I have changed the "at least one female grandchild" part to read "at least one female descendant". Who knows - perhaps he had only male grandchildren, who at some point in time gave rise to at least one female descendant who passed the cloak down through time until it reached the Potters? --18.104.22.168 20:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I must say that I'm in favor of changing the picture in the infobox to the image from the DH film. All of the other articles have movie characters seen where available. ----Parodist (Send me an Owl) 02:39, December 30, 2009 (UTC)
Undo Damages done to Ignotus Peverell
Someone - I don't know who, I don't why, by I swear by my immortal soul that it was not me - has done considerable damage to the Ignotus Peverell page = only a few sentences! I have tried to undo the damage, but it seems like I have - cry - made matters worse! I am so, so, so, SO SORRY. Is there anyone who can help to save the day?????????????
In the Behind the Scenes, it mentions Ignotus dying of old age in Beedle's story but only 76 in the Harry Potter Film Wizardry, and the tone of that section suggests that the latter (Film Wizardry) is correct over that of JKR's own work. The props used in the movies (which I assume were used in the book) are not necessarily right: do we have actual confirmation that JKR approved and/or designed the runes that give his date of birth and death? If not, that section should be edited. Kaldelar (talk) 18:27, May 1, 2015 (UTC)
- The character of the Third Brother in the story "The Tale of the Three Brothers" is only based on Ignotus, and therefore the fact that the story says he "attained a great age" may have been invented by Beedle the Bard. The real Ignotus dying at seventy-six therefore doesn't directly contradict the novels and can be considered canon. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 18:43, May 1, 2015 (UTC)
To be clear, Pottermore never says that Iolanthe inherited the cloack directly from her grandfather. It just says that she - as eldest of her generation - eventually inherited the cloak. To make this consistent with the Deathly Hallows text, it is clear that his son - Iolanthe's father - first inherited the cloak, and then on his death - in the absence of a direct male heir - it passed to Iolanthe, the eldest of her generation.
She was the granddaughter of Ignotus Peverell. In the absence of male heirs, she, the eldest of her generation, had inherited her grandfather’s invisibility cloak.
The reference "to her generation" makes it clear that her father inherited the cloak before her. The reference to "her grandfather's cloak" does not mean or imply that Ingotus' son did not inherit the cloak first. Wva (talk) 18:45, October 31, 2015 (UTC)
The Pottermore article further said "From this time on, the cloak was handed down to the eldest in each new generation." This was after Iolanthe inherited the cloak. It was after this when it was handed from one generation to the next. Previously, it could have skip a generation: Ignotus to Iolanthe. Seasrmar (talk) 18:55, October 31, 2015 (UTC)
- That is true. However, the "Three Brothers" states that it was passed on to his son. It may be a "tale" "in world' but it was written by JKR and is still canon. The Pottermore article does not directly contradict that. So we have to accept the version (Ignotus -> son -> Iolanthe) that is most compatable with every canonical source.
- The version of events that satisfies the most elements of canon is the correct one. Wva (talk) 19:09, October 31, 2015 (UTC)
- We are taking fairy tales as absolute canon now, that there is no absolute false in them? So tell me, did Death really gave the three brothers there gifts? Are we expecting Babbity Babbit or Hopping Pot to show up anyday now in the Harry Potter universe? The tales were written by JKR, yes, but they are not meant to be absolute truth. It was a fiction tales in the HP universe. Like many fairy tales, they are more to convey a message. Like the Hairy Heart wizard, to encourge wizards to love. In the Tales of Three Brothers, informing us that Ignotus passing the cloak to his son was to show us two things. First, unlike his brothers, he didn't suffer an untimely deaths, because of his humbleness. Second, the Invisibility Cloak, unlike especially the Elder Wand, didn't have a bloody transfer. There are part base on truth, but not the entirety. Let's bring to real life, are we expecting any fairy tales to really show up in our world? Am I expecting to see Little Red Riding Hood? If anything the bit about her generation tells me is that Ignotus's son probably predecease his father. Kinda of like how the current British Royal family is. The Queen is serving for a long time. Prince Charles may very well predecease her. If he does, Willam, her grandson, will inheritted the Crown. There have been cases where the grandchildren inherited directly without his or her parents inherited first. Seasrmar (talk) 19:27, October 31, 2015 (UTC)
All fiction contains elements of truth to them - for example, someone spoke of warriors who rode so well that it was like man and horse were one and the Centaur legend was born - And, strange as it may be, the reptilian kitten eater from another planet was once Premier of Ontario and, not only that, he said that he also likes puppies during a live debate. Ok, it was a controversy involving a leaked memo, but still true. Iolanthe Peverell Potter was given to be Ignotus Peverell's granddaughter when the Potter family history was revealed on Pottermore. Furthermore, Iolanthe's maiden name was Peverell so, unless she was born out of wedlock, Peverell was a surname she inherited from her father. So the pattern given in the Potter family tree is Ignotus > son name not given > granddaughter Iolanthe. Finally, according to the Potter universe, the cloak that was passed down to Iolanthe and which were passed down through the descendants of her husband was real. (Vaudree (talk) 00:11, November 1, 2015 (UTC))
Date of Death
Hey! We get the date of death from this picture but it looks like it says the 19th May 1292, not the 18th May 1291. When you look at where the "2" is meant to be in the crack, the end looks exactly like the "2" for the date of birth. I hope someone can help me solve this! Thank you! -Kates39 (talk) 22:05, August 18, 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed. That's clearly the case. -- Saxon 22:19, August 18, 2016 (UTC)