V & Lily/Heir/basilisk wand/magic theory/FleurQuidditch/Bill eldest/Marauder

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 53441

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)"
<catlady at w...> wrote:
> Nobody's Rib wrote:
> 
> << Take into account that we're dealing with the Darkest Wizard - 
> isn't showing even the smallest bit of mercy (giving Lily the chance 
> to step aside and not be killed) a HUGE thing? 
> >>
> 
> Here are some theories that were suggested long ago:
> 
> a) Snape was in love with Lily. ...
> 
> b) Pettigrew was in love with Lily. ...
> 
> c) There was a prophecy that Lily's son would win the war for his 
> father's side, ...

> d) Some people think that Lily was  Voldemort's daughter ....
> 

bboy_mn:

Or... 
e) at the moment, Lily was inconsequential to Voldemort's goal, so he
just brushed her aside, 'Out of the way girl, I've got more important
things to do'. We have no way of knowing that Voldemort, in any way
shape or form, intended to spare Lily, all we, or at least I, can
conclude is that killing Harry was a higher priority than wasting time
with Lily. I have every reason to believe that Voldemort would have
killed Lily without a second thought or second glance once he had
disposed of Harry.

Now ask yourself, could this really be a valid offer? Would Voldemort
or any rational (or irrational for that matter) person actually
believe a mother would step aside and let her infant son be killed.

V: 'Step aside silly girl, you don't have to die.'

L: 'Oh well, that's different. Why didn't you say so before? Sure go
ahead kill my kid, meanwhile, I'll just go make us a nice pot of tea.'

...and I'm the Queen of England.

All sarcasm fully intended.
-end this part-


> Brin wrote:
> 
> << But did you already consider the big, looming, morbid fact that 
> comes with this theory? That an heir is the *oldest child*? >>
> 
> No, an heir is whatever person is chosen by the person who wrote the 
> will. I've already mentioned that I believe that the Heir of 
> Gryffindor doesn't have to be related to ol' Godric at all, 



bboy_mn:

I'm behind you on this one. The two possibilities are that Harry is
the biological heir to Gryffindor legacy, or that Harry is the most
Gryffindorious (I love it when I get to make up words) of all
Gryffindors and is therefore 'the chosen one'; the one who is worth to
carry the torch. 

I speculate as an illustration, that Fawkes is the keeper of the
legacy. Whom ever Fawkes choses as his new master becomes the next
'King of Gryffindors'. 

King Arthur became King not by some provable line of blood but because
the next true heir, the one person worth of becoming king would be the
man who could pull the sword from the stone. King by birthright of
worthiness, not by birthright of blood.
-end this part-




> 
> Seventh Squeal wrote:
> 
> << I thought it would be cool if some of the Slytherins, maybe even 
> Snape, had a Basilisk tooth core. >>
> 
> Those wands would have had to be made by someone other than 
> Ollivander, as Ollivander said very clearly that HE only uses three 
> types of cores: unicorn tail hair, phoenix feather, and dragon 
> heartstring. For a fanfic, I invented a sword and a spear that were 
> really wands because they had been made with basilisk skin cores.
>  
> Ffred manawyddan wrote:
> 
> <<  There's no reference in the books (at least so far) to 
> _theory_ of magic >>
> 
> One of the first year textbooks is: Magical Theory by Adalbert 
> Waffling. Some of the homework essays seem theoretical to me, ...
> 

bboy_mn:
There are several reference to studying the theory of magic. For
example, if GoF when Harry can't master the Summoning Charm, Hermione
insist that the go to the library and research the theory in hopes
that it might help him understand the spell better. 

Also, student are frequently given additional homework, usually
reading assignment related to a specific spell or charm. One can only
assume that once you have the incantation and the intent of the charm,
all reading and research after that would be based on theory.
-end this part-



> 
> Elisabeth, a rude mechanical, wrote:
> 
> << (By the way, is Bill the eldest Weasley??) >>
> 
> Yes. I think the only evidence of this is that Ron lists Bill first 
> when listing his brothers, ...
> 

bboy_mn:
I've just finished PoA and started Gof (again) and I am absolutely
certain that there is a passage in one of the books that reads the
equivalnet of '...Charlie (Ron's second oldest brother)...'. I made a
mental note of it when I saw it because I know this as been discussed
before. The problem is, I can't remember the context, so I'm having
trouble locating the exact quote. I will keep looking and if I find
it, I'll post it.
-end this part-


> GulPlum wrote:
> 
> << I consider use of "The Marauders" in this context to betray a 
> sloppy command of grammar and a sloppy appreciation of the nuances 
> of the name,  >>
> 
> No, what *my* use of this term "The Marauders" betrays is a tragic 
> lack of concern for your feelings.
> 

bboy_mn:
To GulPlum, while you do have a perfectly valid point, I have to ask
if you knew who the were referring to when you read the reference to
the Marauders? Obviously from your post, you know it was James, Remus,
Sirius, and Peter, so regardless of the technical error the intent was
communicated to the reader. 

As far as the "Marauder's" vs the "Marauders'", we don't know that it
wasn't an editing error. Some over eager but marginally competent copy
editor could have made the change. (note: I'm not condemning any
and/or all copy editors; I'm just illustrating a point.) When you read
the words 'The Marauder's Map', it reads as if it is saying 'The Map
of the Marauders' and I suspect that's how many people interpreted it.
So right or wrong, there is a common collective assumption that this
gang of four are 'The Marauders'.

Just a thought.

bboy_mn