Families: Purebloods and Half-Non Humans

[Grey Wolf]

No: HPFGUIDX 59296

Cassie wrote:
> What I am wondering is...if a person is half 
> wizard/half non human...are they considered fullbloods because they 
> have magical blood? And if not...how would those big on the whole 
> pureblood thing feel? 

IMO, those very keen on pureblood - like the Malfoys - will probably 
find half-breeds with any non-wizards discusting (although they might 
make exception with "interesting" half-breeds like half-Veelas). After 
all, to the likes of Malfoy, there is no difference between muggles and 
giants - both are basically subhuman in his eyes (IIRC - no canon handy 
- someone proposed muggles as a beasts for FB book).

Certainly Draco doesn't as much fear Hagrid because of his ascendency 
as think it disgusting. When push comes to shove, however, the whole 
pureblood concept is used as a form of racism, and racism doesn't need 
logic behind it. If they want to feel superior, they'll find reason to.

> And can two non-humans produce human children? (the same way two 
> muggles can produce a witch/wizard). 
>
> ~Cassie~

You mean, two giants produce a human? I doubt it. Muggles and wizards 
are the same species, like blonde and black haired people are the same 
species - magic ability is just a trait. But even if giants and humans 
and veelas are genetically compatible, that doesn't mean (in 
Potterverse) that they're the same species. Two giants will produce a 
giant.

Felinia Beauclerc wrote, in a similar subject:
> This whole issue of mudbloods, purebloods, what have you.
>
> 1)  What is the exact definition of each?

Pureblood: Wizards back as far as the memory can tell. Even if some 
records have to be conviniently rewritten. Just like the noble 
families, there is always a way of finding common people 10 generations 
back, but enough money would hide that.

Mudblood: Muggle parents.

Mixblood: somewhere in the middle

All of it is a little on the ridiculous side, though, as the books 
suggest, and the only reason is still around because some wizards feel 
the need to feel superior by using their ancestry to set a difference.

> I'd say the odds that there are *any* wizards who have totally pure, 
> wizard-only bloodlines that go back to the dawn of time (or even to 
> the time of Hogwarts' establishment) are vanishingly small.

Not necesarily. Wizards and muggles have kept apart, and thus there is 
good chances that certain family lines have interbreeded for the last 
20 generations. Yes, it is small, but not that small. After all, 
remember that wizards live twice as long as muggles, and thus their 
generations are much longer - only 20 generations since Hogwarts 
founding.

> I have a theory that, at some point, if there's only one Muggle 
> ancestor, it's basically considered to "fade back" if every line 
> since then is entirely wizard, or has the same degree of regression.

While it has been suggested before (canon: Hufflepuff's boy with 
"witches and wizards both sides for ten generations", CoS), I think 
this is overthinking the issue. Nothing in the books indicates the 
wizards have an established rule for turning from mixblood into 
pureblood. As long as you can go back a while and keep finding wizards, 
that's enough. As with noble families, it is more important that people 
believe you're pureblood than being really pureblood. If your family is 
traditionally pure, no-one will check.

> 2)  what about illegitimate children, or children whose father isn't 
> really who their mother says it is?  What if a 
> child shows up thinking they have pure Muggle parents but they are 
> actually the result of a liaison between their mum and a wizard?  
> Say, even, that she was a single mum and the dad married her and 
> adopted the child as his own?

Since pureblood is all about status, I would say that illegitimate 
children, even if coming from two pureblood families families, wouldn't 
be well received.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf