[HPforGrownups] Re: Speculation on Tom Riddle's origins/Multiple Riddles

[Lissa B]

No: HPFGUIDX 57486

Kirstini wrote:
> WHY WHY WHY does
> everyone assume that the dead women identified as "Mrs Riddle" is
> Voldemort's mother? READ. LOOK.
> GoF (UK paperback) p7-8.
>       ...a maid had entered the house to find all three Riddles dead.
>       ...Elderly Mr and Mrs Riddle had been rich, snobbish and
> rude, and their grown up son Tom even more so.

> CoS (UK paperback) - p231
> "You think I was going to use my filthy Muggle father's name for
> ever? I, in whose veins runs the blood of Salazar Slytherin himself,
> through my mother's side? I, keep the name of a foul, common Muggle
> who abandoned me before I was born, just because he found out his
> wife was a witch?"
>  - p182
> "My mother died just after I was born, sir. They told me at the
> orphanage that she lived just long enough to name me Tom after my
> father..."
> 
> RIGHT. So, we have now established a) that Preggers!Ginny is not a
> plausible solution, as the Weasleys are certainly not Slytherin's
> heirs. Ditto Hermione, before you all start.

Lissa replied:
Hi, Kirstini.  Sorry about the long, untrimmed quote.  I kept everything
you wrote above because I didn't feel any of it could be snipped without
damaging your meaning.  I don't assume that the "Mrs. Riddle" referred
to in the text is Voldemort's mother.  Not at all.  (Maybe you're
replying to someone else's response to my post, but I don't see a
message that directly addresses this material.  If I've overlooked one,
I apologize for awkwardly trying to answer you here.)

As for Voldemort's pronouncements that he gets his Slytherin blood from
his mother's side, I have no doubt whatsoever that he believes this!  He
believes, after all, that his father is a muggle.  He *has* to conclude
the powerful Slytherin blood was given to him by his witch mother.  I
don't think it's logical to conclude his dead mother who merely had
breath to give him a name also bequeathed him a nice family tree tracing
her full genetic history all the way back to Salazar.  If she had,
presumably he'd have gone to live with kindly relatives rather than
suffering in an orphanage.

I truly don't assume that the Weasleys are related to Slytherin, but I
don't think it's impossible that they could be.  Honestly, I don't think
it makes much of a difference one way or another.  I think this relates
to the difference between calling Riddle the "only" descendant of
Slytherin versus the "last" descedant of Slytherin.  Last can suggest
"last remaining", but it can also simply mean "most recent".  If my
theory is true, then the yet-to-be-born Tom Riddle would certainly be
the current last descendant--at least from a generational point of
view.  Of course... (smile and cringe) you seem to think my theory is
really absurd.  Believe me, Kirstini, I can see why you think that!  I
really don't disagree. It is terribly far-fetched. (laughs) I also think
it might be true.

And yes, Voldemort's mother names him Tom "after his father".  This
doesn't mean that this dead mother was either honest or correct in
claiming Tom Riddle Sr is Voldemort's father.  If Ginny went back with a
dark agenda to set the events of Tom Riddle's life into place, then she
certainly isn't going to name her son "Harry" even if Harry is the boy's
father.  If she went back attempting to help Harry but had her memories
altered with a spell, she may be an honest pawn in a large cruel game. 
(We simply have too few facts regarding LV's mother for me to do
anything but speculately pointlessly here.)

In short, I think it's reasonable to assume Voldemort believes what he
says.  That doesn't mean he's correct. Maybe I'm missing a bit of your
point, though.  In particular, I suspect I may have overlooked something
in regard to your reference to "Mrs. Riddle."  Please let me know.

Kirstini wrote:
> b) Tom Riddle(hereafter referred to as LV, before it all gets
> confusing) did not kill his mother. She was already dead.

Lissa replied:
Hmm, you might be referencing a message that I have yet to receive.  If
you are addressing my post, then I guess I'll just say I don't think
Voldemort killed his mother.

Kirstini wrote:
> c) The "grown up son" is not necessarily Voldemort/Riddle, as he was
> abandoned by his father. "Their" son, remember. First wife is dead.
> As Riddle remarried, and blanked out all traces of previous
> wife/child, isn't it possible that he would restart the tradition of
> naming the eldest son after the father, effectively erasing LV? If
> not, then "grown-up son LV" must have done a lot of grovelling to
> get back in with the family. The villagers seem to know him quite
> well, so he must have been around for some time.

Lissa replied:
You're completely right, of course.  I've personally not assumed the
"grown up son" in this scene is Voldemort.  I've actually assumed the
opposite.  I infer that you think this makes my theory impossible, so I
know I'm missing some of your meaning here.  I can be a bit dim-witted
at times.  Sorry!  I swear I'm not being deliberately obtuse.  I'd try
to give a better answer if I understood... (winces shamefully)  

Kirstini  wrote:
> Now, two other points occur to me.
> d) A *teenage* boy was seen near the Riddle house on the day of the
> murder. If my theory is correct, the second Tom Riddle, already
> grown-up, should be younger than the first, not older. Therefore, if
> this teenage boy is the young LV, and not a time-travelling Harry,
> then some other kind of time-slip must have happened (can the time-
> turner go forward too, do we think?)

Lissa replied:
I've always assumed, perhaps wrongly, that the teenage boy was
Voldemort.

As for time-traveling to the future, Hermione notes in PoA that
time-traveling wizards have inadvertently killed both their past and
future selves by mistake.  It makes me terribly jumpy to even *consider*
a fictional universe that allows people to pop forward in time, but
Hermione's statement does suggest the possibility.  Of course, she might
also just be saying that the time-traveling wizards set events into
place that ended up--after the normal flow of time--killing the wizards'
future selves.  


Kirstini wrote:
> e)Of course Harry isn't LV's father. LV has to take "bone of the
> father" in order to come back to life, and he takes it from *Tom
> Riddle*'s grave. I'd imagine these big important spells would
> require exact ingrediants, ie the correct DNA.

Lissa replied:
Yes, you're completely right. I think this is terribly important and I
really *really* should have addressed it directly in my first post.  In
my opinion, the ritual was completed with alterations Voldemort didn't
intend.  Rather than the blood of an enemy and the bone of the father,
he has the bone of an enemy and the blood of the father.  Now either
way, a physical sample of Voldemort's father is there, but not in the
way that LV intends.  This may have disastrous ramifications for LV that
he can't anticipate, but which Dumbledore--assuming he knows the
truth--can.  Then again, you could also argue that this is evidence my
theory is impossible.  I guess it depends on how much room for
alteration magical rituals have.  It's my belief that slightly wrong
ingredients would not render a spell useless.  Rather, they would just
offer different results.  (To elaborate: Say eye of newt and tongue of
bird in a base of goat's blood give you a giggling potion.  What happens
if you mix this up and put eye of bird and tongue of newt into the base
instead?  You still might have a magical potion, but it wouldn't be what
you intended.) 

Re-reading this whole section in GoF now, the biggest phrase that sticks
out to me--that could potentially conflict with my theory--is a statment
of LV's: "My mother, a witch who lived here in this village..." This
implies--though doesn't outright state--that Voldemort's mother was a
resident of the town and not just a woman who has passed through.  If
Harry did not go back with Ginny, her window of opportunity to meet and
fall in love with or dupe Riddle Sr would be less than 9 months.  This
doesn't sound like the description of a witch who "lived here in this
village".  Then again... it's a bit odd to believe a witch would
live--presumed by townspeople like Tom Sr to be a muggle--outside of the
wizarding world for long periods.  Also, it's a bit odd that she doesn't
have family around who would have been willing to take little Tom in
when Tom Sr wanted nothing to do with him.

I don't claim I have absolute faith in my theory.  Far from it!  I
appreciate the feistiness of your response. If my theory is canonically
insupportable I need to know it so I can pitch the thing and find
another. :)

Thanks for the reply!

Cheers,
Lissa