Prophecy Pub/Less than Meanest Ghost/Black Family Tree

[Talisman]

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Barry Arrowsmith 
<arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:
>Kneasy 3848: 
>Snip of three extant *grandparents* interview responses, showing 
room for change of back story.<

>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 >snip<.

>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? >snip.
>It starts to look less clear-cut than first impressions would imply.

Talisman:
Amen. I was gearing up to respond just this way, last night, but 
decided to get some sleep instead.  I went to bed wishing someone 
else would take care of it, and look, here's Kneasy, pen 
unsheathed.... 

I agree with all Potter points made in this post:  There appears to 
be room for change in back story, there is a bit of ambiguity, and 
it's way too *coincidental* if these are not *our* Potters.  

Relevant to the varying interview remarks, assuming the 
grandparents' ages at death and manners of death are not essential 
to the plot (except that they be well out of the way), Rowling could 
easily have changed her mind about these details.

I would fill-out the *ambiguity* argument by adding that Rowling had 
already used appositive adjectives regarding the grandparents' ages: 
elderly/getting on a bit, both relating to when they became parents. 

One seems overstated, the other understated.  Inasmuch as she was 
speaking and being transcribed, it's quite possible that the last 
comment *old by wizarding terms* is simply another, yet again 
adjusted,  reiteration, and still related to the birth of James, 
rather than their deaths. 

Sentence's aren't quite as clean when we speak.

Further, Rowling slips-in some of her best clues as seemingly throw-
away details, while emphasizing the relatively unimportant decoy 
point.

In the case of the Mugglenet interview of July 16, 2005, the 
question put to Rowling was whether Harry's grandparents had been 
killed.

A simple, *no, they just obliged me by dying of natural causes* 
would have sufficed.  Nonetheless, Rowling goes on about James as a 
late-in-life, pampered, only child.

I think she was working to dove-tail *James was pampered* into the 
*were they killed?* response (and, yes,  I most certainly do think 
he is the *pampered prince* DD refers to in OoP).

I think her mind was focused on getting that in, and she stumbled 
over the best description of the new parents' ages (it being 
otherwise irrelevant to the actual question). 

>Kneasy, cont.:

>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.

Talisman:
Absolutely.  If she has started ginning-up parallel-universe family 
trees with key names placed where they *could* relate to major 
characters, but don't, she has entered a whole new level of evil.

Then Eileen took up what I wished someone would post regarding the 
Crouch family:

Responding to Carolyn's:
> Another thing, Charis Black (1919-1973) surely can't be the Mrs
> Crouch who died in Azkaban if her husband's name was Casper?
> Irritating, as the 1973 date is exactly right for that event. If
> Bartemious Sr was their son, Barty Jr would be Harry's generation,
> which he wasn't.

Eileen pointed out, in 3851:
>No, it's not right. Mrs. Crouch died two or three years *after* 
Harry
>was born. 1982 or 83.



>Anyway, we know Barty Jr. was nineteen at the time of the Longbottom
>incident in 1981. Birthdate of 1962 then. There's quite enough time
>there for Charis to marry, have Bartemius Sr., and for him to grow 
up
>and marry as well. So I'd peg Charis and Caspar as Barty Sr's 
parents.

Talisman: I agree, except, do we know that the Longbottom incident 
occurred in 1981? GH occurred in Oct. of that year, the Longbottom 
incident occurred sometime after, when the WW thought all the LV/DE 
business was well behind them, possibly even a year or two.

Finally, 
>Carolyn 3847:
>Aargh  >snip<... [it's] just so annoying that Callidora is
>evidently still living and just the right age to be Neville's 
gran...
>She's definitely teasing us, alas.

Talisman:
Now don't be so quick to drink the Hemlock.  The same argument that 
goes for the Crouch matter holds true for the Longbottom business.

Remember Dorea was rather older when she had her son.  Both 
Callidora and Charis  were old enough to have two generations of 
descendants.

Callidora (1915) could have had Augusta--without undue haste--by 
1935, leaving plenty of time for Augusta to produce Frank sometime 
in the 1950's.

Actually, we have even better evidence (assuming JKR has kept her 
maths straight).

Per Lexicon, per interview and OoP canon (which all pans out with 
me),  McGonagall (70 years old in CoS) was born in 1925, and by HBP 
has been teaching at Hogwarts for 40 years (39 in OoP), i.e., 1956.

McGonagall makes the dig about Augusta's failed Charms O.W.L. in HBP.

She can't possible be referring to anyone born in 1915, McG could 
not have had such a person as a student, nor even a classmate, 
herself being ten years younger.

On the other hand, O.W.L.s being set in the 5th year, McGonagall 
could have taught someone who was 15 in 1956, the year McG began 
teaching at Hogwarts.

That person would have been born in 1941, i.e. Augusta. 

Augusta could have had Frank anytime between 1959-62, giving him 
time to become an Auror, as well as a father, before being Crucio-ed 
in 1982-83.

In sum, I'm voting for Grandpa Charlus.

Talisman