Talk:Petunia Dursley

Okay, I don't really like Petunia, but I feel a little sorry for her. If I had a sibling that got accepted to Hogwarts, but I didn't, I'd be jealous too. I don't think I'd stoop so low as to calling them freaks but you know what I mean. --Mistress Remy 19:45, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Yah I get what you mean but I do think she loved Lily and Harry but she let her jealousness show alot more than her love.

---CholcolateFrogs

There is another cause why I can understand Petunia's jealousness. I don't like her too because of her cruel behaviour towards Harry who is absolutely innocent. But when it was revealed that Lily was a witch the parents were proud like: Lily here and Lily there. It seems they paid less attention towards Petunia. That does hurt a child. That Lily was a witch and Petunia not was not the fault of Petunia. In this point she is as innocent as Harry who is a wizard. Harry granger 19:53, August 2, 2010 (UTC)

Main quote

I was just wondering if the quote at the top of Petunia's page was the best choice. I watched that deleted scene and really liked the way she said it but shouldn't we make it one from the books or one that actually made it into the movie? Correct me if I'm wrong, I just thought that would make more sense :)

I agree. It also blatantly contradicts canon, as in the book Petunia leaves Harry with a "Well, goodbye", without even looking at him. What quote should we put there instead? --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 00:46, June 27, 2011 (UTC)

Well, Jo herself said that there are things from the movies that aren't in the books but that fit the story, things that she didn't come up with, but, she wish she did. I think this is one of them, I loved this scene, and, a lot of fans agree. It shows a sensitive side of Petunia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Diegoavila (talk • contribs).

Regardless, it directly contradicts canon, as Petunia left Harry without saying a word. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 16:53, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

Birth year

This article currently states that Petunia was born in 1958. While I recall it being revealed that she was Lily's older sister in "The Prince's Tale," I don't recall it being specified how much older, so I think this information should be removed from the article unless a source to verify it can be provided. ★ Starstuff ^{(Owl me!)} 05:32, June 24, 2011 (UTC)

My point exactly.I also believe Petunia was born in 1958,not 1959.Thats why I keep changing the dates. 85.75.74.179 12:16, August 21, 2011 (UTC)

It has been changed back to 1959 and I'd like to know where's the proof that 1959 is correct. Whoever changed it back didn't think it necessary to prove their opinion. Josef D. (talk) 19:12, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

Death

How do we know Petunia died in 1997? 85.75.74.179 12:15, August 21, 2011 (UTC)

She didn´t. The dates at the beginning say she is known to have during that period. So, she lived in 1997, wasn´t dead.--Rodolphus 12:18, August 21, 2011 (UTC)

The way you write it,it seems that Petunia died in 1997. 85.75.74.179 12:48, August 21, 2011 (UTC)

Im gonna say it once more.The way you write it,it lokks like Petunia died in 1997.Thats why I keep reverting the article. 85.75.119.29 16:34, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

Someone seems not to have understood your point. The way it is written it really sounds as if she died in 1997. But she didn't; the Dursleys were just shoved out of the way in case Voldemort was trying to get at them in his effort to catch Harry. Josef D. (talk) 19:26, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

Middle name?

Wherefrom do we know that Petunia's middle name is Violet as mentioned in the article? Harry granger 20:22, August 31, 2011 (UTC)

Again put in. Where is the source? Harry granger 14:03, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

late magic (cut subplot)

Hey, I was looking at some old interviews and I'm seeing references to a subplot of the books of someone displaying magic late in life. Is it possible this is Petunia? Or maybe Dudley? Just a thought 174.252.45.143 01:19, September 12, 2011 (UTC)Lorchyism23

J.K. addressed that somewhere.......it might've been her FAQ section on the Web site..........she was planning on it but changed it.Alumeng 23:40, October 6, 2011 (UTC)

I was curious about this too, actually. I've seen here reference said subplot, and from the time that she denied Petunia being a Squib but said she was something "very different" I'm guessing it was to do with her, but I can;t for the life of me find here actually flat out saying who it was supposed to be. If someone does know and an share the link I'd be eternally grateful—Green Zubat (owl me!). 00:36, October 7, 2011 (UTC)

The original Aunt Petunia?

Just though I'd mention another pop-culture character called "Aunt Petunia", which may or may not have influenced JKR's choice of name.

The Fantastic Four's Thing (Ben Grimm) also grew up as an orphan, and was raised by his Aunt Petunia and Uncle (Jacob). In contrast though, they were kind; Petunia was his "favourite aunt".

The Thing often mentions his "Aunt Petunia", and it's possible that JKR may have encountered the name here, even if she wasn't directly referencing it in the books, or had even forgotten having heard it. According to the Petunia Grimm Marvel Wiki article, the Thing "has made numerous references to Aunt Petunia over the years." --xensyria^T 19:06, June 11, 2013 (UTC)

Actually a half-blood?

I've been doing some thinking; a 'muggleborn' witch, like Petunia's sister comes from a dormant magical gene, right?

That means that Lily and Petunia have a wizard ancestor; thus there must be a squib somewhere - most likely from the wizard; this means that they're NOT a 'muggleborn' and 'muggle' at all. Thought it's a distant relation, the squib would have married a mugle and had a half-blood child; this halfblood child would have married a muggle and had a half-blood child and so on down the line until Mr. (or Mrs.) Evans.

This, in turn means that both Lily and Petunia - despite being classed as a 'muggleborn' and 'muggle' are actually half-bloods. It's only a distant and diluted link but the gene is there - as evidenced by Lily inheriting it - so can we change their "blood status" to halfblood? HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 22:54, October 27, 2013 (UTC)

No, because that would mean that every Muggle or Muggle-born would be a half-blood. Because their parents did not exhibit magical ability, and neither did their grandparents, Petunia is a Muggle, and because Lily can do magic, she is a Muggle-born witch. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 23:00, October 27, 2013 (UTC)

Aye, but all the ancestors descending from the witch (or wizard) would be squibs; there WOULD still be magical blood there, thus they would be half-bloods, the same for ALL muggleborns. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 23:13, October 27, 2013 (UTC)

Then what, exactly, is a Muggle-born, by your definition? Our definition of "half-blood" comes directly from Rowling via interviews, and specifies that either their parents or grandparents are a mix of both Muggles and wizards. Aside from this, Lily is directly referred to as Muggle-born in canon, and Petunia is called a Muggle. -- 1337star ^{(Drop me a line!)} 23:31, October 27, 2013 (UTC)

It's stated, is it not, that the gene for muggleborn comes from a squib ancestor? If there is a sqib ancestor, there must thus, to create the squib, be a WIZARD ancestor; it's diluted, but still there - as Lily inherited it - so she is a half-blood, it's just several hundred years down the line and everyone thinks the squibs have become muggles. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 23:34, October 27, 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to spend the time reiterating what I've already said. Your most recent reply directly contradicts what I've already said, and I've even gone back to my last reply and bolded it. Unless you have new evidence, I'm not going to respond further to this. -- 1337star ^{(Drop me a line!)} 23:42, October 27, 2013 (UTC)

Here. <--- click. THIS is what I mean. They are half-bloods. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 23:45, October 27, 2013 (UTC)

Your chart is inherently flawed. The non-magic child of a Muggle and a Squib is a Muggle, for starters. -- 1337star ^{(Drop me a line!)} 23:47, October 27, 2013 (UTC)

By title ONLY. There's magical blood there and they do have magical ancestors, thus they are half-blood. So, by association - and means of descent from said squib - Lily and Petunia are half-bloods. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 23:48, October 27, 2013 (UTC)

What do you think the whole blood statuses business is, apart from "title only"? Rowling has said herself, "The expressions ‘pure-blood’, ‘half-blood’ and ‘Muggle-born’ have been coined by people to whom these distinctions matter, and express their originators' prejudice."

Your chart is flawed, like 1337star pointed out. If we are to take it as correct, kindly present a definition of "Muggle-born". --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 00:10, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

muggle-born: a witch (or wizard) born to two non-magic parents. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 00:15, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

Mr and Mrs Evans were non-magical. Lily was born to them. She is Muggle-born. Petunia was born of the same non-magical parents. Petunia was non-magical. Petunia was a Muggle. QED. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 00:19, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

Wizard/squib ancestor - means one side of the descent (either Mrs. Evans' mother or father or Mr. Evans' mother or father) has magical blood, making them (and all their descendants) half-blood, thus Lily and Petunia are a half-blood.

Example: Wizard married Witch/squib (or vice versa, witch married wizard/squib) and they had a squib, that squib married Mr. Evans' ancestor - this line, still half-blood despite being called muggle due to all the squibs - eventually reaches Mr. Evans, who marries Mrs. Evans and has Lily and Petunia; Mr. Evans (or Mrs. Evans if it is her ancestor) is a half-blood through the wizard and squib ancestry and so the offspring of the marriage - Lily and Petunia - are half-bloods, as in turn, is Dudley being Petunia's child. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 00:24, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

That logic makes the classification of "Muggle-born" redunant and inexistent. By that logic, ALL Muggle-borns are Half-bloods because ALL of them must've had some Squib ancestor who married Muggles and produced non-magical offspring. Define "Half-blood". --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 00:46, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

Half-blood; one or more wizard parents with muggle ancestry.

Pure-blood: no muggle ancestry at all. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 00:49, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

I would disagree with your definition of "Pure-blood" (and so would Dumbledore, vehemently so), but I'd be digressing.

Your argument pretty much defeated itself, there. The Evans sisters did not have wizard parents with Muggle ancestry. They were Muggles themselves. Note that the three possible combinations of half-blood ancestry are: a) One pure- or half-blood parent, one Muggle parent; b) One pure- or half-blood parent, one Muggle-born parent; or c) Two magical parents, known Muggle ancestry (i.e. Half-bloods themselves, or a combination of half- and pure-blood); none of which are the case of either Lily (Muggle-born witch) or Petunia (plain ol' Muggle). --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 01:11, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

That's not technically true; they have a wizard ancestor (we know this due to Lily inheriting the gene through a squib) so there's magical blood regardless - no-onecan deny that. This means that they are half-bloods.

Wizard/squib + muggle = muggle (by title only) and actually half-blood (as by your above comment that have "One pure- or half-blood parent and one muggle parent", correct? Thus, the offspring of that would also be half-blood; then, marrying a muggle and having a child would create ANOTHER half-blood, despite being called a muggle - and the line continues on downwards to Mr or Mrs. Evans. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:17, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

Half-bloods are wizards, by definition! There's no such thing as an "Half-blood Muggle", the concept would be absurd to the people who came up with the concept of blood purity. People with no magical ability are Muggles, and that's that (safe, of course, the special case of Squibs) -- the whole premise of a concept of Blood purity is that it is wizard-centered. The "One pure- or half-blood parent and one muggle parent" = Half-blood equation only holds true for wizards! Accepting what you say is admitting that the Lucius Malfoys of the world actually cared whether a Muggle was this or that: it was a Muggle, it had no magical ability, it was inferior.

There's no such thing as a distinction between "by title" or "in actuality", in fact, I'm not sure where this distinction is even hinted at in canon. The non-magical offspring of a Squib and a Muggle are Muggle, and that's all there is to it. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 01:41, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

It's like this Seth ---> --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:44, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but no; as has been stated numerous times up and down the page, there's no such thing as a half-blood Muggle. the Evans are Muggles, their witch daughter is Muggle-born, Harry is half-blood because of his pure-blood father; there is not enough wizard blood in them for the Evans to be wizard and witch, therefore they don't get a blood status. It's like how if we go back far enough we're all (supposedly) from Africa, but you don't go around saying you're half-African. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 02:06, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

Wizard + muggle = half-blood, thus any and ALL descendants - Lily and Petunia included - would be halfbloods. That's why Rose and Hugo are half-bloods, the muggle blood of whichever of Hermione's ancestors does not have the magical gene purges it.

The half-blood offspring of a wizard and a muggle, who married a muggle would have a half-blood squib offspring - who in turn would have a half-blood squib offspring with another muggle. And the cycle goes on, thus making Lily and Petunia half-bloods.

Point. Made. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 03:10, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

Look, I'm going to make this as simple has possible. Your entire argument hinges on a flawed, or rather overly simplified, definition of half-blood. You've already been told the correct definition several times, and it is not simply "wizard + Muggle". Merely restating the same point over and over again doesn't make it any more true. -- 1337star ^{(Drop me a line!)} 03:33, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

I'm merely repeating what Seth said. The offspring of a wizard and muggle IS (and no-one can deny it) a half-blood. Thus, any and all offspring they have - no matter how distant - is a half-blood all the way down the line, this includes Lily and Petunia. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 11:05, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

You are not repeating what I said, you are taking a piece of explanation and using it as your argument, while systematically ignorning all the rest. The offspring of a wizard and a Muggle is an half-blood if, and only if said offspring is a wizard. If the offspring of a wizard and a Muggle does not possess magical powers, then they are Squibs. The non-magical offspring of that Squib and a Muggle would be a Muggle. Simple as that. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 18:59, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

Given the confusion already rampant in this discussion, I figure I should clarify one thing. The non-magical offspring of a wizard and a Muggle is a Muggle, not a Squib (as confirmed in Lockhart's Pottermore bio). -- 1337star ^{(Drop me a line!)} 19:08, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, we don't have any proof whether the Evanses have magical blood down the line of their ancestors. It's entirely possible that a muggle-born wizard or witch is subject to a spontaneous genetical mutation. So let's just remain with Petunia being a Muggle. Josef D. (talk) 19:14, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

1337star, thank you for bringing that up to my attention. Apparently there is contradictory evidence to what constitutes a Squib: Pottermore says that a non-magical child of a wizard and a Muggle is a Muggle; but Rowling had previously said that a Squib was "a non-magical person born to at least one magical parent" (that'd make the non-magical child of a wizard and a Muggle a Squib). Bummer. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 19:36, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

Floruit

This discussion is listed as an active talk page. Please remove this template when the question has been answered.

I do agree with those who don't like the "floruit" information. It is confusing, since it makes a reader believe she died in 1997, while she did not. Besides, on the basis of a spot check I did, there are not many pages that sport this term. I am of the idea, if a consensus is reached, to remove the term "floruit" from other pages that show it.

I take that the 1959 date is the year of her birth, if so, let us keep that in. MinorStoop 19:51, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

Right - most people wouldn't understand this "floruit" thing. It's the first time I heard about it, too. And it really made things look as if Petunia had died in 1997. And, where from do you take it that Petunia's year of birth is 1959? All we know is that she's Lily's elder sister. She could as well have been born in 1956 oder 1954 or 1949. Josef D. (talk) 20:01, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

I deleted it deliberately - far as I can tell, this is the only page that uses it. Can we solve the issue before starting an edit war? MinorStoop 20:06, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

That would work if the editor managed to read this discussion instead of unnecessarily reverting the deletion. Josef D. (talk) 20:08, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

HB is generally a sensible guy, but he has a bit of a tendency to overreact. Since this makes us two of a kind, I can't really blame him for it, can I? :-P MinorStoop 20:12, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

This is NOT the only page on this wiki that uses a floruit. Do a search for "fl." and you'll get about a hundred results. - Nick O'Demus 20:13, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

Nick, you're besides the point. We're discussing the fact that to most people this "floruit" does not mean anything at all and that it makes things look to many as if Petunia died in 1997 which is NOT the case. That's why this was deleted. Josef D. (talk) 20:17, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion is fine, but it should not be removed until/unless a consensus is reached on the matter. - Nick O'Demus 20:21, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

I don't see you making much of an effort to reach a consensus since you seem to ignore most of what MinorStoop and I have been discussing here. Josef D. (talk) 20:27, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

I have read this discussion, and I'd like to point out that we shouldn't just get rid of something because we don't understand it. "fl." ("floruit") is a very useful means of informing readers of the approximate time we know a character to have been active during the books. Once we know what it is used for, it becomes much more helpful for us, and two people (Nick O'Demus and I) agree to use it here. Two people (MinorStoop and Josef D.) don't want to use it. Assuming this is a legitimate vote, I should point out that one more vote one either side would seal the discussion. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 20:31, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

The term is generally used and accepted in English language reference work, and would therefore seem suitable here. As a Latin-derived term, it is understood in a bibliographical sense throughout European languages, wherever they may flourish around the globe. {{SUBST:User:Jiskran/Signature}} 20:38, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

Actually, a proper voting consensus requires plus 3 on one side, not just 3. As I stated, removing the use of the floruit would affect over a hundred other articles on this wiki, so this is not something that can be decided be just a few minutes' debate, and the standard practice is for the article to be kept as-is until the matter has been sufficiently discussed - Nick O'Demus 20:40, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

Floruit is not a made-up term; it's a concept actually used in genealogy and history. As we are not being misleading (the use of the notation is correct and matches other uses of it in the fields of knowledge I specified), so we can't really be held accountable if someone does not know the meaning of it, that's not our fault. If you come across something you do not understand while reading something, it's expected that you look into it so that you understand it; if someone does not know what that little "fl." behind the dates means, then he or she should research it -- I think this is common sense.

Banning this kind of things on the basis that "most people do not know what it is" would be akin a the wiki-wide ban on the use of words like "borborygmus", "garrulous" or "pulchritude" just because they are not common words and would be, perhaps, unfamiliar to most of the readers. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 20:40, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

Yep, there are a number of pages that use the "floruit" diction - type "fl." in the search engine. I haven't checked all the results, as I probably should have, but from the cases present in the first two pages, it is pretty clear that that the term should be interpreted as "known to be active" (choose your own term here) in the date(s) given, sometimes one, sometimes two. It does not matter whether they are also the dates of birth and death. Furthermore they are all either mentioned characters or with a very tenuous relationship with the saga (what does Matthew of the Gospel writer has to do with it?).

Petunia Dursley is an important secondary character of the books, and none of the ones I've checked (from Minerva McGonagall to the other Dursleys) show it. Why should "she" show it?

Another two points - 1997 is not her year of death; and this is confusing. How do we know 1959 is her year of birth, and why isn't there a reference for it? MinorStoop 20:43, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

Nobody claimed that it was a made-up term. It's just not quite understandable to most people. And things which are worded in a way so that they can't quite be understood very well can be quite misleading or can, at least, be  understood to be so. Second, at least the year 1997 has to go. Even though Petunia's last activity we know from the novels and movies takes place in 1997 that doesn't mean she's actually stopped doing things. Given her approximate date of birth she is very likely still "craning over her neighbours' fences". Anyway, that term "florit" can't be all that common. I've never ever seen it in eight years of activity in the Wikipedia. Josef D. (talk) 20:55, October 28, 2013 (UTC)

The term does not indicate she died then, only that this is the last reliable date for which activity on her part is recorded. {{SUBST:User:Jiskran/Signature}} 20:59, October 28, 2013 (UTC)