Can someone help me understand how Sir Patrick is related to Sturgis Podmore?Mafalda Hopkirk 23:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Its probably assumed from the last name. Plus it doesn't say he is, it says he may be. -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 23:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh i see now - somehow i missed the podmore at the end of Sir Patrick's name. Thank you DarkJedi. Mafalda Hopkirk 23:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


In the new image, he is dressed like one of the Loyalists from the American Revolution. He rides a horse, and was beheaded, something that, unless I am much mistaken, would be likely to happen in the American Revolution? Would this be too little to make a statement? --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 15:25, October 19, 2013 (UTC)

Bumping. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 22:43, November 7, 2013 (UTC)
I don't think so. That definitely does not look like a 17th century regimental coat. But my main beef is the hat (military uniform at the time adopted cocked hats or bicornes; top hats such as the one Delaney-Podmore sports are not something I'd associate with that time period, even less so in war-time) and the boots (a Loyalist would be wearing breeches, leggings and shoes; not boots).
Personally, I think that the clothes he is depicted in are 19th century riding clothes. The tailcoat and pantaloons were part of the rider apparel at the time, as was the top hat, the most formal men's style of the day (and still are, to some degree). That, in addition to the moustache and hairstyle, and the fact that he is smoking a cigar (cigar smoking was common among the wealthy in the 19th century, while cigarettes were still comparatively rare) seems to suggest the plausibility of him having been around in the 1800s (note that beheading was only abolished as a method of execution for treason in 1973).
Though, of course, we know that wizard fashions differ somewhat from their Muggle counterparts. While my assumptions may be correct, they may not hold true for wizarding 19th century fashions -- I wouldn't know. But if you ask me what time period did the concept designers intend to depict him in, I'd say, without a doubt, c. 19th century. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 23:56, November 7, 2013 (UTC)
You're the boss here - would 19th century be too speculative to add to the page? --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 00:05, November 8, 2013 (UTC)
Well, this actually reminds me of an episode of The Simpsons in which, in a future scenario, adult-Lisa goes to the house of her British fiancé:
Lisa Simpson: "Love the painting, Mrs. Parkfield. Judging by the clothes, I'd say... seventeenth century?"
Mrs. Parkfield: "Actually, Lisa, it's just Uncle Eldred."
Uncle Eldred: " [obviously insane, due to the fact that he's fishing in an empty fishbowl and dressed in 17th century garb] I get me brain medicine from the National Health!"
— "The Simpsons" - Lisa's Wedding
My point is, there's only so much information we can get from that kind of evidence. I wouldn't oppose to adding a "Behind the scenes" note mentioning that possibility, but I think outright stating that he lived (or, at least, died) during the 19th century is stretching it a bit. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 00:17, November 8, 2013 (UTC)