hair color was Weasley nationality (very long post)

[arrowsmithbt]

No: HPFGUIDX 80099

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dtbonett" <dbonett at a...> wrote:
> 
> clipped>

> I don't think that Rowling intends us to take any of the old wizarding
> families as being from different ancestries than the others--I think
> what she wants us to get is that the Weasleys have made themselves
> declasse (as did Sirius),--remember aristocracy doesn't mean
> money, it means a certain bloodline, which the Weasleys definitely
> have, she keeps repeating that they are 'purebloods' which is clearly
> the only important thing to snobs in the wizarding world. 
> 
> DBonett, who is a history professor and therefore it is in my nature
> to be boring. Perhaps I am related to Professor Binns.

Good post, Professor.

Bloodlines do seem to have  been a favourite indoor sport with the 
power brokers throughout English (British?) history. Never could
understand taking pride in the Baton Sinister. But if the family 
was going broke, it didn't stop them marrying some daughter of a 
rich merchantile upstart to help prop up the east wing of the family 
pile. Indeed, if an outsider family became rich enough, they were  
soon inducted into the aristocracy. Better inside the tent, pissing out...

The stance of the purebloods in the WW reminds me more of some
of the East European or Russian aristos, principle above pragmatism,
although we can boast examples of mind-boggling adherence to 
outdated social demarcations (Cardigan of the Crimea, for one).

I'd be interested to  hear if you have any more thoughts on parallels
between our past and the Potterverse.

Kneasy