Mudblood Definitions / Generations

[grey_wolf_c]

No: HPFGUIDX 34316

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Ronald Rae Yu <ickle_ronniekins at y...> wrote:
<snip: presentation of case>
> 
> Suppose a mudblood male (e.g. Justin) marries a
> mudblood female (e.g. Hermione, may not work out,
> though) and they have a child. If the child possesses
> magical powers, is he a pureblood or a mudblood? From
> Ron's definition we know that a mudblood has non-magic
> parents, so that makes the child NOT a mudblood. Is
> he/she then a pureblood? Calling him/her half-blood
> doesn't seem right.

Well, according to Tom Riddle, the son would be a half-blood. The case 
you are describing is Harry's, since his mother was a mudblood, and Tom 
said that both Harry and he were half-bloods, if I remember correctly. 
Since those terms are aminly used by people in Slytherin, I assume they 
would know about it.

> JKR's definition states that a
> mudblood must have a muggle parentage. Muggle is
> defined as someone without magic. So Hermione and
> Justin lose their 'muggleness'. If they are now
> wizards (not pureblood though) is any magical child of
> theirs a pureblood, then?

In theory, no, he/she wouldn't. The definition of pure-blood is more or 
less the definition of "noble" as used in the middle ages: you could be 
an old noble or a new noble (old nobles being "more noble" in their own 
eyes), and it took several generations to transform a new noble into an 
old one. It was bullsh*t anyway, as are the terms "mudblood", 
"half-blood" and "pureblood"

> What if our two mudbloods have a non-magical child? Is
> he/she a squib or just plain muggle? By definition
> he/she is a muggle. I don't know what the exact
> definition of a squib, though.

Again, you and I understand the terms differently. From my point of 
view, a squib is just a muggle that lives in the magical world, 
normally because he was born in a magical family. Thus, a non-magical 
son of two mudbloods would probably be raised to be a squib.
 
> Lastly, if two squibs have a child, is the child, by
> Ron's definition, a mudblood? If the child is magical,
> is he pureblood or still mudblood? If the child has no
> magic powers, is he still a. 

As long as the child can use magic, he'd probably be considered a 
mudblood, since his parents cannot use magic. If he had no powers, but 
was raised in the magic world, he would be a squib. If his parents 
moved to live in the muggle world, he would be a muggle.

> What do we make of
> squibs, anyway? Are they considered muggles, by
> definition? Are they considered wizards (they still
> have the potential for magic -- remember Kwikspell)?
> If squibs are muggles, is any nonmagical child of
> theirs still a squib?

Anyone has the potential to be a wizard. Whether that potential 
fullfils itself or not is what turns a muggle into a wizard. To be 
blunt about it, if you can do magic, you're a wizard. If you can't, 
you're a muggle. Mudblood, half-bloods and purebloods are a 
classification of wizards. Squib is a sub-group of muggles. They are 
all insults, so they're not clearly defined in any case (again, this is 
from MY point of view)
 
> Follow up: Can muggles learn magic through Kwikspell?
> 
> -Ron Yu

I've always had my doubts about Kwickspell. It looks too much like 
those comercials that promise to give you a liquid or something that 
will reduce your weight in 10 kg in 10 days. They NEVER work. I 
wouldn't be surprised if Kwickspell is similarly a fraud.

Anyway, to sum it all up, here are my own definitions of the terms 
discussed:

Pureblood: A wizard thet can follow his ascendants for several 
generations of wizards (to give a number, let's say 5-10 generations)

Half-blood: A wizard whose last 5-10 generations are not ALL wizards 
(that is, there is at least 1 muggle) (moderate insult)

Mudblood: A wizard son of two muggles (heavy insult)

Squib: A muggle that lives in the wizard world (moderate insult)

Hope that helps

Grey Wolf