[HPforGrownups] Harry and the Phoenix

[eloiseherisson at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 43481

Richelle:
> Now, theoretically, suppose Godric Gryffindor (approximately 1,000 years 
> ago, right?) had two children.  Child A and child B.  A and B both marry, 
> have children, etc.  Their children have children.  And so on, over a 
> thousand years.  Quite possibly both descendents of children A and B could 
> be heirs of Gryffindor and scarcely be related at all.  Now, suppose that 
> Dumbledore is a descendent of child A.  Suppose Harry is a descendent of 
> child B.  They are both then descended from Godric Gryffindor.  As would 
> many others be.  But what makes one person THE Heir of Gryffindor?  Blood?  
> Or choices?  By blood, many, many witches or wizards could be heirs of 
> Gryffindor, after a thousand years.  

Eloise:
Only if you take 'descendent' and 'heir' to be synonymous.
By blood, yes, logically there must be many descendents (this is what makes 
Dumbledore's statement that Vodemort is Slytherin's last remaining descendent 
so problematic), but in any generation, there is normally only one 'heir', in 
the sense of the person inheriting the legator's position, or role.
Otherwise, we'd have multiple monarchs, wouldn't we, although thousands of 
people tracing their family back far enough will find a link to the Royal 
Family somewhere.


Richelle:
(Unless, of course, Godric Gryffindor had only one child and each child after 
that > had only one child, which is doubtful after a thousand years).  

Eloise:
Which is the only way I can explain the 'last remaining descendent of 
Slytherin' thing.

Richelle:
Now, here is where I think the choices one makes comes into play.  Rather 
than > their being only one heir, after a thousand years, I believe the Heir 
> is chosen.  They must have the bloodline of Godric Gryffindor, but also 
> make the right choices in life.  Harry, for example, started making choices 
> as soon as he got on the train at King's Cross.  One example being "I think 
> I can tell who the wrong sort are for myself, thanks."   Another, Harry's 
> desperate plea with the sorting hat "Not Slytherin."  So that's where I 
> think the separation occurs.  The choices one makes in life thus determines 
> whether the *descendent* of Godric Gryffindor will be chosen as the *heir* 
> of Godric Gryffindor.  I think (I know, not many agree here) that 
> Dumbledore is the heir of Gryffindor and when he is gone, Harry will be 
> "the chosen one."  I think Fawkes is the symbolism for who is chosen.  
> Right now, he is with Dumbledore.  However, he's quite friendly with Harry. 
>  Sitting on his knee and all that.  Healing him, singing, etc.  Now, I 
> admit in the chamber of secrets if Fawkes *hadn't* healed Harry he'd be 
> dead, but in Dumbledore's office in GoF it wasn't totally necessary.  
> Fawkes was being nice, he likes Harry
.
Eloise:
But I like the idea that Harry is the 'chosen one'. We don't have to assume 
that in the WW, heirship is conferrred in the same way as in our culture.
When I was writing my previous paragraph about inheritance, I thought about 
the Anglo-Saxons, who didn't operate under the laws of primogeniture with 
which we are familiar. Under their property inheritance laws, the deceased's 
estate was split equally between the offspring, thus getting smaller and 
smaller with each generation. When it came to the inheritance of rank, or 
'kingship', a new leader would be chosen from within the deceased's 
offspring, family or even, sometimes from outside the family. It is therefore 
a system in operation at the time of Gryffindor himself.

I am not suggesting that Gryffindor's heir could be chosen by ballot, but I 
am uncomfortable with the idea of Harry triumphing because of his *blood* 
alone, which often seems to be implicit in the Gryffindor's heir argument and 
which seems to be out of kilter with the explicitly stated 'choices' theme. 
This, of course is not Voldemort's view. His descent from Slytherin through 
his mother seems to be crucial to his understanding of his role a Slytherin's 
heir. Yet no-one,as far as we know, until Riddle opened the Chamber despite 
the number of other descendents there must have been, so perhaps even here 
there is an element of choice in who is acknowledged as heir (by what 
authority, I don't know).

Perhaps Fawkes *is* the agent by whom the heirship is indicated.
You know, we went through a whole load of Christian parallels when we were 
exploring the Stoned!Harry thread. Whether or not the series is a Christian 
allegory (I'm not arguing that), there does seem to be a lort of borrowed 
imagery. Taking your theory, it makes the scene in the Chamber of Secrets 
reminiscent of Christ's baptism, Fawkes descending with Gryffindor's hat and 
sword paralleling the descent of the Holy Spirit as a dove and the voice 
saying 'This is my beloved son, with whom I am well pleased'. 

Eloise



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