Can he speak?
I've yet to get to the last book so I don't know if this will be answered there, but while playing the Chamber Of Secrets game for GameBoy Color, speaking to the Baron at Nick's deathday party results in the response; "......." to which Harry remembers the Baron cannot talk. Is this true, or just some random thing added to the game? Could've sworn he was laughing when he appeared in the first film, so it hardly seems logical for them to add that sort of thing into the game. --Malunis T 10:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
The Baron can probably speak. The other ghosts only rarely speak to him.--Rodolphus 10:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- In Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, Harry impersonates the Baron while under the Cloak of Invisibility to scare away Peeves. Since Peeves is convinced and flies off, I would assume that yes he can speak. - Nick O'Demus 10:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
11:21, March 21, 2010 (UTC)
- The circumstances around the Baron's death (including the timeframe) were only revealed in Deathly Hallows. At the time of filming Philosopher's Stone we didn't really know when he lived, and the filmmakers chose 17th/18th century-ish attire (note that in the film he isn't wearing his chains either -- something that was only revealed in Deathly Hallows). -- 12:09, June 27, 2011 (UTC)
The article claims that the Baron presumably has Muggle heritage given his noble title, but I say this is unlikely. I mean, the Bloody Baron was taught at Hogwarts in the Founders' Time; having been sorted into Slytherin house he was taught by Salazar Slytherin himself. Given Slytherin's extremist anti-Muggle ideology, I find it very unlikely that a person with Muggle ancestry was a) taught by the man himself and b) chosen to represent (as a house ghost) a house whose founder greaty valued the purity of one's blood (even in Chamber of Secrets, the password to the Slytherin Common Room was "Pure-Blood"). Sure, it is true that according to Remus Lupin there are no princes in the wizarding world, but does the absence of royal families invalidate the existance of a noble social class? --19:32, June 27, 2011 (UTC)
- Nope. I've said it before, royalty and nobility are two different things. Jayden Matthews 19:42, June 27, 2011 (UTC)
- Exactly. Look at San Marino for instance; nobility still remains part of the legal social structure despite the country being a republic. It bugs me a lot when I see every person in the Nobility category being automatically labeled as a Muggle-born or Half-blood. -- 19:48, June 27, 2011 (UTC)
Would it be fair to mark him down for Pure-blood then, given his tutelage under Salazar?Green Zubat 20:22, August 6, 2011 (UTC)
Repated Section Title
There's 2 "1995—1996 school year" sections in the article. Ordona 04:27, August 22, 2011 (UTC)
Fixed. The second one has been changed to "1996-1997" school year. -JDRooDigger 04:31, August 22, 2011 (UTC)
Hogwarts was founded in 993, with Helena Ravenclaw already born (whether she was 11 I don't know, but regardless) she will have been one of the first generation of students in the history of the Wizarding world to attend the school - meaning she would have left Hogwarts at 17 in the (minimum year) of 1000. At this time, the Bloody Baron also attends Hogwarts and falls in love with her, which as you know she never felt mutual. So, when they had left, Helena stole the diadem to be just as smart and thus famous as her mama, 'cause of this Rowena fell ill 'rumored' so she asked the Baron to go find Helena who had escaped to Albania. That means that if the murder in Albania took place in the year 1000 when they were both 17 (which is the lowest it can be) then the "baron" as JK brands him (she still hasn't told us his name) would be a title that simply doesn't exist as up to the battle of Hastings in 1066 we were ruled by Norway, and thus the title 'Baron' didn't exist until 1066. Which would mean that if the Baron WAS a Baron, the murder would have taken place in no later than 1066 - meaning they were both 83... And I according to Deathly Hallows, Helena is NOT an old woman. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ThatsRoss (talk • contribs).
- Nicely put. It's probably another of Rowling's mathematical/historical mistakes (i.e. the claim in Pottermore that the original Ollivander arrived at Britain with the Romans, but we know he established the wand-making business in 382 B.C. but the Roman conquest of Britain (Britannia) only began effectively in 43 B.C., under Emperor Claudius. -- 14:01, September 8, 2011 (UTC)
- Alternatively, he may have started calling himself "Baron" after his death, when the title itself was created. Jayden Matthews 14:45, September 8, 2011 (UTC)
- That'd be unlikley - During the Deathly Hallows when Helena explains the story to Harry, she states that her mother asked for the Baron, which to me sounds as though he is already being named that. However, that would solve the puzzle of why a Pure-blood Wizard bore Muggle title.
Relevance of foreign translations
This may not be the correct place for this, but, in the Welsh translation of the first book, the Bloody Baron is called the Bloody Baron Waldo. This got me thinking about how relevant foreign translations are to canon --- I mean, there are no other indications of the Baron's name, but should his name being Waldo be considered canon? -- Saxon 12:05, December 23, 2013 (UTC)
- I personally think so that his name being Waldo is being canon, but that's only my interpretation. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 16:24, January 12, 2014 (UTC)
- Bumping... -- Saxon 18:42, January 19, 2014 (UTC)
- I have two issues with the rename.
- First, the examples you pointed out are somewhat different in that they don't alter what's in the original English editions, but they add to it (i.e. Scouthibou goes unnamed in the original edition, and it's given a name in the French edition; which is substancially different from a ghost being called "Bloody Baron" in the original and "Barwn Waldo Waedlyd, or "Bloody Baron Waldo", in the Welsh translation). All in all, whenever a translation changes or goes against what's said in the original editions, that's a no-no. There are numerous other examples of names being changed from the original in some translations, without any of it being considered canon (one example is "Emeric Switch", which is referred to as "Emeric G. Changé" in the French editions — even though that "G." was added, it alters the name as a whole, and it is therefore, not canon (the "G. Changé" was the translator making a pun with "J'ai changé", which means "I've changed" -- fitting for a Transfiguration specialist).
- Which actually brings me to my second, and I think, more important consideration. While some translators chose to translate names of characters and objects literally, others chose to translate the names, adapting the wordplays and puns into the language they were translating to, to make the non-English-speaker reader aware of them. Case in point, "Bloody Baron" is an alliteration -- something "Barwn Waedlyd" (a literal translation of "Bloody Baron" into Welsh) isn't. To mantain that alliteration, a further element was needed in the name, hence the addition of "Waldo" ("Waldo Waedlyd" has that "Wa" sound repeated on the beginning of each word). That's why the Welsh editions render the Bloody Baron's name like that — out of stylistic need, not canonical insight, methinks. -- 20:53, January 21, 2014 (UTC)