The House of Black - family tree musings -Ramblings

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 148748

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gwen_of_the_oaks" <GAP5685 at ...>
wrote:
>
> > Lyra:
> > 
> > All your arguments make sense to me, Gwen, except for one 
> > thing. If Uncle Alphard got zapped off the family tree for
> > giving money to the runaway Sirius, don't you think Walburga
> > would have zapped Dorea and Charlus for taking in the same 
> > runaway Sirius and treating him like a second son?
> >
> 
> Gwen:
> 
> I do think dear Walburga would have zapped them off with gusto,
> but I agree with Potioncat who said up thread:
> 
> > Potioncat: what JKR gave the public is a chart based on the 
> > tapestry, not the tapestry itself. Since it is the house of
> > Black, none of the non-Black branches would need to show up 
> > anyway.
> 
> I can't think of any satisfactory explanation for the name 
> *Potter* being on the 12GP tapestry and going unnoticed by 
> Harry.  
> 
> Gwen

bboyminn:

Haven't been keeping track of my post today, hope I'm not too far over
the limit.

Here are a few thoughts.

First, how do we know that  Walburga knew that the Potters had taken
Sirius in? We don't. Walburga seems like something of a recluse. She
would only associate with the most elite and deserving of her company.
 So, it is entirely possible she didn't know and didn't care.

As far as Harry not seeing 'Potter' on the tapestry, think about how
big that tapestry is. It includes SEVEN centuries of Blacks. Can you
imagine how large a family tree gets in seven centuries? Even if the
tapestry concentrated on the direct line, it would still be huge. I'm
sure Harry gave it an all encompacing glance, but he hardly had time
to sort out single Potter in an unknown location amoung the many many
names on the tree. Why would Harry even think to look for a Potter?
Most likely, he would only see it, if he stubbled across it by accident.

Next, after his all encompacing glance, Harry's eyes went directly to
the bottom of the tree to find Sirius's name. All his attention was
concentrated on the most recent history.

Elsewhere in this thread (I think this thread) it was speculated that
being burned off the tapestry was, in effect, an official
disinheritance. I'm not buying that. I think it represents nothing
more than Mrs. Black's vindictive attituted. 

Consider that there are other branches of the Black family, and it's
possible that they have their own tapestry. Sirius would logically
still appear on those tapestries since there is no guarantee that
others would take as extreme an attitude as Mrs. Black did. So, which
tapestry is the official one? Which tapestry invokes the rule of law?
I say, none of them.

Further, based on European standards of heredity, it would be next to
impossible to disinherit a first born son. Further, the books seem to
prove this out. Sirius was, hated as he was, able to claim his
inheritance. As long as their is a first born son available, I don't
think anyone can interfer with the line of inheritance. Upon Sirius's
death, things get a bit more dicey. Now their is no clear 'direct
line' heir, and who gets what becomes more complicated. 

Dumbledore claims that the oldest cousin would inherit. I guess he
knows what he's talking about, but personally, I would have thought it
would have gone to the oldest living male DECENDANT with Black blood.
That would be Draco.

However, if we can assume that Charlus Potter is related to Harry, and
 even speculate that it might be Harry's grandfather, then Harry
becomes like Draco. He is the oldest living Male with Black blood.
Futher, if we accept these assumptions, Harry's position is higher up
on the family tree and that might give him priority, and make him both
a true Black heir and the recipient of Sirius's Will.

Which brings up another point. Others have speculated that the
inheritance might have gone UP the family tree to one of the older
uncles. Based on standard European inheritance (which is not as
standard as one might think), the estate never passes UP. It always
passes down to a decendant, or perhaps, sideways to someone of the
same generation when no direct-line decendance exist. 

Finally, I agree with Potioncat, what we are seeing is more like a
page from a geneology book than the actual Black Family Tapestry. Like
most geneology books, it is next to impossible to get everyone on a
single chart. So, charts usually cover relavant information to that
specific page. Other details are found on other pages. For example,
when decendants are represented by simply '1s' (one son) or '2d' (two
daughters), those extensions of the family tree would be found on
other pages. 

Not sure what it all adds up to, but there it is.

Steve/bboyminn