Ree Registered Member
Posts: 2
(6/4/05 10:43 am) Reply
Weasley wonderings (spoilers books 2, 5)
All the posts are reportedly gone, so I'll break the ice starting a new one. Here's something I've been wondering about. I apologize if it has already been discussed here.
There appears to be something special in the family history of the Weasleys. I've often wondered about Lucius Malfoy's comment in CoS, "The company you do keep, Weasley... and I thought your family could sink no lower" or something to that effect. That is the sentence that sets Mr. Weasley off and starts the fisticuffs. Obviously there was something about the mention of Mr. Weasley's family that was extremely upsetting to him. Because Malfoy specifically mentioned Arthur's family (and I think it meant his family of origin and not his wife or children), there is something other than Arthur's own work advocating for Muggles.
Then, in rereading OotP, I came across Sirius's comment that "If ever there was a bunch of blood traitors, it's the Weasleys." I understand the term "blood traitors" to mean pureblood wizards who do not believe in the importance of purity and/or advocate for the wizarding world to include those of full or partial Muggle ancestry.
Together, these very pointed comments make me think that there is a specific event or person in the Weasleys' background, relating to Muggles or half-blood wizards, that we have yet to discover. Any ideas?
obsessed...but
not in a crazy way.
Posts: 60
(6/4/05 1:34 pm) Reply
Re: Weasley wonderings (spoilers books 2, 5)
Well, we have the Weasleys, poor, and who stand up for the protection of muggles. Arthur is pushing a bill that would protect muggles from spelled items.
Then you have them hanging around with muggles and muggleborns and treating them (gasp) NICE!
Contrast that with the Malfoys who would rather kill muggles and prevent muggleborns from going to Hogwarts at all.
I think it's just that the Malfoys are so against muggles and muggleborns that doing anything to protect them and enhance their status in the magical world makes them a traitor to the pureblood families, or at least some of them.
Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to!
ejeana Registered Member
Posts: 79
(6/4/05 5:53 pm) Reply
Re: Weasley wonderings (spoilers books 2, 5)
hmmmm...I agree with what rhbrand said. However, there's one point (in book one or two, I think) where Ron says the whole "pureblood" thing is somewhat of a fiction anyway, because wizarding families have to, at some point in their lineage, marry Muggles, otherwise they'd actually die out.
Perhaps there is a Muggle somewhere in the Weasley family? It might not even have to be too far removed...I think Harry is considered pureblood, after all, and he has Muggles in his family, including his grandparents.
obsessed...but
not in a crazy way.
Posts: 60
(6/4/05 5:57 pm) Reply
Re: Weasley wonderings (spoilers books 2, 5)
Well, on closer inspection of the Black family tree, we see anyone who married a muggle or muggleborn was just wiped away. Thus making it look like the Blacks were still 100% pure.
I would be the Malfoys have a similar situation. Just eliminate them from the tapestry and they are gone.
And Harry is not considered pureblood. He is still a half blood due to his mother being a muggleborn.
Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to!
ejeana Registered Member
Posts: 81
(6/4/05 7:46 pm) Reply
Re: Weasley wonderings (spoilers books 2, 5)
yes, you are probably right about the Malfoys on that. That sounds very much in keeping with their character traits.
are you sure about Harry not being considered pureblood, though? I need to get back into my reading...I can't remember if it's ever mentioned, but I've only just started reading the third one, and the fourth and fifth I haven't read for a while.
I figured he was pureblood since everyone thought he was the heir of Slytherin in book two...of course, they were wrong, but since the basilisk was attacking muggleborns, surely no one would think the heir was someone known to be muggle-born, or half and half. Also, Malfoy tries to be friends with Harry when they first meet, which he probably wouldn't have done if he thought Harry was not "good enough" for him.
obsessed...but
not in a crazy way.
Posts: 61
(6/4/05 8:57 pm) Reply
Re: Weasley wonderings (spoilers books 2, 5)
JKR said so herself, and I figure she's the boss.
The magical world does the pureblood half blood thing like the Germans did the Jews. You really REALLY must be a pureblood to be pureblood. Any "tainting" eliminates you.
Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to!
Ree Registered Member
Posts: 3
(6/5/05 7:06 pm) Reply
Re: Weasley wonderings (spoilers books 2, 5)
You are right about the distinctions being illusory; at least that's how I interpret Ron's comments. For some reason it seems to me that Ron is speaking for JKR when he talks about how it is a distinction tht is overemphasized by some wizards. Also, Dumbledore makes the point over and over that it is not how someone is born, but what they choose to become, that matters.
(And, of course, Sirius's mum could blast anybody she wanted off the tapestry, but that didn't actually stop her being related to them! :-) )
By my question I didn't mean to imply any legitimacy for the class distinctions made by the Malfoys and their ilk. It simply seemed to me that Arthur Weasley was doing very well keeping his temper in check until Malfoy made a comment about Arthur's family (as opposed to the jabs Lucius constantly makes about Arthur's own pro-Muggle work). Then Sirius's Book 5 comment on top of it made me feel there was something additional, something we don't know about yet, something more than Arthur's work and his associating with Muggles and part-Muggles. Who knows, for example, whether perhaps Arthur had a sibling or a parent who did something that was considered by people like the Malfoys and Blacks to be unforgivably traitorous to the so-called "purebloods".
Perhaps you're right and I'm reading too much into it. I think I've become accustomed to Draco Malfoy being the bearer of bad but true news (generally seeming to know more about Harry's past than Harry himself) and possibly imputed such a role to his father.
I suppose I shall just have to wait and see! The sort of thing that makes me wish July 16 would come faster!
Ree Registered Member
Posts: 4
(6/5/05 7:14 pm) Reply
Re: Weasley wonderings (spoilers books 2, 5)
Sorry, forgot something. Still getting used to the board format... can't see a list posters in the thread... but one of you mentioned perhaps there is a Muggle in the Weasley family tree. It might be something like that. Mrs. Black seems to have thought it traitorous to marry a Muggle. Lucius might have been referring to something like that, and Sirius could have been referring to that plus Arthur's own work. That would fit the bill.
ejeana Registered Member
Posts: 83
(6/5/05 7:45 pm) Reply
Re: Weasley wonderings (spoilers books 2, 5)
"JKR said so herself, and I figure she's the boss." (quote)
ah...for sure!
and I think the German/Jew comparison is particularly apt in this case because, if I remember right from undergrad, Hitler himself had Jewish ancestry, and not very far removed, either. As with the Malfoys and their ilk, a strong, rabid desire to defend this fiction of purity which is ultimately hypocritical, illusory, and impossible.
LadyCadagon Registered Member
Posts: 134
(6/12/05 11:56 pm) Reply
Re: Weasley wonderings (spoilers books 2, 5)
In my opinion I think Lucious was just making a derogatory remark towards Arthur about his family, and that probably stung. You could probably say anything to Arthur about himself, or his job, or his love of everything muggle; but when it comes to his family who he loves and cares for more than anything, it probably ticked him off pretty bad.
Who knows you could be right Ree. There could be something there that we just haven't seen yet. Can't wait till the next book though.
Oh on the subject of Harry being Half-Blood; rhbrand is right in saying that JK said so herself. I think the reason he is classified as so is because Lilly is Muggleborn she wasn't born into a wizarding family therefore had no wizarding blood in her. James was. So Harry would be half.
ejeana, I know that you said that you thought that Harry was full-blood because in CoS everyone thought he was heir of Salazar Slytherin. I just wanted to say that since we now know that Voldemort is Salazars heir, Voldemort is not full blood himself; he is only half as well. Voldemort is the hypocrite and I think has been compared to Hitler.Edited by: LadyCadagon at: 6/12/05 11:58 pm
obsessed...but
not in a crazy way.
Posts: 60
(6/13/05 7:04 am) Reply
Re: Weasley wonderings (spoilers books 2, 5)
Yes, isn't it funny that the heir of Slytherin is a halfblood himself. The one who only wanted purebloods to be taught, has a halfblood as his heir.
Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to!
ejeana Registered Member
Posts: 84
(6/14/05 11:27 am) Reply
Re: Weasley wonderings (spoilers books 2, 5)
Excellent point about Voldemort/Riddle! I think it's particularly good that that point is brought up so early in the series (book 2) so we see how self-defeating this theory of racial/magical "purity" is. And you know, the fifth book, that is down-right Third Reich, since we're making these WWII comparisons. That's the one that felt, to me, the most dark, oppressive, and heavy. Really makes me curious about book 6!
Ree Registered Member
Posts: 9
(6/20/05 7:12 pm) Reply
Just figured it out!!!
At the Leaky Cauldron (www.the-leaky-cauldron.org), and at the Harry Potter Lexicon (www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/molly.html), there was the following info, which had previously escaped my notice:
Molly Weasley's maiden name was Prewett. She is some relation to Gideon and Fabian Prewett, who were original members of the Order of the Phoenix, and whom it took 5 Death Eaters to kill, according to Moody in OotP. The speculation at both Leaky and HPL is that they were her brothers.
That would explain why Arthur turned so red and jumped at Malfoy! I was very dissatisfied with that!
The Grand Poobah
Posts: 169
(6/22/05 11:00 am) Reply
Re: Just figured it out!!!
I still believe that there HAS to be something significant about the Weasley name.
Weasels are sneaky and traitorous. Percy has become a traitor to all his family out of ambition and arrogance (very Slytherin-esque).
I've actually had ONE original HP dream...and it was that Percy Weasley (who was wandering the halls near the Slytherin common room entrance - presumably to see his Ravenclaw girlfriend - in CoS, remember?) was put under a curse and has been living as the puppet of Voldemort via possesion of some sort ever since.
Obviously, that can't be the case since Voldie has been alive and well outside of Percy's body in two of the three subsequent books.
But...there is something significant about the Weasley family...something very significant. I just KNOW it.
LadyCadagon Registered Member
Posts: 139
(6/22/05 1:14 pm) Reply
Re: Just figured it out!!!
Someone else had the theorey that Percy was under the Imperius curse, but JK put a stopper to these rumors and said Percy is acting out of his own re-cord.
I always thought something about the name Weasley too, but I love that family. They have been awesome and they have fought for the good side. I just don't see them becoming traitorous.
I think Percy may come around if he ever gets his head out of a certain area; but that is my theorey.
You could probably say anything to Arthur about himself, or his job, or his love of everything muggle; but when it comes to his family who he loves and cares for more than anything, it probably ticked him off pretty bad. 
![0]](http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/alien.gif)
Edited by: 
Email This To a Friend
Click to receive email notification of replies 
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies