[HPforGrownups] Re: Families: Purebloods and Half-Non Humans

[Jesta Hijinx]

No: HPFGUIDX 59601

To take some of this a bit out of order:

Grey Wolf wrote, in part:

> > 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
>
Well, since what I'm looking for is peer discussion, not help per se, it 
certainly is the contribution of a viewpoint.  :-)  You're entitled to 
believe it's overthinking the issue; I don't think so, not at all, since it 
keeps coming up over and over again.  Hagrid's mention of how wizards would 
have died out if they hadn't intermarried suggests that there was a single 
point where all or a lot of the original wizards appeared; yet it seems from 
people like Hermione that there is either a spontaneous mutation that brings 
wizarding powers up - or else there are genes *so* recessive that crop up 
again in later generations that the parents are thought of as Muggles and 
have no clue.  It seems to be an incredibly important issue in the WW.

You may be right about illegitimate children in general not being well 
received; but although this doesn't appear in JKR's universe, I'd be 
surprised if there was *never* a cuckold in all of the WW history.  It makes 
for some interesting speculation.

>

>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.
>
No kidding.  And the emphasis on purebloods is, pure and simple, racism.  
I'm suggesting, in this discussion,t hat it may not even be that measurable 
and may be an "artificial" argument to begin with in the WW.

> > 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 think that it is possible in a tiny number of categories - but what if the 
choice is between marrying a mixed blood, for example, and not passing along 
your genes or marrying at all or passing along your legacy?

Felinia

_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online  
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963