Sirius, Severus and the Potters

[Stefanie]

No: HPFGUIDX 100863

jenny from ravenclaw:
> I am also curious, as I think many are, about the Potters.  OoP 
gives us a 
> nice background of how small the wizard community is, and how so 
many 
> wizards are related to one another.  The Potters, however, are 
never 
> mentioned.  I know they're all gone, or Harry would never have had 
to go to 
> the Dursleys, but who are they?  Are they an old wizarding 
family?  Were they 
> all mixed with Muggles?  Pure bloods?  
> 
> What do you think?

> jenny from ravenclaw:
> I am also curious, as I think many are, about the Potters.  OoP 
gives us a 
> nice background of how small the wizard community is, and how so 
many 
> wizards are related to one another.  The Potters, however, are 
never 
> mentioned.  I know they're all gone, or Harry would never have had 
to go to 
> the Dursleys, but who are they?  Are they an old wizarding 
family?  Were they 
> all mixed with Muggles?  Pure bloods?  
> 
> What do you think?

Stefanie:
I'm stumped on this matter, also...here's my speculations:

If James' purebloodedness and Lily's pure Muggle blood add up to 
make Harry a half-blood...It definitely seems that at least part of 
James' family has had at least a couple generations of wizards from 
the presence of the Invisibility Cloak. JKR stated in the 10/19/00 
AOL chat that "[it] was inherited from his own father – a family 
heirloom!" If this is the case, we can assume that at least James' 
father's side would have been wizarding families. (unless you want 
to believe that they were Muggles who felt the compulsive need to 
pass down a pretty, yet somewhat useless cloak down through the ages 
and never had the urge to try it on.) Going with this, the 
surname "Potter" would've been floating around the wizard world. 
Now, there's always the chance that all the Potter men didn't marry 
purebloods and although the Potter name (and subsequent family 
heirlooms) was carried down, the line wasn't a strictly pureblooded 
one – however, this would render James not of pure blood and would 
bring the question of Harry's "half-bloodedness" into a bit of 
complication.

In OotP, while looking at the Black tapestry, Sirius states 
that "the pure-blood families are all interrelated" (OotP 6), due to 
the practice of marrying into the few families left to keep 
pureblood exclusive. Going along this vein, if the Potters are 
pureblood, it would be logical for at least one of them to appear on 
the Black family tree as a marriage link. Of course, the Potters and 
the Blacks could've been mortal enemies (i.e. Capulet and Montague-
esque) and may not have intermarried at all in which case, if 
intermarriage did take place, it would seem logical that the parties 
involved would've been blasted off the tapestry anyway. However, 
while Sirius notes the Malfoys, the Weasleys, and the Lestranges as 
pureblooded families who married Blacks, he makes no mention of the 
Potters.

Now we see that Sirius has been effectively blasted off of the 
tapestry along with other "blood traitors," Andromeda Tonks, Uncle 
Alphard – this could have been the case with any Potters that were 
on. We know that Sirius ran away to James' where James' parents took 
him in for up to a year. If Alphard was blasted off the tapestry for 
leaving Sirius money, then it can be assumed that James' father (the 
one of presumed heritage) would've been removed (and mother, as well 
as James himself, if they were on in the first place) for taking 
Sirius in. Note that Alphard's ancestral line is intact as is 
Andromeda's – if Mr. Potter's ancestors were on the tapestry, they 
presumably would've been left intact. However


Sirius tells Harry not to even look for the pureblooded Weasleys on 
the Black tapestry even though he acknowledges that he is related to 
them by both blood and marriage. One can assume from this that 
before the tapestry was started (ca. Middle Ages) the Weasleys had 
made a name for themselves as Muggle tolerant, hence blood traitors 
and were seen as not worthy to even be mentioned on the tree as it 
was being created. This may be the case with the Potters if they 
were a pureblooded family to begin with. (Which then makes it odd 
for the Weasleys never to mention the Potters seeing as how they've 
remained pureblooded, yet have had a smaller pool to pick from as 
they haven't married Blacks)

Strangely, although Sirius mentions the unacknowledged Weasley 
family as a one of pureblood ancestry, he doesn't mention the Potter 
family, which seems odd considering that he is talking to Harry, and 
he did mention Harry's grandparents. He may have been doing this to 
spare Harry the realization that he is related to many wizards who 
served the force responsible for him never meeting his family. Not 
to mention, telling him this would reveal a familial link to Draco 
and Lucius Malfoy, which I'm sure Harry wouldn't have appreciated. 
However, there is the possibility that he may simply not be stating 
that which is not...

Stefanie
Who is dying for a peek at the Hogwarts magical birth registry!