Off With Their Heads :) or The Headless Horseman Wannabe

[or.phan_ann]

No: HPFGUIDX 167941

In:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/167904

> Goddlefrood: 
>
> The analyses of the ww prior to seclusion is interesting. I
> commend both respondents but with the rider that clearly there
> was *some* interaction, or there would have been no need for
> seclusion in the first place ;)

Ann:
Yes, I should have made myself plainer. Until the establishment of 
Hogwarts, I expect British wizards were all "out", as it were. Lord 
only knows what this did to the Harry Potter world's Battle of 
Maldon, but I'd say a gradual seclusion was between the late ninth 
century and went on... well, I'm not quite sure - 1500, maybe? Before 
Hogwarts and the Quill I expect it was difficult to find young 
wizards and training them was a major part of any active wizard's 
job. This explains why Hogwarts was started, of course: the Founders 
got tired of blistered feet and thought, "If we build it, they'll 
come." I think Hogwarts was a focal point for wizarding culture as 
well as a school, and the fact that wizards now had a more efficient 
system to teach magic led to them being able to spend their time 
doing other things, such as inventing spells and hiding Basilisks in 
the plumbing. That would explain why it was a castle and why it's so 
large - other rooms were used for other things.

(Tangentially, I think Hogwarts holds pupils who aren't studying at 
the school. The Ministry needs to train people for specific jobs, 
such as Aurors, and why not do it in a big, remote castle with lots 
of free space?)

> Goddlefrood:
>
> who'd like to bet that Hogwarts isn't proximate to Glencoe?

Ann: 
Me. I've always thought Hogwarts was in the Highlands proper, north 
of the Great Glen... I think that's just a coincidence, though. For 
one thing, the Glen Coe massacre was so late my theory wouldn't work 
if it affected wizards!


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jordan Abel" <random832 at ...> 
wrote:

> I'm actually trying to put together a timeline - started it in 
trying
> to come up with a plausible reason why the minister of magic has a
> title like the cabinet members yet is not apparently answerable to
> parliament. I'm leaning towards them not being answerable to the
> monarch either ATM, possibly related to the civil war, or maybe the
> glorious revolution.
> 
> In fact, the glorious revolution is _perfect_ - they could have for 
> a time been answerable to the Jacobites, maybe one of them was born 
> with magic at the right time frame, then that faded in a process
> paralleling the reduction of the powers of the british monarch.

Ann:
Well, if my cultural capital!Hogwarts holds, there'd be plenty of 
wizards in Scotland, so maybe the Stewarts were related? Also, Queen 
Anne was (I think) the last monarch to invoke the Royal Prerogative, 
so Muggles' and wizards' ceasing to care about the royal of the day 
would dovetail nicely.

Seriously, though, after seclusion (as Goddlefrood called it) it 
would be difficult to maintain ties to the King, never mind 
Parliament later on. Never mind the fact that post-Seclusion Muggles 
wouldn't believe in magic anyway, or that I think Seclusion was long 
before the Civil Wars. I don't attach much significance to the 
Minister's title beyond his having a predecessor who admired Walpole 
or something, and perhaps he has other titles (such as Steward of the 
Wizengamot and Duke of Magic). From a meta standpoint, of course, 
it's obvious. Anyway, Muggle cabinet ministers aren't accountable to 
Parliament any more :), so why should Fudge?