The Heir of Gryffindor

[bboy_mn]

No: HPFGUIDX 41029

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "eledhwen_0" <slinkie at n...> wrote:
> Hi everyone!
> I have to say that I have a huge problem accepting all the Heir of 
> Gryffindor theories that are posted on the site because I find that 
> they contradict Dumbledore's speach about that it is our choices that 
> are important and that they define what we are, not to which family 
> we are born or what blood flows in our veins (he says something like 
> this to Fudge in the hospital wing in GoF, but i do not know the 
> excact wording since I do not have the books with me). To me that 
> seem to imply that being a certains persons heir does not mean that 
> you will save the world or something like that. I also think that 
> this statement ensures that Harry is not just important because he 
> belongs to the Potter family. I feel that he is special and important 
> for some reason, but not because of his blood since JKR has so 
> clearly stated that blood is not what makes a person important.
> I apologise if i have totally misunderstood (or even imagined parts) 
> of Dumbledores statement, but I do not have access to the books at 
> the moment. If im wrong I would appriciate if someone could set me 
> right. 
> Please share any critisism or opinions that you might have.

Dumbledore made two statements-

SS/PS
(approxiamtely) 'it's not your abilities but your actions' that
determine who you are.

GoF
speech related to the significants of the purity of blood - "... it
matters not how someone is born, but what they grow to be."

You can see that this doesn't quite match what you said, and you
admitted the you may have misread it, so it's no big deal.

I think your point is still valid, although justified using the wrong
references. Truly, being of 'noble' birth does not guarantee that you
are a 'noble' person. Half the kings, queens, and emporers of Europe
were psychotic.

On the other hand, through heredity, we do gain charactistics and
skills of our ancestors. Artitsts tend to run in familys; for example.
But being the son of an artist my no means guarantees you artistic
talent, but it does stack the odds in your favor.

As far as Harry being the heir to Grifffendor, I think he probably is,
and that is certainly a proud heritige to belong to, and it does come
with implied charactistics, but is by no means a certainty that he
will live up to those implications. 

I think that's why Dumbledore doesn't tell him. He wants Harry to
succeed on his own rather than assume his greatness based on who he is
related to. Also, Harry already has a massive 'legend' to live up to.
That's an aweful lot to ask of a little boy, and would be an even
heavier burden compounded by the 'legend' of Griffindor.

Fortunately, our dear sweet Harry would be happy to just be a kid. He
hates fame, and certain takes no pleasure in constantly be under
threat of death by a psychotic lizard man. 

"Hold on Harry; only two more books to go."

Another thing to keep in mind, with each marriage and new generation
the bloodline of the family name is thinned. I am half of my father,
my children will be 1/4 of my father, etc... Griffidor lived a 1,000
years ago, in reality his original characteristics have been
completely diluted out of the blood line. Before any genetics majors
jump on me, genetics in not linear; this is just intended to be an
illustration. 

BBOY_MN