Is Harry Potter an Anti-Royalist Tract?

[jlnbtr]

No: HPFGUIDX 175703


> > Career advisor:
> > "I start with the fact that in HBP Hermione says 
> > that (I'm paraphrasing): 'There are no wizarding 
> > princes in Britain'. Which implies that there are 
> > probably no noble wizards (and witches?) in the 
> > wizarding world. And no student is mentioned
> > as being 'noble' at Hogwarts."

> bboyminn:
> 
> Just because there are no Princes or Nobility OF the
> wizarding world doesn't mean that there are no 
> Princes or Nobility IN the wizarding world. 

> I think in the wizard world, the equivalent of 
> aristocracy or nobility would be the continuation
> of the ancient and wealthy wizarding families like the
> Malfoys; good breeding and old money. I think those
> are the aspects that give a wizard status in their
> society.

Juli now:
CareerAdvisor, the phrase doesn't go like that Hermione just says 
there are no "princes in the WW". There is royalty in the potterverse 
muggle world, probably one or two (or a thousand) were wizards 
(muggle born wizards), but just like Steve said, their status is 
probably not recognised by the WW. Ancient families like the Blacks, 
the Malfoys, the Pervells could be considered nobility, their 
ancenstry goes back centuries. I think in the course of the centuries 
a muggle-friendly wizard could have won himself any sort of Noble 
Title for any service to the king. In the MW he would be nobility, in 
the WW for anti-muggle idealist, he would just have been a crazy 
muggle-loving freak.

JMO, Juli