why have I never heard of andromeda —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mudbloodandproud (talkcontribs).


Is Andromeda realy related to the Crabbes, Rosier and Pansy? --Rodolphus 18:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

No. This is speculation from an anon editor. I have removed it. - Cavalier One(Wizarding Wireless Network) 22:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the Crabbes and Rosier bit is correct; Andromeda's mother is a Rosier, so she's related to a Rosier, and Irma CRABBE married Andromeda's ancestor, Phineas Nigellus, so she's related to Crabbe in some way too.HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 18:12, May 1, 2013 (UTC)

Only One Child

When is it stated in the series that Nymphadora is their only child? She is the only child introduced, but there could be other unmentioned children. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]).
Speculation is unacceptable here i think, for more information about their family genelogy see the Black Family Tree which is officially published by the Author. --ÈnŔîčö (Send me an Owl) 16:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
There is no mention of any other children, it seems to be implied that there are no others at various points (e.g. Sirius only mentions Tonks when discussing his family, when he easily could have said "I see Tonks and her brother/sister(s) aren't on here"; the only people who lived in the Tonks house when Harry and Hagrid got there were Andromeda and Ted; "her family" and "her parents" are often used interchangably in the text, etc.), and multiple sources state that Tonks is an only child. But no canon source confirms it, so it does seem to be speculative. If someone can't find a source soon, then it should be corrected. Oread 22:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that Tonks was almost certainly Andromeda's only child. As Andromeda was in her mid-to-late forties when she lost Ted, I suppose it isn't impossible, biologically speaking, that she remarried and had another child soon after the war. I really don't see her doing this, though, as she would have already had Teddy to raise and probably would've been too grief-stricken to fall in love again so quickly.
The second possibility is that Ted and Andromeda had another child after Tonks. But why wasn't this person mentioned anywhere in the books? I'm sure someone would've said something if Tonks had a younger sibling who died at a young age, ran away, or was disowned for joining the Death Eaters (Sirius probably would've drawn a parallel between Regulus and the younger Tonks sibling if the latter were the case).
The third possibility is that Ted and Andromeda had another child before Tonks. However, this is extremely unlikely, given that Andromeda (born c. 1952-1954) was either in her late teens or early twenties when had she Tonks in 1973. Any child before Tonks would've been born when Andromeda was only in her mid-to-late teens.
Of course, it's never been confirmed in canon that Tonks was an only child, so, if we want to err on the side of caution, I guess we shouldn't state she was in this article. Starstuff (Owl me!) 03:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Also, it's worth noting that Snape, Neville, Luna, and Theodore Nott are listed in Category:Only children along with Tonks, although I don't recall it ever being confirmed that any of them were only children (although I think it's the logical conclusion in all cases). JKR has confirmed in interviews that Draco, James, and Hermione were only children. Starstuff (Owl me!) 04:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I found proof that Tonks was an only child. In DH11, when Remus goes to Grimmauld Place and is confronted by Harry, he says, "Even her own family is disgusted by our marriage, what parents want their only daughter to marry a werewolf?" Starstuff (Owl me!) 04:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

That just says she's the only daughter, not the only child. --Cubs Fan2007 (Message me) 06:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
True, but I think, logically, if there was another child (in this case, son), he would have had to be mentioned at some point. Take Sirius's comments about his family in Chapter 6 of Order of the Phoenix:
"...I see Tonks isn’t on here. Maybe that’s why Kreacher won’t take orders from her – he’s supposed to do whatever anyone in the family asks of him-”
“You and Tonks are related?” Harry asked, surprised.
“Oh, yeah, her mother Andromeda was my favourite cousin,” said Sirius, examining the tapestry closely. “No, Andromeda’s not on here either, look-” He pointed to another small round burn mark between two names, Bellatrix and Narcissa.
“Andromeda’s sisters are still here because they made lovely, respectable pure-blood marriages, but Andromeda married a Muggle-born, Ted Tonks, so-” Sirius mimed blasting the tapestry with a wand and laughed sourly.
If Tonks had a brother, I find it odd that Sirius would make no mention of him here. Sirius doesn't mention Tonks because she's a member of the Order; he mentions her because he's explaining to Harry how his family removed from the tapestry anyone they disapproved of ("any time the family produced someone halfway decent they were disowned"). He goes out of his way to mention Ted Tonks, despite the fact that Harry has never heard of him and he would only be a relation of the Blacks by marriage, not of descent the way his daughter is, and son would be, if he had one. I also think it would be very odd for JKR to give us the Black family tree dating back several generations, but to not even mention one of the relations that would be alive in Harry's time and related to several people he knows.
Also, one has to wonder where this son was when Harry and Hagrid were at the Tonks House. If there was another child, he would have to be younger than Tonks, as Starstuff explained. Perhaps young enough to still be living at home (note, for instance, that Percy was nineteen when he left the Burrow, and only because of his dispute with his family, despite having a well-paid job). Furthermore, where would this other child be while Ted is on the run from the Muggle-Born Registration Commission? In Chapter 15 of Deathly Hallows, Ted mentions that Andromeda will be safe because she's a pure-blood, and could thus stay behind -- which she presumably did for their daughter, who was pregnant. You would think he would say "kids are half-bloods" to show why they were safe, if there were two or more. But he makes no mention of any children -- if Nymphadora is their only child, that would make sense, because Ted probably doesn't think she's safe, seeing as she's (1) a member of the Order, (2) an Auror, and (3) pregnant. There's also the matter of Bellatrix trying to "prune her family tree" (as discussed by Bellatrix and Voldemort in Chapter 1 of Deathly Hallows and mentioned by Tonks herself in Chapter 5) -- she aggressively attacks Tonks at every opportunity, but never so much as mentions a nephew that would be just as much of a "disgrace"?
I think it's similar to Luna's case -- it's never been outright stated that Luna is an only child, but it's highly likely that a sibling would have been mentioned, if she had one. For that matter, would the Weasleys have invited Luna and her father to Bill's wedding, but not her brother or sister? And where would this sibling have been when Harry, Ron, and Hermione visited Xenophilius during the Christmas holidays? I think it's a logical assumption that Tonks and Luna are only children. Oread (talk) 11:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


Has there been any mention of who will play Andromeda in the film? 22:53, October 7, 2009 (UTC)

No one yet. --ÈnŔîčö DCRavenclawcrest(Send me an Owl!) 07:16, October 19, 2009 (UTC)
If she was going to be in the movie I think Helena should play her since she is described as looking just like Bellatrix with Kinder eyes09:02, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
  • Personally, I'd have voted for Tara Fitzgerald. She looks like a pretty good blend between Helena Bonham Carter and Helen McCrory, as well as Natalia Tena. Or maybe Judy McIntosh, who played "Helen Pevensie" in The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. – Omarsamad


We know that Andromeda's relationship with Bellatrix was hateful...but what about Narcissa. I like to think there was some decency in Narcissa that would not allow her to totally cut off Andromeda. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

  • I believe Bellatrix said that both she and Narcissa hadn't speaken or even seen Andromeda after she married Ted.--Bella Goth 00:35, July 24, 2010 (UTC)Bella Goth
  • I doubt it, remember how she acted towards Harry and Hermione in the 6th book when they were at Madame Malkins so its highly possible she too cut off Andromeda for marrying a muggle born, remember I think she referred Hermione as scum P3891 04:02, April 8, 2012 (UTC)

Raising Teddy

The article mentions that Andromeda is gifted in cleaning charms, a trait both Ted and Tonks seemed to be missing. Do you think she raised Teddy to be a gifted charmer/very neat person, or do you think he still took after Ted I and Tonks, even though they both died.--Bella Goth 00:35, July 24, 2010 (UTC)--Bella Goth 00:35, July 24, 2010 (UTC)Bella Goth


Was Andromeda SPECIFICALLY mentioned to be a Slytherin? Or does it simply say that Sirius was the only Gryffindor in his family? (Please, do not give me opinions- I know Sirius said something in Order of the Phoenix, but I need a fact, not an opinion.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

It was said by Slughorn that "The whole Black family had been in my house, but Sirius ended up in Gryffindor!"

And I think that he would have mentioned if Dromeda had landed up in some other House. 20:51, March 27, 2011 (UTC)unsignedcomment But how immediate family was he referencing when he said "the whole Black family"? Technically, the Potters are family, the Weasleys are family (though I do recognize they're more distant)- he could have just been recognizing immediate family when he made that comment. Plus, Andromeda was very different from her sisters (Narcissa and Bellatrix), so I thought maybe she was the oddball out among her sisters, same as Sirius... especially since Sirius was "her favorite cousin"...

Andromeda was in Slytherin. Sirius says that "The Whole Black Family" were in Slytherin; if Andromeda wasn't in Slytherin then he would have stated something like "The Whole Black Family, excluding Andromeda and myself, were in Slytherin." As he didn't say this, and Slughorn, who was teaching at Hogwarts when Andromeda was a student said that "The whole Black family had been in my house, but Sirius ended up in Gryffindor!" we can safely state that Andromeda, along with Bellatrix and Narcissa, was a Slytherin. HarryPotterRules1 08:17, April 19, 2012 (UTC)

Possible Metamorphmagus

I've been curious recently as to whether or not Andromeda Tonks is a metamorphmagus. The trait seems to run in families, (an assumption that I gathered from Tonks and Teddy both being metamorphmagi), so that kind of lead me to believe that she could be. Judging by her temperament, I think it's possible that she is a metamorphmagus but simply doesn't make a show of changing her hair and nose and whatnot. I'm fairly sure that it's not specifically stated in the books, but do you think she's a metamorphmagus? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

In my opinion, if she were a Metamorphmagus, she'd change her looks to rid herself of the obvious Black family resemblance. In Deathly Hallows, Harry is frightened at first by how much Andromeda looks like her older sister Bellatrix, and, considering Andromeda's feelings towards her family, I don't think she would want that connection. Of course, there's no real evidence to prove this, but I don't think that she is one. -- 04:16, March 23, 2013 (UTC)

Where in Hallows 2 is Andromeda mentioned?

I'm asking because the link on the page links to the movie, and I don't recall Andromeda ever being mentioned in the movie. If so, that link needs to be removed. ParryHotterHero 09:14, August 22, 2011 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I believe she was mentioned in a deleted scene, when Tonks arrives at the Battle of Hogwarts and Remus says she should be with Teddy. However, I might just have just assumed that, because (1) that is who Teddy was with in the book and (2) she's mentioned as having been mentioned in the film. MBrody 03:00, June 26, 2015 (UTC)


Is it a safe assumption to say that Andromeda was born in 1953? It makes sense, after all. Bellatrix was born in 1951, after a bit of time to recover (I believe it's six months), her mother fell pregnant again and had Andromeda in 1953, after another six months, which would have been 1955, she fell pregnant again and had Narcissa. Am I right to think that the atricle should state her birthdate as 1953 since it is the most logical option?HarryPotterRules1 03:12, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

Women can actually sometimes get pregnant again very soon after giving birth. So if Bellatrix was born in early 1951 (January or February) and her mother, Druella Black, got pregnant immediately afterward, Andromeda could've been born late in the same calendar year (November or December). There's even a term for such siblings, "Irish twins," though this is sometimes seen as derogatory because of its somewhat unfavourable reference to Irish Catholic families, which traditionally had a large number of children closely-spaced in age. Starstuff (Owl me!) 07:54, April 7, 2012 (UTC)

True, but Druella was a Pureblood witch; it would be unlikely that she would fall pregnant again so soon after having Bellatrix. HarryPotterRules1 08:20, April 19, 2012 (UTC)

And why would that be? --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 18:28, May 1, 2013 (UTC)
If she fell pregnant too soon and damaged her body without giving birth to a son (which she ultimately did; the son, bit, I mean) then there'd be no use for her; there has to be enough time for Druella to recover - doctors recommend 6 months - and enough time for another pregnancy. 9 + 6 = 15; we do not know if Bellatrix was 47 or 46 at her death, but whatever the case, Andromeda is, AT LEAST 15 months younger than Bellatrix.
Bellatrix was born in 1951, so 12 months would put it at 1952; another 3 months makes 1953.
That is why HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 20:39, May 28, 2013 (UTC)
What in canon suggests that wizarding doctors did recommend Druella to wait 6 months before trying to have another baby? That may be the case in the real world, but who's to say that's the case in the wizarding world? We are not very privy to how the St. Mungo's obstetrics department works. And who's to say that, if such recommendation was ever made, Druella sticked to it?
And, even if she did wait 6 months before getting pregnant again, as you pointed out, and correctly so, we don't know if Bellatrix was 46 (born 1 January - 1 May, 1951) or 47 (born 1 May - 31 December, 1951) at the time of her death. Lets imagine Bellatrix was born in January, 1951 (the earliest possible dates, for the sake of convenience). 15 months after that is April 1952.
To simplify things, Bellatrix was born in 1951, so 12 months would put it at 1952; another 3 months does not necessarily make 1953 (in fact, 3 months would make 1953 if and only if Bellatrix was born in October, November or December).
And you aren't even taking into account that one does not have to have a baby immediately after those six months: for all we know, Druella and Cygnus may have wanted to wait a couple of years before having another baby.
As you can see, even if that recovery period that's mentioned/hinted-at nowhere in canon is to be taken into account, it's entirely possible for Bellatrix to have been born in 1951 and Andromeda in 1952, 1953, or 1954 (of course, if we are to discard those speculative six months, then any time between 1951-1955, inclusive, is possible). --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 21:55, May 28, 2013 (UTC)

She had her grandchild when she's in her 40s

Are you sure Andromeda had a grandson in her 40s. Unless I'm mistaken, she was born c.1953. She Tonks in her 20s, and Tonks had Teddy in her 20s. does it make sense? AB Ng Talk 12:12, August 13, 2014 (UTC)

At youngest, she was 18 when she had Tonks and 43 when Teddy was born; at oldest, she was 22 for Tonks and 47 for Teddy. If she was born in 1953 as both you and I think, then she would have been 20 for Tonks and 45 for Teddy. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 12:19, August 13, 2014 (UTC)

Image Debate

I want to open up a proper line of communication about the infobox image of Andromeda. There's no policy which says the image needs to be one of them when they are closer to the age they were known to have lived to. The image should only be one of the higher possible quality which in this case, would be the art work of her when she was younger - an actual profile of her appearance and not a screenshot of the family tree zoomed in.

By the logic the infobox image needs to look close to their age in present day, Harry Potter's page and other such characters would need to be an image from their appearance in the play. And it's besides the point anyway because we write articles as though we are writing from a far-off future where everyone will technically be dead by then, so recent images and age have no point anyway. - Kates39 (talk) 18:27, May 2, 2018 (UTC)

She's no longer a young girl, she's a fully grown, mature old woman now. I believe the high quality of the image policy is just for images of a character around the same age, if not the same age, then just in a general sense. I honestly doubt you would change the infobox an image of baby Harry or as a little boy back in the first film if it was of higher quality, so why would you do the same thing to Andromeda? IlvermornyWizard (talk) 22:33, May 2, 2018 (UTC) IlvermornyWizard
The picture of Andromeda on the family tree was not one of her when she's an old woman. It was a drawing made years ago, when she was a young woman. It's from before she was removed from the tree. There's no Andromeda in present day ("now") because we have to edit in the sense that editors are from the far-off future where she's long dead, and that's why every article says "was a witch" etc.
There's no need for a picture of Harry when he was a baby because we have many decent pictures of him of many ages. If the website operates on the rule that pictures of them need to be when they are old(er), then everyone's picture would have to change. Harry would be one from the play. Andromeda looks better in the art work from when she was younger. You can look at her face better, and it matches her description better. It's simply the better picture.
The Image Policy basically means the better image wins every time in every situation, which it should. I will let an admin decide whether to hold a vote, which may be needed. - Kates39 (talk) 22:54, May 2, 2018 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Kates39. There's no hard-and-fast rule that characters' main images need to the the most chronologically recent depiction (cf., apart from the Epilogue characters already mentioned, Gellert Grindelwald, or Newton Scamander). Strictly speaking, all relevant images can be used as main pictures: it's a question of quality and how adequately the picture represents the character. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 01:38, May 3, 2018 (UTC)