Half-bloods, Pure-bloods, etc. (was Re: Voldemort CHOSE to attack Harry)

[Boolean]

No: HPFGUIDX 108802

I wrote:
> "But but but...Harry *isn't* a half-blood is he???
> 
> James & Lily were witch and wizard, therefore Harry is pure-blood, 
> no?
> 
> I though half-blood only applied to the child of a couple made up 
of 
> a witch/wizard and a Muggle? "
> 
DuffyPoo replied:
> 
> There only seems to be three destinctions of blood purity, half-
blood, pure-blood and Muggle-born.  No quarter-blood, eigth-blood, 
etc.  A person is either a pure-blood or Muggle born....everybody 
else is half-blood.  Half-blood refers to, or seems to at least, 
anyone who is not pure-blood (from a Malfoy perspective) or Muggle-
born.  Lily was Muggle-born - two Muggle parents, James was a wizard 
(both magical parents as far as we know),  so HP is half-blood.  
Mrs. Riddle was a witch, Mr. Riddle was a Muggle, Tom Riddle is a 
half-blood as well.  I am assuming, only assuming, it would go back 
even farther as well.  If there's a muggle in the ancestry anywhere, 
any resulting wizard/witch is half-blood.
> 
> It all goes to the purity of blood issue.  A person's opinion 
of 'pure-blood' comes from their own prejudice.  This is my theory, 
at least.  To Malfoy, Sr., or the Black family, a person can only be 
a pure-blood if they can trace their family back through generations 
upon generations and find nothing but magical ancestors.  This would 
not be the same definition of pure-blood to a family like the 
Weasley's or to Dumbledore.  Dumbledore considers the Weasleys "one 
of our most prominent pure-blood families." Yet when Sirius and HP 
are discussing the Black family tapestry he talks about being 
related to both Arthur and Molly, then he says "but there's no point 
looking for them on here - if ever a family was a bunch of blood 
traitors it's the Weasleys." (Blood traitors from the Black Family 
prejudice, I might add, not Sirius's own belief.)  Why?  He had just 
pointed out that "Andromeda's sisters are still here because they 
made lovely, respectable pure-blood mariages, but Andromeda married 
a Muggle-born, Ted Tonks, so " she and the whole family had been 
blasted off the tapestry.    Why? Because they are blood traitors.  
Andromeda didn't have the sense to marry a pure-blood but brought 
Muggles into the family line. I can only surmise, then, that the 
Weasleys have done the same, married Muggle-borns or half-bloods at 
some point and are thereby considered blood traitors by people like 
the Blacks/Malfoys....but not by people who don't share that kind of 
prejudice, Dumbledore for example.
> 

OK, I'm completely with you now! I always found the half-/pure-blood 
issue confusing up til now, possibly because I didn't think it was 
relevant (to life in general, not the books!) But thanks for the 
explanation, and I completely agree with your take on things as far 
as the opposing views on the issue re the Weasleys.

I've just remembered that Ron said something about an uncle being an 
accountant (IIRC) so that would of course indicate that there is 
some Muggle blood in the family somewhere along the line.