James Potter's "profession"

[jodel_from_aol]

No: HPFGUIDX 103979

I thbink I'm reasonably sharp. But sometimes I'm just not too swift. 
This is a half-baked illustration of how sometimes it takes an amazing 
amount of time before the penny finally drops.

Because, I think I've finally figured out what James Potter did for a 
living. 

Rowling gave us a all strong hint if it. 

*Years* ago.

What she's always told us directly was that most of James's money was 
inherited. Most recently she's said that he had come into enough that 
he didn't need a well-paying job (or, one presumes, a steady one). But 
everything we've been told, and what we've seen of James Potter 
suggests that he would still have chosen to do something with himself, 
even if it didn't exactly *pay*. 

Well, this week, somebody over on WIKtT posted a question regarding 
Patroni, as to whether they always took the form of animals. A 
reasonable question, certainly. And the Patroni we've actually seen in 
canon do all seem to have taken animal forms. However, I have a fairly 
retentative memory and I recalled a very old interview wherin Rowling 
had informed us (probably in respone to the question of whether James 
Potter's Partonus was also a stag) that James's Patronus was a nose-
biting teacup. He had evidently been trying to develop one and was so 
delighted when he suceeded (do we really need to guess whose nose got 
bitten?) that the silly thing eventually became his Patronus. 

Well. Correct me if I'm wrong -- because this is the point at which it 
all goes south if I've misremembered my references -- but aren't nose-
biting teacups one of the items sold at Zonko's? Why would James try to 
*make* one if he could have just gone out and bought one? 

Unless he *invented* them in the first place. 

And either sold the procedure to Zonko (or his supplier), or patented 
it and was paid a royalty on them. Harry's Gringotts account may still 
be collecting a steady trickle of knuts from James Potter's nose-biting 
teacup. And possibly other such items as well. 

Hagrid comments that Fred and George would have given James and Sirius 
a run for their money, but not that they outclassed them. Nor can one
imagine Fred and George being likely to "outgrow" their interest in 
ever bigger and better pranks by the time they reach Tonks's age of 22. 
Which is the high end of James's probable age range at the time he was 
killed. 

Even without the Weasleys' spur of actually needing to make a lot of 
money, I can no longer imagine any vocation which is so likely to have 
been attractive to a young James Potter. 

Which renders Harry's decision to back the twins financially a 
singularly apt bit of poetic justice, and an eminently fitting 
memorial.