Where is our Prince? (And Where Did Those Wizards Get Their Titles?)

[elfundeb2]

No: HPFGUIDX 111667

Magda Grantwich wrote:

> I don't believe the HBP is a living person.   [snip]
> The HBP is a legend about a descendent of Godric Gryffindor, just
> like Riddle's Heir of Slytherin claim.  [snip]  When yet another 
GG descendent (Harry) was born at
> the end of July, thus making him eligible to be the subject of the
> prophecy, Voldemort probably saw it as absolute proof that Harry 
was
> THE child.    

But we know Harry cannot be the child, because JKR has already put 
the kibosh on that.  So does that mean the title of Book 6 refers 
to . . . nobody?  Seriously, I have been pondering for quite some 
time (ever since I posted the HBP poll and decided I didn't like any 
of the choices, including a new character) that the HBP may not 
refer to a person at all, but instead is solely an idea or myth.  
The word "prince" is not to be taken literally, but refers to a kind 
of messianic figure -- either in the form of a prophecy (not an odd 
thing to occur in a society under persecution), or an Arthurian-type 
legend about great deeds, which few people credit as the truth (in 
the same way that few believed the Basilisk legend).  

While Harry cannot be the HBP (since JKR said so), he may believe 
that he must live up to the legend, giving him a source of angst in 
Book Six to rival his worry in CoS that he was the Heir of 
Slytherin.  The one problem I haven't been able to resolve with this 
theory is what it could add to the plot, since all that angst has 
already fallen on Harry now that he knows the prophecy and 
Dumbledore's interpretation of it.

Meidbh wrote:
> >If the
> >WW reflects our world (which it does to some extent) I think it is
> >fair to assume that people with the resources to become great
> >wizards and construct a castle would have been nobility in their
> >world. 

And Ffred asked:

> And I think that if there were any "titled" wizards around (who 
would have
> given them those titles, I still wonder?), we would have seen them 
at
> Hogwarts. The Hon. Draco Malfoy perhaps...

I've got an answer for your question.  I think all those titled 
wizards were members of the muggle English nobility.  My sense is 
that witches and wizards lived amongst the muggles as part of their 
society.  According to the Lexicon, the WW didn't withdraw from the 
muggle world until 1692.  In any event, every generation seems to 
produce a fair number of muggle-born wizards, so it's logical to 
conclude that some of those muggle-borns would have been of noble 
birth.  And since their children would likely be wizards, the ranks 
of the nobility likely were populated with wizarding families as 
well as muggle families.    

I believe the WW had no monarchy of its own partly because it would 
have been treason to create one:  they were subjects of the crown.  
Certainly the WW was sufficiently aware of the monarchy and nobility 
to recognize and use its language in its own myths.  

Presumably, the Wizard's Council evolved (perhaps with knowledge 
and/or consent of the crown) to deal with magical issues that would 
not be a priority for the muggle government.  Though I have not 
found the date when the Wizards Council was succeeded by the MoM, I 
believe it most likely occurred after wizards went into hiding.  

Meidbh again:

> And as far as we know none of the old families, the purebloods, 
> appear to be titled. Now. In fact other than our self proclaimed 
> Lord VM there we've seen no contemporary titled WWfolk at all.
> 
> So where is our prince? 
> 
> Well, there appear to have been stronger links and similarities 
> between Muggle society and the WW in the past, at least before the 
> International Statute of Wizarding Secrecy of 1692. And we do have 
> evidence of titled magical folk in the past. We have Sir Cadogan, 
a 
> portrait knight in armour and the ghost Sir Patrick Delaney-
Podmore 
> of the Headless Hunt. Morgana le Fey, King Arthurs sorceress half 
> sister, was Queen of Avalon. And of course, my personal favourite 
> (<g>), Queen Maeve was a mediaeval Irish witch (ref: JKRs 
chocolate 
> frog cards). 

Don't forget the nearly headless Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington!  
And given JKR's talent for co-opting existing legends for her own 
use, the fact that the Arthurian world was littered with titled 
wizarding folk seems to support my theory that magical folk had 
accepted muggle titles from muggle monarchs.

Ffred:

But that the WW was dominated by its ancient families, whose
> stability and lineage had also given them the opportunity to become
> sufficiently wealthy to be independent.
> 
> So that the Founders (and indeed the other wizarding aristocrats) 
would have
> regarded titles from nasty little Muggle barbarian monarchs as 
very much
> beneath their contempt: they just didn't need them.

I don't know about that.  I think that at least some wizarding 
aristocrats liked muggle titles just fine, since they didn't 
hesitate to use them notwithstanding their muggle origin.   (And the 
old-fashioned ones, like Nearly Headless Nick, still do like to use 
their titles.  NHN had his title on his Deathday cake.)  Certainly 
referring to one's family as the "Noble and Most Ancient House of 
Black" implies that some wizards left their titles -- at least 
insofar as they represented notions of superiority -- behind with 
some regret.

Debbie