Descendents of Muggle-born Wizards

[Suzi2kids]

Is there a point at which the descendents of muggle-borns become recognized as full-blooded wizards?

If Hermione were to marry a pureblood, her offspring would be half-blood. Then, let's say, that child marries a pureblood, that offspring would be a quarterblood. Repeat again, it would be eighthblood, repeat again sixteenthblood, etc. After, say 10 or 20 generations, do you suppose that little bit of muggle would still show up on genealogy charts? Do you suppose there is an agency that keeps track of this sort of thing?

Perhaps that's what a squib really is - a muggle "throwback" born into a so-called pureblood family (after the time that the muggle/wizard liaison was forgotten about).

[OrionCA]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 22:38:55 GMT, "Suzi2kids"

Post by Suzi2kids
Is there a point at which the descendents of muggle-borns become recognized as full-blooded wizards?
If Hermione were to marry a pureblood, her offspring would be half-blood. Then, let's say, that child marries a pureblood, that offspring would be a quarterblood. Repeat again, it would be eighthblood, repeat again sixteenthblood, etc. After, say 10 or 20 generations, do you suppose that little bit of muggle would still show up on genealogy charts? Do you suppose there is an agency that keeps track of this sort of thing?
Perhaps that's what a squib really is - a muggle "throwback" born into a so-called pureblood family (after the time that the muggle/wizard liaison was forgotten about).

Your linage is never as good as the "pure bloods" but if both your
parents are wizards you're a wizard - or a Squib, as the case may be.
The oldest lines can trace their roots back before the founding of
Hogwarts but a line can be 2 generations long; it's just not very
prestigious.

Even the purest of pureblood lines can have a Squib (they just don't
talk about them very much, ref. Molly's cousin) so it's not a matter
of being a "throwback" per se. There's an argument that being a
wizard is actually some sort of genetic defect rather than an
improvement. You lack some vital protein in your brain that makes
your mind susceptible to "aetheric influences"; while you can cast
spells you're also crazy as a loon and haven't a lick of common sense
or logic. Voldemort is arguably the most powerful wizard of his
generation but he has no desire or interest in having children so his
bloodline dies with him, whenever that is. Doesn't sound like a
positive genetic trait to me.

Muggles may be superior to wizards in the end. They can already do
just about everything wizards can but w/o magic and it's not a
complete given that they'll never master that. Possibly Muggles could
someday build some sort of machine that taps magical energy and then
everyone would have wizarding powers w/o the Voldemort problem popping
up in every generation.
--
I'm on a journey in search of myself.
If I get back first, let me know that I'm
looking for myself and don't let me leave.

[Kish]

Post by OrionCA
There's an argument that being a
wizard is actually some sort of genetic defect rather than an
improvement. You lack some vital protein in your brain that makes
your mind susceptible to "aetheric influences"; while you can cast
spells you're also crazy as a loon and haven't a lick of common sense
or logic.

How to explain Hermione, in that case?

[Miranda]

Post by Kish

Post by OrionCA
There's an argument that being a
wizard is actually some sort of genetic defect rather than an
improvement. You lack some vital protein in your brain that makes
your mind susceptible to "aetheric influences"; while you can cast
spells you're also crazy as a loon and haven't a lick of common sense
or logic.

How to explain Hermione, in that case?

Ah, but even quick-thinking, logical Hermione has her little lapses:

"So light a fire!" Harry choked.
"Yes...of course...but there's no wood!" Hermione cried, wringing her
hands.
"HAVE YOU GONE MAD!" Ron bellowed, "ARE YOU A WITCH OR NOT!"

:^)


Miranda


(In serious mode, I'm with those who say we're not going to get a genetic
or other biological reason for HP magic ability.)

[OrionCA]

Post by Kish

Post by OrionCA
There's an argument that being a
wizard is actually some sort of genetic defect rather than an
improvement. You lack some vital protein in your brain that makes
your mind susceptible to "aetheric influences"; while you can cast
spells you're also crazy as a loon and haven't a lick of common sense
or logic.

How to explain Hermione, in that case?

She isn't nearly as sensible as she makes herself out to be. Remember
the crazy plan to get Draco to admit to being the Heir of Slytherin?
Even if Malfoy had admitted it, what were Harry and Ron supposed to
do" "Oh, look: We made a Polyjuice potion with ingredients stolen
from Snape's private cabinet and tricked Draco into admitting he was
behind the "Chamber of Secrets" mess. Where's our proof? Um.,
well...It's against the Rules to sneak into another House's Common
Room, and to drug two of its members with a potion made by a 2nd year
student?...right, we'll just pack our bags now."
--
I'm on a journey in search of myself.
If I get back first, let me know that I'm
looking for myself and don't let me leave.

[Markku Uttula]

Post by OrionCA
Voldemort is arguably the most powerful wizard of
his generation but he has no desire or interest in having children
so his bloodline dies with him, whenever that is.

Isn't that why Voldemort decided to attempt coming immortal (or die
trying).

[drusilla]

Post by OrionCA
Voldemort is arguably the most powerful wizard of
his generation but he has no desire or interest in having children
so his bloodline dies with him, whenever that is.

Isn't that why Voldemort decided to attempt coming immortal **(or die
trying).**

Nice one :)

[Lalwen]

[...] Muggles may be superior to wizards in the end. They can already do
just about everything wizards can but w/o magic [...]

Yes, but Muggles need machines to keep going, while wizards just need a
wand to sort out most problems, and that makes them less vulnerable.

But then I was wondering (I'm aware that's probably been asked a million
times, but the FAQ's say I can ask it anyway, so there :P), while wizards
and witches seem to just magick things from thin air, they apparently can't
conjure anything they like (or the Weasleys wouldn't have money problems,
would they?), so is there some sort of restriction, and what is it? Do you
need an actual back-up or something?

PS: I'm new, my name is Erika, I'm Italian and my English... Well, let's
say it could be lots better (and it would still suck :P). I hope you will
have the patience to read anyway! :)

[OrionCA]

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 11:46:31 GMT, Lalwen

Post by Lalwen

[...] Muggles may be superior to wizards in the end. They can already do
just about everything wizards can but w/o magic [...]

Yes, but Muggles need machines to keep going, while wizards just need a
wand to sort out most problems, and that makes them less vulnerable.
But then I was wondering (I'm aware that's probably been asked a million
times, but the FAQ's say I can ask it anyway, so there :P), while wizards
and witches seem to just magick things from thin air, they apparently can't
conjure anything they like (or the Weasleys wouldn't have money problems,
would they?), so is there some sort of restriction, and what is it? Do you
need an actual back-up or something?

Very few wizards have anything like the power of Harry or Voldemort.
Many are little more than Squibs themselves. "Having a wand" is about
as much an indicator of future success as having a high school diploma
- or a car, if you want to put it in those terms.
--
I'm on a journey in search of myself.
If I get back first, let me know that I'm
looking for myself and don't let me leave.

[Kish]

Post by OrionCA
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 11:46:31 GMT, Lalwen

Post by Lalwen

[...] Muggles may be superior to wizards in the end. They can already do
just about everything wizards can but w/o magic [...]

Yes, but Muggles need machines to keep going, while wizards just need a
wand to sort out most problems, and that makes them less vulnerable.
But then I was wondering (I'm aware that's probably been asked a million
times, but the FAQ's say I can ask it anyway, so there :P), while wizards
and witches seem to just magick things from thin air, they apparently can't
conjure anything they like (or the Weasleys wouldn't have money problems,
would they?), so is there some sort of restriction, and what is it? Do you
need an actual back-up or something?

Very few wizards have anything like the power of Harry or Voldemort.

We don't know that Harry is anything special in any area except flying
and DADA...

Post by OrionCA
Many are little more than Squibs themselves.

...and there is no reason at all to assume this.

[OrionCA]

Post by Kish

Post by OrionCA
Very few wizards have anything like the power of Harry or Voldemort.

We don't know that Harry is anything special in any area except flying
and DADA...

He dueled Voldemort and lived - it wasn't just the "brother wands"
that saved him. He was able by force of will to force back the beam
from the Dark Lord's wand and cause IT to discharge all its recently
cast spells. Had Voldemort been stronger it would have been Harry's
wand that downloaded. Also he was able to resist the Imperious Curse,
both cast by Barry Crouch Jr and Voldemort.

Post by Kish

Post by OrionCA
Many are little more than Squibs themselves.

...and there is no reason at all to assume this.

The fact that Muggles don't cower and cringe at the feet of their
Wizard masters tends to support this notion. More direct evidence in
the form of Crabb and Goyle exists - they're good at Menacing and
Looming Ominously but apparently very little else. it's considered
quite an achievement for a student to get all 12 OWLs. We've met at
least 2 Squibs so far in the series. And someone please explain how
if Nick was such a great and powerful wizard from Gryffindor House he
managed to get his head 97.4% chopped off?

--
I'm on a journey in search of myself.
If I get back first, let me know that I'm
looking for myself and don't let me leave.

[Lalwen]

Post by OrionCA

Post by Kish

Post by OrionCA
Many are little more than Squibs themselves.

...and there is no reason at all to assume this.

The fact that Muggles don't cower and cringe at the feet of their
Wizard masters tends to support this notion.

Well, wizards *want* to remain hidden from the non-magical people, and
wanting to avoid this could be one of the reasons -- I don't think most of
the wizards would be interested in having Muggles cringe at their feet.

Post by OrionCA
More direct evidence in
the form of Crabb and Goyle exists - they're good at Menacing and
Looming Ominously but apparently very little else. [...]

I'm not sure about this -- I remember Harry, Ron and Hermione hoping that
one of them Crabbe-Goyle had failed the exams as he was pretty bad, but
they didn't mention the other one so we could assume he's OK.
But then I can't remember which book this was in ^^ I will have to check.

[richard e white]

Post by Lalwen

Post by OrionCA

Post by Kish

Post by OrionCA
Many are little more than Squibs themselves.

...and there is no reason at all to assume this.

The fact that Muggles don't cower and cringe at the feet of their
Wizard masters tends to support this notion.

Well, wizards *want* to remain hidden from the non-magical people, and
wanting to avoid this could be one of the reasons -- I don't think most of
the wizards would be interested in having Muggles cringe at their feet.

Post by OrionCA
More direct evidence in
the form of Crabb and Goyle exists - they're good at Menacing and
Looming Ominously but apparently very little else. [...]

I'm not sure about this -- I remember Harry, Ron and Hermione hoping that
one of them Crabbe-Goyle had failed the exams as he was pretty bad, but
they didn't mention the other one so we could assume he's OK.
But then I can't remember which book this was in ^^ I will have to check.

It is in the end of book one.

Post by Lalwen
--
'All the higher life forms scythed away, just like that.'
'Terrible.'
'Nothing but dust and fundamentalists.'

--
Richard The Blind Typer
Lets Hear It For Talking Computers.

[Richard Eney]

Post by richard e white

Post by Lalwen

Post by OrionCA

Post by Kish

Post by OrionCA
Many are little more than Squibs themselves.

...and there is no reason at all to assume this.

The fact that Muggles don't cower and cringe at the feet of their
Wizard masters tends to support this notion.

Well, wizards *want* to remain hidden from the non-magical people, and
wanting to avoid this could be one of the reasons -- I don't think most of
the wizards would be interested in having Muggles cringe at their feet.

The statue implies that they want admiring glances more than cringing.

Post by richard e white

Post by Lalwen

Post by OrionCA
More direct evidence in
the form of Crabb and Goyle exists - they're good at Menacing and
Looming Ominously but apparently very little else. [...]

I'm not sure about this -- I remember Harry, Ron and Hermione hoping that
one of them Crabbe-Goyle had failed the exams as he was pretty bad, but
they didn't mention the other one so we could assume he's OK.
But then I can't remember which book this was in - I will have to
check.

It is in the end of book one.

The fact that Crabbe and Goyle are still at school implies, to me, that it
is next to impossible to flunk out of Hogwarts under Dumbledore's rules.
(It probably was possible before he took over. On the other hand, Crabbe
Sr and Goyle Sr apparently made it through and are officially wizards.)
Instead, students are given every chance to suddenly become late-bloomers
who catch up quickly. Neville may be a case in point; he did all right,
but I think he'll suddenly do much better in the sixth book. I do think
it's possible to be expelled for misbehavior, but even there I think
Dumbledore prefers to give students every possible chance.

The fact that some wizards work as bus drivers, seamstresses, etc, implies
to me that there is a wide spectrum of talent, just as there is a wide
spectrum of talent in all other human abilities.

=Tamar

[Lalwen]

Post by Richard Eney

Post by richard e white

Post by Lalwen
Well, wizards *want* to remain hidden from the non-magical people, and
wanting to avoid this could be one of the reasons -- I don't think most of
the wizards would be interested in having Muggles cringe at their feet.

The statue implies that they want admiring glances more than cringing.

I think the general attitude towards Muggles is more like a sort of
slightly annoyed / slightly amused tolerance rather than desire to rule
them - in fact, the only people I recall acting towards Muggles as if they
were inferior and not worth of respect, were Death Eaters. ^^

Post by Richard Eney

Post by richard e white

Post by Lalwen
I'm not sure about this -- I remember Harry, Ron and Hermione hoping that
one of them Crabbe-Goyle had failed the exams as he was pretty bad, but
they didn't mention the other one so we could assume he's OK.
But then I can't remember which book this was in - I will have to
check.

It is in the end of book one.

The fact that Crabbe and Goyle are still at school implies, to me, that it
is next to impossible to flunk out of Hogwarts under Dumbledore's rules. [...]

Not only are they still at school but they also passed their exams.
Marcus Flint did repeat a year (JKR did admit that it was a mistake of
hers, but that implies nonetheless that you CAN fail the exams).

Post by Richard Eney
The fact that some wizards work as bus drivers, seamstresses, etc, implies
to me that there is a wide spectrum of talent, just as there is a wide
spectrum of talent in all other human abilities.

Yes, I agree with that :)

[richard e white]

Post by OrionCA
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 11:46:31 GMT, Lalwen

Post by Lalwen

[...] Muggles may be superior to wizards in the end. They can already do
just about everything wizards can but w/o magic [...]

Yes, but Muggles need machines to keep going, while wizards just need a
wand to sort out most problems, and that makes them less vulnerable.
But then I was wondering (I'm aware that's probably been asked a million
times, but the FAQ's say I can ask it anyway, so there :P), while wizards
and witches seem to just magick things from thin air, they apparently can't
conjure anything they like (or the Weasleys wouldn't have money problems,
would they?), so is there some sort of restriction, and what is it? Do you
need an actual back-up or something?

Very few wizards have anything like the power of Harry or Voldemort.
Many are little more than Squibs themselves. "Having a wand" is about
as much an indicator of future success as having a high school diploma
- or a car, if you want to put it in those terms.
--
I'm on a journey in search of myself.
If I get back first, let me know that I'm
looking for myself and don't let me leave.

I think it takes power and skill to do them. But from what we have seen so far
I think only the ones takeing the newt level have the skill. And then there is
the other bit I mentioned in the other post.

--
Richard The Blind Typer
Lets Hear It For Talking Computers.

[Lalwen]

Post by OrionCA

Post by Lalwen
Yes, but Muggles need machines to keep going, while wizards just need a
wand to sort out most problems, and that makes them less vulnerable.

Very few wizards have anything like the power of Harry or Voldemort.
Many are little more than Squibs themselves. "Having a wand" is about
as much an indicator of future success as having a high school diploma
- or a car, if you want to put it in those terms.

Are they? I don't recall having come across much wizards like this in the
books (even in Neville Longbottom's case, his low magical abilities were
mostly due to a lack of self-confidence), but I may be wrong.
Anyway I wasn't talking about having to face great challenges like Harry's,
but simple everyday matters: the Muggles may be able to do most things the
wizards do, but I don't see how this makes them superior to wizards, as it
is more difficult to do things without magic and, most of all, wizards can
*also* do things in the usual way ^^

[Richard Eney]

Post by Lalwen

[name-lost wrote]

Post by Lalwen
Yes, but Muggles need machines to keep going, while wizards just need a
wand to sort out most problems, and that makes them less vulnerable.

Very few wizards have anything like the power of Harry or Voldemort.
Many are little more than Squibs themselves. "Having a wand" is about
as much an indicator of future success as having a high school diploma
- or a car, if you want to put it in those terms.

Are they? I don't recall having come across much wizards like this in the
books (even in Neville Longbottom's case, his low magical abilities were
mostly due to a lack of self-confidence), but I may be wrong.

Stan the bus conductor, and Ernie the bus driver, don't seem all that
talented. The bartender, the wizard who runs an ice cream shop, the witch
who does dressmaking... it seems as though every single thing they do
requires learning a separate spell, instead of being able to take one
spell and adapt it to different things.

Post by Lalwen
Anyway I wasn't talking about having to face great challenges like
Harry's, but simple everyday matters: the Muggles may be able to do most
things the wizards do, but I don't see how this makes them superior to
wizards, as it is more difficult to do things without magic and, most of
all, wizards can *also* do things in the usual way

It doesn't make them superior. But it seems that most wizards refuse to
learn to do things the usual way even though it might be faster and
actually easier than learning the spell method. (I'm not sure why
Hermione's knitting magic doesn't produce better quality than she can do
by hand - maybe for certain handicrafts you can only magically produce the
results at your real level of skill, saving time but that's all.)

The twins even commented that most wizards didn't think it was worth the
effort to learn a non-magical way of doing things, but they had found it
useful. Because of the prejudice against anything non-magical, if an
average wizard's wand is taken away, he is unlikely to be able to live
like a muggle without special remedial training, not just in choosing
clothing but in how to light a match, cook breakfast, clean house, etc.

A muggle-born with wizard potential only takes a little training to begin
learning to control their magic. Hermione learned to do spells before she
ever had personal training by buying a wand and reading her lesson books.
Arthur Weasley might have to take a two week training course to learn to
light a campfire with a match, and I get the impression that most wizards
would starve before they'd even try.

As I see it, the only superiority, if there is any, is that the average
muggle in the books may be more willing to learn something new than
the average wizard is.

=Tamar

[Lalwen]

Post by Richard Eney

Post by Lalwen
Are they? I don't recall having come across much wizards like this in the
books (even in Neville Longbottom's case, his low magical abilities were
mostly due to a lack of self-confidence), but I may be wrong.

Stan the bus conductor, and Ernie the bus driver, don't seem all that
talented. The bartender, the wizard who runs an ice cream shop, the witch
who does dressmaking...

Surely some wizards are less talented than others, but maybe some have
chosen their job because they just like it this way :)
It's not necessarily the better people who get the better jobs - this
happens in the Muggle world, and in the wizarding world too, judging by
some of the people who work at the Ministry.

[SNIP]

Post by Richard Eney
As I see it, the only superiority, if there is any, is that the average
muggle in the books may be more willing to learn something new than
the average wizard is.

Mmmm... I partially agree, but I think that the fact that the [what a
horrible sentence I've written here...] Muggle-borns that we know and who
were introduced to the magical world are kids may be of some relevance: in
my opinion that makes them a lot more "open" towards the concept of
magic... Kids don't have convictions and habits as strong as adults have.
If we were to put a forty-year-old Muggle in a magical situation, I doubt
he'd adapt as quickly as, say, Hermione. ^^

[Richard Eney]

<snip>

Post by Lalwen

Post by Richard Eney
As I see it, the only superiority, if there is any, is that the average
muggle in the books may be more willing to learn something new than
the average wizard is.

Mmmm... I partially agree, but I think that the fact that the [what a
horrible sentence I've written here...] Muggle-borns that we know and who
in my opinion that makes them a lot more "open" towards the concept of
magic... Kids don't have convictions and habits as strong as adults have.
If we were to put a forty-year-old Muggle in a magical situation, I doubt
he'd adapt as quickly as, say, Hermione.

True, older people in general tend to be more set in their ways, almost
as set in their ways as a two-year-old who won't take a bath unless he
has his rubber ducky with the worn spot on one side.

Like most other generalizations, there would be individuals who didn't
fit the pattern, and age does usually make a difference. Still, I've met
teens who would react like Uncle Vernon, and I've met sixty-year-olds
whom I believe would take to magic as though they were raised in a
magical family.

=Tamar

[richard e white]

Post by Lalwen

[...] Muggles may be superior to wizards in the end. They can already do
just about everything wizards can but w/o magic [...]

Yes, but Muggles need machines to keep going, while wizards just need a
wand to sort out most problems, and that makes them less vulnerable.
But then I was wondering (I'm aware that's probably been asked a million
times, but the FAQ's say I can ask it anyway, so there :P), while wizards
and witches seem to just magick things from thin air, they apparently can't
conjure anything they like (or the Weasleys wouldn't have money problems,
would they?), so is there some sort of restriction, and what is it? Do you
need an actual back-up or something?
PS: I'm new, my name is Erika, I'm Italian and my English... Well, let's
say it could be lots better (and it would still suck :P). I hope you will
have the patience to read anyway! :)
--
'All the higher life forms scythed away, just like that.'
'Terrible.'
'Nothing but dust and fundamentalists.'

There is a limint. JKR said in an interview that the things that are conjured
only last for a while then disapear. So if you conjure up a set of clothes
they will disapear after a while. She did not say how well the magical people
can tell when it is about to go a way. but everything we have seen so far is
only used for a short time.
It is the same with tranformation as well. Turn a rock into a bed and most
likely at some time dureing the night it pops back into a rock. ever sence she
said this I wounder how fast it pops back. Like does the wizard or witch
suddenly fall to the ground after the change back or is it slow? I would guess
that sence the change was fast the first time it would be as fast the 2nd time.

But I keep thinking of all the young witches and wizards trying it for a while
and then giveing up and going out and buying the stuff.
the one area that this seams like it might be of use is you change that small
portion of food into a large feast. then after you eat it it changes back.
you eat a lot of food and stick to your diet.
And why does there seam to be a joke there that the twins or some one else
might use?


--
Richard The Blind Typer
Lets Hear It For Talking Computers.

[tuxgeo]

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 11:46:31 GMT, Lalwen

Post by Lalwen

[...] Muggles may be superior to wizards in the end. They can already do
just about everything wizards can but w/o magic [...]

Yes, but Muggles need machines to keep going, while wizards just need a
wand to sort out most problems, and that makes them less vulnerable.
But then I was wondering (I'm aware that's probably been asked a million
times, but the FAQ's say I can ask it anyway, so there :P), while wizards
and witches seem to just magick things from thin air, they apparently can't
conjure anything they like (or the Weasleys wouldn't have money problems,
would they?), so is there some sort of restriction, and what is it? Do you
need an actual back-up or something?
PS: I'm new, my name is Erika, I'm Italian and my English... Well, let's
say it could be lots better (and it would still suck :P). I hope you will
have the patience to read anyway! :)

Hi Erika,
Welcome (belatedly) to the alt.fan.harry-potter virtual common room.

Troels has recently posted his generic Welcome message, and I would
like to concur with the sentiments expressed therein:
Have a great time here! The rest of us are generally a friendly bunch,
and we hope that your participation in this group is a rewarding
experience for you.

Don't worry about your English. Your English is fine. In fact,
it is better than the English of some posters for whom English is
their first language.

[Lalwen]

[...] Muggles may be superior to wizards in the end. They can already do
just about everything wizards can but w/o magic [...]

Yes, but Muggles need machines to keep going, while wizards just need a
wand to sort out most problems, and that makes them less vulnerable.

But then I was wondering (I'm aware that's probably been asked a million
times, but the FAQ's say I can ask it anyway, so there :P), while wizards
and witches seem to just magick things from thin air, they apparently can't
conjure anything they like (or the Weasleys wouldn't have money problems,
would they?), so is there some sort of restriction, and what is it? Do you
need an actual back-up or something?

PS: I'm new, my name is Erika, I'm Italian and my English... Well, let's
say it could be lots better (and it would still suck :P). I hope you will
have the patience to read anyway! :)

[gjw]

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 12:50:50 GMT, Lalwen

Post by Lalwen
But then I was wondering (I'm aware that's probably been asked a million
times, but the FAQ's say I can ask it anyway, so there :P), while wizards
and witches seem to just magick things from thin air, they apparently can't
conjure anything they like (or the Weasleys wouldn't have money problems,
would they?), so is there some sort of restriction, and what is it? Do you
need an actual back-up or something?

Rowling has never completely explained this to my satisfaction, but
she has said that things summoned up by magic don't last very long.

[Lalwen]

Post by gjw

Post by Lalwen
so is there some sort of restriction, and what is it? Do you
need an actual back-up or something?

Rowling has never completely explained this to my satisfaction, but
she has said that things summoned up by magic don't last very long.

Well, it surely makes more sense this way! I didn't know that. ^^
But then again, in COS McGonagall conjures a plate of sandwiches for Harry
and Ron to eat, I don't suppose they vanished in their stomachs...?
Or maybe she didn't conjure them, she merely tranfered them from the
kitchens to her office... Ah well.

[Fab]

Post by Lalwen
Well, it surely makes more sense this way! I didn't know that. ^^
But then again, in COS McGonagall conjures a plate of sandwiches for Harry
and Ron to eat, I don't suppose they vanished in their stomachs...?
Or maybe she didn't conjure them, she merely tranfered them from the
kitchens to her office... Ah well.

We don't find out that the food is sent by house-elves til the fourth book,
correct? We see things as Harry sees them, so he'd come to the conclusion,
imnho, that she conjured them because that's how it appears to him.

Fab

New boards are up: http://www.fabsboards.com

[gjw]

Post by Fab

Post by Lalwen
Well, it surely makes more sense this way! I didn't know that. ^^
But then again, in COS McGonagall conjures a plate of sandwiches for Harry
and Ron to eat, I don't suppose they vanished in their stomachs...?
Or maybe she didn't conjure them, she merely tranfered them from the
kitchens to her office... Ah well.

We don't find out that the food is sent by house-elves til the fourth book,
correct? We see things as Harry sees them, so he'd come to the conclusion,
imnho, that she conjured them because that's how it appears to him.

On the other hand, they seem to create chairs out of nothing, and the
chairs seem to work perfectly well for as long as they need them, and
then are made to vanish. Obviously, conjured-up items last for a
reasonable amount of time (at least several hours, I would assume,
perhaps days). Granted, this wouldn't work well with a permanent,
essential item such as a house, but how many other items do we actualy
need to be permanent? With most items, we only need them when we use
them, then we put them away. It should be simple enough for wizards to
conjur up most of the items they need, use them, let them vanish until
they are once again needed. Some magical items probably can't be
conjured (such as wands), because they require special skills to make
them. But most basic Muggle items should be easy to produce only when
needed.

[Richard Eney]

Post by gjw

Post by Fab

Post by Lalwen
But then again, in COS McGonagall conjures a plate of sandwiches for Harry
and Ron to eat, I don't suppose they vanished in their stomachs...?
Or maybe she didn't conjure them, she merely tranfered them from the
kitchens to her office... Ah well.

We don't find out that the food is sent by house-elves til the fourth book,
correct? We see things as Harry sees them, so he'd come to the conclusion,
imnho, that she conjured them because that's how it appears to him.

On the other hand, they seem to create chairs out of nothing, and the
chairs seem to work perfectly well for as long as they need them, and
then are made to vanish. Obviously, conjured-up items last for a
reasonable amount of time (at least several hours, I would assume,
perhaps days). Granted, this wouldn't work well with a permanent,
essential item such as a house, but how many other items do we actualy
need to be permanent? With most items, we only need them when we use
them, then we put them away. It should be simple enough for wizards to
conjur up most of the items they need, use them, let them vanish until
they are once again needed. Some magical items probably can't be
conjured (such as wands), because they require special skills to make
them. But most basic Muggle items should be easy to produce only when
needed.

Oh, wouldn't that be handy. The ultimate efficiency apartment - no need
to fold the bed into the wall, just make it disappear. Same with the
dining table, ironing board, etc. But the bookshelves have to be
permanent! Still, the books could be stored somewhere and just called
into the reading area when wanted - as long as you remember which books
you own, anyway.

=Tamar

[richard e white]

Post by Richard Eney

Post by gjw

Post by Fab

Post by Lalwen
But then again, in COS McGonagall conjures a plate of sandwiches for Harry
and Ron to eat, I don't suppose they vanished in their stomachs...?
Or maybe she didn't conjure them, she merely tranfered them from the
kitchens to her office... Ah well.

We don't find out that the food is sent by house-elves til the fourth book,
correct? We see things as Harry sees them, so he'd come to the conclusion,
imnho, that she conjured them because that's how it appears to him.

On the other hand, they seem to create chairs out of nothing, and the
chairs seem to work perfectly well for as long as they need them, and
then are made to vanish. Obviously, conjured-up items last for a
reasonable amount of time (at least several hours, I would assume,
perhaps days). Granted, this wouldn't work well with a permanent,
essential item such as a house, but how many other items do we actualy
need to be permanent? With most items, we only need them when we use
them, then we put them away. It should be simple enough for wizards to
conjur up most of the items they need, use them, let them vanish until
they are once again needed. Some magical items probably can't be
conjured (such as wands), because they require special skills to make
them. But most basic Muggle items should be easy to produce only when
needed.

Oh, wouldn't that be handy. The ultimate efficiency apartment - no need
to fold the bed into the wall, just make it disappear. Same with the
dining table, ironing board, etc. But the bookshelves have to be
permanent! Still, the books could be stored somewhere and just called
into the reading area when wanted - as long as you remember which books
you own, anyway.
=Tamar

It would be nice. but what is the longest we have seen an item stay?
I can't remember a long time so far. The hearing was not all that long. And
nither was the time mr W or Maggoneical did it. Now that I think about it I
think Mister W stayed the longest. at least if they where there the hole time
the kids visted him in the hospital. And I know that they have not shown
anything staying over 6 to 8 hours. So I would not do blankets or beds or
anything like that. But there would be things like the torches in the garden
dureing the out door meal that fit this bill and I think they where conjured up.
So there are sometimes that is what they do.


--
Richard The Blind Typer
Lets Hear It For Talking Computers.

[richard e white]

Post by gjw

Post by Fab

Post by Lalwen
Well, it surely makes more sense this way! I didn't know that. ^^
But then again, in COS McGonagall conjures a plate of sandwiches for Harry
and Ron to eat, I don't suppose they vanished in their stomachs...?
Or maybe she didn't conjure them, she merely tranfered them from the
kitchens to her office... Ah well.

We don't find out that the food is sent by house-elves til the fourth book,
correct? We see things as Harry sees them, so he'd come to the conclusion,
imnho, that she conjured them because that's how it appears to him.

On the other hand, they seem to create chairs out of nothing, and the
chairs seem to work perfectly well for as long as they need them, and
then are made to vanish. Obviously, conjured-up items last for a
reasonable amount of time (at least several hours, I would assume,
perhaps days). Granted, this wouldn't work well with a permanent,
essential item such as a house, but how many other items do we actualy
need to be permanent? With most items, we only need them when we use
them, then we put them away. It should be simple enough for wizards to
conjur up most of the items they need, use them, let them vanish until
they are once again needed. Some magical items probably can't be
conjured (such as wands), because they require special skills to make
them. But most basic Muggle items should be easy to produce only when
needed.

So far we have seen two people that are of a high lebel doing that and one that
we don't know how good he was. We don't know what level of spells thoes are.
but so far we have not seen them and we have seen most of the spells up to 5
year. That would seam to me to point out that conjured up items is above 5th
year and that means that not all of the magical folk have that spell.
True it may be that we just where not shown that spell but I think it is in newt
charms.
But yes there are some that have that skill and power. But most don't seam to
have it.


--
Richard The Blind Typer
Lets Hear It For Talking Computers.

[richard e white]

Post by Lalwen

Post by gjw

Post by Lalwen
so is there some sort of restriction, and what is it? Do you
need an actual back-up or something?

Rowling has never completely explained this to my satisfaction, but
she has said that things summoned up by magic don't last very long.

Well, it surely makes more sense this way! I didn't know that. ^^
But then again, in COS McGonagall conjures a plate of sandwiches for Harry
and Ron to eat, I don't suppose they vanished in their stomachs...?
Or maybe she didn't conjure them, she merely tranfered them from the
kitchens to her office... Ah well.
--
'All the higher life forms scythed away, just like that.'
'Terrible.'
'Nothing but dust and fundamentalists.'

I belive the sandwitches where being made by the house elfs and it was only
telling the plate where to go that she did there. Just like the house
tables. They seam to be made so the ones in the kitchens are where the elfs
put it and only the sending to the great hall is done by magic.
unless the food is also magicly keeped hot and ready to eat while DD talks.


--
Richard The Blind Typer
Lets Hear It For Talking Computers.

[LittleGreyPoodle]

See below....

Post by Suzi2kids
Is there a point at which the descendents of muggle-borns become recognized
as full-blooded wizards?
If Hermione were to marry a pureblood, her offspring would be half-blood.
Then, let's say, that child marries a
pureblood, that offspring would be a quarterblood. Repeat again, it would
be eighthblood, repeat again
sixteenthblood, etc. After, say 10 or 20 generations, do you suppose that
little bit of muggle would still
show up on genealogy charts? Do you suppose there is an agency that keeps
track of this sort of thing?
Perhaps that's what a squib really is - a muggle "throwback" born into a
so-called pureblood family (after
the time that the muggle/wizard liaison was forgotten about).

Spoilers, just in case:



10



9



8



7




6



5



4



3



2




1



Doesn't one of the characters (Sirius? Mrs. Weasley?) basically say this in
the fifth book? That there really isn't anything as a true "pureblood,"
because if you go back far enough, you'll find some Muggle blood in the
line.

Any discussion about Muggle or pureblood superiority is just prejudice,
plain and simple.

[Louis Epstein]

Post by Suzi2kids
Is there a point at which the descendents of muggle-borns become
recognized as full-blooded wizards?
If Hermione were to marry a pureblood, her offspring would be
half-blood. Then, let's say, that child marries a pureblood, that
offspring would be a quarterblood. Repeat again, it would be
eighthblood, repeat again sixteenthblood, etc.

Er...in terms of being pureblood WIZARD,you have it exactly
backwards.

Pureblood + half-blood=three-quarters-blood
Pureblood + three-quarters-blood=seven-eighths-blood
etc.

Post by Suzi2kids
After, say 10 or 20 generations, do you suppose that little bit of
muggle would still show up on genealogy charts? Do you suppose there is
an agency that keeps track of this sort of thing?

It's important to realize that if you go back far enough
NO ONE has entirely "xxx" ancestors at every remove,
whether xxx is wizard,muggle,white,black,noble,common,
or whatever.

"Pureblood" is only an approximation no matter what those
who care represent it as being.

Post by Suzi2kids
Perhaps that's what a squib really is - a muggle "throwback" born into
a so-called pureblood family (after the time that the muggle/wizard
liaison was forgotten about).

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

[Suzi2kids]

Post by Louis Epstein

Post by Suzi2kids
Is there a point at which the descendents of muggle-borns become
recognized as full-blooded wizards?
If Hermione were to marry a pureblood, her offspring would be
half-blood. Then, let's say, that child marries a pureblood, that
offspring would be a quarterblood. Repeat again, it would be
eighthblood, repeat again sixteenthblood, etc.

Er...in terms of being pureblood WIZARD,you have it exactly
backwards.

How do I have it backwards? Your examples below are correct, but completely
different from what I had mentioned. My example, with Hermione, didn't
include a half-blood (as your first example does). Hermione has two muggle
parents.

Post by Louis Epstein
Pureblood + half-blood=three-quarters-blood
Pureblood + three-quarters-blood=seven-eighths-blood
etc.

Post by Suzi2kids
After, say 10 or 20 generations, do you suppose that little bit of
muggle would still show up on genealogy charts? Do you suppose there is
an agency that keeps track of this sort of thing?

It's important to realize that if you go back far enough
NO ONE has entirely "xxx" ancestors at every remove,
whether xxx is wizard,muggle,white,black,noble,common,
or whatever.
"Pureblood" is only an approximation no matter what those
who care represent it as being.

That's what I was pondering. There really is no such thing as pure, but
there is some arbitrary genealogical line (decided upon, individually or
collectively, by those who care ) that demarcates "pure" vs. "muddied".

Post by Louis Epstein

Post by Suzi2kids
Perhaps that's what a squib really is - a muggle "throwback" born into
a so-called pureblood family (after the time that the muggle/wizard
liaison was forgotten about).

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

[Louis Epstein]

Post by Suzi2kids

Post by Louis Epstein

Post by Suzi2kids
Is there a point at which the descendents of muggle-borns become
recognized as full-blooded wizards?
If Hermione were to marry a pureblood, her offspring would be
half-blood. Then, let's say, that child marries a pureblood, that
offspring would be a quarterblood. Repeat again, it would be
eighthblood, repeat again sixteenthblood, etc.

Er...in terms of being pureblood WIZARD,you have it exactly
backwards.

How do I have it backwards?

Because you use the percentage of muggle ancestry to
describe the percentage of non-muggle ancestry...
referring to the 3/4-wizard as 1/4,the 7/8 wizard
as 1/8,et cetera.

Post by Suzi2kids
Your examples below are correct, but completely different from what I
had mentioned. My example, with Hermione, didn't include a half-blood
(as your first example does). Hermione has two muggle parents.

Post by Louis Epstein
Pureblood + half-blood=three-quarters-blood
Pureblood + three-quarters-blood=seven-eighths-blood
etc.
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

[Dark Magic]

"Suzi2kids" <***@verizon.net> wrote in message news:3an4d.170$***@trnddc05...
Is there a point at which the descendents of muggle-borns become recognized as full-blooded wizards?

Yes, I would imagine so. For example, I am primarily of European lineage, but my great, great-grandmother was a Huron. Now just to look at me you'd swear I just stepped off the Irish coast. Whatever Native American blood still runs in my veins has long since been discolored by my Celtic ancestry. I wouldn't ever mark Native American on a box asking about race even though technically I guess I could.

But if you look at it from a rights of primogeniture point of view, all it takes is a drop of the right blood to make one an heir to the throne. Provided nobody else has more drops of royal blood than you do. So supposing the Huron's were looking for a tribal princess (which they wouldn't be since they are disbanded now) and I could prove that my great, great-grandmother was a shaman and I was her only descendent I suppose I would qualify.

If Hermione were to marry a pureblood, her offspring would be half-blood. Then, let's say, that child marries a pureblood, that offspring would be a quarterblood. Repeat again, it would be eighthblood, repeat again sixteenthblood, etc. After, say 10 or 20 generations, do you suppose that little bit of muggle would still show up on genealogy charts? Do you suppose there is an agency that keeps track of this sort of thing?

If there is an agency that keeps track of that sort of thing, certainly muggle ancestry would show up. No matter how many generations have passed. Dumbledore seems fairly certain of the fact that Voldemort is Slytherin's only heir and I presume he has some basis for that assumption.

Of course there are plenty of variables that Dumbledore couldn't possibly account for, illegitimate births for example. I doubt he was hand-cuffed to Salazar Slytherin a thousand years ago and knows for a fact every single person he ever had sex with.

Perhaps that's what a squib really is - a muggle "throwback" born into a so-called pureblood family (after the time that the muggle/wizard liaison was forgotten about).

I have another crazy theory for everyone to scoff at, and it's this: Magic isn't genetic. It isn't about your family or your blood type, it's about what you believe. Squibbs are people from prominently magical families who doubt their magical abilities to the extent that they cannot perform.

Muggles are people who simply don't believe in magic, or don't want to believe in it. Vernon and Petunia won't even *discuss* it. Harry does magic and does it well because nobody ever told him he couldn't. Neville, on the other hand, has difficulty with it because he's always comparing himself to others in his family who are better at it than he is. Ditto with Ron. People like Filch are too self-concious and bitter to believe in themselves. They'd rather blame others for what they can't do than try to figure out how to do what they want.

Shannon

[FRED ZICARD]

=A0
"Suzi2kids" <***@verizon.net> wrote in message news:3an4d.170$***@trnddc05...
Is there a point at which the descendents of muggle-borns become
recognized as full-blooded wizards?
=A0
Yes, I would imagine so.=A0 For example, I am primarily of European
lineage, but my great, great-grandmother was a Huron.=A0 Now just to
look at me you'd swear I just stepped off the Irish coast.=A0 Whatever
Native American blood still runs in my veins has long since been
discolored by my Celtic ancestry.=A0 I wouldn't ever mark Native
American on a box asking about race even though technically I guess I
could.
=A0
But if you look at it=A0from a rights of primogeniture point of view,
all it takes is a drop of the right blood to make one an heir to the
throne.=A0 Provided nobody else has more drops of royal blood than you
do.=A0 So supposing the Huron's were looking for a tribal princess
(which they wouldn't be since they are disbanded now) and I could prove
that my great, great-grandmother was a shaman and I was her only
descendent I suppose I would qualify.
=A0
If Hermione were to marry a pureblood, her offspring would be
half-blood.=A0 Then, let's say, that child marries a pureblood, that
offspring would be a quarterblood.=A0 Repeat again, it would be
eighthblood, repeat again sixteenthblood, etc.=A0 After, say 10 or 20
generations, do you suppose that little bit of muggle would still show
up on genealogy charts?=A0 Do you suppose there is an agency that keeps
track of this sort of thing?=A0
=A0
If there is an agency that keeps track of that sort of thing, certainly
muggle ancestry would=A0show up.=A0 No matter how many generations have
passed.=A0 Dumbledore seems fairly certain of the fact that Voldemort is
Slytherin's only heir and I presume he has some basis for that
assumption.=A0
=A0
Of course there are plenty of variables that Dumbledore couldn't
possibly account for, illegitimate births for example.=A0 I doubt he was
hand-cuffed to Salazar Slytherin a thousand years ago and knows for a
fact every single person he ever had sex with.
=A0
Perhaps that's what a squib really is - a muggle "throwback" born into a
so-called pureblood family (after the time that the muggle/wizard
liaison=A0was forgotten about).
=A0
I have another crazy theory for everyone to scoff at, and it's this:=A0
Magic isn't genetic.=A0 It isn't about your family or your blood type,
it's about what you believe.=A0 Squibbs are people from prominently
magical families who doubt their magical abilities to the extent that
they cannot perform.=A0
=A0
Muggles are people who simply don't believe in magic, or don't want to
believe in it.=A0 Vernon and Petunia won't even *discuss* it.=A0 Harry
does magic and does it well because nobody ever told him he couldn't.=A0
Neville, on the other hand, has difficulty with it because he's always
comparing himself to others in his family who are better at it than he
is.=A0 Ditto with Ron.=A0=A0 People like Filch are too self-concious and
bitter to believe in themselves.=A0 They'd rather blame others for what
they can't do than try to figure out how to do what they want.
=A0
Shannon
=
=
=
Um,
Neville's difficulty with magic arises more from the fact he's so scared
of Snape than anything else.

[Tom A.]

Post by Suzi2kids
Is there a point at which the descendents of muggle-borns become
recognized as full-blooded wizards?

<snip>

Post by Suzi2kids
If Hermione were to marry a pureblood, her offspring would be
half-blood.

Not to throw sand in the geers (well, maybe a little) I would consider
the offspring of a wizard or witch who married a muggle to be half-blood
(like Voldemort, but not like Harry who's both parents did magic.)
Thus, the rest of the powers of 1/2 listed are all screwed up, too.

Post by Suzi2kids
Then, let's say, that child marries a pureblood, that
offspring would be a quarterblood. Repeat again, it would be
eighthblood, repeat again sixteenthblood, etc. After, say 10 or 20
generations, do you suppose that little bit of muggle would still show
up on genealogy charts? Do you suppose there is an agency that keeps
track of this sort of thing?

Those wizarding families that care do it themselves, it seems. At least
we haven't heard of an outside agency.

Post by Suzi2kids
Perhaps that's what a squib really is - a muggle "throwback" born into a
so-called pureblood family (after the time that the muggle/wizard
liaison was forgotten about).
Magic isn't genetic.

OK. Scoff!
<gary owens> But seriously, folks </gary owens>

Post by Suzi2kids
It isn't about your family or your blood type,
it's about what you believe. Squibbs are people from prominently
magical families who doubt their magical abilities to the extent that
they cannot perform.
Muggles are people who simply don't believe in magic, or don't want to
believe in it. Vernon and Petunia won't even *discuss* it. Harry
does magic and does it well because nobody ever told him he couldn't.

I disagree. I'm sure Dudley was never told he couldn't, either, and (at
least in the movie) Harry certainly was told that magic didn't exist.

Post by Suzi2kids
Neville, on the other hand, has difficulty with it because he's always
comparing himself to others in his family who are better at it than he
is. Ditto with Ron. People like Filch are too self-concious and
bitter to believe in themselves. They'd rather blame others for what
they can't do than try to figure out how to do what they want.

Again, I disagree. Filch probably didn't start out believing that he
couldn't do magic; long experience, and a lot of money spent on
Learn-Spells-By-Mail (Well, it worked for Eglantine Price (Angela
Lansberry) in _Bedknobs and Broomstics_) may have convinced him, but as
recently as a few years ago, he was still trying.

I think, while the abililty to do magic is inherent (thus genetic?), it
takes skill. Just because all kids can run, not all will be able to
learn the skills to be world class (American? soccer : football ) player.

Post by Suzi2kids
Shannon
Um,
Neville's difficulty with magic arises more from the fact he's so scared
of Snape than anything else.

Tom A.

[Dark Magic]

Post by Tom A.

Post by Dark Magic
Magic isn't genetic.

OK. Scoff!
<gary owens> But seriously, folks </gary owens>

Post by Dark Magic
It isn't about your family or your blood type,
it's about what you believe. Squibbs are people from prominently
magical families who doubt their magical abilities to the extent that
they cannot perform.
Muggles are people who simply don't believe in magic, or don't want to
believe in it. Vernon and Petunia won't even *discuss* it. Harry
does magic and does it well because nobody ever told him he couldn't.

I disagree. I'm sure Dudley was never told he couldn't, either, and (at
least in the movie) Harry certainly was told that magic didn't exist.

No, Petunia and Vernon are quite aware of the fact that magic does exist.
They persist in telling Harry that's unnatural and wrong, but only after
he's already learned he can use it.

Post by Tom A.

Post by Dark Magic
Neville, on the other hand, has difficulty with it because he's always
comparing himself to others in his family who are better at it than he
is. Ditto with Ron. People like Filch are too self-concious and
bitter to believe in themselves. They'd rather blame others for what
they can't do than try to figure out how to do what they want.

Again, I disagree. Filch probably didn't start out believing that he
couldn't do magic; long experience, and a lot of money spent on
Learn-Spells-By-Mail (Well, it worked for Eglantine Price (Angela
Lansberry) in _Bedknobs and Broomstics_) may have convinced him, but as
recently as a few years ago, he was still trying.

But he has no confidence in himself. All the self-help books in the world
aren't going to work for him until he does.

Post by Tom A.
I think, while the abililty to do magic is inherent (thus genetic?), it
takes skill. Just because all kids can run, not all will be able to
learn the skills to be world class (American? soccer : football ) player.

I disagree. The magic is there whether it's realized or not, but only
believers can use it.
Um,

Post by Tom A.

Post by Dark Magic
Neville's difficulty with magic arises more from the fact he's so scared
of Snape than anything else.

Um...that doesn't explain all the difficulty Neville has with all of his
other subjects, except for Herbology.

Shannon

[Fab]

Post by Dark Magic
Um,

Post by FRED ZICARD
Neville's difficulty with magic arises more from the fact he's so scared
of Snape than anything else.

Um...that doesn't explain all the difficulty Neville has with all of his
other subjects, except for Herbology.
Shannon

Herbology and Potions don't require wands. Neville's too emotionally
distraught to pull it together properly in Potions because of his fear of the
sweet, kind and gentle Professor Snape.

OOTP spoiler:

Stop

reading

now

if

you

haven't

read

it.

It is revealed that Neville is using his father's wand. We know, as readers,
that someone else's wand will never work as well as the wand that "chooses
you". Since Neville's too upset to excel at Potions and doesn't have his own
wand to focus his magickal energy, Herbology shows up as his strength - no wand
is needed (usually, usually), and Professor Sprout doesn't scare the bejabbers
out of him.

Fab

New boards are up: http://www.fabsboards.com

[Richard Eney]

Post by Fab

Post by Dark Magic

Post by FRED ZICARD
Neville's difficulty with magic arises more from the fact he's
so scared of Snape than anything else.

Um...that doesn't explain all the difficulty Neville has with all
of his other subjects, except for Herbology.

Herbology and Potions don't require wands. Neville's too emotionally
distraught to pull it together properly in Potions because of his fear
of the sweet, kind and gentle Professor Snape.

OOTP spoiler:

Stop

reading

now

if

you

haven't

read

it.

Post by Fab
It is revealed that Neville is using his father's wand. We know, as
readers, that someone else's wand will never work as well as the wand
that "chooses you". Since Neville's too upset to excel at Potions and
doesn't have his own wand to focus his magickal energy, Herbology shows
up as his strength - no wand is needed (usually, usually), and Professor
Sprout doesn't scare the bejabbers out of him.

Agreed.

If Neville had been given a cat/kneazle or an owl instead of a toad and
then a plant, he might have gone for Care of Magical Creatures, which also
doesn't usually require a wand. Some of those plants make Hagrid's pets
look harmless.

Neville is a strength character; now that he's begun to show his true
courage, he'll be a warrior. I think he might be an Auror if he makes
it through the last book.

=Tamar

[richard e white]

Post by Fab

Post by Fab

Post by Dark Magic

Post by FRED ZICARD
Neville's difficulty with magic arises more from the fact he's
so scared of Snape than anything else.

Um...that doesn't explain all the difficulty Neville has with all
of his other subjects, except for Herbology.

Herbology and Potions don't require wands. Neville's too emotionally
distraught to pull it together properly in Potions because of his fear
of the sweet, kind and gentle Professor Snape.

Stop
reading
now
if
you
haven't
read
it.

Post by Fab
It is revealed that Neville is using his father's wand. We know, as
readers, that someone else's wand will never work as well as the wand
that "chooses you". Since Neville's too upset to excel at Potions and
doesn't have his own wand to focus his magickal energy, Herbology shows
up as his strength - no wand is needed (usually, usually), and Professor
Sprout doesn't scare the bejabbers out of him.

Agreed.
If Neville had been given a cat/kneazle or an owl instead of a toad and
then a plant, he might have gone for Care of Magical Creatures, which also
doesn't usually require a wand. Some of those plants make Hagrid's pets
look harmless.
Neville is a strength character; now that he's begun to show his true
courage, he'll be a warrior. I think he might be an Auror if he makes
it through the last book.
=Tamar

I still think that he will teach the DADA after the last book. Eirnei M is my
second guess.


--
Richard The Blind Typer
Lets Hear It For Talking Computers.

[Timothy Bruening]

Post by Fab

Post by Dark Magic
Um,

Post by FRED ZICARD
Neville's difficulty with magic arises more from the fact he's so scared
of Snape than anything else.

Um...that doesn't explain all the difficulty Neville has with all of his
other subjects, except for Herbology.
Shannon

Herbology and Potions don't require wands. Neville's too emotionally
distraught to pull it together properly in Potions because of his fear of the
sweet, kind and gentle Professor Snape.
Stop
reading
now
if
you
haven't
read
it.
It is revealed that Neville is using his father's wand. We know, as readers,
that someone else's wand will never work as well as the wand that "chooses
you". Since Neville's too upset to excel at Potions and doesn't have his own
wand to focus his magickal energy, Herbology shows up as his strength - no wand
is needed (usually, usually), and Professor Sprout doesn't scare the bejabbers
out of him.

Why doesn't Neville have his OWN wand? Surely his grandmother could afford to buy him a wand!

[Louis Epstein]

Post by FRED ZICARD
Um,
Neville's difficulty with magic arises more from the fact he's so scared
of Snape than anything else.

If that were the case,it wouldn't be something his relatives
were taking drastic measures about years before he likely met
or even heard of Snape!

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

[Mark Evans]

Post by Dark Magic
 
Of course there are plenty of variables that Dumbledore couldn't
possibly account for, illegitimate births for example.  I doubt he was

There's also the kind of "editing" which pureblood families get up to.
Dumbledore could know about Tom's mother since he could easily have
taught her. But would he know about a "blood traitor" in the Slytherin
line centuries before his own birth. A witch marrying the "wrong" person
would have a different surname. A wizard finding himself at odds with
his family might well change his name.

Post by Dark Magic
hand-cuffed to Salazar Slytherin a thousand years ago and knows for a
fact every single person he ever had sex with.

Let alone his children and grandchildren^X .

[Dark Magic]

Post by Mark Evans

Post by Dark Magic
Of course there are plenty of variables that Dumbledore couldn't
possibly account for, illegitimate births for example. I doubt he was

There's also the kind of "editing" which pureblood families get up to.
Dumbledore could know about Tom's mother since he could easily have
taught her.

Possibly. However I doubt very much that Dumbledore has intimate sexual
knowledge of all of his students. I mean it's true that Tom Riddle married
a witch, but is it true that he's the father of her child? Dumbledore
wouldn't know that. Only Tom Riddles mothers knows for sure, and she's
dead.

But would he know about a "blood traitor" in the Slytherin

Post by Mark Evans
line centuries before his own birth. A witch marrying the "wrong" person
would have a different surname. A wizard finding himself at odds with
his family might well change his name.

A lot of these things are possible, of course. And what are the chances
that over one thousand years magical people not only inter-married with
Muggles but with other people from other countries and cultures as well.
Dean Thomas is apparently of African descent, Parvati would seem to be
Indian, I doubt that Dumbledore has access to family trees that branch off
into different continents.

Shannon

[Mark Evans]

Post by Dark Magic

Post by Mark Evans

Post by Dark Magic
Of course there are plenty of variables that Dumbledore couldn't
possibly account for, illegitimate births for example. I doubt he was

There's also the kind of "editing" which pureblood families get up to.
Dumbledore could know about Tom's mother since he could easily have
taught her.

Possibly. However I doubt very much that Dumbledore has intimate sexual
knowledge of all of his students. I mean it's true that Tom Riddle married

Students do manage to hide things from Dumbledore even now he is
headmaster, thus likely to have greater resources to find out what
students are up to than when he was the Transfiguration Professor.

Post by Dark Magic
a witch, but is it true that he's the father of her child? Dumbledore
wouldn't know that. Only Tom Riddles mothers knows for sure, and she's
dead.

There are even possible senarios where she wouldn't know for sure.

Post by Dark Magic
But would he know about a "blood traitor" in the Slytherin

Post by Mark Evans
line centuries before his own birth. A witch marrying the "wrong" person
would have a different surname. A wizard finding himself at odds with
his family might well change his name.

A lot of these things are possible, of course. And what are the chances
that over one thousand years magical people not only inter-married with
Muggles but with other people from other countries and cultures as well.
Dean Thomas is apparently of African descent, Parvati would seem to be

Apparently all people are of "African descent" anyway there have been
dark skinned people in Britain since at least Roman times.

[Dark Magic]

Post by Mark Evans

Post by Dark Magic
A lot of these things are possible, of course. And what are the chances
that over one thousand years magical people not only inter-married with
Muggles but with other people from other countries and cultures as well.
Dean Thomas is apparently of African descent, Parvati would seem to be

Apparently all people are of "African descent" anyway

Eh. That's one current theory, anyway. But not relevant to the point I
was making. The history we know about at Hogwarts only goes back 1000
years. A veritable speck on the fabric of humanity in time.

there have been

Post by Mark Evans
dark skinned people in Britain since at least Roman times.

It is my impression that Dean isn't just "dark-skinned", but that Rowling
has said in an interview, or possibly even in one of the books, can't
remember, that he is supposed to be African. As Cho Chang is supposedly
Asian, and Parvati/Padma are Indian, etc.....My point being, of course, that
Dumbledore would need to know a whole lot of geneology to track the magical
pedigrees of peoples on every continent.

Shannon

[John Fisher]

Post by Dark Magic
It is my impression that Dean isn't just "dark-skinned", but that Rowling
has said in an interview, or possibly even in one of the books, can't
remember, that he is supposed to be African.

I think his background is Caribbean. In the UK, "African" usually
refers to someone whose background is on the African continent itself.
The difference is quite important culturally.

[Dark Magic]

Post by John Fisher

Post by Dark Magic
It is my impression that Dean isn't just "dark-skinned", but that Rowling
has said in an interview, or possibly even in one of the books, can't
remember, that he is supposed to be African.

I think his background is Caribbean. In the UK, "African" usually
refers to someone whose background is on the African continent itself.
The difference is quite important culturally.

I thought I read she said specifically "African". but at any rate the
Caribbean is a long way off from Great Britain. Really my whole point is
simply that I don't see how it would be possible to track the geneology of
so many culturally diverse people. Unless, as someone pointed out, it's
done "magically", which I guess is another serious privacy issue the
magicals haven't gotten around to dealing with yet. ;)

Shannon>

[richard e white]

Post by gjw

Post by John Fisher

Post by Dark Magic
It is my impression that Dean isn't just "dark-skinned", but that

Rowling

Post by John Fisher

Post by Dark Magic
has said in an interview, or possibly even in one of the books, can't
remember, that he is supposed to be African.

I think his background is Caribbean. In the UK, "African" usually
refers to someone whose background is on the African continent itself.
The difference is quite important culturally.

I thought I read she said specifically "African". but at any rate the
Caribbean is a long way off from Great Britain. Really my whole point is
simply that I don't see how it would be possible to track the geneology of
so many culturally diverse people. Unless, as someone pointed out, it's
done "magically", which I guess is another serious privacy issue the
magicals haven't gotten around to dealing with yet. ;)
Shannon>

I bet there are also a few people that hide there birth parentage by magic.
I would not be surprised to learn that V was doing this.

--
Richard The Blind Typer
Lets Hear It For Talking Computers.

[richard e white]

Post by Dark Magic

Post by Mark Evans

Post by Dark Magic
A lot of these things are possible, of course. And what are the chances
that over one thousand years magical people not only inter-married with
Muggles but with other people from other countries and cultures as well.
Dean Thomas is apparently of African descent, Parvati would seem to be

Apparently all people are of "African descent" anyway

Eh. That's one current theory, anyway. But not relevant to the point I
was making. The history we know about at Hogwarts only goes back 1000
years. A veritable speck on the fabric of humanity in time.
there have been

Post by Mark Evans
dark skinned people in Britain since at least Roman times.

It is my impression that Dean isn't just "dark-skinned", but that Rowling
has said in an interview, or possibly even in one of the books, can't
remember, that he is supposed to be African. As Cho Chang is supposedly
Asian, and Parvati/Padma are Indian, etc.....

It was in the paragraf that Bloomsberry removed that said he was African. But
JKR talked about this when some one asked if the US publisher had turned him
into a African for better sales. But I am not sure witch interview it was.

Post by Dark Magic
My point being, of course, that Dumbledore would need to know a whole lot of
geneology to track the magical
pedigrees of peoples on every continent.
Shannon

Unles there is a spell to do it and with all the purebloods worring about it I
would not be sureprised if there was such a spell.


--
Richard The Blind Typer
Lets Hear It For Talking Computers.

[Toon]

Post by Dark Magic
 
Of course there are plenty of variables that Dumbledore couldn't
possibly account for, illegitimate births for example.  I doubt he was

Well, if he checks the book that records all the magical babies, he
could know.
---
SOS - Save Our Shemione. Help Support And Link To:
http://www.anzwers.org/free/shemione/index.html
--

[Richard Eney]

Post by Toon

Post by Dark Magic
 
Of course there are plenty of variables that Dumbledore couldn't
possibly account for, illegitimate births for example.  I doubt he was

Well, if he checks the book that records all the magical babies, he
could know.

Unless they're born outside the range of the magic quill.
Does the quill does a "back up and insert new name" if
someone moves into the country with a magical child?
Logically it ought to.

But an out-of-range birth, followed by a long series of squibs who lose
the knowledge that they were ever related to wizards could produce a
throwback (born outside the range again) who might move to the UK
after the age of 11, when the quill's spell might assume that the
child had either begun school or was being home-schooled. That could
give you an untrained magical person.

=Tamar

[richard e white]

Post by Richard Eney

Post by Toon

Post by Dark Magic
Of course there are plenty of variables that Dumbledore couldn't
possibly account for, illegitimate births for example. I doubt he was

Well, if he checks the book that records all the magical babies, he
could know.

Unless they're born outside the range of the magic quill.
Does the quill does a "back up and insert new name" if
someone moves into the country with a magical child?
Logically it ought to.
But an out-of-range birth, followed by a long series of squibs who lose
the knowledge that they were ever related to wizards could produce a
throwback (born outside the range again) who might move to the UK
after the age of 11, when the quill's spell might assume that the
child had either begun school or was being home-schooled. That could
give you an untrained magical person.
=Tamar

I would guess that the place where he was born would contact the locol people
and tell them.
Then again may be some one who is born in England and then moves to Japan
still gets a hogwarts letter.
If that does happen I feel sorry for the poor owl that gets that job.


--
Richard The Blind Typer
Lets Hear It For Talking Computers.

[drusilla]

Post by richard e white

Post by Richard Eney

Post by Toon

Post by Dark Magic
Of course there are plenty of variables that Dumbledore couldn't
possibly account for, illegitimate births for example. I doubt he was

Well, if he checks the book that records all the magical babies, he
could know.

Unless they're born outside the range of the magic quill.
Does the quill does a "back up and insert new name" if
someone moves into the country with a magical child?
Logically it ought to.
But an out-of-range birth, followed by a long series of squibs who lose
the knowledge that they were ever related to wizards could produce a
throwback (born outside the range again) who might move to the UK
after the age of 11, when the quill's spell might assume that the
child had either begun school or was being home-schooled. That could
give you an untrained magical person.
=Tamar

I would guess that the place where he was born would contact the locol people
and tell them.
Then again may be some one who is born in England and then moves to Japan
still gets a hogwarts letter.
If that does happen I feel sorry for the poor owl that gets that job.

They must have other ways for people who live in other countries besides the owls.

[richard e white]

Post by drusilla

Post by richard e white

Post by Richard Eney

Post by Toon

Post by Dark Magic
Of course there are plenty of variables that Dumbledore couldn't
possibly account for, illegitimate births for example. I doubt he was

Well, if he checks the book that records all the magical babies, he
could know.

Unless they're born outside the range of the magic quill.
Does the quill does a "back up and insert new name" if
someone moves into the country with a magical child?
Logically it ought to.
But an out-of-range birth, followed by a long series of squibs who lose
the knowledge that they were ever related to wizards could produce a
throwback (born outside the range again) who might move to the UK
after the age of 11, when the quill's spell might assume that the
child had either begun school or was being home-schooled. That could
give you an untrained magical person.
=Tamar

I would guess that the place where he was born would contact the locol people
and tell them.
Then again may be some one who is born in England and then moves to Japan
still gets a hogwarts letter.
If that does happen I feel sorry for the poor owl that gets that job.

They must have other ways for people who live in other countries besides the owls.

I rather think that the diffrent magical goverments do this by talking to each other. I
truely think that a wizard born in england and then moved to Japan would get a letter from
a local school there. But I am only guessing.
We have no idea as to how well wizards keep track of the comeing and goings of there
magical people.


--
Richard The Blind Typer
Lets Hear It For Talking Computers.

[richard e white]

Post by Suzi2kids
the descendents of muggle-borns become recognized as
full-blooded wizards? Yes, I would imagine so. For example,
I am primarily of European lineage, but my great,
great-grandmother was a Huron. Now just to look at me you'd
swear I just stepped off the Irish coast. Whatever Native
American blood still runs in my veins has long since been
discolored by my Celtic ancestry. I wouldn't ever mark
Native American on a box asking about race even though
technically I guess I could. But if you look at it from a
rights of primogeniture point of view, all it takes is a
drop of the right blood to make one an heir to the throne.
Provided nobody else has more drops of royal blood than you
do. So supposing the Huron's were looking for a tribal
princess (which they wouldn't be since they are disbanded
now) and I could prove that my great, great-grandmother was
a shaman and I was her only descendent I suppose I would
qualify. If Hermione were to marry a pureblood, her
offspring would be half-blood. Then, let's say, that child
marries a pureblood, that offspring would be a
quarterblood. Repeat again, it would be eighthblood, repeat
again sixteenthblood, etc. After, say 10 or 20 generations,
do you suppose that little bit of muggle would still show up
on genealogy charts? Do you suppose there is an agency that
keeps track of this sort of thing? If there is an agency
that keeps track of that sort of thing, certainly muggle
ancestry would show up. No matter how many generations have
passed.
I would expect that you are right about this. As here in
the USA there are people that keep track of indean blood.
My dad was the last one who they would except as being of
the indean blood. But oddly nither my dad or my grand
father ever tryed to belisted.
Also take earni he said that you could trace his pureblood
back 6 generations. ever think why he has to stop at 6?
Dumbledore seems fairly certain of the fact that Voldemort
is Slytherin's only heir and I presume he has some basis for
that assumption. Of course there are plenty of variables
that Dumbledore couldn't possibly account for, illegitimate
births for example. I doubt he was hand-cuffed to Salazar
Slytherin a thousand years ago and knows for a fact every
single person he ever had sex with.
That would depend on what kind of spells they have to trace
such things down.
Perhaps that's what a squib really is - a muggle
"throwback" born into a so-called pureblood family (after
the time that the muggle/wizard liaison was forgotten
about). I have another crazy theory for everyone to scoff
at, and it's this: Magic isn't genetic. It isn't about
your family or your blood type, it's about what you
believe. Squibbs are people from prominently magical
families who doubt their magical abilities to the extent
that they cannot perform. Muggles are people who simply
don't believe in magic, or don't want to believe in it.
Vernon and Petunia won't even *discuss* it. Harry does
magic and does it well because nobody ever told him he
couldn't. Neville, on the other hand, has difficulty with
it because he's always comparing himself to others in his
family who are better at it than he is. Ditto with Ron.
People like Filch are too self-concious and bitter to
believe in themselves. They'd rather blame others for what
they can't do than try to figure out how to do what they
want.
Intresting thought. How do you get this to work with the
thing JKR said about a person is either born a muggle or a
witch or wizard?
Not trying to shoot holes here. Just trying to see how well
it fits.
I gave up trying to understand this sort of thing until JKR
releases the rules that she did for magic. She said she
wrote them down, but I don't think we will see them until
after book 7.

--
Richard The Blind Typer
Lets Hear It For Talking Computers.

[Richard Eney]

In article <ncCdnTuHvKixnc7cRVn-***@comcast.com>,
Dark Magic <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>

Post by Suzi2kids
If Hermione were to marry a pureblood, her offspring would be
half-blood. Then, let's say, that child marries a pureblood, that
offspring would be a quarterblood. Repeat again, it would be
eighthblood, repeat again sixteenthblood, etc.

The semantic problem I see is that you are using terminology based on how
much _muggle_ blood is in a person, rather than how much _wizard_ blood is
in them. The wizards use terminology based on wizard blood because that's
the significant factor that they are emphasizing.

A parallel formation: alcoholic beverages are described by the percentage
of alcohol in them, not by the percentage of non-alcoholic ingredients,
because it's the alcohol that counts. So beer might be 3% alcohol; it
would not be described as 97%. A wizard that was the descendant of a
halfblood and a pureblood would be a three-quarter-blood, because they
would be 75% wizard.

(The old racist formulas described people according to their non-white
heritage because that was the significant factor.)

Post by Suzi2kids
After, say 10 or 20
generations, do you suppose that little bit of muggle would still show
up on genealogy charts? Do you suppose there is an agency that keeps
track of this sort of thing?
If there is an agency that keeps track of that sort of thing,
certainly muggle ancestry would show up. No matter how many generations
have passed. Dumbledore seems fairly certain of the fact that Voldemort
is Slytherin's only heir and I presume he has some basis for that
assumption.
Of course there are plenty of variables that Dumbledore couldn't
possibly account for, illegitimate births for example. I doubt he was
hand-cuffed to Salazar Slytherin a thousand years ago and knows for a
fact every single person he ever had sex with.

There's a magic quill that can record any magical child born within a
certain rather large geographical area, and it's been working for hundreds
of years. It may have been working since Hogwarts was founded; we don't
know. There may be a genealogical quill somewhere that checks for all
magical descendants, or for all descendants, of a given person.

=Tamar

[Troels Forchhammer]

Post by Richard Eney

Post by Suzi2kids
If Hermione were to marry a pureblood, her offspring would be
half-blood. Then, let's say, that child marries a pureblood, that
offspring would be a quarterblood.

[...]

Post by Richard Eney
The semantic problem I see is that you are using terminology based
on how much _muggle_ blood is in a person, rather than how much
_wizard_ blood is in them. The wizards use terminology based on
wizard blood because that's the significant factor that they are
emphasizing.

[...]

Post by Richard Eney
(The old racist formulas described people according to their
non-white heritage because that was the significant factor.)

I suppose that the same could be said to be true in the magical
community, where the pure blood is the 'default' (though a little
minority, it appears) assumption, and the degree of non-wizard blood
(or, to the bigoted mind, the degree of contamination) is the
interesting, or significant, factor in the equation.

It is, however, clear that the magical community doesn't look into
further divisions than pure, half and non-magical blood. I'm not sure
how far we should take Rowling's statement on her site that she "was
chilled to see that the Nazis used precisely the same warped logic as
the Death Eaters." Anyway the Nazi definition of "jewish" changed in
time so that at the end they went several generations back (I don't
recall how many, exactly) when determining whether someone was jewish.

In a community where people live much longer than Muggles, I don't
think it would make much sense to accept a witch or a wizard as pure-
blood if their Muggle-born great-grandmother is still living in good
health.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>

Taking fun
as simply fun
and earnestness
in earnest
shows how thouroughly
thou none
of the two
discernest.

[Richard Eney]

Post by Troels Forchhammer

Post by Richard Eney

Post by Suzi2kids
If Hermione were to marry a pureblood, her offspring would be
half-blood. Then, let's say, that child marries a pureblood, that
offspring would be a quarterblood.

[...]

Post by Richard Eney
The semantic problem I see is that you are using terminology based
on how much _muggle_ blood is in a person, rather than how much
_wizard_ blood is in them. The wizards use terminology based on
wizard blood because that's the significant factor that they are
emphasizing.

[...]

Post by Richard Eney
(The old racist formulas described people according to their
non-white heritage because that was the significant factor.)

I suppose that the same could be said to be true in the magical
community, where the pure blood is the 'default' (though a little
minority, it appears) assumption, and the degree of non-wizard blood
(or, to the bigoted mind, the degree of contamination) is the
interesting, or significant, factor in the equation.
It is, however, clear that the magical community doesn't look into
further divisions than pure, half and non-magical blood.

True, so far I don't recall any examples of fractions under one half.

I could even see both systems in use at the same time, by different
groups: pureblood fanatics counting fractions down to "one-164th Muggle"
(where the fraction measured is the muggle blood), and mixed ancestry
wannabe types proudly proclaiming their 15% wizard ancestry (where the
fraction measured is the wizard blood).

<snip>

Post by Troels Forchhammer
In a community where people live much longer than Muggles, I don't
think it would make much sense to accept a witch or a wizard as pure-
blood if their Muggle-born great-grandmother is still living in good
health.

If you use the original simplistic definition of "offspring of a wizard
and a witch", then even a muggle grandmother wouldn't make any difference
- if both parents are magical, the child is pureblood.

=Tamar

[Troels Forchhammer]

<snip>

Post by Richard Eney
I could even see both systems in use at the same time, by
different groups: pureblood fanatics counting fractions down to
"one-164th Muggle" (where the fraction measured is the muggle
blood), and mixed ancestry wannabe types proudly proclaiming their
15% wizard ancestry (where the fraction measured is the wizard
blood).

I like that ;-)

And they could be accepting people as 'pure-bloods' at different
points: the oldest families (the Blacks, the Malfoys etc.) counting
1/128th Muggle blood as still being 'half-blood' and the most tolerant
perhaps counting 3/4 wizard blood as pure (with the majority of wizards
using a standard somewhere in between -- in many cases depending on the
mix of their own blood).

<snip>

[Antti V V Vierikko]

Post by Troels Forchhammer
the oldest families (the Blacks, the Malfoys etc.) counting
1/128th Muggle blood as still being 'half-blood' and the most tolerant
perhaps counting 3/4 wizard blood as pure

I'd have thought the most tolerant would say "what does it matter,
anyway?"

[Richard Eney]

Post by Antti V V Vierikko

Post by Troels Forchhammer
the oldest families (the Blacks, the Malfoys etc.) counting
1/128th Muggle blood as still being 'half-blood' and the most tolerant
perhaps counting 3/4 wizard blood as pure

I'd have thought the most tolerant would say "what does it matter,
anyway?"

The fully tolerant scholarly nitpickers would say "it doesn't matter
in the real world, but it's my hobby."

=Tamar

[Damir Islamov]

Post by Suzi2kids
Is there a point at which the descendents of muggle-borns become

recognized as full-blooded wizards?

The 'pureblood award' is given out by the 'purebloods committee' only. If
they want to admit you then you are. If not they always will find mud in
blood. I'm afraid it' is Malfoy, Black&Co who have a decisive voice in that
matter.

Damir Islamov

[Electric Frog]

"Suzi2kids" <***@verizon.net> wrote in message news:3an4d.170$***@trnddc05...
Is there a point at which the descendents of muggle-borns become recognized as full-blooded wizards?

If Hermione were to marry a pureblood, her offspring would be half-blood. Then, let's say, that child marries a pureblood, that offspring would be a quarterblood. Repeat again, it would be eighthblood, repeat again sixteenthblood, etc. After, say 10 or 20 generations, do you suppose that little bit of muggle would still show up on genealogy charts? Do you suppose there is an agency that keeps track of this sort of thing?

Perhaps that's what a squib really is - a muggle "throwback" born into a so-called pureblood family (after the time that the muggle/wizard liaison was forgotten about).

Even if there wasn't an official MOM department tracking the bloodlines of Purebloods, then I'm sure an organization similar to "Burke's Peerage", would exist, publishing books charting the bloodlines of the "great and the good"

[drusilla]

Post by Suzi2kids
Is there a point at which the descendents of muggle-borns become
recognized as full-blooded wizards?
If Hermione were to marry a pureblood, her offspring would be
half-blood. Then, let's say, that child marries a pureblood, that
offspring would be a quarterblood. Repeat again, it would be
eighthblood, repeat again sixteenthblood, etc. After, say 10 or 20
generations, do you suppose that little bit of muggle would still show
up on genealogy charts? Do you suppose there is an agency that keeps
track of this sort of thing?

Not an agency, but maybe the Malfoys do keep a ttrack about that
stuff. Or the Blacks. I rmember a geneaolgy book in OotP, perhaps they
check there every time they meet a wizard/witch.

[Mark Evans]

Post by drusilla

Post by Suzi2kids
Is there a point at which the descendents of muggle-borns become
recognized as full-blooded wizards?
If Hermione were to marry a pureblood, her offspring would be
half-blood. Then, let's say, that child marries a pureblood, that
offspring would be a quarterblood. Repeat again, it would be
eighthblood, repeat again sixteenthblood, etc. After, say 10 or 20
generations, do you suppose that little bit of muggle would still show
up on genealogy charts? Do you suppose there is an agency that keeps
track of this sort of thing?

Not an agency, but maybe the Malfoys do keep a ttrack about that
stuff. Or the Blacks. I rmember a geneaolgy book in OotP, perhaps they

Thing is that they'll remove people not only for marrying the wrong
person, e.g. Andromeda. But also over family squabbles, e.g. Sirius.

Post by drusilla
check there every time they meet a wizard/witch.

[drusilla]

Post by Mark Evans

Post by drusilla

Post by Suzi2kids
Is there a point at which the descendents of muggle-borns become
recognized as full-blooded wizards?
If Hermione were to marry a pureblood, her offspring would be
half-blood. Then, let's say, that child marries a pureblood, that
offspring would be a quarterblood. Repeat again, it would be
eighthblood, repeat again sixteenthblood, etc. After, say 10 or 20
generations, do you suppose that little bit of muggle would still show
up on genealogy charts? Do you suppose there is an agency that keeps
track of this sort of thing?

Not an agency, but maybe the Malfoys do keep a ttrack about that
stuff. Or the Blacks. I rmember a geneaolgy book in OotP, perhaps they

Thing is that they'll remove people not only for marrying the wrong
person, e.g. Andromeda. But also over family squabbles, e.g. Sirius.

In the Blacks' case, that's how they kept track, isn't?

Post by Mark Evans

Post by drusilla
check there every time they meet a wizard/witch.