Prophecy Pub/Less than Meanest Ghost/Black Family Tree

[Barry Arrowsmith]

 > > I believe that just because there is a Potter on the Black  
Family Tree
 > > doesn't prove that that Potter is related to James and Harry.  
Besides,
 > > Dorea (astronomical? connecting to the constellation Doradus seems
 > > far-fetched) was born 1920 died 1977, ie at age 57, which is not  
-"she
 > > was old and she died"- even in Muggle terms ("They were old in
 > > wizarding terms, and they died" from
 > > http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2005/0705- 
tlc_mugglenet-anelli-3.htm
 > > )
 >
 > >
 > > (Hi, Lyn, you posted Dorea's age before I did.)
 >
 > And you just beat me with this observation. I am growing  
increasingly        > suspicious here. It is just so easy to seize  
upon the mention of a Potter in
 > this section of the family tree and make the assumption it is  
"our" Potter's  > lineage - - just as it is to assume about Neville's.
 > Great catch in the following, though of course if Rowling wanted  
to explain > it away, she could just say "Gran" was known by her  
middle name.



OK. Let's get to grips with this one; worth the effort, I think.

The first mention I can find of Harry's grandparents  is in the  
National Press Club interview 1999:

Q. "What happened to Harry's grandparents?"
A. "Um, various interesting things, but again, I'm not  going to  
share [...] we have time for another question because I didn't answer  
that one."
(Very different to later references. Three possibilities occur - a  
throw-away line; hadn't thought through the grandparent back-story  
and so was unprepared for the question; a glimpse of something  
interesting. And our Jo is very rarely caught out unprepared ... so  
place your bets.)

Then the World Book Day bash 2004:

Q. "What happened to Harry's grandparents?"
A. "They're all dead and not particularly important to the story."
(An editors note is appended to this in the search engine - "....  
could refer to either the Evans grandparents or the Potter  
grandparents."
Interesting that the editor doesn't offer the possibility that it  
could refer to both sets.)

Then there's the TLC epic part 3 mentioned above.
Looks straightforward - 'cept it ain't necessarily so.

"James's  parents were elderly, were getting on a little when he was  
born, which explains the only child, very pampered had-him-late-in- 
life-so-he's-an-extra-treasure, as often happens, I think. They were  
old in  wizarding terms, so they died."

We don't know much about wizarding fertility, but will it be all that  
different from the Muggle version? If not, then 39/40/41 is old to  
have a first child (James born '59 or '60, Dorea in 1920 - assuming  
they are linked).
So in the terms of this answer, were James's parents old crumblies or  
old comparatively ("getting on a little when he was born") on  
becoming parents for the first time? My impression is that wizarding  
couples breed early, they don't leave it until the mother's forty  
before getting started.
It starts to look less clear-cut than first impressions would imply.

Additionally, it requires unlikely coincidences (or authorial malice)  
that at this late stage she throws into the mix:

1. another hitherto unsuspected wizarding family called Potter  
(recall the Mark Evans uproar, which Jo found embarrassing and  
apologised over)

2. that were pureblood (if Charlus not pureblooded then Dorea would  
have been splotched from the family escutcheon, like others)

3. that had one son

4. at least one of the couple dies in the narrow window between James  
leaving Hogwarts and fathering Harry.

Not happy for that many coincidences associated with a key name like  
Potter.


Kneasy

P.S.
The Augusta/Callidora question.
Anyone remember the Algenon/Augustus Rookwood controversy?