|NOTICE: Please DO NOT add any more posts about James Potter being a Seeker. While we are aware this was stated in the Philosopher's Stone film, J. K. Rowling herself has said that James Potter was a Chaser. According to this wiki's Canon Policy, information directly from Rowling takes priority over what is shown in the films. Furthermore, this is already noted in the article's "Behind the scenes" section. Any further posts on this topic will be removed unless any new information relevant to this matter is released and/or valid references are provided. Thank you.|
Seeker or Chaser
Wasent Jamed Potter a Seeker
No Chaser Ginny Potter-Weasley 14:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Actually there are references to his playing both positions (much as Ginny played different positions).--L.E./firstname.lastname@example.org/188.8.131.52 20:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- According to interviews with JK Rowling, he was a Chaser. I've never thought of it before now, but I think he was changed to a Seeker in Movie 1 only so Ron and Hermione could reassure Harry that he would not make a fool of himself on the pitch. Cubs Fan2007 03:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Just out of curiosity, where exactly in the books does it say James was a keeper? Gwenog Jones 15:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC) Correction, chaser.
- Just wondering that since Harry's son James' article is now known as James Potter (II), should this article be moved to James Potter (I)? NighthawkLeader 06:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps to avoid ambiguity, but Harry's dad had been dead many years before James Potter, II, was born. "James Potter" would be a better name for this article, with a link at the top of the page. See the discussion at Talk:James Potter II. Alychne 19:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think the "I" and "II" should be used just to differentiate between the pair. Since they are the only "James Potter"s explicitly mentioned in the books, I don't see why it matters how many Jameses there possibly were before James the elder. And the Roman numerals are a lot shorter than "James the elder" and "James the younger." -- Cubs Fan2007 06:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Since Harry's middle name is James, wouldn't that make him James Potter II and his son James Potter III? Sheendough 19:02, July 23, 2011 (UTC)
JK Rowling said he was a chaser. But in the trophy room it says James Potter was a seeker. Also, in the books, in states that James was well known because he was the seeker of the team, which is normally the most well known player. Either there's been a mistake make somewhere, or he played both positions, the second one I think is more likely.
--Lilemzy95 15:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, it doesn't say he was a seeker in the books. The only time he is mentioned as being a Seeker was that one scene in the Philosopher's Stone film. The canon policy of ths wiki says that the movies are canon only so long as they don't contradict the books or JKR's own comments, and JKR said James was a Chaser, - Nick O'Demus 16:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- - Didn't James draw and play with a Snitch in "Snape's Worst Memory" on Order of the Phoenix? Isn't that a clear sign he was a Seeker? I think JK forgot about that... Right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maddy17 (talk • contribs).
- Wrong. I can play with a tennis ball and not know how to hold a racquet. If Rowling says he was a Chaser, he was a Chaser, as Rowling's Word is Law. -- 23:13, July 24, 2011 (UTC)
Picture of young James & Sirius
If Ginny is/would be his daughter-in-law, does that make the other Weasley kids his in-laws by extension? Cubs Fan2007 01:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Usually an in-law is just considered as a kid's husband/wife I believe. If you're thinking to extend the family field in the infobox. No, they wouldn't be applicable there. -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 02:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- No, I wasn't thinking of extending it; I was just curious. Cubs Fan2007 16:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I've never heard that, either. But like I said, I was just curious; the family connections between Harry and Ginny got me thinking. Cubs Fan2007 00:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
How is James Related to Tom Marvolo Riddle?! I'm curious as to how that connection works. ~CAMM
Where is it said that James could conjure a Patronus in his Animagus-form?--Rodolphus 12:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- I believe it is drawn from a question asked during the Bloomsbury Live Chat:
- Chely: James patronus is a stag and lilys a doe is that a coincidence?
- J.K. Rowling: No, the Patronus often mutates to take the image of the love of one's life (because they so often become the 'happy thought' that generates a Patronus).
- I don't remember James' Patronus ever being revealed. Chely may have confused it with his known Animagus form. But JKR did not contradict Chely, and, in fact, seemed to back up her by explaining how love can influence the form one's Patronus takes. It wouldn't be the first time someone's Animagus form coincided with their Patronus: McGonagall had a cat for both. ★ Starstuff (Owl me!) 04:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Since when has James, a notorious troublemaker, been Head Boy? ~ Hermione's Gone Asian 01:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- I really don't know how it happened, but he was a head boy.--Matoro183 (Talk) 01:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Oka-ay, as long as it's canon and not fanon I'll include it in the article. But if it's not then I'll delete it. ~ Hermione's Gone Asian 02:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
It was mentioned in Book One, that Harry's parents were Head Boy and Head Girl by Hagrid. --SilverDrama 02:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Hagrid says that, but that was early on in the series, and Hagrid was probably either trying to make James seem better than he was, or he got confused because it has been many years, and Lily was Head-Girl. The fact is, Lupin clearly states in the fifth installment that he himself was appointed Prefect for Gyrffindor for that class. James could not have become Head-Boy if he was never a Prefect. And he was too much of a trouble-maker, anyway. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs).
James not like Harry
- That's probably because Adrian Rawlins was cast when Daniel Radcliffe was like 12. Daniel has grown up since then, meaning that his appearance has changed. ★ Starstuff (Owl me!) 13:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm actually quite curious - is it ever canonized what James' job is, or is the popular belief that he was an auror simply fanon? ~Kuroi Arashi (might make an account in the distant future... Actually, not likely xd).
- JKR said that James didn't actually have a job. He inherited a lot of gold from his parents, so it wasn't necessary for him to work. Instead of working, he and Lily joined the Order of the Phoenix right after Hogwarts, but he was never actually an Auror. Read this interview. - Nick O'Demus 14:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
James Potter was a seeker not a Chaser. It clearly mentions this in the 1st book when they are in the trophy room
- Only in the movie is James mentioned to have been a Seeker. JKR stated that he was a Chaser, and that has higher priority as far as canon is concerned. See the policy page. -- Nick O'Demus 14:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
James was a seeker. it mentions it in the first and fifth books. so obviously JKR said that he was a seeker since se wrote it in the books that James was infact the seeker for the Gryfinndor quidditch team
- J. K. Rowling has said he was a Chaser so he was. The books never revealed what position he played, just because he was playing with a snitch in OOTP doesn't mean he was a Seeker. J. K.'s word is law. Jayden Matthews 15:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- All that's said in books 1 & 5 is that he was a Quidditch player on the house team, not that he was a Seeker. Furthermore, when asked where he got the snitch in book 5, he says "Nicked it" (stole it). As Jayden pointed out, JKR specifically said "James was a Chaser", not "Seeker" or "Chaser and Seeker". The movies are only canon insofar as they do not contradict either the books or JKR's comments. -- Nick O'Demus 16:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Question: "What position did James play on the Gryffindor Quidditch team? Was it seeker like Harry, or something different?"
- J.K. Rowling: "James was Chaser."
- — 2000 Scholastic.com webchat[|[src]]
"Given that both James and Lily were once asked by Voldemort to join his Death Eaters, it can be theorised that he, like his wife, was a considerably powerful and skilled wizard, being able to catch the eye of the most evil Dark wizard of all time."
I think i missed that part in the books.220.127.116.11 23:00, April 11, 2010 (UTC)
Where in the books does it say that James was Quidditch captain? Can someone point me to it? --ChavezOgram 23:37, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
This question has never been answered -- you claim he was a Captain (we've settled the Chaser/Seeker business) where is the canon re Captain18.104.22.168 04:29, February 26, 2012 (UTC)
James Potter Seeker
it actually does imply that James was a seeker in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, chapter Snape's Worst Memory (more specifically-pgs. 642-645). It mentions that 15 year old, fifth year James Potter drew a snitch on his O.W.L. exam paper. He also "nicked" a snitch and was playing with it showing off his reflexes.This makes me think that he must have been a seeker at one point in time.
- "Nicked" means "stole". He wasn't supposed to have that snitch. It would also be a bit harder to get away with stealing a Quaffle or a Bludger and using it to show off outside of class, wouldn't it? 22.214.171.124 03:16, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
- Everyone knows that "nicked" means "stole". It's common sense if you've actually read all of the books. Don't act like I'm stupid. In spite of your comment that still doesn't explain why he drew a snitch on his exam paper, and anyway he could have played both chaser and seeker (Ginny Weasely played both positions).
I think that he played both. Because J.K. goes over movie, but most recent cannon goes first. For example, in 2005 J.K. said Grindlewald was dead but he is alive and plays a big part in the more recent cannon, book 7.
James Potter Seeker cont.
Even JKR has admitted that sometimes serious fans have pointed out contradictions in some of the books and in some of the things that she has said. She admits tat she sometimes forgets details that she has put in previous books when she continues writing or has done an interview. This statement (if i remember correctly) is on her official harry potter (or JKR) website question and answer page.
- Regardless, she stated in an interview (http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2000/1000-scholastic-chat.htm) and she has never said otherwise that James was a chaser. Until she says the words, "James was a seeker," he is a chaser. JKR's word is law. --JKoch(Owl Me!) 02:53, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
Rowling's word is law. --Rodolphus 18:13, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
Book canon & Rowling's word has priority over film events on this wiki. Check the link provided above, and you'll see that JKR hersalf plainly states that James was a Chaser. - Nick O'Demus 18:54, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
She said James was a chaser in the 2000 interview, but as people have pointed out, in Order of the Phoenix (which came out in 2003) she strongly implies that he is a Seeker, since he is practicing with a snitch, draws a snitch on his exam, and Harry notices that he has very fast reflexes, a skill highly prized in Seekers. Hvcing good reflexes would assumably also be a valuable skill in chasers, but it is made clear through the books that the person with the best reflexes plays Seeker, even if they could play other positions as well. Although it is possible that James, the Chaser, nicked the snitch just because, and was drawing the snitch on his exam just because, and plays Chaser instead of Seeker even though he has Seeker-like skills just because, this position does not make much sense and focuses on pure semantics. One explanation for the discrepancy could be that after the 2001 film in which James is established as a Seeker, Rowling changed her mind in accordance with the films. As this Wiki states, she also co-wrote the scripts for all the films and had veto rights on anything that was out of canon (The Half-Blood Prince script orginally contained a line about Dumbledore having a crush on a girl when he was younger, which she promptly set straight), so she would have had the opportunity to correct the movie script where it says James played Seeker. As one previous poster suggested, sometimes Rowling loses track of or changes parts of her story as it develops. James may have started out as a Chaser in original canon, but it is possible Rowling changed her mind and reflected those changes in the books. Personally, I think that the evidence for Seeker in OotP is the most persuasive since it is the most recent. However, there is sound evidence for both arguments, and perhaps in the future she will clarify. 126.96.36.199 08:03, December 10, 2011 (UTC)Charlie Chatter
James Potter: Seeker? Chaser? Keeper? Duck?
Well here's the canon order: JK Rowling's official statements, as quoted have absolute authority over the series as shes the author and Harry Potter belongs to her, so yes, "JK's word IS law." Second, the books. I don't know why personally the books should be any more canon than the movies, except that the movies are only based on the books. If the books were an original art piece, the movies would be replicas. So I suppose since their BASED OFF OF the books, they come after books. So thirdly, at the bottom of the food chain, is the movies. Now according to JK Rowling, James Potter was a chaser. I can't find refrence in the books. In the movie it says he was a seeker. It doesn't come down to, "WHERE?!?" It comes down to "Why?" Because we know JK Rowling says Chaser, Movies say "Seeker" the question is, which to you believe is more cannon? Alot of people think JK Rowlings word isn't worth anything because it's not published, its just a statement, and talk is cheep. This is partly true. Since I can't find refrence in the books, and I never personally heard Jk's statement, I'm led to believe from watching the first movie that James Potter was infact a seeker which would make more snese because James has the same patronus as his father, same looks (except for the eyes) same trouble making attitude. So why not make them both seekers? James being a chaser seems a bit random. Primarily, I blame the difference between the books and the movies. Sometimes, I think the script writers don't read the books. So much is left out, and so much is thrown in. Me? I'd like to believe James Potter was a seeker. Just seems right. - 188.8.131.52 21:47, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
- JKR revealed James was a Chaser in this webchat in 2000. On this wiki, Rowling's word is law, because she is the one who created the Harry Potter universe, and is thus the best authority on it. Her "word" includes both the books, and things she has said personally, whether in interviews, on her website, etc.
- On this wiki, we use the movies to "fill in the blanks," as it were, but we only consider an addition made by the filmmakers to be canon if it doesn't contradict the books or JKR herself. So, although the movies present James as having been a Seeker, this wiki says he was a Chaser, because that is what JKR has said he was, and the books/JKR trump the movies whenever there is a point of disagreement. But with Leanne, the movies have her as a Hufflepuff, but the books never make any mention of her house. So, until JKR says Leanne was in a different House, it's acceptable for this wiki to say she was a Hufflepuff.
- I hope this helps to explain how we treat canon on this wiki. ★ Starstuff (Owl me!) 23:39, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
Born in 1960 not 1950
James was born in 1960 NOT 1950, can someone who can edit change it back ?
I tried to make a change and was unable. I have read all the books a number of times and the only thing I see that needs to be changed is that James Potter was a Seeker not a Chaser. This was noted in the first book, where Hermonie noted that "It's in your blood", since there was a trophy of for James in the trophy case since he was the youngest Gryfindor Seeker.... If I am wrong, please let me know, but I reread the book and this is what I have found.... Love all the books and can't wait for the movie in June!
I just read through the book to double check (I have it as a pdf file on my computer) and I can't find any mention of what position he played in the book, the film however says he's a seeker, but in an interview with J.K. Rowling, "Question: What position did James play on the Gryffindor Quidditch team? Was it seeker like Harry, or something different? J.K. Rowling responds: James was Chaser.", and the interviews with J.K. Rowling takes higher canon then the films. --BachLynn(Accio!) 02:40, March 20, 2011 (UTC)
Where do the AKA names come from (specifically Bathsheba, Wilburforce, and Elvendork)?
James Potter was a Seeker, not a Chaser
I believe those came from from the short story she wrote (180 words) for an auction. And as Rowling says he is a Chaser, he must be. 184.108.40.206 23:52, July 20, 2011 (UTC
James is not known by the three names listed as names he is called by Sirius (Wilberforce, Bathsheba, and Elvendork). Sirius is listing names in general when the police say "Names!" when they pull Sirius and James over. Then Sirius states "Oh, OUR names did you mean? You should've said!", so he is clearly not refering to himself or James. And don't forget: Elvendork! It's unisex! Pack Alpha of Europe 00:03, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
James Potter's wand
James Potter's wand was an 11" mahogany wand with an unknown core (though rumored to be dragon's heartstring)
James Potter IS mentioned as a seeker in the Orde of the Phoenix. I do not know if he had changed positions or what, but it deffinately does emphasise that he was playing with a snitch he had previously caught, what else would be his reason for catching a snitch, if not for being a seeker? seems like tediously boring work for a chaser. Besides, the Snitch has a flesh memory, meaning it remembers the first person who touches it, i just don't see a used snitch allowing someone who isn't the first person to cath it to repeatedly catch it so easily if it was not the first person to catch it.
And just because lupin was head boy does not mean james was not they could have been in a different year, and the books neve specify that one had to be a prefect in order to become head boy. However lupin does say that James was never head boy, that he was appointed as head boy and a prefect in hopes to straiten James out.
- 1 - It does NOT say that James was a Seeker in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. When asked where he got the Snitch, he says he "nicked" it (stole it / took it without permission). As a Chaser, he would still have had access to the Quidditch supplies.
- 2 - Lupin was NOT Head Boy. He was a Prefect, which James was not (see chapter 9 of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix). Prefects are selected in 5th Year and serve in the position for 6th and 7th Year as well. Head Boys are only selected in 7th Year. James was identified as having been a Head Boy in chapter 4 of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone.
- Nick O'Demus 07:28, September 8, 2011 (UTC)
The Death date of James's parents
James's parents (most likely Dorea Black and Charlus Potter) cannot have died between 1975 and 1981; they had to have died between 1976 and 1981. Sirius, who was born in 1959, said that he went around the Potter's house when he was 16. He was 16 in 1975, so they could NOT have died in that year. They must have died AFTER 1975, as Sirius never makes any mention of them dying while he was there. HarryPotterRules1 18:20, June 11, 2012 (UTC)
- In the movie it was said he was a seeker, but in the books Jo Rowling said, he is a chaser. Books are more canon than movies, so it's right to write in this article that James Potter I. was a chaser. 18:42, August 26, 2012 (UTC)
The page describes James as having started school without wearing glasses, but that he started wearing them by the time he entered 5th year. However, this is only evidenced in the film version of Deathly Hallows Part 2. Granted there is no evidence given to the contrary in the books, shouldn't this film evidence be taken with a grain of salt, as the books hold higher canon authority over the films? The page barely even clarifies that this is mainly in the film version, not the books. A distinction between the two should be addressed more clearly, i think.220.127.116.11 07:58, September 30, 2012 (UTC)