How did Ginny open the chamber?

[Sherry Garfio]

No: HPFGUIDX 46808

In reply to my previous post, Monika wrote:

> Riddle is clearly described as the only descendant 
> of Slytherin, though it's a bit impropable that Salazar had only one 
> descendant after 1000 years. Still, Riddle was sorted to Slytherin 
> House, and we do not know about any Weasley being anything other
than 
> Gryffindor.

Me:
Where is Riddle described as the only descendant?  I don't recall, and
as you say, I also thought it doubtful that Slytherin would have only
one descendant after so many generations, so I just assumed he would
have many, although it's possible that only one would be considered
his "heir".  In many societies, heir status always goes through the
first son, or some other defined protocol.  I was thinking that maybe
the Weasleys come from a different branch, perhaps one that deviated
from the ideals that Salazar held dear.  

As for all of the current Weasleys being Sorted into Gryffindor, in
GoF during the Sorting, when the trio are dreading the possibility of
having to put up with another Creevey in their house, it is made clear
that family members are *not* necessarily sorted into the same house. 
After so many generations of separation from Salazar himself, I don't
see why his descendants - especially if they are from a line that
rejected Salazar's ideals many generations back - couldn't be sorted
into another house. Riddle shared Salazar's views, and therefore went
into Slytherin House.  My view of the Sorting Hat is that it doesn't
know anything about descent (except in TMTMNBN-1: "Another Weasley - I
know just what to do with you!"), it Sorts people based on individual
merit.

Monika again:
> Harry didn't meet any Weasleys before he went to Hogwarts, so Malfoy 
> could not figure out that he'd be such a bossom friend of Ron's. 

Me again:
True, but during the first year, Voldemort was trying to come back via
the Philosopher's/Sorcerer's Stone.  If Lucius was aware of this,
which for the sake of arguing my case I'll say that he was, then by
using the diary at that point he would have risked messing up that
plot.  By the time the Stone is destroyed and that avenue is closed to
Voldemort, Harry and Ron are bosom buddies, so he uses Ginny. 

I said before:
> If it's only the 7th child, then that would explain why Parselmouth 
> is
> such a rare gift: it would only occur in one bloodline, and only 
> when
> someone in that bloodline has at least 7 children.

And Monika retorted:
> That would rather make Parseltongue nonexistent, not rare. 

Now me again:
Let me clarify my idea here.  I didn't mean to imply that *each
generation* in the line had to produce at least 7 offspring to pass on
the gift, only that Parselmouth would only occur in that 7th child. 
In other words, several generations of smaller families could go by,
but each would pass on the *potential* for a Parselmouth, until some
generation *did* produce 7 children, and that 7th child would be a
Parselmouth.  Now, 7 children is not an astonishing number, and it was
in fact quite common in days gone by for people to have large
families.  I would say that factors such as infant mortality would
have no effect on the gift - even if the 7th child was the *only* one
to survive past infancy, that child would still have the gift.  So no,
Parselmouths would not be nonexistent in the scenario I presented, but
they would be rare, much more rare today than in the days when large
families were the norm.

Monika continued:
> Well, Dickens was long dead before Riddle was born. If young Thomas 
> had 6 elder siblings and Riddles put them all in an orphanage just 
> because their father chose to get rid of his wife, I'm quite sure 
> we'd heard more about the elder Riddles that they were "most 
> unpopular", "snobbish and rude". One can pretend that his wife and 
> child died at birth, but it's impossible to get rid of 6 kids
without 
> rising considerable controversy.

Now me:
I didn't mean to imply that Riddle was a contemporary of Dickens; I
only mentioned him to illustrate my general ignorance of orphanages
(apparently I succeeded too well ;-)).  However, I do think of a
Dickens-style orphanage when I think of Tom Riddle's childhood.  It
wasn't that long ago that orphanages made no attempt to keep siblings
together, tell kids details of their dead parents' lives, or keep
heirlooms with them.  Orphans were seen as property with no owner, and
treated as such, often suffering great cruelty at the hands of their
caretakers.

As to the elder Riddles, I imagine a scenario where Tom Sr's parents
disliked his wife and disapproved of their marriage.  They pretty much
disowned him until he came to his senses and left that witch, along
with the little whelps she mothered.  They never spoke of their
grandchildren or their daughter-in-law to their friends and
associates, choosing instead to act as if they didn't exist.  Nobody
would comment on that because nobody would know about their dirty
little secret.  In short, I see Tom Jr's childhood as nothing but
suffering.  Nothing short of that could drive him to become Lord
Voldemort.  His Muggle father caused him so much pain that he devoted
his life to vengeance.  Once he discovered his Slytherin heritage (at
Hogwarts, I imagine), it was inevitable that he would follow in
Salazar's footsteps.

Audra, who mostly disagreed with my post, nevertheless offered further
support on this point, pointing out that an older Riddle child's
Hogwarts letter may have been what forced their mother to come clean
about being a witch.  Thanks, Audra, I didn't catch that one!

Monika again:
> Weasleys do not pretend that their squib cousin does not exist. They 
> keep enough touch with him to know what his job is, most likely they 
> know his family as well. If there was such a connection, Molly would 
> have certainly told Harry long ago that he an Ron are related.

No, they don't pretend he doesn't exist, Ron mentions him to Harry
very early in their friendship, IIRC.  However, he's very vague about
this cousin, which gave me the impression that he's a distant cousin,
someone that they just don't have much contact with.  I think Ron even
mentions where he lives - does anyone have the reference, along with a
little UK geography lesson for us Yanks?

In large families, it's not uncommon for people to lose track of who
is related to whom, especially if they live far apart.  Lily in turn
could be quite loosely related to the accountant.  The point I was
trying to make here was that if the Weasleys are Slytherin decendants,
and Lily is related to them, however loosely, then there is the
connection to Harry.  After 1000 years, after all, the family lines
would be quite diverse.  In any case, this part of my previous post
was something that occurred to me while I was composing the post, so
I'm not surprised if it doesn't hold water. ;->

In conclusion, I wrote:
> > Okay, you may now commence in blasting my theory.

And Monika replied:
> I hope it wasn't too bad :)
> Monika

No, it wasn't bad at all, and since I'm not entirely enamored of this
theory, I don't have a lot of ego investment in it ;-}.  This is the
closest thing I've had to an original theory so far (if someone else
has proposed it before me, I was unaware of it, so it's still an
original theory in that respect ;->).  In any case, I do so enjoy the
exchange of ideas that takes place here, and also having other people
force me to think these things through by challenging what I post.  I
have therefore resolved to be less cowardly about posting in the
future.

-Sherry (who is ever so disappointed that her favorite Weasley quote
did not appear in TMTMNBN-2)