A far-fetched analysis of the Prophecy

[Kirstini]

No: HPFGUIDX 69692

Hey Lissa,
I know I was a bit scornful last time you posted the theory, but 
I've just had a couple of thoughts about it this time round which 
won't...go...away...dammit, so I thought I'd post them up.

Loads of people have been posting in defense of Salazar, trying to 
make him out not to be such a racist, murderous bigot. The 
SYNCOPHANTS. Anyway, one of the claims raised was that Salazer 
wasn't *really* pure-blood crazy, because the Sorting Hat, which 
represents the Founders, put Tom Riddle into Slytherin (yes it did. 
Hagrid *says* so in PS. Stop arguing at the back), and because it 
considered putting Harry in too. Now, despite Lily herself being 
Muggle-born, Harry is able to answer "They were a witch and a 
wizard, if that's what you mean," when Draco asks "Were your parents 
the right sort?" in PS. The Potters appear to be quite a pure-blood 
family (ie anciently wizard), as are the Weasleys...yep, do you see 
where I'm going with this? Because all the Salazar apologists seem 
to forget that there is an eyewitness account of his behaviour:

"Why, *I was there* and so can tell
The whole sad, sorry tale.
Said Slytherin, 'We'll just teach those
Whose ancestry is purest.'/.../
For instance, Slytherin
Took *only* pure-blood wizards 
Of great cunning, just like him,"
(OoP, Bloomsbury,"The Sorting Hat's New Song", p185, emphasis my own)
(and then, as I observed the other day, he put an enormous killing 
snake in a chamber to get rid of the others. Sweet fellow)

So, why would a non pure-blood get into Slytherin? Would the very 
fact of being his heir be enough? Or how about the fact that, if one 
of his parents was a Weasley, the other a Potter, Tom Riddle would 
be considered pure-blood? Before everyone starts, I know that Harry 
himself isn't, technically. But by mixing Potter genes with Weasley 
genes (why did none of *them* marry Muggles, by the way?), I imagine 
that the blood would be technically "purer"(I'm very ready to be 
corrected on this one, as I'm absolutely terrible at sciencey stuff)
I presume, Lissa, that your claim that *Harry* and not *Ginny* is 
Slytherin's heir is substantiated by the fact that Riddle never knew 
his mother, and therefore presumes that she is the only magical one 
and that the blood was inherited that way. How do you explain his 
knowing that he's the heir at all, then?
Perhaps there's some sort of magical DNA punch-test you can 
do. "Hello Mr Riddle. O-negative, with a hint of murderous fascist." 
(I'm going to keep saying that until everyone agrees with me)

But the main problem I have with your theory rests in this aspect 
too, and it's the same problem that I have with the "Neville is the 
true Messiah" theories. Dumbledore makes a lot of the fact that 
Voldemort chose the non-pure-blood boy, as he was one himself. 
Voldemort with Muggle-blood is analogous to Hitler: his facism can 
be seen as a similarly externalised self-loathing to that which 
someone (probably answering one of Darrin's posts) pointed out in 
Snape's teaching skills yesterday. I think that to zoom in and 
say "Oh no, he was (relatively)pure-blooded after all" would be an 
ultimate denial of the series' anti-racism message; just as Neville 
turning out to be "the One" would deny that "yer don't have teh be a 
pure-blood" to succeed.

However, I thoroughly agree with Kneasy that yours is the only 
analysis that makes sense so far. Although it pains me...
Kirstini