weasley's - hypocritical?

[Richard]

No: HPFGUIDX 80429

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "yairadubin" 
<two4menone4you88 at a...> wrote:
> I'm starting to think the Weasley's are a little bit hypocritical.  
> They're all for befriending muggles and defending them when anyone 
> else insults them, but thier family's been pureblood for ages.  Mr. 
> Weasley might have a fondness for muggles and thier objects, but 
all 
> the rest of the Weasley's are completely contemptious of him!  The 
> only evidence I've seen of one of them having a relationship with 
> someone who wasn't fullblood was Fleur Delacour, and I'm not sure 
if 
> that even counts because the part of her that's not wizard is 
veela, 
> which is first of all a good thing (beauty and all), and second of 
> all a veela is still a magical entity.  Just my humble opinion and 
> all, but what do you guys think?
>                            Luv,
>                              *Yaira*

To which I (Richard) reply:

Sorry, but I think you've gone a little off you bean on this one, 
having departed from canon.  Yes, the Weasley's have been pure-blood 
for ages, but that doesn't make them hypocritical.

First off, you tend to fall in love with people you are around.  If 
you were a wizard or witch, and the only folks you were around were 
also magical, odds are that you would fall in love with someone 
magical, and given the presumptive percentages of pure-bloods, there 
would be a fair chance it would be with a pure-blood.

Second, it is difficult to have much of a relationship with someone 
who doesn't share much with you in terms of experience, interests, 
education, etc., so if you are magical, it is unlikely that you will 
have non-magical folks as close friends, or as probably love 
interests.

In both the above, exceptions will happen ... frequently.  But that 
doesn't mean that the "rules" can't and won't be followed by at least 
some percentage of the population.

Third, as for Mr. Weasley's fascination with and love for all things 
Muggle, you have to admit he's a bit excessive in the degree with 
which he expresses it.  His family recognizes this in him, but I 
would hardly call their feelings "contemptuous."  They all love him 
(with the possible exception of Percy), but a little flaky on this 
subject.

I thought my dad was a little flaky when it came to gardening.  He 
never did things in half measures.  One year we had so many pumpkins 
he had to give them away to everyone he knew (and being a minister 
with a large congregation, that's a lot of people), and we still had 
mounds of them in the side-yard.  Another year, it was potatoes, and 
still another year it was green beans.  That doesn't mean I had any 
kind of contempt for him, only that I knew that when it came to 
gardening, he was a frustrated FARMER, who also wanted a big crop.

Fourth, if anything, being of mixed blood where that other blood 
isn't human appears, in some wizarding circles, to be MUCH worse than 
being of mixed HUMAN blood.  The fact that Bill is giving 
Fleur "private English lessons" (and presumably receiving private 
lessons in both French and Frenching), shows that at least HE is not 
overly concerned about non-human blood.  And for that matter, the 
siblings of interest (Gred, Feorge, Ron and Ginny) don't seem the 
least offended by Bill's interest in Fleur.  Rather, as kids, they 
are amused, not offended.

Fifth, the Weasleys of interest (the parents and four youngest 
children) freely and routinely associate with mixed-bloods and muggle-
borns, as well as with other part-humans such as Hagrid.

So, as I said, I think you are off the canonical reservation on 
this.  They associate and marry primarily based upon who they meet, 
and aren't really all that picky, let alone bigoted.


Richard, who thinks JKR would NEVER portray the Weasley family as 
basically hypocritcal