Hey guys I was rereading this article, specifically the part Behind the scenes part. The person who contribute this part thinks James Potter's mother could be Dorea Black. He or she believe this because James only mentioned his father being in Gryffindor, and not his mother, so she could have been in Slytherin, as most Blacks, except for Sirius was in Slytherin. I am here to propose my point that she neither was a Slytherin and not Dorea Black. First, the latter. Of course as someone else already pointed out, Dorea die pretty young even in Muggle sense to James mother who die at an old age for wizards/witches. But I present a second point, Dorea and Charlus Potter were still on the Family Tree, not burn off. One would think James's parents be burn off by Walburga Black, Sirius's mother who kept the tapestry. After all, James parents took in Sirius, Walburga runaway blood traitor son, and treated him as one of their own. Now onto the former, on how I know she's not a Slytherin. Yes, while it's true, James did not mention his mother's house. But look around it, when he was talking about Slytherin house. Sirius told him "My whole family have been in Slytherin." And James replied "Blimey, and I thought you seemed all right!" From my interpretation, James implying being Slytherin makes a person seems odd. Would he say that if in fact, his very own mother was a Slytherin? I don't think so. While we see many similarity between Draco and James, both pureblood, spoil, there are many obvious differences. One that I can point out, while I think James may sometimes pout to get his parents to do things for him, I don't think he's like Draco, who would sometimes verbally abuse his mother, Narcissa. So I doubt, James would bad mouth his mother, and talk about Slytherin that way if his mother was one. So that my prove she wasn't in Slytherin Seasrmar 08:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Debatable point in Behind the Scenes

"In the "Special Features" disc of the Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban DVD, Fiona Shaw (who played Petunia Dursley) was interviewed saying how cars slowly pass by her father's house in Ireland, saying that "Harry Potter's grandfather lives there"."

Is this really necessary on this page. Petunia, and thus, Fiona Shaw, is not James´sister.--Rodolphus 18:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The interview in question can be found on Disc 2 of Prisoner of Azkaban under "Divination Class" -> "Head to Shrunken Head" -> "The Dursleys." In it, Richard Griffiths, Fiona Shaw, Harry Melling, and Pam Ferris are asked about how people have reacted to their appearing in the HP films:
Interviewer: What about you? What experience have you had with some of your younger rellies [relatives]?
Fiona Shaw: They just can't believe it. My father lives in Ireland, and cars go slowly past his house, because they say "Harry Potter's grandfather lives in there." [Laughs hysterically as she continues to speak] It entirely bewilders.
Interviewer: They've got it really wrong, haven't they?
Fiona Shaw's comment evidently wasn't intended to refer to Mr. Evans or Mr. Potter. It's a story about how information often gets mixed up. People probably started to point out her father's house with, "That's where Fiona Shaw's father lives. She plays Harry Potter's aunt," and somehow that became "Harry Potter's grandfather lives there." Starstuff (Owl me!) 14:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

i undestand that, but still "James Potter´s father" and "Fiona Shaw´s father" are not the same person. And as Fiona plays Petunia, Harry´s maternal aunt, not paternal. That was the reason for me to move the information to the Mr Evans-article.--Rodolphus 14:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, now you have deleted this information entirely. Thank you.--Rodolphus 14:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


So I realise that this is mostly just speculation, but I was thinking, is it actually said somewhere that Harry had no living blood relatives besides Petunia when his parents where murdered? Because, and like I said total speculation, because it was Lily that died for Harry sealing the magic that protected him, it could have meant that only blood relatives of Lily could continue the protection, excluding any potential blood relatives of James. --BachLynnGryffindorcrest(Accio!) 23:31, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I believe it's mentioned in the early chapters of Philosopher's Stone. --Cubs Fan (Talk to me) 02:49, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

Charlus Potter

This page has been redirected to this page on a new speculation wiki. Please leave additional comments there. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 13:11, August 18, 2013 (UTC)

Pure blood

I think it is fairly clear that the Potters were not a pure-blood family.

First, it is obvious that they did not have the mental instabillity evidenced by those families that were literally "pure-blood", for example, the Gaunts.

Second, they also did not hide their muggle ancestors as those who claimed to be pure-blood did.

Finally, as JKR wrote, in modern times "pure-blood" is primarily a political statement as opposed to a statement about geneaology.  The Potters throughout the generations did not hold to this political philosophy.

Wva (talk) 18:00, September 22, 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are talking about. The Weasleys, the Malfoys and the Longbottoms are Pure-Bloods and don't have mental instability like the Gaunts. James Potter being a Pureblood is canon, therefore his parents must be Purebloods, too. Neville Longbottom (talk) 15:57, September 23, 2015 (UTC)
"Blood status" is a social construct, but saying that the Potters are a pure-blood family does not mean that they share these views -- it means that people who hold the blood purity philosophy would characterise them as pure-blood. J.K. Rowling has said that the normal view is to consider someone with wizard parentage and all-pure-blood grandparents as "pure-blood", although the seriously prejudiced, like the Gaunts, would disagree (to them, I'd bet, a single Muggle ancestor would pollute the bloodline -- but this is unrealistic, especially when one considers that up to the 1690s, wizards could openly associate with Muggles). --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 18:57, September 23, 2015 (UTC)
I think the take-away point is that "pure blood" is a complicated term with many different meanings.  The way I work it out in my mind is that James Potter, Neville Longbottom and the Weasleys are certainly pure-blood, but I would not consider the Potter, Longbottom or Weasley families to be pure-blood.  I think when you talk about an individual calling them "pure-blood" is a reference to their geneaology and the fact that their grandparents (at least) were all magical.  Calling a family "pure-blood" is a reference to their political views.
However, I will point out the obvious problem with my own solution:  An individual may revolt against their family.  Sirius and several of his relatives were clearly not politically pure-blood, even though their family certainly was.  And hopefully without stealing a future movie plot, it is possible that a future Potter/Weasley descendent might be corrupted over to the "pure-blood" line for a time.  (I will probably be kicked off the sight for even suggesting that.)
Wva (talk) 20:15, September 23, 2015 (UTC)
Not sure I entirely agree with that. The Weasleys were still considered a Pure-Blood family despite their obvious acceptance of Muggles. The way I see it, blood status (both of individuals and families in general) were based on genealogy. This practice, as others have already pointed out, is not terribly realistic. True pure-bloods, if they ever existed at all, almost certainly no longer existed by Harry's time. It's even been revealed that the Potter family occasionally married muggles.
The Wikia Editor (talk) 0:27, September 26, 2015 (UTC)


GSnitch This discussion is listed as an Active Talk Page.
Please remove this template when the question has been answered.

Do not know about the birth of Fleamont Potter, but can speculate that Fleamont Potter was born at the late 1930 or early 1940 after James Potter born late at 1960. Invisibility 11:36, December 26, 2015 (UTC) Currently now still do not know about the birth of Fleamont Potter. Who knew then discussed here. (Invisibility 15:52, December 28, 2015 (UTC))

There is not enough canon information to determinate his year of birth. All we know is that he and Euphemia were elderly in wizarding terms when their son was born,--Rodolphus (talk) 15:59, December 28, 2015 (UTC)

Something hit me literally minutes ago. James's parents have been described as "old by wizarding standards" by J.K. Rowling, correct? Well, Armando Dippet, who was three hundred and fifty five was not. Could that imply that Fleamont (and his wife, who was described in the same sentence!) is over three hundred and fifty five years old at the time of death? --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 04:11, January 5, 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that Dippet is not considered old. In Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, Chapter 13 (The Very Secret Diary), a 1943 Dippet is described as "A wizened, frail looking wizard, bald except for a few wisps of white hair" and quoted as "Enter," said the old wizard in a feeble voice." By 1992 in the Evening Prophet, he is "a rather feeble old wizard."
In The Leaky Cauldron's 2005 JKR Interview JKR says of Fleamont & Euphemia "They were old in wizarding terms". In Writing by J.K. Rowling: "The Potter Family" at Pottermore, (published later) it is said that "Dragon pox carried them off within days of each other, due to their advanced age..." So we know they were old, and that a 305 year-old Dippet is considered old in 1943, but he might have been considered old since he was 150 or 200 or who knows when. I don't think a comparison can be made to deduce the age of Fleamont and Euphemia.
It helps to have these talks BEFORE making changes. The refs you have added that Dippet is not considered old are incorrect. --Ironyak1 (talk) 04:57, January 5, 2017 (UTC)
Note, I never said he wasn't old. He is old, just like Dumbledore is old. However, J.K. Rowling has not said that Dippet is old by wizarding standards. Old, yes; old by wizarding standards, no. That, to me, implies that Euphemia and Fleamont are older than Dippet was. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 05:02, January 5, 2017 (UTC)
JKR also didn't say that Nicholas Flamel was "old by wizarding standards" so maybe they're older than him as well? We simply don't know what "old by wizarding standards" means, so it's arbitrary to compare them to Dippet, or Flamel, or Barry Winkle, or any other "old" wizard and say they have to be older than them because JKR never used the words "old by wizarding standards" to describe them. --Ironyak1 (talk) 05:19, January 5, 2017 (UTC)
True, she has never said it... but she also hasn't said it, so we have to consider it. Maybe in a BTS stuff? --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 12:33, January 5, 2017 (UTC)
It seems a bit of a reach to me to assume that Fleamont and Euphemia are older than Armando Dippet because Rowling didn't define him with the exact same words in a book published seven years before she gave the interview. I don't think we should start adding speculation to the Behind the Scenes section just because Rowling hasn't said anything about it yet. As Ironyak said, we don't know what old by wizarding standards means, and I doubt Euphemia could have a child at the age of around 355. --Kates39 (talk) 13:32, January 5, 2017 (UTC)

As I've been working on the Chocolate Frog Cards lately, which have birth and death dates for many wizards, I took what was known from there and added in some others that we have solid birth and deaths for (Grindelwald, Voldemort, Bellatrix, Snape, Sirus, J & L Potter, Lupin, Tonks, Fred Weasley, Flamels, Dippet, Winkle) to see how the ages for these 70 wizards stack up.

The first obvious thing is that Winkle (755+), N. Flamel (666), P. Flamel (658) and Dippet (355) are extreme cases. The next closest is Musidora Barkwith at age 146.

If we remove these 4 extremes, the average age for the other 66 wizards is 77 with a standard deviation of 26 years. This means that most (68%) of all these wizards lived between 51 and 103 years old. In fact when figuring out what it means to be "old", outside of the extreme four, only 8 wizards are known to have lived past 100 - Barkwith (146), Bloxam (116), Dumbledore (115), Grindelwald (115), Stump (114), Platt (111), Majoribanks (103), & Vablastsky (103).

What does all this tell us? That from wizards with known birth and deaths, the norm is around 77 years although up to around 100 years old is not too uncommon, and that extreme ages above the longest-known Muggle life span (~122) are possible but rare.

I'm not against a BTS comment on the fact that Fleamont and Euphemia were "old by wizarding standards" as long as it notes that we don't know what that means exactly and it's unclear if that puts them in the company of wizards like Dumbledore, or Barkwith, or Dippet, or the Flamels, or Winkle. --Ironyak1 (talk) 19:06, January 5, 2017 (UTC)

Infobox - family

I made this edit to remove the family members beyond 2 generations, but I left the most distant ancestors as:

  1. The Peverells and their hallows are a key piece of information both as plot and symbolism
  2. Linfred is the source of the Potter family name

Figured this edit might serve as an example to discuss this format as we consider structuring the family fields on the infoboxes. Thoughts? --Ironyak1 (talk) 16:45, May 26, 2016 (UTC)

Blood status

We know James was considered pure-blood from Lupin's statement in HBP12. It follows that James's parents – his immediate ancestors – would've had to have been pure-blood for James to bear this status himself. The closest we have to a canonical threshold for determining blood status is JKR's statements on her old site that a "Muggle-born is as 'bad' as a Muggle" in the eyes of pure-blood supremacists, and that the Death Eaters' wizarding purity regime followed "precisely" the same logic as Nazi Germany's racial purity regime, where a "single Jewish grandparent 'polluted' the blood" to the point that someone was considered Jewish. The concept of blood purity is, of course, subjective rather than scientific, but what we can infer from available canonical information is that the minimum threshold for pure-blood status is no Muggle-born or Muggle grandparents.

The tricky thing is that the baseline for making a determination here is James rather than Fleamont or Euphemia. James is the one who has been positively identified as pure-blood in canon. So, in order to been considered pure-blood, James could not have had any Muggle-born or Muggle grandparents. That means that neither of his parents could have been first-generation half-bloods (i.e. the child of a Muggle/Muggle-born and a pure-blood). There is the technical possibility that his parents could have been second-generation half-bloods.

What we know about James's character, however, seemingly rules out that possibility. James, being unconcerned with blood status, doesn't seem like the type who'd puff himself up as "pure-blood" if he only met that status under its bare-minimum interpretation, i.e. by having a Muggle/Muggle-born great-grandparent. He wouldn't have cared about trying to hide or downplay a Muggle ancestor three or four generations back. Thus, if Lupin believed James to be pure-blood, his qualification for this status must have been uncontroversial. It's probably something James told Lupin as a bit of trivia, or Lupin learned independently as a neutral, uncontested fact. We also don't see any pure-blood supremacists disparaging James for having had Muggle ancestry. Starstuff (Owl me!) 17:30, October 10, 2017 (UTC)

While I agree with everything you said, the problem for me is that there is still the possibility that his parents may have been second-generation half-bloods. As such, I believe it to be better to list out the options, with explanations, and let the reader make up their mind as to the probabilities involved rather than make the inferences and deductions for them and state only one possibility as fact. Perhaps stating "Pure-blood (likely) or half-blood (possibly)" with a summary explanation of the reasoning involved? Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 04:01, October 11, 2017 (UTC)
Well, according to the new stuff on the wiki, you cannot have a second generation half-blood... that's why I protested the changes to start with. If you have second generation half-bloods, then the whole "half-blood grandparents make the grandchildren pure" thing this wiki has going on is wrong because, by that, there is no such thing as a second generation half-blood. However, if the original idea the wiki worked on - i.e. one half-blood makes all descendants forever more half - is correct, then your rebuttal works, Iron. So, I assume it's time to undo the wrongess and refix it all... HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 12:10, October 12, 2017 (UTC) 
Of course there can be second generation half-bloods (muggle/wizard parents have half-blood child (generation 1) which have half-blood child (generation 2). What there can't be under Rowling's rules is third generation half-bloods as they would have no muggle/muggle born parents or grandparent, just great-grandparents.
Your assertion that one muggle ancestor pollutes the blood forever goes against both Dumbledore's In-Universe statements and Rowling's multiple explanations that all wizards have some muggle ancestry and Pure-bloods are no different. The Pure-blood idea is that you can weed out the lessor muggle blood (after two generations) which fits with Rowling's statement that the wizard gene is dominant i.e. enough wizard-only marriages (including to half-bloods for non-fanatics like the Malfoys) and the recessive gene is largely suppressed, with many being genetically "Pure-blood". --Ironyak1 (talk) 16:25, October 12, 2017 (UTC)
If that were true, Sirius's words that pure-bloods were dying out would be entirely incorrect - all a 2nd generation half-blood has to do is marry another second generation half-blood to create a "pure" wizard, who then marries someone of the same situation as him and so on and so forth - there'd be a resurgence of "pure" wizards after a generation or two of Muggleborns/Muggles marrying in. So, by that logic, it renders the theory of no muggle/muggleborn grandparents entirely and completely invalid. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 18:58, October 12, 2017 (UTC)
Sirius is saying that pure-blood families are dying out, not individual pure-blood wizards, as marrying muggles/muggle-borns becomes more common. Once a muggle/muggle-born marries into the family then the family can no longer be Pure-blood (without removing them by disowning them), but the individuals can still be pure-blood as their status is based on the blood-status of their parents & grand-parents, not the entire family. Narcissa marrying Ted Tonks didn't change the blood-status of her or her relatives, but would effect family's status, without them disowning her from the family tree. Even if they didn't disown her, all the members could go onto to have pure-blood children (with the proper spouse) even though the Black family would no longer be Pure-blood.
The intermarrying of only wizards is exactly what had to happen in the Middle-Ages after the Statute of Secrecy in order to establish your family as pure-blood, as at the time "those now self-describing as pure-bloods were unlikely to have any higher proportion of wizarding ancestors than those who did not." Writing by J.K. Rowling: "Pure-Blood" at Pottermore. All wizards have muggle ancestry, being considered a Pure-blood individual or family is just a matter of having "enough" distance from this heritage. --Ironyak1 (talk) 20:28, October 12, 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but if a family has half-bloods in it, it can't classify as Pure (hence why the Potter Family is currently labelled as formerly Pure). So Sirius's words of Pure-blood families dying out means that, in Pure-blood families, at least, Half-bloods do not count. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 11:56, October 13, 2017 (UTC)