Forums: Index > The Wizengamot archive > Blood-Traitors

A thought about the concept of "Blood-Traitor" has been troubling me a bit lately. Death Eaters and Slytherins would often refer to Ron and his siblings and family as Blood traitors, but isn't that a bit wrong? I mean, if you look at the difference between Arthur Weasley and Bellatrix Lestrange it seems so. The former gets called a Blood-traitor because of the non-pureblood marriages that have occured in his family, even though he married the Pure-blood Molly Prewett. Bella, however, does not get called a Blood-traitor, even though her sister Andromeda Tonks married a Muggle Born (Ted). Any thoughts as to why? I know most people seem scared of Bella but it still seems strange. If you think about it, Draco and Ron are in the same situations but only Ronis called a Blood-traitor (they both have aunts who didn't marry Pure-bloods). --Margiechocoholic Medieval Broomstick Owl me! 08:44, September 11, 2009 (UTC)

The term "blood traitor" isn't just applied to pure-bloods who marry non-pure-bloods, but also to pure-bloods who support giving rights to Muggles and Muggle-borns, and don't condemn their relatives for marrying non-pure-bloods. The Weasleys were considered "blood traitors" for at least one generation before Arthur, as Cedrella Black, Arthur's mother, was disowned by her family for marrying Septimus Weasley. Arthur himself was considered a "blood traitor" because of his "pro-Muggle leanings" — he collected Muggle artifacts, and saw nothing wrong with associating with Muggles, like Mr. and Mrs. Granger, and Muggle-borns, like Hermione. Starstuff (Owl me!) 15:39, September 11, 2009 (UTC)