Is Snape a pureblood? and a few other bits Ive been concerned about

[Hitomi]

No: HPFGUIDX 89492

curlyshirleywhirley wrote: 
> I don't believe that Snape is a pure blood because I have just 
been 
> reading a book to my 5 year old written by what must be relatives 
of 
> his as the name is so unusual, "Frog friends" by Julia and Charles 
> Snape very muggleish don't you think?...all about a little tree 
frog 

Hitomi:
Ok, I don't know about all that :)  But I do actually think Snape is 
more than likely a pure-blood, he did refer to Lily as a "mudblood," 
neh?  And he was in Slytherin, and they seem to be mostly pure-
blood.  Though there is still the possiblity Snape was just being 
hypocritical.


curlyshirleywhirley wrote: 
> Secondly I have been very worried about security at Hogwarts. I 
have 
> just finished reading GOF to my children and was surprised that 
> Sirius could just break into a wizarding house and use the floo 
> network to pop his head into the fire in the Gryffindor common 
> room . So whats to stop old Voldy or his DE's doing the same and 
> creep into the common room late at night and finish Harry off in 
his 
> sleep! Old DD better tighten up the secuirty before they realise!!

Hitomi:
This has always slightly confused me, at least until Book 5, because 
Umbridge knew about Sirius in the fire, and DD probably knew in Book 
4.  So maybe DD does know, but considering it was Sirius, didn't 
worry about it.  And Hermione said in one book (can't remember 
which, one of the times she's talking about "Hogwarts... A History") 
that Hogwarts has loads of protective spells and such around it, 
such as the non-Apparating/Disapparating rule.  And I think it was 
said in Book 1 that Hogwarts was the safest place to be when LV was 
at large ten years ago, and that it's the safest place to be now 
(ex. Hagrid saying Gringott's was the best place to keep something, 
except Hogwarts).  So, Hogwarts is probably a lot more secure than 
we think, or have necessarily been led to believe.


curlyshirleywhirley wrote:
> Finally why didn't Voldy/Quirrel recognise Snape as one of his 
> servants and ask him to pop off and get the Philosophers stone for 
> him like a good Death eater or am I picking holes ( sorry if this 
> has already been discussed!) 

Hitomi:
No idea if it has been discussed, though more than likely it has.  I 
always viewed Snape as the DE LV refers to in the graveyard at the 
end of Book 4, the one lost forever and who needs to be killed.  He 
probably thought Snape had gone over to DD, or he wasn't sure, and 
decided to remain in secrecy in case Snape was now loyal to DD.  And 
Snape nor any other DE had come to look for or help LV (except for 
those such as Bellatrix in Azkaboan), since LV had been in hiding, 
and he probably wasn't sure who was loyal to him anymore.  An 
example of which being at the end of Book 4, when he calls his Death 
Eaters, he waits to see which ones come, not knowing who will show 
their face and who won't.  And we know at least one DE fled: 
Karkaroff.  

And, as we also know, Snape knew about Quirrell and LV, and 
continually threatened Quirrell, and once defied him by saving 
Harry's life.  LV probably believed Snape had changed sides, which 
is why I don't understand how LV can't at least suspect Snape to be 
a traitor.  Snape walks a very line, and since Rowling has told us 
to watch out for him in interviews, I'm not entirely sure whether or 
not he can be trusted, even though DD and Hermione both do.  Guess 
we'll have to wait and see.

~ Hitomi, who still doesn't like Snape, trustworthy or not