphrasing---ad trying to recall....
I would think that if Regulus was killed by or at Voldemorts request, Orion would havebeen afraid for the rest of his family? He may have been killed either in the course of defending Regulus or the family, for defying Voldemort--or because he knew about the pendant/horcrux and refused to surrender it---maybe his wifee ven did it, who knows,,,,,
Neville Longbottom - Apr 19, 2006 3:15 am (#261 of 333)
Or it was the other way around. Orion got killed by Big V and that's the reason why Regulus changed sides. But I guess Sirius would have mentioned it while showing Harry the family tree.
frogface - Apr 19, 2006 3:24 am (#262 of 333)
That all depends on what Sirius knows.
Madame Pomfrey - Apr 19, 2006 2:16 pm (#263 of 333)
Thats true,Frogface.Sirius moved out of his parents home when he was 16.There could have been alot of things that went on in the Black house that he was unaware of.
Die Zimtzicke - Apr 26, 2006 7:37 pm (#264 of 333)
Back to an earlier post...Why did Dumbledore even say they'd had precious little to celebrate for eleven years? He's talking about he years AFTER Voldemort was defeated. Those were years of relative calm, when most of the Wizarding World thought Voldemort was dead. That eleven year thing makes no sense to me. Did it have something to do with the Black family and Malfoy families gaining power in the government? Or Sirius being in Azkaban?
I don't know what it meant, but I think it might have had something to do with Purebloods getting off the hook for having supported Voldemort and gaining power.
Amilia Smith - Apr 26, 2006 7:44 pm (#265 of 333)
I'm not quite sure which post you are referring to, Die Zimtzcke, but Dumbledore's quote about "precious little to celebrate for eleven years" is from the very beginning of PS. Just after Voldemort's defeat. McGonagall is upset because people are celebrating when James and Lily have just been killed. So I think the eleven years refers to Voldemort's Reign of Terror.
Catherine - Apr 27, 2006 4:06 am (#266 of 333)
Back to an earlier post...Why did Dumbledore even say they'd had precious little to celebrate for eleven years? He's talking about the years AFTER Voldemort was defeated.
Dumbledore reminds McGonagall of this during the fireworks and daytime owl sightings at the beginning of PS/SS. Mills is correct in saying that Dumbledore refers to Voldemort's reign of terror prior to Harry's survival of the Avada Kadavra curse and the deaths of Lily and James.
Choices - Apr 27, 2006 12:45 pm (#267 of 333)
I think Dumbledore meant there was precious little to celebrate because he knew Voldemort was not really gone and would be coming back at some time in the future. He knew Voldemort had not really been defeated, so there was nothing to celebrate there. His evil shadow still hung over the Wizarding World and it was a game of wait and see as to when Voldemort would re-emerge from the darkness, probably more dangerous and powerful than ever. Eleven years of waiting for the signs of his return.
Ann - Apr 27, 2006 6:02 pm (#268 of 333)
Edited Apr 27, 2006 7:04 pm
Choices, when McGonagall says that "everyone's celebrating all right," and complains that they're being indiscreet about it, Dumbledore replies, "You can't blame them. We've had precious little to celebrate for eleven years." It seems to me that this must refer to the past (not the future), and that he approves of the celebration because it's at the end of eleven years when there's been nothing to celebrate.
I was the one who brought this up (pretty tangentially, in connection with Sirius's birth date), and my point in doing so was to ask, why eleven years, precisely? If Voldemort's rise to power was a gradual thing, you'd expect Dumbledore to round it off a little bit to ten years. So eleven years sounds like Voldemort's reign of terror started with a bang--a highly datable event of some sort--and it struck me as curious that this must have occurred in 1970, possibly even in fall of 1970, just about the time that the Marauders and Snape started at Hogwarts. Coincidence?
Or perhaps Dumbledore just thought in eleven year increments because of the fact that kids start Hogwarts when they're eleven....
Choices - Apr 28, 2006 10:08 am (#269 of 333)
Ann, you are right. I got myself confused and was thinking of another time. Sorry, I was half asleep, had not had nearly enough coffee and should not have been trying to reason that out.
Solitaire - May 1, 2006 10:06 am (#270 of 333)
eleven years sounds like Voldemort's reign of terror started with a bang--a highly datable event of some sort
Good thought, Ann. It would be interesting to research what specifically happened during that year, wouldn't it?
Ann - May 8, 2006 7:37 am (#271 of 333)
All right, I spend far too much time looking at this family tree. But it occurred to me, during a recent stare at it, that if Cedrella Black was burned off for marrying a Weasley, it's odd that Dorea Black wasn't burnt off for marrying Charlus Potter. JKR says that James's parents were elderly (ruling out Dorea as James's grandmother, since her daughter can't have been over 25 in 1959) and that they were old by wizarding standards and died of old age (but Dorea was only 57 when she died, ruling her out as James's mother). So perhaps James or his father was a Sirius-like character, turning from a family background of Dark nagic. It might explain why James was so firmly against it (just as Sirius is).
Detail Seeker - May 8, 2006 12:35 pm (#272 of 333)
Edited May 8, 2006 1:37 pm
If there was a conflict in the Potter family, it must have been James´s father, as James seemed to be in good terms with his parents (evidence: The Potters hosting Sirius as a guest of their son. If there had been trouble, this situation would have been impropable).
There was no need to blast her away from the tapestry, as Charlus Potter was a pure-blood, after all.
Ann - May 8, 2006 4:48 pm (#273 of 333)
But Septimus Weasley was a pure-blood, too. I was just wondering if James's father was a "blood traitor," like the Weasleys, but that he had a brother or something that wasn't: Charlus. (And what sort of a name is Charlus, anyway? Does anyone know? Is it classical?)
Finn BV - May 8, 2006 4:53 pm (#274 of 333)
Edited May 8, 2006 5:53 pm
Ann, this page is a nice summation of the name meanings.
I would say that the reason why Cedrella was blasted off was just because she married a Weasley. This gives us some perspective of what Weasleys were and have always been thought of (in the likes of the Blacks' eyes): scum. Disgrace to the wizarding word 'pure-blood.' Associators with Muggles/Half-Bloods/Muggle-Borns.
Choices - May 8, 2006 6:04 pm (#275 of 333)
Well, the Weasleys are considered "blood traitors" and that was probably reasonable cause to blast them off the tapestry in Mrs. Blacks eyes.
Ann - May 9, 2006 5:54 am (#276 of 333)
Edited May 9, 2006 6:58 am
That's my point. Marry a Weasley and you get blasted; marry a Potter and you don't. So from the pure-blood point of view, the Potters aren't such consistent blood-traitors as the Weasleys. Perhaps James had an older Potter cousin (the son of Charlus listed on the tree) who was more sympathetic to the Blacks, with their Dark magic and pure-blood politics. This might even have been the prevalent reputation of the Potter family. As I said, James's father would have been like Sirius--a renegade rejecting their teachings.
This might explain Snape's violent reaction to James--he'd expected pure-blood arrogance, and that's what he sees. But he'd also expected someone who'd be interested in Dark magic. James would not be at all sympathetic with the Dark magic that Snape tries to impress him with. (And this would explain Sirius's comment about Snape knowing a lot of Dark magic when he arrived.) Snape might think he was being rejected because of his parentage, not because of the Dark magic. Such confusions lead to bitterness.
Solitaire - May 9, 2006 6:05 am (#277 of 333)
Which generation of Weasleys was the first to be blasted off the tapestry? Perhaps not all Weasleys have been as vocal and open about their sentiments. Just wondering ...
haymoni - May 9, 2006 9:42 am (#278 of 333)
We don't see the Dumbledore family on the tapestry either.
Perhaps there is another branch of wizarding families that didn't care about such things. i.e. The Dumbledore & Weasley families could be on that tree.
Die Zimtzicke - May 9, 2006 12:56 pm (#279 of 333)
Could the Blacks have turned against the Weasleys when they produced the Squib cousin who is an accountant?
I'm trying to remember if he is on Molly's side or Arthur's...I'm drawing a blank and I don't have a book where I am.
TheSaint - May 9, 2006 1:04 pm (#280 of 333)
Not specified, but would love to know if he works for a certain drill company.
Ann - May 9, 2006 5:35 pm (#281 of 333)
Ooooh, Saint. What a lovely idea! I'm afraid, though, that the accountant was just put in there for his daughter, the Mafalda character in GoF, who was supposed to be sorted into Slytherin and give the trio lots of good juicy information. But she got cut. Whether or not the Squib accountant was also supposed to tie in with the Dursleys originally, I wonder if she'd retain the connection now that their daughter's gone.
I've always wondered if the (senior) Riddle family tied in with the Dursleys. They seem to have such similar attitudes....
Laura W - May 10, 2006 4:12 am (#282 of 333)
Edited May 10, 2006 5:14 am
I'm trying to remember if he is on Molly's side or Arthur's...I'm drawing a blank and I don't have a book where I am.
From PS, chapter six, p. 75, Cdn edition: "I think Mum's got a second cousin who's an accountant, but we never talk about him." (Ron speaking)
Lilly P - May 10, 2006 1:29 pm (#283 of 333)
On Molly's clock that tells where the family is located there is a space labled prison. could that be why they dont talk about the cousin who is an accountant? was that space put on the clock for them? i dont recall hearing that any of the immediate family members have done time. just a thought.
Choices - May 10, 2006 5:15 pm (#284 of 333)
If I remember correctly there are only 9 hands on the clock - one for each of the immediate Weasley family - so I doubt it would show the accountant even if he was in prison. I just think the clock covers every possibility. It was mentioned by George in POA that Mr. Weasley went out to Azkaban once and how it affected him - so he was in "prison" temporarily.
Solitaire - May 11, 2006 6:11 am (#285 of 333)
I've always wondered if the (senior) Riddle family tied in with the Dursleys. They seem to have such similar attitudes....
ROTFL, Ann!!! Wouldn't that just frost old Uncle Vernon, if he happened not to be aware of that particular tie? hehehe Thanks for a good giggle to start my day!
frogface - May 14, 2006 2:39 am (#286 of 333)
I don't recall the clock having a prison section on it? I checked the CoS chapter where the clock is first described and no refererances to prison came up. Can you tell me where you got this information?
Lilly P - May 14, 2006 9:41 am (#287 of 333)
frogface, I think I am suffering movie contamination on that point. it's in CoS when the boys first come to the burrow after rescuing Harry, I should have posted on the movie thread. oops!
timrew - May 14, 2006 5:13 pm (#288 of 333)
Nope. I don't remember, "banged up", being an option on the clock, either.
Miss Black - May 15, 2006 12:45 pm (#289 of 333)
The Weasleys don't seem like they'd turn on a cousin just because he's a squib.
Die Zimtzicke - May 15, 2006 2:51 pm (#290 of 333)
Well, they don't discuss him (the squib)in front of the kids much.
Arthur likes Muggle stuff, but he doesn't seem to actually deal with them much on a personal basis, and since Molly banishes him to the shed with that junk, I don't know how pro-muggle she really is.
We have to wait and see if Grimmauld Place and the tapestry come up again. Then maybe we'll have more information.
Amilia Smith - May 15, 2006 4:33 pm (#291 of 333)
I don't think that the Weasleys never talk about the squib cousin because he's a squib, I think they don't talk about him because he's a nasty piece of work. From jkrowling.com, in the Extras -> Edits section:
Mafalda was the daughter of the 'second cousin who's a stockbroker' mentioned in 'Philosopher's Stone'. This stockbroker had been very rude to Mr. and Mrs. Weasley in the past, but now he and his (Muggle) wife had inconveniently produced a witch, they came back to the Weasleys asking for their help in introducing her to wizarding society before she starts at Hogwarts. The Weasleys agreed to taking her for part of the Summer, including the Quidditch World Cup, but regretted this almost immediately. Mrs. Weasley suspected that Mafalda's parents simply wanted to get rid of her for a while, because she turns out to be the most unpleasant child Mrs. Weasley has ever met.
Laura W - May 16, 2006 3:58 am (#292 of 333)
Edited May 16, 2006 5:01 am
Die Zimtzicke wrote,
Arthur likes Muggle stuff, but he doesn't seem to actually deal with them much on a personal basis,
On the other hand, he was thrilled to actually meet a Muggle couple - Hermoine's parents - in CoS. Chapter four, p. 47: " 'But you're Muggles!" said Mr. Weasley delightedly. "We must have a drink! What's that you've got there? Oh, you're changing Muggle money. Molly look!' He pointed excitedly at the ten-pound notes in Mr. Granger's hand."
Stockbroker, Amilia? In my edition of PS, it is definitely an accountant.
Miss Black, I totally agree with you. I think of the Weasley family - blood-traitors in the eyes of both the Blacks and the Malfoys - as completely non-prejudiced. (It is that specific segment of real-life society which I feel they are supposed to represent in the HP series).
Molly and Arthur Weasley have raised their children with the value that all human beings are equal: pure-bloods, half-bloods, Muggle-borns, squibs and Muggles. That is why the 11-year-old Ron reacted so strongly to the term "Mudblood" uttered by Draco in PS: it went against everything he had been taught in the home. And you notice that George was not exactly adverse to flirting with "a very pretty girl working in the paper shop" (a Muggle) in the village in HPB (chapter 16): something the racist pureblood Blacks - forgetting about Sirius for the moment -, Malfoys and Zabinis would recoil at. ( "I wouldn't touch a filthy little blood traitor like her whatever she looked like." (Blaise Zabini talking about Ginny, HPB, chapter The Slug Club))
I would say that the dislike of Molly's cousin by Molly and Arthur is not related to his being a squib but to his being a nasty human being. That would be more in keeping with my view of the Weasley's. (And before anybody mentions Percy ... well, there's one in the best of families. (grin) )
Catherine - May 16, 2006 4:23 am (#293 of 333)
Stockbroker, Amilia? In my edition of PS, it is definitely an accountant. --Laura W
It is in mine, also, but Mills was quoting from JKR's site. Perhaps Jo has changed her mind slightly since then.
Also, I am not sure that Ron at age 11 would know the difference between stockbroker and an accountant, or he may have been confused about a Muggle job held by someone with whom he has no real relationship.
Derek Robertson - May 16, 2006 6:18 am (#294 of 333)
Edited May 16, 2006 7:22 am
On the subject of Charlus Potter I think he is a Red Herring, there is no indication of how old he was when his son was born. He could be quite a bit older than his wife and the (younger) brother of Harrys grandfather?
The son of Charlus Potter and Dorea Black may have died without marrying and having any offspring. Therefore there are no other potters left to muddle up the story and give HArry aother relations while still appearing on the "Tree" to confuse us.
Miss Black - May 16, 2006 12:19 pm (#295 of 333)
On the tree Lucretia Black married a Ignatius Prewett (Percy's middle name is Ignatius for presumably this reason). We can then assume that Molly's family was pretty well-to-do as Lucretia isn't blown off the tree. Do you think they were happy when Molly married a Blood-Traitor Weasley or were they neutral?
Thora - May 16, 2006 2:53 pm (#296 of 333)
I love Molly, but you have to admit that she doesn't have her husband's level of adoration for anyone not pure blooded or totally human.
If you will recall her reaction to the presence of a man in her husband's hospital ward who had recently been bitten by a werewolf, she plainly has reservations about people until she gets to know them. She certainly is fond of Lupin, and Hagrid, but she isn't instantly besotted with them simply because they aren't pure-bloods.
Her habit of loving people based on their individual virtues could be a famliy trait (ie Fabian and Gideon fighting in WW1) but that sort of policy in the period referenced by Ignatius' marriage would no doubt have excluded the Prewetts in general from Properly Pure Society. I find it much more likely that the more open way of thinking was evidenced in Molly's generation and not the ones preceeding it.
Die Zimtzicke - May 16, 2006 3:46 pm (#297 of 333)
I know Arthur was thrilled to meet the Grangers, but he doesn't, for all of his interest in muggles, seem to interact with muggles much. The muggles in the village nearby do not seem to know the Weasleys even live there, if the postman can't even find their house. Of course, they don't seem to associate with their wizarding neighbors all that much either. Luna is probably one of the Lovegoods menationed in GoF, but she never came up until OotP, and the Fawcetts and the Diggorys were never at the Burrow, as far as we know.
As for the stockbroker, or accountant, or whatever he is, I don't think he matters, if he was not mentioned again in the text. I'd be more interested in the cousin, if she HAD gone to Hogwarts. I have a hard time considering what Jo says in her interviews as important, if it's not used in the books. The books are what is canon for me. That's why I'm hoping the tapestry or at least Grimmauld Place, come up again in the last book. They both interest me very much.
Laura W - May 16, 2006 4:02 pm (#298 of 333)
Edited May 16, 2006 5:05 pm
Re: post 293: Catherine, when it comes to canon, I totally agree with the Lexicon FAQ which says "Just for your information, here's the list of what's considered canon, listed in order of 'correctness': (first) the novels, (third) interviews with Rowling..."
Therefore, I read what Ron says and I take it as canon. I'm not going to second-guess him because Jo changes the occupation of the cousin in a subsequent interview. *She* used Ron to give readers that piece of information in the first place, regardless of his age. If she doesn't remember every detail of every book - and who would expect her to, for Merlin's sake?? -, or changes her mind after the fact, it does not alter the written-in-black-and-white original-source of what was said and what occurred in the six HP books.
Please understand that this is not a criticism of you - for whom I have great respect regarding your work on the Forum -, or Mills - whom I thank for finding that interview quote -, or anyone else. It's just that, speaking for me alone, when it's a toss up between the facts presented in the novels and obviously-contradictory facts revealed in interviews, the novels will always win hands-down and without question.
(Having said that, like all of us on Lexicon, i find the interviews *very* interesting to read.)
Laura (slave to the literal)
Amilia Smith - May 16, 2006 5:28 pm (#299 of 333)
Edited May 16, 2006 6:32 pm
As for the stockbroker, or accountant, or whatever he is, I don't think he matters, if he was not mentioned again in the text. I'd be more interested in the cousin, if she HAD gone to Hogwarts.
True. I was just using that as an example of why I didn't think that the Weasleys would cut off a family member just for being a squib. Interestingly enough, we don't hear much about any of the Weasleys' relatives in the books. We assume that there are a lot of them as Draco(?) says that Weasleys always have more children than they can afford, and everyone seems to recognize the name as a family of prominent/infamous bloodtraitors. But other than Uncle Bilius and the stockbroker/accountant, none are even mentioned. Oh, and Gideon and Fabian Prewett. Would we even know they were related if it wasn't for jkrowling.com?
I would also like to see more of the Tapestry in canon, but I doubt we'll get it. However, I'd be very surprised if we don't see more of Grimmauld Place.
Not to worry, Laura. I know where you are coming from. The stockbroker/accountant switch didn't even cross my radar. Oops. :-)
Thora - May 17, 2006 2:49 am (#300 of 333)
One would assume that the Weasley/Prewitt famliy tree wil be filled out at the wedding.
I also think we will see more of Grimmauld Place, but doubt the tapestry will be given more than a passing glance.
Catherine - May 17, 2006 6:22 am (#301 of 333)
Therefore, I read what Ron says and I take it as canon. I'm not going to second-guess him because Jo changes the occupation of the cousin in a subsequent interview. --Laura W
Not to pick nits, but I indicated that Mills was quoting from JKR's site, not an interview. The difference may be minor, but JKR writes for her site, and the information comes directly from her.
The Lex indicates Only information which comes directly from the author is considered canon.
I really don't see the stockbroker/accountant difference as a canon issue. Mills was perfectly correct, and so is Laura W. As the character has not made an appearance in the subsequent novels, I'm not sure why the difference really matters.
I sure hope no one wastes a question to JKR asking if the cousin is an accountant or a stockbroker!
Choices - May 17, 2006 10:32 am (#302 of 333)
Sounds like something I would do - maybe she first thought to make him a stockbroker and then changed her mind and decided to make him an accountant instead, then later she could remember which she had settled on. LOL
Miss Black - May 17, 2006 2:42 pm (#303 of 333)
Maybe the Stockbroker/Accountant had a Petunia-style jealousy-envy thing about being a squib and disassociated him/herself from the rest of the family. I find that more likely.
Ann - May 17, 2006 5:55 pm (#304 of 333)
I think the point of stockbroker or accountant is that neither of these occupations sounds at all like it would work in the wizarding world (although Fudge must surely have needed accountants to cook the Ministry books, which I'm sure he did). It doesn't matter--it's like Hermione's dentist parents. The point is merely that they live in the Muggle world.
Chemyst - May 18, 2006 5:45 pm (#305 of 333)
I agree with you, Ann. But that won't stop me from pointing out the obvious: A lot of muggles change jobs.
Catherine - May 18, 2006 6:17 pm (#306 of 333)
Chemyst, that's an excellent observation.
Solitaire - May 21, 2006 9:55 am (#307 of 333)
I love Molly, but you have to admit that she doesn't have her husband's level of adoration for anyone not pure blooded or totally human.
She certainly thinks of Harry like a son, and he is not a pure-blood. She opened her heart and home to Hermione, once she'd figured out that all that trash about her breaking Harry's heart was just that--trash. She also seems to genuinely care for Tonks and Remus. If she was prejudiced against the Werewolf in the hospital, it was probably more from a point that he might be dangerous. She is a cautious mom, remember.
The muggles in the village nearby do not seem to know the Weasleys even live there, if the postman can't even find their house.
Hm ... how much Muggle mail do you suppose the Weasleys have received since they moved to the Burrow? I can't imagine there is much reason for a Muggle postman to know where they live. As to Arthur not interacting with the village people (Weren't they a singing groug?), when would he have time? He seems to work until very late into the night these days.
I agree with those who say that the Weasleys would never shun a relative simply because he happened to be a Squib. We know by now that both Witches (Umbridge) and Muggles (Dursleys) can be abominably unpleasant. Squibs surely are capable of the same rotten behavior. Perhaps the Weasley Squib is more like Filch than Figgy ... who'd want to invite him to any family reunions?
Thora - May 23, 2006 2:16 pm (#308 of 333)
She is a cautious mom, remember. - Solitaire
Indeed she is. Her primary motivation is love for those closest to her, which is quite natural. Molly isn't biased in favor of anyone really, except those who have a place in her heart. I was simply trying to point out the difference between her attitude and her husbands. She doesn't dislike muggles because they are muggles, but she also harbors no fascination for them.
The purpose of my post, lest it be misunderstood, was to add credence to the thought that Molly's lack of "pure blood pride" may not go back as many generations as Arthur's. This is in reference to the fact that Sirius' Aunt Lucretia married a Prewett and wasn't blasted off the family tree. If the Prewetts had been considered blood traitors, then Lucretia would have received the same treatment as Cedrella Black Weasley aka burn mark four.
In case anyone is in doubt as to my feelings about Molly, please keep in mind that I am a Ginger-headed mother of 3 who thinks knitting is very cool, and loving people for who they are is even cooler. I think I'm more similar to Molly than anyone else in the books, so how could I dislike her? I even have a Molly clock.
Deb Zawacki - May 26, 2006 6:52 am (#309 of 333)
Edited May 26, 2006 7:54 am
Remember when she thought that Hermione had "broken Harry's heart" how she was cold and almost cruel to her--the tiny Chocolate Easter Egg etc. While she may not shun "mudbloods" she may have an inherent distrust that comes from being cautious and protective and maybe even a little wary. If she and Ron ever marry I don't know exactly how warm she'd be knowing that with Hermione coming from non-magic parents maybe her Grandchildren might have a possibility of the "squib-gene" She seems ready to believe the best or worst about someone based on rumors or what she "hears"--and at times Arthur over-rides her judgement....like about the children hearing the Order information. With a different husband or in a different situation she might not be the same either.
I haven't read this entire thread--has the full tapestry been published?
haymoni - May 26, 2006 7:37 am (#310 of 333)
I think her love for Harry overshadowed everything.
You hurt Harry, Molly will be after you - just like she would with one of her own children.
I don't think at that point in the story Hermione had been "adopted" by Molly yet.
I'm guessing by the end of GOF, Hermione was in the fold.
Choices - May 26, 2006 8:43 am (#311 of 333)
I think you're right Haymoni - Molly would be ferocious in protecting those she loves and I think she figures Harry has been hurt enough. She wasn't going to stand idly by and let Hermione break his heart. Now she knows better and is friendly once again with Hermione.
Die Zimtzicke - May 26, 2006 4:39 pm (#312 of 333)
Molly chose to believe a magazine article against a girl she had gotten to know and had been to her home. If she was going to be shirty about it and send a tiny little easter egg, couldn't she have asked Ron or Harry what was really going on? Or at least sent Hermione no egg at all.
She was just awful to Hermione by making such a statement with that egg, without having any facts.
It would be different if Harry WANTED her to mother him. He doesn't. In GoF when she goes to hug him like a mohter, he feels worse and is ready to scream when Hermione shuts the window. He doesn't feel better. And in OotP he certainly made it clear he didn't want her to have parental authority over him at all.
Choices - May 26, 2006 4:55 pm (#313 of 333)
I think Molly is a sweet, un-worldly wise woman who just tends to believe what she reads. Why should she seek confirmation or denial, if the Daily Prophet says it, then she thinks it must be so. She shoots first and asks questions later.
As to mothering Harry - I think there are times when Harry loves the fact that Molly considers him like her son, but Harry wasn't raised for most of his life with a "huggy, feely" type a woman as a mother figure. He hardly was acknowledged as existing at the Dursleys, so I think that being hugged and mothered is something he has to get used to. Sometimes he likes it and sometimes he resents it - depending on his mood and the circumstances.
Laura W - May 27, 2006 1:58 am (#314 of 333)
Edited May 27, 2006 2:59 am
Now I am going to be absolutely horrible, but ... actually the article about Hermonie appeared in the magazine Witch Weekly, under the headline HARRY POTTER'S SECRET HEARTACHE. GoF, Chapter Twenty-Seven. (Rita Skeeter obviously freelances.)
And I totally agree with your last paragraph, Choices. That is how I see. Harry did not break away from Molly's embrace in the hospital until the loud slamming noise startled both of them. GoF, Chapter Thirty-Six, p. 620 (Cdn. edition). For that matter, I agree with your first paragraph too.
haymoni - May 27, 2006 4:32 am (#315 of 333)
I didn't get that Harry didn't want Molly to mother him.
After all he had been through, all the different emotions that he was feeling, to have someone finally care about him enough to hug and hold him "like a mother" - it was sending him over the edge.
What he was worried about was Ron seeing him cry.
Hermione scared them all and the emotional waterfall that was about to occur was stopped.
frogface - May 27, 2006 5:37 am (#316 of 333)
I agree, Harry wanting to cry was being brought out by Molly being affectionate. It wasn't a negative response directly to that. At that moment Molly was giving Harry exactly what he needed. He needed someone to be strong for him for a change, so that he could let his emotion out. As for OotP, I only remember one part where he is annoyed with Molly. "He was annoyed with her mollycoddling. He was NOT a child" (paraphrased that ). Other than that I think that he generally appreciates it. I'm deffinately sure that he appreciates the fact that she sends him Christmas presents and easter eggs etc.
Nathan Zimmermann - May 27, 2006 6:24 am (#317 of 333)
Edited May 27, 2006 8:07 am
How important a role if any will the Black Family Tree and the tapestry play in book seven if any? Could the tree assist Harry in figuring out who is the mysterious R.A.B.?
haymoni - May 27, 2006 6:48 am (#318 of 333)
Oh yeah - that is what this thread's about isn't it???
If Harry can bring himself to go back to #12, he may take a look at Draco's name on the tapestry and wonder what he is doing. He may then take a closer look to see who else would be on the tapestry.
Nathan Zimmermann - May 27, 2006 7:13 am (#319 of 333)
Haymoni, your point about Harry looking more closely at the tree raises a question in my mind. I wonder whether there are other branches that have not been made known yet?
Solitaire - May 27, 2006 8:00 am (#320 of 333)
Sometimes he likes it and sometimes he resents it
I don't know that he resents her mothering, actually. I think it may--to use one of my mom's expessions--"cramp his style" sometimes. That's normal with any kid and his or her mom, isn't it?
Regarding Harry's heartache ... I think Molly would have been just as indignant had Hermione been a pure-blood witch. After everything that had happened at the QWC, topped by Harry having been entered in the Triwizard Tournament by some unknown person, I just think all of Molly's "mom radar" was on high alert. She'd have given the cold shoulder to anyone who might have hurt Harry or any of "her boys." JM2K, of course.
Choices - May 27, 2006 8:54 am (#321 of 333)
I wonder if it is the tapestry that will help Harry or is it more likely to be the book on wizarding genealogy? I'm betting on the book.....or maybe both book and tapestry.
Ann - May 27, 2006 4:19 pm (#322 of 333)
I was really surprised to see that there were no Prince family members on the tapestry. I thought perhaps that (although the name meant nothing to him when he and Sirius discussed the tapestry in OotP) he might return to the house and see that Sirius and Snape were not so distantly related, and that it might lead to some sort of (obviously well down the road) rapproachment. But there aren't any Princes. Or perhaps there are in the generations above the one's we've got? (If so, Eileen would definitely have been blasted off!)
Solitaire - May 27, 2006 4:46 pm (#323 of 333)
Edited May 27, 2006 5:47 pm
We didn't see the entire tapestry, did we? Well, I know I didn't. There was something covering part of it. Has more been revealed? (This tells you how limited my time has been here this semester!)
haymoni - May 27, 2006 4:50 pm (#324 of 333)
Choices - I'm betting Hermione goes for the book, but Harry goes for the tapestry!
mike miller - May 27, 2006 5:07 pm (#325 of 333)
I'm with those who think the book will be important that the tapestry. It may be the tapestry that starts the trio working out the puzzle, but my money's on the book for real solid information.
I've posted on the Horcrux thread that Voldemort uses only significant murders to convert historical artifacts into horcruxes. It is the direct links between Hogwarts founders family members, their murders and the subsequent use of the same families artifact (i.e., Ms. Hepzibah Smith and the Hufflepuff cup) that will provide crucial information in locating the missing horcruxes. I could easily be wrong through, well off to St. Mungo's then....
Ann - May 28, 2006 3:43 am (#326 of 333)
Edited May 28, 2006 4:44 am
Solitaire, there were two photos, one of which had the left side blurred and the other having something covering it. But someone attended the auction preview and made notes, so the Lexicon has reconstructed the whole thing. A lot of the dates seem a little unlikely, though--there are two or three places where Black men seem to have fathered children when they were around twelve. Still, one assumes that the names are correct. The link is [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
I don't quite see what the tapestry showing the House of Black could have to do with the Horcruxes, except that it might occur to someone that RAB is Regulus, although there's no middle initial on the tapestry that has been mentioned (or on the version that was auctioned.
Solitaire - May 28, 2006 9:06 am (#327 of 333)
Thanks for the link, Ann. BTW ... do you suppose Regulus's middle name could have been Arcturus? It would seem to make sense, as the names Regulus, Arcturus, and Sirius are repeated rather often on that tree.
Die Zimtzicke - May 29, 2006 7:53 pm (#328 of 333)
I always thought Regulus was named after his Uncle Alphard, I think it was, the one that left Sirius the money.
Liz McKean - Jun 1, 2006 1:47 pm (#329 of 333)
Remember how in book 6, there was an article in the Daily Prophet where Neville's grandmother was being interviewed? She was cut off and we couldn't see the entire article. I bet that she was saying that Neville and Harry were cousins.
Die Zimtzicke - Jun 1, 2006 7:28 pm (#330 of 333)
That would be nice, except Jo has said repeatedly that Harry has no other living relatives than the Dursleys.
Miss Black - Jun 2, 2006 5:03 pm (#331 of 333)
I was surprised not to see any Gaunt's on the tree...
Ann - Jun 2, 2006 8:16 pm (#332 of 333)
Edited Jun 2, 2006 9:19 pm
Well, I wouldn't have expected to see any Gaunts on this part of the tree, since they seem to have descended to rural poverty several generations before Marvolo. Marvolo would have been a contemporary of the second generation of Blacks we have here, and I can't imagine any sister of his mixing with the children of the Headmaster of Hogwarts. And the Blacks seem to be largely urban. There may have been some in the upper generations of the tapestry (14th or 15th century, perhaps). There might even have been some Peverells. And Dumbledores might be possible as well, I suppose, although I would bet that there weren't any. But I suspect this is all we're getting of the tree.
No, the family that I would have expected to see on the tree was the Prince family. But apparently not. I wonder if that means that Snape's mother's family was either much richer (or possibly much older or much poorer) than the Blacks, so that none of them intermarried. Or possibly just not Dark enough.
I'm also a bit surprised that there are no Marchbanks, Ogdens, or Toftys (the O.W.L. examiners, and apparently big movers and shakers at the Ministry), no Fudges or Bones. The Blacks do not recently seemed to have married into the class that becomes government officials.
In fact, the marriages that are countenanced by the family seem to have be predominantly into families allied with Voldemort. Out of 14, 6 names are those of known Death Eaters (Lestrange, Malfoy, Rosier, Crouch, Crabbe, Yaxley); 1 is clearly a sympathizer (Burke), and 2 names we associate with Slytherin and possible Death Eater sympathizers (Bulstrode, Flint), while only four belong to the "good" side (Potter, Longbottom, Macmillan, Prewett). The last (Gamp) is unknown. So there are more than twice as many names with Dark associations as with Light.
Derek Robertson - Jun 4, 2006 8:05 am (#333 of 333)
Good anylisis of the names Ann, Perhaps Gamp is the name of a semi important character to appear in book 7?
As for the gaunts they kept marrying their cousins so the familty names would be kept to a minimum with gaunts marrying gaunts just like Sirius' parents.
Archivist wrote:Here ends this archive of the "The Black Family Tree and Tapestry" thread from the Harry Potter Lexicon Forum (HPLF) as it existed on World Crossing (WX) before WX ceased operation on 15 April 2011.
The HPLF goes on. I hope you will enjoy it as much as I do. ~ John
Page 2 of 2
Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum