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)