[HPforGrownups] "yard" / Muggle money / "Ottery"

[eloiseherisson at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 42951

Steve:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., eloiseherisson at a... wrote:

Err.......no I didn't! I don't think I even quoted the bit below, or is that 
yours, Steve?

> 
> I have always assumed that the Muggles could see the Burrow. Would 
> the word "yard" really be used for a village square? That doesn't 
> seem right at all, but maybe that's my American way of thinking of 
> things coming through. 
> 
> There are a number of things to support this. As someone mentioned, 
> the Weasleys themselves are obviously visible from the village from 
> the Burrow since they have to be careful where they fly on 
> broomsticks. Also, Molly wouldn't have used the phrase "I don't 
> think he knows where it is" in reference to the postman if she knew 
> he couldn't see the place at all. On top of that, they take the 
> trouble to de-gnome the garden. In an interview, JKR said that one 
> of the problems with gnomes is that their holes are a dead giveaway 
> to Muggles that Wizards live there. I know they could be de-gnoming 
> on to save the plants or on general principals, but frankly, I don't 
> see them being all that particular about some lumpy patches in the 
> ground, judging by the boots lying around. 


Just for the record, my understanding is that the house has a yard (an area 
of hard standing or whatever and possibly home to the chicken coops, Arthur's 
shed, etc.) round the front and an area of grass, etc, round the back.
And no, a village square would *not* be called a yard.
And yes, I'm sure the house is physically findable by Muggles (the clear 
implication of the postman statement), only it's probably off down a track 
somewhere that no Muggles would normally go down.

Incidentally, I'm surprised that gnome holes really *are* a dead give away, 
since rabbits, foxes, and badgers all make holes and Muggles don't believe in 
the WW. Like the shrinking keys, surely they'd just find a rational 
explanation?
> 
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > And who paid for all this? 
> 
> I think the Ministry actually has quite a stash of Muggle money 
> around and it was this that the Weasleys tapped into. I've travelled 
> quite a bit and every time I'm in a foreign country I find it tricky 
> to keep a sense of how much the money is worth. I'm sure Molly 
> doesn't think of British pounds as money, really, so paying what we 
> would consider to be a vast sum for a taxi ride with cash that is 
> otherwise basically worthless to her would not be such a big deal. 
> I'm sure Arthur, as he hurried around getting ready to head for 
> Moody's house, had someone at the Ministry "apparate" a five or six 
> hundred pounds to the kitchen table for her to use.
> 
> There is the possibility that Molly simply conjured it up, and that 
> it vanished a couple of hours later, but that's blatant thievery and 
> it doesn't seem like something Molly would do.
> 


Do you think it was seen as a legitimate expense, then? That the Weasleys 
wouldn't have to pay it back?


OK. this bit *is* me (Eloise)

> 
> 
> > 
> > I have also used the Ottery St Mary analogy to suggest that Ottery 
> St 
> > Catchpole is somewhere in south Devon, but to be fair, we don't 
> actually 
> > *know* that it is. It's obviously the inspiration for the name, 
> but we don't 
> > know the location.
> 
> I don't think that Ottery St. Catchpole is Ottery St. Mary, since 
> that's a fairly large town. But because of the Ottery in the name, 
> it almost certainly has to be located along the Otter River, don't 
> you think? If it were a Wizarding village, I wouldn't be so certain 
> that they would follow naming conventions like that (although they 
> probably would). But since it's a Muggle town, wouldn't you say that 
> it's a sure thing? Are there examples of towns in Britain that 
> include the name of the river but AREN'T located along or near it?

No, I don't think it *is* Ottery St Mary, either, but the name is obviously 
an analogy to that.
I agree that it *should* be on the Otter. But I think part of the reason for 
the name is (my old theory that hardly anyone but Debbie supports) that it is 
because the Weasleys are named after Weasels, close relatives of stoats (as 
in Stoats Head Hill) and Otters. I'm not sure that might not have outweighed 
real Muggle geography. Just because Muggles use a particular convention in 
naming places does't *necessarily* mean that JKR would conform to that 
convention in naming a fictional place.
OTOH, I suppose she might have sorted out her fictional geography *before* 
naming the Weasleys.

Or....there might be another R.Otter!

We still have the problem of how they made it to the train on time from that 
distance.

Definitely fallible!Eloise
(who knows that her keys shrink and is now wondering just how those huge 
sections of road near here came to *collapse* into craters last year.)
> 
> 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]