Tracing ancestry (was: Naughty, Guilty! DD)

[annemehr]

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman"
<susiequsie23 at s...> wrote:
> 
> Anne wrote:
> > How *does* the heir of Slytherin know of his heritage, though as
> > Hermione says, the passage of time makes tracing family trees that
> > far difficult?  
> 
> SSSusan:
> Of all this juicy stuff put forth, I latch onto this tiny rub.  But 
> there you have it.  WHY would this comment of Hermione's be true?  If 
> the generational span of yer average witchorwizard is 2 to 3 times that 
> of a human, wouldn't it be *easier* to trace the family tree?  At least 
> easier back to a set point in comparison to muggles?  You know what I 
> mean?  Say you want to go back to 1450 or to 1200 -- there'd ostensibly 
> be a lot fewer generations to trace for the witch or wizard than for 
> the muggle.
> 
> Doesn't matter much in the scheme of things, but....
> 
> Siriusly Snapey Susan

So you don't like my idea then, that the main Slytherin line passed
something down through the generations that nobody else knows about?

And Hogwarts was founded "a thousand years or more ago."  Except for
the rare family that kept *very* good records continuously, even
families of long-lived wizards would lose track, let alone someone
like Harry finding any sort of lineage in the Hogwarts library (where
else would he even look?).  The Black tapestry might well go back that
far, but I bet the Weasleys have no idea who they're descended from in
the 900s.  Was it Ernie McMillan whose family is known back nine
generations?  Assuming an average 30-year generation, that would only
account for about 270 years - into the 1720s.

Anne

P.S. Sure, the McMillans might only count back nine generations
becasuse in the tenth they hit Muggle, but the principle's still the
same -- the 900s are a *long* way back.