Question - "Grim, old place" or "Grim Mold Place", as in "Place" like a neighbourhood type? Is this a direct quote or conjecture, just wondering because i always considered it to be a play on "Grim Mold Pl." Mafalda Hopkirk 15:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've always seen it as "Grim Old Place". Grimm from the Brothers Grimm, Auld from the old Scottish for old (as in "Auld Lang Syne"), and Place a common suffix for locations, like street, road, etc. - Cavalier One(Wizarding Wireless Network) 17:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
After further investigation, I am convinced that Jo made a mistake in the interview, as I don't see how it can match the timeline we know from the novels, and nobody I posed this to has an answer either. Whether it's worth making a note of or not, I leave to you.
(Sorry for posting this again, but I wasn't sure if editing a page counts as a new post and was seen).
(Original discussion reposted below)
Stevehim 04:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
If it was due to a question of accuracy, my assertion was based on the timing of Snape acquiring the picture of Lily (from which he ripped the image of James and Harry off). Harry found the ripped picture before Yaxley gained entry to Grimmauld Place, and so the enchantments would still have been there. We learn from Snape's memories (assuming they are in chronological order, which they are portrayed to be) that he took the picture after the Battle over Little Whinging, which would be after Moody had set the 'anti-Snape' enchantments. We can assume from the circumstances of Dumbledore's demise (that it was planned and that we are told that Snape didn't really kill Albus), that Snape was able to get by the dust-form Dumbledore the same way Harry, Ron and Hermione did...by truthfully claiming he did not kill the former Headmaster of Hogwarts.
Thanks again for your help.
Stevehim 08:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. I dug up the interview and you are correct...she did say that. It seems odd, however, that Snape's memories (as shown in the Penseive) would all be in chronological order except that one, so I'm guesing that JK made a mistake there. Of course, I wouldn't expect that to be posted unless she herself claimed that, so investigations will begin shortly. ;)
Stevehim 16:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
After the War
It seems highly unlikely that Grimmauld Place was used as Harry's family home after the war, considering James offered to share a room with Albus to allow Teddy Lupin to move in, suggesting that Harry's home only had four bedrooms, and Grimmauld Place had more than that.--Miraitrunks766 07:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with your logic, and believe that Harry wouldn't have wanted his family to live at Grimmauld Place, due to its history. However, it's still possible that he chose to live there, and that there was no space for Teddy because Harry and Ginny used the extra bedrooms as offices, or because Harry insisted on keeping Sirius and Regulus' rooms untouched to preserve their memories. ★ Starstuff (Owl me!) 09:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, in the DH epilogue Harry said, "when we tear down the house" when he was rejecting James' option about moving in with Albus. This suggests that by the epilogue he was still living in Grimmauld Place, because why would he want to tear down his house if he had only been living there for 19 years?--L.V.K.T.V.J.(Send an owl!) 01:58, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
- Err, no, he doesn't say that. When James offers to share a room with Albus, Harry sarcastically replies: "Yeah, when I want the house demolished". There is nothing in the epilogue that suggests the Potters are living in Grimmauld place, and, given that Harry absoloutley hated the place I find it very unlikely. Jayce •Avada Kedavra•Crucio•Imperio• 10:51, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
- Yes it can. Read the above comment by Starstuff above about maybe Harry keeping Sirius' and Regulus' rooms as monuments. Also, I am not saying this is true, it is only a suggestion that they were living there. By the way, I have a great sense of humor about things like that.--L.V.K.T.V.J.(Send an owl!) 12:54, March 20, 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry that was a stupid comment. No offense meant. Even if Harry kept Sirius and Regulas's rooms there's still the room he and Ron shared, Fred and George's and Ginny and Hermoine's. Also, when Sirius goes to feed Buckbeak he mentions his mother's room. To me that suggests Walburga and Orion slept in separate rooms. That leaves at least four spare bedrooms that Teddy could've stayed in. No, as far as cannon is concerned the Potters lived in a three bedroom house. Jayce •Avada Kedavra•Crucio•Imperio• 14:01, March 20, 2010 (UTC)
Since the highest on the black family tree is Phineas Nigellus, it should be speculated that either he built the house or past generations before him have. since his brother sirius I died, he became owner and from that im guessing owner of the house must be oldest(from his children) and male in the family. During sirius III's time, his father would hav been owner. and since it was hinted by dobby that orion died before regulus in deathly hallows, the owner would have been walburga. and when she died, it would hav sirius III, even though he was disowned. and when he left it to harry, harry would have been owner. if he wasnt, then it would hav been bellatrix, then andromeda. SEATTLE WIZARD, 17:05 PM, JUNE 12, 2009
- It most definitely should not be suspected that Phineas Nigellus Black was the person who constructed the house. JK Rowling gave Warner Brothers a more detailed family tree that goes back 8 generations, 2 more than the one we have. Also, the tapestry was described to go back 7 centuries (I think Kreacher mentioned that) so Phineas born back in 1847 would never encompass those 700 years prior.
- I am slightly confused about how exactly the house passed after Walburga's death. When Sirius's parents were alive, so was their grandfather, who I would assume own the house. His grandfather outlived Sirius's parents and his brother, so I think Walburga never owned the house, but she just lived their at the same time as her father-in-law/first cousin once-removed. Yes, inbreeding, we know. Anyway, Arcturus (the grandfather) passed in 1991. His daughter was still alive until 1992, so perhaps she still owned it. Then Sirius must have gotten it in 1993 when he escaped. So it might be incorrect that the house remained unoccupied between Walbura's death and Sirius's escape. Why Sirius would have inherited the house? Maybe Lucretia Prewett, his aunt, was not as prejudice as the rest of the family... maybe she thought it should go to her only relative left even if a blood traitor... or perhaps she thought, along with most of the Wizarding World, that Sirius was working for You-Know-Who. Hmm, interesting speculation.... 188.8.131.52 20:10, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
Magical Protections and the Second Wizarding War
We know from the books that 12 Grimmauld Place was protected by various magical means, one of them being the Fidelius Charm. What we don't know, and I've been increasingly interested in finding out, is how those protections could have withstood the Taboo that was placed upon Voldemort's name. That Taboo was supposed to strip all protective enchantments and Harry and Hermione collectively said Voldemort about 5 times while they stayed there during Deathly Hallows. We also know that the Taboo and Trace were in place before they began staying there. Since the Taboo is such a highly powerful spell, with the might of the Ministry behind it, how is it that the Grimmauld Place enchantments could have survived when so many others had failed? Mr Norrell 17:55, December 8, 2009 (UTC)
I believe it is due to the Fidelius Charm. While weakened in power after Dumbledore died, I think it still was so powerful and complex that it wasn't affected by the Taboo Curse. User:Simen Johannes Fagerli.
Technically, it didn't withstand the Taboo; there were Death Eaters outside. The Taboo alerted the Death Eaters that Harry was in that position, but the Fidelius Charm prevents anyone who doesn't know where it is from seeing it. There's also the fact that Sirius says his father put lots of spells on the house - who knows what magic Orion did? --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 15:19, December 8, 2013 (UTC)
Possible inheritance answer
Why would Walburga ever permit even the remote possibility of Sirius inheriting the place? My thought : Her stubbornness. After Sirius gave his family ye olde middle finger, her solicitors would from time to time broach the subject of disinheriting him. But Walburga was so incensed by her son's actions that even the merest mention of his name flew her into a fury as bad as her worst. In effect, she hated Sirius so much, she forgot to formally and legally disown him, focusing instead on non-legally binding gestures like blasting away his image on the tapestry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gojirob (talk • contribs).
Under English Common Law, the inheritance of ancestral properties (usually held by the aristocracy) is almost always governed by the concept of an entailed estate. Under this legal mechanism, the property passes to the designated heir, and this inheritance cannot be prevented by disinheritance, or any other legal means. The current English television "Downtown Abbey" (currently being shown on PBS) is in large part based on the concept of the entailed estate and the problems it can cause. A current example of a case that in some ways matches the Black inheritance can be seen in the eventual inheritance of Blenheim Palace in England by the Duke of Marlborough's disinherited son.
I am almost certain that this "aristocratic" concept was adopted by the "pure blood" House of Black (who certainly considered themselves to be aristocratic) and was enshrined in magical law. Once the entail was broken - that means there were no more males with the last name of Black who could inherit it - then the property could have been willed by Sirius to any person he chose. In this case it was Harry Potter. To put it very simply, a legal entail is the (muggle and most likely magical) legal equivalent of a Permanent Sticking Charm.
Wva 22:14, February 18, 2012 (UTC)
In the USA and - according to my limited skimming of Google Maps for London - also in England, even numbers are on one side of the street and odd numbers are on the other side. So the statement that 12 should have been between 11 and 13 doesn't make sense; it should be between 10 and 14, with 11 and 13 on the other side of street.
184.108.40.206 12:55, June 26, 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure, but I think that 12 would be between 11 and 13 because Grimmauld Place only has houses on one side of the street: on the other side is a small and shabby square of unkept grass. -- 23:01, June 11, 2013 (UTC)