Weddings in the WW -Tom Jr.

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 98776

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "muscatel1988" <cottell at d...> wrote:

> 
> After reading all the interesting posts that flowed from this one, 
> it occurs to me that we don't know anything at all about how wizards 
> and witches get married, other than that they do.  
> 
> There must be, by assumption, some sort of ceremony, which would, in 
> the WW, be legally binding.  But the point is that the Muggle 
> authorities would have no record of such a union, so that if a 
> Muggle and a witch/wizard were to be married only by the WW 
> ceremony, a child born to them would, for Muggle legal purposes, be 
> illegitimate.  
> 

bboy_mn:

Well, we are drifting a bit from direct discussion of canon, but I
think the discussion is still closely enough related to events in the
book that we can continue.

First, let's look a marriage in its most basic form. It is nothing but
a contract; two parties mutually agree to the terms, they sign their
names, and the event is verified by an official and witnesses. 

...in it's most basic form.

"Do you take this man to be your husband?" "I do"
"Do you take this woman to be your wife?" "I do"
"Twenty bucks... sign here."

Add the official's signature and a couple of witnesses, and you have a
legally binding contract.

In the beginning, in the absents of clear law regarding marriage,
marriages were simply recorded at the local church.

Point; as long as there are neutral witnesses, and an unbias third
part to officiate, you have a wedding.

Second, Tom Riddle Sr being a muggle and assuming a marriage took
place, would have logically arranged, at least, a simple muggle
wedding.  It could have been as simple as recording the marriage at
the local church, courthouse, magistrate, or tax office. He would not
have logically arrange a Magical wizard's wedding; that make no sense.



> muscatel1988:
>
> Warning: what follows is pure speculation!  We only have 
> ...edited...
> 
> It might also be relevant that we're learning Tom/Voldemort's past 
> from his own lips, and if he rewrites history to the extent that he 
> tells the DEs that he's a pureblood, then my suspicion is that he 
> would be just as likely to rewrite it by retrofitting a marriage to 
> his parents.  It's exactly the sort of thing that a nasty little 
> snob like him, brought up in mid 20th century Britain, with an 
> intense belief in his own superiority, would do.


bboy_mn:

Here I whole heartedly agree, we can't trust anything Tom/Voldemort
says. Voldemort says he is Heir of Slytherin, and Dumbledore echos
that statement, but we don't know if Dumbledore is merely echoing
Tom's assertion or if he is stating an independantly verified fact; so
even Dumbledore's statement can't be completely trusted.

In this group, the everwise always brilliant Shaun Hately uses this
tagline in this posts-

"You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one
thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the
facts. They alter the facts to fit their views. Which can be
uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that
need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil

This discribes Voldemort to a TEE. He alters facts to fit his views,
or  more accurately, I suspect, he alters facts to conform to his
dillusions. 

Anything Voldemort says needs to be read with a healthy does of
skepticism and suspicion.

Just a few thoughts.

bboy_mn