Question - If she was born into a pure blood family, would she not by default be pure blood? Mafalda Hopkirk 16:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
She couldn't have be born in 1920s
The Potion textbook that features in the book was used by both Snape and his mother. The publishing date was sometime during the 1950s, using that date Harry and friends ruled out that it could possibly belongs to anyone they knew. But then later on they realised that Snape used his mother's textbook.
If the textbook was published in 1950 and Prince bought it in her penultimate year in Hogswarts (same year as Harry started to use the book), then she was 16 at the time, so the earliest she could have been born was 1934.
Alternatively if the book was published in 1959, she would have been born in 1943, which would at the same time made her a teenage mother when she had Snape. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.133.7.37 (talk • contribs).
- Wouldn't this make her birth year a range from 34 to 43? I'm going to put it on the page, but 32 to 43, because there is always the possibility she was born after september, so the year is one back.
- "Ron fell asleep almost immediately, but Harry delved into his trunk and pulled out his copy of Advanced Potion-Making before getting into bed. There he turned its pages, searching, until he finally found, at the front of the book, the date that it had been published. It was nearly fifty years old. Neither his father, nor his father’s friends, had been at Hogwarts fifty years ago."
- — Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - Chapter 16
- If I might add something to the discussion: the book was published not in the 1950s, but in in the 1940s: circa 1946 ("nearly fifty years" before 1996). If Eileen bought the book on the year it was published (which is likely, given that the time setting fits), and if she bought it when she was 16 (her sixth year), she was born in around 1930. -- Seth Cooper owl post! 12:53, May 19, 2012 (UTC)
- You're completely correct. Let's get a handle on this. If the book was "nearly fifty years" old in 1996 (we know it's 1996 because Harry checked the date on Christmas Eve, per Chapter 16 HBP) the earliest date it could have been published is c. 1946 like Seth said. On the other hand, the latest the book could have been published is about c. 1951 (so the book would be 45) so that is the book would have been "nearly fifty years" by Harry's glance. Any earlier than 45 years old and Harry would have most reasonably thought the book was "about forty years" old since he was rounding. Therefore, the publishing range is 1946-51, and assuming Eileen bough the book when she was 16, her year of birth is 1930-35. Of course, if Eileen was born during the fall semester her birth range would be 1929-35. This is reasonably solid, but there is the last variable, accurately noted by Seth; we don't know if Eileen bought the book the same year it came out. Even not knowing this, I am reasonably comfortable about these years. If someone wants to double-check my math, I wouldn't mind a second set of eyes. DisturbedLemon 14:32, May 29, 2012 (UTC)
death date is wrong
This article states that Eileen Prince died in 1943 while the article states she was alive during the 1970's. Does anyone know when she died? Muggledoor (talk) 06:40, August 10, 2012 (UTC)
- That's not a death-date, it's an end-range of possible birth years. ProfessorTofty (talk) 06:46, August 10, 2012 (UTC)
pure blood?
Is she really a pure blood? because Hermione thought she was the half blood prince, so woldn't she be a half blood? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 173.48.164.178 (talk • contribs).
- Please sign your posts using four tildes. Anyway, here's what the book says "'Yeah, that fits,' said Harry. 'He'd play up the pure-blood side so he could get in with Lucius Malfoy like the rest of them.... He's just like Voldemort. Pure-blood mother, Muggle father...." So she's pure-blood, and Hermione was wrong. What you have to remember is that Hermione was only speculating, she didn't know much about Eileen Prince at the time that she suggested that she could be the Half-Blood Prince. ProfessorTofty (talk) 22:57, January 20, 2013 (UTC)
- But then, how do we know she is truly pure-blood and Harry didn't just assume she was because Snape was half-blood? She might be half-blood herself... neither Harry nor Hermione knew her that well. --Hunnie Bunn (Owl me!) 23:12, January 20, 2013 (UTC)
- You know, you do have a point. The article Hermione was reading from simply stated that she was a "witch," at least as far as the part we are privy to says. It never says specifically that she was a pure-blood. I think I'll change it to a strong possible. ProfessorTofty (talk) 23:13, January 20, 2013 (UTC)
- Besides, isn't it stated that most pure-blood families are half-blood anyways? --Hunnie Bunn (Owl me!) 23:23, January 20, 2013 (UTC)
- The fact that Snape called himself "the Half-Blood Prince" implies that he is the only half-blood member of the Prince family. -- Kaius Varrow (Saxon) 11:11, January 21, 2013 (UTC)
- Besides, isn't it stated that most pure-blood families are half-blood anyways? --Hunnie Bunn (Owl me!) 23:23, January 20, 2013 (UTC)
- You know, you do have a point. The article Hermione was reading from simply stated that she was a "witch," at least as far as the part we are privy to says. It never says specifically that she was a pure-blood. I think I'll change it to a strong possible. ProfessorTofty (talk) 23:13, January 20, 2013 (UTC)
- But then, how do we know she is truly pure-blood and Harry didn't just assume she was because Snape was half-blood? She might be half-blood herself... neither Harry nor Hermione knew her that well. --Hunnie Bunn (Owl me!) 23:12, January 20, 2013 (UTC)