FANDOM


"Blood" in "pure-blood" should not be capitalised. Check out Chamber of Secrets, when Malfoy gives that as the password to the Slytherin common room, he says "Oh, yeah — pure-blood!" I've never seen it capitalised anywhere in the books. Hermione1980 20:41, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Then I guess a move would be in order. Except I think there is a redirect to here, so it might just have to be a copy and paste and lose the history. That's fine with me. Speaking of capitalisation, is it Muggle, or muggle? And does that fit with muggle-born etc.? --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark)
It's Muggle and Muggle-born, pure-blood but Mudblood (gasp! not a nice word!). Let me see about that move… Hermione1980 21:02, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Moved. Hermione1980 21:03, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Thanks... Oh, and sorry bout the unsigned post above... I went ahead and signed it with no timestamp. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 21:08, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Half-Blood versus Pure-Blood

Many times on many articles, it has come up of the debate between half-blood/pure-blood. And it is never resolved, so once and for all, here we should have the final discussion:

A half-blood is defined as: A witch or wizard with at least one wizarding parent but at least one Muggle parent or grandparent.

A pure-blood is defined as: A witch or wizard of 'pure' wizarding ancestry, without any Muggle ancestors whatsoever as far as can be determined.

This is very contradictory however. For children like the Potter children (James II, Albus, and Lily II), there is no distinct blood status for them. They do have muggles in their ancestry, but all of their parents and grandparents are magical (argue that Lily is a muggleborn until the cows come home, but she's still a witch, and therefore defined as one). They don't fully fit into pure-blood, and most definately not half-blood.

I think the problem here is the definitions on the Lexicon given for Half-Blood, Muggleborn, and Blood Traitor (to some extent and even squibs to a certain extent) are defined so technically, but pure-blood is defined as something a pure-blood-ist thinks. Which has no technical way to distinguish precision, because Jo has mentioned that even pure-blood families have some muggle distantly in them. Therefore, I move that we distinguish pure-blood-ism as "any witch or wizard born to two magical parents, and have four magical grandparents" otherwise, characters such as James Potter II, Albus Severus Potter, and Lily Potter II have no blood distinction and there will forever be a 'half a dozen one, six the other" fight.

Either way, we need to fully exact our definitions, because sticking with the Lexicon %100 clearly isn't working since, like the Bible, it contradicts itself in places.--Silverdrama 05:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the Lexicon definitions are rather inconsistent in that regard. But I still think that Harry and Ginny's children would be half-bloods based on JKR's statement on blood purity. I'll quote and break down why:
"The expressions 'pure-blood', 'half-blood' and 'Muggle-born' have been coined by people to whom these distinctions matter, and express their originators' prejudices."
This makes any distinction between what extremists think and what other people think moot. The definitions were invented by people who are prejudiced; they are the ones who care about distinguishing individuals based on blood in the first place.
"As far as somebody like Lucius Malfoy is concerned, for instance..."
Again, he would be one of those people who is concerned with blood distinctions, hence he would know them well.
"...a Muggle-born is as 'bad' as a Muggle. Therefore Harry would be considered only 'half' wizard..."
I take this as meaning that, in determining blood purity, a Muggle-born is treated the same as a Muggle. Because prejudiced wizards -- those who created the defintiions -- see a Muggle-born as basically the same as a Muggle. They might have magic, but they're still "unclean" (hence the term "Mudblood"). This is well illustrated by a scene in Chapter 9 of Goblet of Fire, during the Death Eaters' riot at the Quidditch World Cup:
"Granger, they're after Muggles," said Malfoy. "D' you want to be showing off your knickers in midair? Because if you do, hang around ... they're moving this way, and it would give us all a laugh."
"Hermione's a witch!" Harry snarled.
"Have it your own way, Potter," said Malfoy, grinning maliciously. "If you think they can't spot a Mudblood, stay where you are."
This makes it clear that people like the Malfoys (again, those who came up with the definitions) clearly don't consider Muggle-borns to be "real" wizards and witches. Thus, having even one grandparent that was Muggle or Muggle-born makes you less than "pure". To go back to Rowling's statement in comparing blood purity to the Nazis' racial definitions:
"A single Jewish grandparent 'polluted' the blood, according to their propaganda."
To further support the point that pure-bloods need to have entirely magical heritage more than two generations back are what we know about various pure-blood families. The House of Black's family tree dates back to the Middle Ages. Ernie Macmillan claims to be descended from nine generations of pure-bloods. The Malfoys are pure-blood at least as far back as the 17th century (when Brutus Malfoy lived). This all suggests that pure-bloods require many more than two generations of entirely magical heritage.
Furthermore, it's notable that pure-bloods who care about their heritage will only marry fellow pure-bloods. Marrying a Muggle or a Muggle-born are equally grounds for being disowned (the Blacks disowned both Isla and Andromeda for marrying a Muggle and a Muggle-born, respectively). They don't even appear to permit marriage to a half-blood, presuambly because half-bloods still have known Muggle ancestry and would thus still be "polluting" the bloodline.
As Rowling has said, no one is really "pure". The families that claim to be "merely cross Muggles and Squibs off the family tree and pretend that they didn't exist". But there is a considerable difference from families like the Blacks, who are only magical in ancestry for at least several generations and who remove not only any non-purebloods who marry into the family, but also any "blood traitors", from their family tree, and families like Harry's, who make no effort to pretend they don't have Muggle-borns and Muggles in their family.
To sum up, from what we can extrapolate from Rowling's statements on the subject and from the books, it seems that pure-bloods are those who claim to have no Muggle ancestry whatsoever -- or, at least, none that can be traced for many generations back. Half-bloods are basically anyone who has both magical and Muggle heritage, which makes sense, considering that "most wizards these days are half-blood anyway" (according to Ron in Chamber of Secrets) and that pure-bloods are dying out. Oread (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Another thing to add -- Rowling drew parallels between the Death Eaters' prejudice and the Anti-Semitism of the Nazis, commenting that they used "precisely the same warped logic". The Nazis persecuted people with even a single Jewish grandparent -- even if that grandparent had not been a practicing Jew, or had converted to another religion. Because they considered Jews to be a "race" -- i.e. it was a matter of ethnicity, something that is innate and fixed. It seems to be the same way prejudiced pure-bloods consider Muggle-borns: even though they can use magic, they were still born to Muggles, they still have Muggle blood. Oread (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Do Pure Bloods mind Half Bloods as much as Mudbloods? I thought that they didn't mind Half Bloods, which is why a lot of them followed He Who Must Not Be Named. Also, what was Voldemort's opinion about Squibs and Half Breeds and non human sentients? And did Voldemort mind Mudbloods more than Muggles? 75.27.36.231 04:40, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
Harry and Ginny's children most certainly should be listed as pure-bloods. Both of their parents are wizards, both maternal grandparents were pure-bloods, as was their paternal grandfather. Yes, apparently their paternal grandmother was mudblooded, but her tainted blood is far enough back in their history that there is no need to blame them for it. Anyone who doubts their blood purity is obviously jealous of a blood traitor. JK55092 70.188.31.140 01:35, July 10, 2012 (UTC)
There is a degree of prejudice. Remember that Bella calls Harry a "filthy half-blood" multiple times, but they were accepted more so that Muggle-borns. Voldemort seems to equate Muggle-borns with Muggles, unless their power is attractive to him. --JKochRavenclawcrest(Owl Me!) 04:59, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Luna Lovegood

I don't know if I can add Lovegood family as Pureblood family because Luna Lovegood is for sure that she is not muggleborn, more likely pureblood witch like Weasley family, Black family, Malfoy family etc.. We for sure know the fact that Luna's father Xeno is known as editor of Quibbler in the Wizarding World, and her mom is interested in experimenting with random spells before she died. It suggests that Luna is not Muggleborn witch. Is it ok to add Lovegood family as pureblood later on? 76.95.131.60 10:42, January 5, 2011 (UTC)

No, it isn´t. As she could have a muggle grandparent, or another muggle ancestor.--Rodolphus 10:47, January 5, 2011 (UTC)

You mean we don't know if she is half-blood or pure-blood, right? If xeno or mrs.lovegood is half-blood wizard, this would have made luna half-blood, right? 76.95.131.60 18:30, June 5, 2011 (UTC)

Inbreeding causes "diminished magical capability"?

This article says "Many pure-blood families, such as the Blacks and Gaunts, practice marrying cousins in order to maintain their pure-blood status … This practice has been known to cause problems as families become inbred; for example, the Gaunts showed signs of violent tendencies, mental instability, and even diminished magical capability."

Where in HBP is it shown and/or stated that the Gaunts showed diminished magical capability? The only example I can think of is Merope, and she showed diminished capability because she was living in constant fear, and possibly from being uneducated — there's no clear indication that it was due to inbreeding. Morfin seemed pretty adept with a wand, as he jinxed Tom Riddle Sr. and hexed Bob Ogden. There's no evidence that I can think of that inbreeding diminishes magical capability at all, or that the Gaunts showed signs of this. Can anyone provide any examples? 24.226.107.213 02:40, October 16, 2011 (UTC)


I agree, the only possible evidence that inbreeding may cause diminished magical capability is if the offspring had a mental disability preventing their learning capability. However, this would not affect their "magical capability" as they would still be able to demonstrate their magic but in less refined forms.

For example, Walburga and Orion Black married despite being second cousins and produced Sirius and Regulus, wizards who are not shown to have diminished magical capabilities (especially since Sirius is repeatedly noted as being one of the most talented students at Hogwarts during his time). 14.200.251.92 05:28, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

Pure-blood - what does it mean? Round 2

So in considering the blood-status of the Fleamont family, I went back and re-read all the pure-blood writings by JKR. To revisit:

The clearest definition appears to be that a wizard is pure-blood if they do not have a muggle, or muggle-born, parent or grandparent. On her old site, JKR said that the "Nazis used precisely the same warped logic as the Death Eaters. A single Jewish grandparent 'polluted' the blood, according to their propaganda."

This does not mean that the parents and grandparents themselves have to be pure-blood, just that they are not muggles or muggle-borns (aka Mudbloods).

This would explain why marrying a Malfoy is still a "respectable pure-blood marriage",(Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Chapter 6 (The Noble and Most Ancient House of Black)) even though "many a half-blood appears on the Malfoy family tree." Writing by J.K. Rowling: "The Malfoy Family" at Pottermore As "from the imposition of the Statute of Secrecy onwards, no Malfoy has married a Muggle or Muggle-born", this was enough to maintain a pure-blood family by the 1930's (as the Malfoys are a Sacred Twenty-Eight family).Writing by J.K. Rowling: "Pure-Blood" at Pottermore

I'm not sure if "the small minority of fanatic families such as the Gaunts and Lestranges"(PM-pureblood) would accept this, but the House of Black seems to be equally fanatical in their "pure-blood mania."(OOTP6) Overall it appears that to say, like Marvolo Gaunt, that your family is "pure-blood all the way" (Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter 10 (The House of Gaunt)) is that everyone who married in did not have muggle or muggle-born parents or grandparents - not that there are no muggles or muggle-borns anywhere in their family tree.

Note, this does not mean that all members of pure-blood families are pure-bloods themselves, just that they and their parents and grandparents are not muggles or muggle-borns. This has implications for members of pure-blood families like Crouch, Nott, etc...

And yes, this leads to odd conclusions like a wizard being pure-blood even with all half-blood parents and grandparents. To speculate, maybe they thought the wizarding blood added up somehow and drove off the lesser muggle blood. More likely, they just had to admit that far enough back, every wizarding family has some muggle ancestry.

While Writing by J.K. Rowling: "Pure-Blood" at Pottermore does have this opening definition: "The term 'pure-blood' refers to a family or individual without Muggle (non-magic) blood", this statement is immediately undercut in the same article as "As Muggle/wizard marriage had been common for centuries, those now self-describing as pure-bloods were unlikely to have any higher proportion of wizarding ancestors than those who did not. To call oneself a pure-blood was more accurately a declaration of political or social intent ('I will not marry a Muggle and I consider Muggle/wizard marriage reprehensible') than a statement of biological fact."

From a pragmatic standpoint this leaves us that for any pure-blood wizard, we can only infer that their parents and grandparents were not muggles or muggle-borns, not that they were pure-blooded or that there is a line of pure-blood that runs through the family. Also, all members of a pure-blood family cannot be inferred to be pure-blooded themselves.

Hope that long-winded explanation made sense. Anyone have other thoughts or ideas? Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 01:59, May 5, 2017 (UTC)

Harry's children are highly regarded across every Harry Potter related fansite as being half-blood. Therefore, the children of a pure-blood and a half-blood with a muggle or muggle-born parent are only half-blood as well. The lineage is not far back enough for it to be cancelled out when they have muggle or muggle born grandparents.
What we need to know how is far back does your muggle lineage have to be in order for society to believe it no longer matters and is now diluted enough by magical blood? The Malfoys, for example, are good at hiding it, which means it was so long ago. So long that your grandparents are pure-blood and / or half-blood, does it matter if your parent is half-blood as well?
That brings me back to Writing by J.K. Rowling: "Pure-Blood" at Pottermore where it says to "call oneself a pure-blood was more accurately a declaration of political or social intent ('I will not marry a Muggle and I consider Muggle/wizard marriage reprehensible') than a statement of biological fact."
Therefore, marrying a half-blood is not as terrible and it is opinion rather than scientific fact based on blood dilution that decides what blood status you are. At least that is my take from the many sources! -- Kates39 (talk) 20:33, May 5, 2017 (UTC)
Harry's children are half-blood because they have a muggle-born grandparent - Lily is the single grandparent that "pollutes their blood". But interestingly, if Lily Luna were to have kids with Scorpius Malfoy, for instance, those kids would be pure-blood as their parents and grandparents (Harry & Ginny, Draco & Astoria) are all not muggles or muggle-borns.
Writing by J.K. Rowling: "The Malfoy Family" at Pottermore makes it clear that to maintain a pure-blood status as a family, you have to just not marry muggles or muggle-borns (which they have done for about 240 years (1689-1930s) by the publishing of the Sacred Twenty-Eight) Half-bloods are ok, so not all members of pure-blood family have to be a pure-blood by this standard; just not muggles or muggle-borns.
The pure-blood fanatic families (Gaunt, Lestrange, Black) take it further that anyone who marries into the family must pure-blood (that is have no muggle or muggle-born parents or grandparents). Their family tree is just more padded from muggle blood (by an extra two generations at each inter-marriage) than other pure-blood families like the Malfoys, but not completely separated from it.
While I agree that at the time of adoption of the International Statute of Secrecy, pure-blood was more of a political ideology (as marriage with muggles was commonplace), the pure-blood families since then have developed a system of distinguishing who is and isn't pure-blooded based on muggles or muggle-borns as parents and grandparents.
This system allows us to say that anyone who married into the House of Black (and was not blasted off the tapestry) is a pure-blood, so their parents and grandparents must be pure-blood or half-blood. However we cannot say that all members of a non-fanatical pure-blood family (e.g. Crouch) are themselves a pure-blood - they may be half-blood and the family still be considered pure-blood like the Malfoys.
This will entail some clean-up, but this seems to be the only interpretation that accounts for the Malfoy family status as pure-blood, but with known half-bloods, and the distinction needed for the Blacks/Gaunts/Lestrange's families emphasis on pure-blood-only marriages. As almost all the Blood status info I've looked at is unsourced, this will at least provide some evidence and logic for drawing a conclusion that fits the known facts. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 23:23, May 5, 2017 (UTC)
One big problem - we don't know how many branches the Malfoy Family tree has. All we know is that Draco's descent from Armand is 100% pure-blood. For all we know, Armand had a second child who formed a new line and that line eventually became half-blood, making "many a half blood" appear on the family tree. We cannot make any changes as we don't know all the family branches. Also, your speaking on having a half-blood grandparent makes the grandchild pure is flawed as there is all the muggle ancestry of the half-blood to pollute the gene pool, even if it is distant. It's why Harry's grandchildren will be half-blood and their children half-blood and their children half-blood and so on and so forth. Lily's parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, great-great grandparents and so on and so forth will forever "pollute" the Potter bloodline, making them forever half-blood. It's flawed thinking to think like you did -- all and any "non pure" blood, no matter how far back, renders a family half blood (i.e half muggle blood somewhere in their ancestry) forevermore as that is what the Nazis used; all and any Jewish blood polluted the bloodline, even if it was 20 generations back. Thus, "pure-blood" means no muggle/half-blood at all in the pure-blood's ancestry. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:58, May 6, 2017 (UTC)
The evidence against this interpretation is Writing by J.K. Rowling: "The Malfoy Family" at Pottermore. The Malfoys were known to have muggle ancestry (pre-1689) and married many a half-bloods, but are still considered a pure-blood family. To keep their pure-blood status they just had to not marry any muggles or muggle-borns for a couple centuries.
If you have an example of anyone stating that "any muggle ancestry" makes one a half-blood then please share. It is possible JKR made a tangled mess of this, but on my re-read her emphasis is repeatedly on tracing muggles and muggle-borns, not half-bloods, when determining what it means to be pure-blood. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 02:10, May 6, 2017 (UTC)

While that is true, as I've said; we do not know if Lucius has a cousin who married a half-blood and thus had a half-blood child. We cannot be 100%. As for who said it -- J.K. did: a single "Nazis used precisely the same warped logic as the Death Eaters. A single Jewish grandparent 'polluted' the blood, according to their propaganda." By that logic, you have all the Jewish ancestry for hundreds of years (which makes the grandparent Jewish in the first place!) polluting the gene pool. And it's the same with half-blood. You have one half-blood witch/wizard/squib, who marries a pure-blood and the child is half-blood (see Harry and Ginny as an example); any children from the half-blood will also be half-blood. As will their child, and their child, and their child, and their child, and their child, and their child, and their child and you get the idea. Down, down, down goes the half-blood gene. Thus, "pure-blood" families have nothing but pure in their ancestry, but to accommodate for the PM thing, see the beginning of this statement; there could be other branches of the family - both here and in France (as we don't know if Armand came with family or not!) - that can fit the half-blood bill. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 02:18, May 6, 2017 (UTC)

As I said, if you read Writing by J.K. Rowling: "The Malfoy Family" at Pottermore, the adoption of pure blood ideals leads to: "From the imposition of the Statute of Secrecy onwards, no Malfoy has married a Muggle or Muggle-born. The family has, however, eschewed the somewhat dangerous practice of inter-marrying within such a small pool of pure-bloods that they become enfeebled or unstable, unlike a small minority of fanatic families such as the Gaunts and Lestranges, and many a half-blood appears on the Malfoy family tree."
In order to be pure-blood, they just did not marry muggles or muggle-borns, half bloods have no bearing on their pure-blood status as a family.
Similarly, in Writing by J.K. Rowling: "Pure-Blood" at Pottermore, when placed on the Sacred Twenty-Eight pure-blood directory: "Most vocally indignant was the numerous Weasley family, which, in spite of its connections with almost every old wizarding family in Britain, was proud of its ancestral ties to many interesting Muggles.
They are emphasizing their relationships to Muggles, not half-bloods, as that determines the pure-blood status.
From JKR's old site, "Therefore Harry would be considered only 'half' wizard, because of his mother's grandparents."
Again, JKR is focusing on Muggles parents and grandparents as determining blood-status.
The repeated emphasis in on Muggles and Muggle-borns, not half-bloods. If the Malfoy's can be considered a pure-blood family (not just Lucius, the family name itself) with known half-bloods and muggle ancestry, then muggle blood cannot be counted as forever corrupting the family name. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 02:41, May 6, 2017 (UTC)
You are missing the point. The point is that Muggle blood pollutes the line correct? That's what it's saying with "From the imposition of the Statute of Secrecy onwards, no Malfoy has married a Muggle or Muggle-born." They emphasizes that Muggle or Muggle-born pollutes the line to make it half-blood, (which is how "many a half-blood appear on the Malfoy Family Tree").
Thus, by that, any Muggle or Muggle-born pollutes the line, meaning a half-blood who has Muggle or Muggle-born blood in them pollutes the line. So by that, Pure-blood = no muggle anywhere, whether it be parent or 456 generations back. One single muggle anywhere and bam! no longer pure at all. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 02:49, May 6, 2017 (UTC)
Then how are the Malfoys a pure-blood family in the Sacred Twenty-Eight and part of a "respectable pure-blood marriage" to Narcissa Black? --Ironyak1 (talk) 02:54, May 6, 2017 (UTC)
Simple -- the main line of the family from which Lucius, Draco, Abraxas and Armand form (as does anyone in between) has remained pure, but other members of the family who are not their ancestors, but related to them (aunt, uncle, cousin, ninth cousin twelve times removed, etc) can be the "many a half-blood" that appears on the tree. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 03:03, May 6, 2017 (UTC)
But that stipulation is never stated anywhere - you're adding it in to fit your conclusions. The Sacred Twenty-eight doesn't say the Abraxas line of Malfoys, etc, it lists the Malfoys as a family as pure-blood. The family name itself is pure-blood because they stopped marrying Muggles and Muggle-borns back in 1689, but having many a half-blood on the tree is fine. The very meaning of espousing pure-blood ideals back then was that "'I will not marry a Muggle and I consider Muggle/wizard marriage reprehensible')" not I will avoiding marrying half-bloods.
I'd say you need to find an example where someone says that they are a half-blood simply because they have some muggle ancestor. All the half-bloods I can think of have a muggle or muggle-born parent or grandparent. Even the Weasleys are considered pure-blood, although they have known Muggles ancestors. I'll ping Seth to see if he has some learned insight, but although I once thought as you, in re-reading all the related info the emphasis on muggles and muggle-borns parents or grandparents became clear as the factor in determining pure-blood status. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 03:21, May 6, 2017 (UTC)
Harry himself is the example - his maternal grandmother and grandfather are muggle and he's half-blood. Thus, any muggle ancestry makes it impossible for "pure-blood" to be possible.--HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 03:43, May 6, 2017 (UTC)
Harry is half-blood because of his muggle grandparents - JKR says this directly, not that he is half-blood because of other previous muggle ancestry (which the Potter family has) Writing by J.K. Rowling: "The Potter Family" at Pottermore
What you'd need is an example of someone who is said to be half-blood because of a muggle ancestor beyond their grandparents. But all the examples point to the contrary: The Weasleys have "ancestral ties to many interesting Muggles", but are pure-blood, the Malfoys married muggles or muggle-borns up till 1689, and still married half-bloods afterwards, but are pure-blood, the Potters occasionally married their muggle neighbors, but James Potter I was a pure-blood. These examples demonstrate that having muggle ancestry does not prevent a family from being pure-blood, as long as it is "far enough" back. From Harry, "far enough" appears to be beyond your grandparents for an individual to be considered a pure-blood. --Ironyak1 (talk) 04:17, May 6, 2017 (UTC)
It is a certainty that the Malfoy family had half-blood ancestors, and therefore some Muggle lineage. It probably stems from a female line. Rowling makes a point in Writing by J.K. Rowling: "The Malfoy Family" at Pottermore that they would marry half-bloods and implies muggle / muggle-borns as well up until the Statute of Secrecy, in order to stop interbreeding.
It is why Lucius and Draco are so much more together mentally than the Gaunt family or people like Bellatrix Lestrange. Therefore, the main line is not “pure” in the sense you are thinking of when you trace it back far enough. The question is, at what point is your muggle lineage considered far back enough for it to no longer matter? When did it stop being a problem for the Malfoy family?
Say Albus Potter had a child with someone whose closest muggle relative was their grandparent as well. Would their child have enough magical blood in order to be pure-blood, rather than half-blood, as their closest muggle / muggle-born relative is their great-grandparent?
We now know that the non-magical blood can be diluted enough by magical blood in order for someone to be “promoted”, so to say.
It is also just as much a matter of opinion in the Wizarding society than fact – some have adopted their own system of how it works. Some accept a family is pure-blood so long the muggle lineage is tucked away enough. Rowling adopted the grandparent rule as the main ideology. The Death Eaters have that statement.
Therefore, we should adopt the grandparent rule as well but be aware there is a distinction between having muggle / muggle-born grandparents and having only half-blood and/or pure-blood ones. -- Kates39 (talk) 11:34, May 6, 2017 (UTC)

For clarity, Writing by J.K. Rowling: "The Malfoy Family" at Pottermore says: "From the imposition of the Statute of Secrecy onwards, no Malfoy has married a Muggle or Muggle-born. The family has, however, eschewed the somewhat dangerous practice of inter-marrying within such a small pool of pure-bloods that they become enfeebled or unstable, unlike a small minority of fanatic families such as the Gaunts and Lestranges, and many a half-blood appears on the Malfoy family tree."

To me, this is clearly stating that to adopt Pure-blood standards is to not marry muggles or muggle-borns, but half-bloods are fine. The Malfoys are a pure-blood family even with many a half-blood on the tree in the years after the imposition of the Statute of Secrecy.

This notion is supported by the texts further as when Voldemort, and his pure-blood ideology, has control of the Ministry it's a Muggle-born commission formed, and Mudblood propaganda distributed; being a half-blood is repeatedly invoked as protection against persecution. Pure-blood might be best, but half-blood is still good enough.

Only the pure-blood fanatics such as Bellatrix Black/Lestrange that voice the opinion that even half-blood is unacceptable. When Marvolo Gaunt is bragging about his lineage he stresses that they are pure-bloods (no half-bloods) all the way back. The Malfoys are a pure-blood family but the Gaunts/Lestranges/Blacks are more pure as they have a greater distance from muggle heritage.

Note that Lucius Malfoy is however still a pure-blood himself and a respectable marriage for the House of Black, despite the many half-bloods in his tree. From JKR's statement about Harry, this would mean Lucius has no muggle or muggle born parents or grandparents (like the child in your example Kates39), not that he has no known muggle heritage.

This seems tied to JKR's statment that "magic is a dominant and resilient gene." Apparently, if all your parents and grandparents are not muggles or muggle-borns you have enough of this dominant magic genes to be a pure-blood, even with other more distant muggle ancestors. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 15:48, May 6, 2017 (UTC)

I've found something that shoots your theory in the foot. Tina Goldstein; Rappapart's law was created in 1793, she's born in 1901. There is one hundred and eight years between them. As Tina is half-blood this proves that Pure = no muggle ancestry ANYWHERE no matter how far back it is (as for Tina it's several generations at least -- at least before 1793 as any marriage to muggle/Muggleborn was illegal after that date); that's why her great-grandchildren, Lorcan and Lysander, are half-blood. Tina is a half-blood, as is her husband; so Rolf's father is, as is Rolf, as is Lorcan and Lysander. I think that has sufficiently proven that pure = no muggle/Muggleborn ancestry ANYWHERE. So that means Armand - Lucius = 100% pure; and it also means that Linfred - James is 100% pure too as is the Black family, Gaunt and all others who are "pure-blood".HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 19:16, May 6, 2017 (UTC)
The blood status for Lorcan/Lysander is based on Rolf which is based on Tina, and all inferred by the rules you are trying to prove - they are not actual independent evidence. Tina is a half-blood, but her parents or grandparents could be muggle-borns. Alternatively, her family could be married to half-blood wizards from outside the U.S. that have muggle or muggle-born parents, or have been recently immigrated themselves from outside the U.S. What evidence is there that the Goldsteins have been isolated in the States since the passage of Rappaport's Law? --Ironyak1 (talk) 20:02, May 6, 2017 (UTC)
The wizarding society of America is not the same as Britain. They have an entirely separate view of muggles and probably their own view on blood status. They have their own laws. There are conflicting sources on what pure-blood is, particularly in Britain. We don't know much about Tina's family either. Were they American, or did they move there? Therefore, were her ancestors living in America in and from 1793?
Writing by J.K. Rowling: "The Malfoy Family" at Pottermore proves that the Malfoy family married half-bloods to stop interbreeding and implies that is the reason why Lucius and Draco aren't as crazy as people like the Gaunts. And since the Malfoy family are quite high profile, why weren't anymore relatives mentioned before? From the way Draco speaks in Harry Potter and the Cursed Child, it is unlikely.
We don't actually know what blood status Newt, Rolf, Lorcan and Lysander are for definite. The reference on their pages were put there before new evidence was found. Tina was half-blood, which is interesting, but she is also from another society that we already know works in it's own way, and we don't know much about her family.
If the son of Newt and Tina actually had no muggle or muggle-born grandparents, is he still half-blood by the standards in at least Britain? The same for Rolf. We know he had no muggle or muggle-born paternal grandparents. If his maternal side is the same, is that enough for it to no longer matter?
And we don't actually know what blood status Luna or her parents were either. Lorcan and Lysander may be half-blood, but they may be pure-blood for the same reason as their father and grandfather. -- Kates39 (talk) 20:15, May 6, 2017 (UTC)
Just a quick extra piece of info to emphasize - JKR said "none of these families is really 'pure' – in other words, they merely cross Muggles and Squibs off the family tree and pretend that they didn't exist. But yes, the number of families claiming to be pure is diminishing. By refusing to marry Muggles or Muggle-borns, they are finding it increasingly difficult to perpetuate themselves."
To appear pure they cross off "Muggle and Squibs", not half-bloods. By not marrying "muggles and muggle-borns" - but half-bloods can be married. To me, this reiterates that you can have half-bloods on your family tree and still be a pure-blood family. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 20:46, May 6, 2017 (UTC)

First of all -- that "Cheers" is incredibly condescending. Please stop it. Second -- you're wrong as Rolf is definitely half-blood; his father is (as Kate agreed, Tina is a half-blood, so her kids are too, no matter Newt's blood) and we know this from Harry and Ginny - their kids are half blood, despite four wizards/witches ancestors. A half-blood, no matter whom they marry, always has a half-blood child. Thus, per CANON FACTS you cannot have a half-blood ancestor and still be pure - the muggle gene, no matter how far back, "pollutes it". Thus ALL pure blood families have nothing but pure ancestry. As for many a half-blood on the Malfoy tree, all we know is that Armand to Draco is one unbroken pure blood line; if there were other lines that became half-blood we don't know. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 23:45, May 6, 2017 (UTC)

But aren't Harry and Ginny's kids half-blood because they have a Muggle-born grandmother, Lily Potter? All evidence seems to point towards a common definition of Pure-blood as someone with no Muggle or Muggle-born ancestors in two generations (of course, this wouldn't be the standard used by the Black family, or the Gaunts, or any like-minded individuals). --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 00:05, May 7, 2017 (UTC)
Yes, Harry's children are half-blood because of the grandparent rule. I never agreed that Tina's children have to be half-blood because she is. Tina might be the daughter of two half-blood parents. Newt might have the same parentage. That would mean their children's closest muggle / muggle-born relative is their great-grandparent, which cancels out the grandparent rule and might be enough for them to be pure-blood by the standards of most of the wizarding society. -- Kates39 (talk) 00:14, May 7, 2017 (UTC)
When you take into account how JKR said magic is a dominant gene, it helps explain how a pure-blood can emerge from half-bloods. While I don't agree with the number of people who try to use Mendelian genetics to explain magical inheritance as it overly simplistic, it does make for a easy thought experiment.
Imagine the magic gene has two variants: M (magical - dominant) and m (not magical - recessive). You get one gene from each parent so an individual can be MM (pure-blood), Mm (half-blood, but still magical) or mm (no magic = squib or muggle).
When two pure-bloods MM have children they would all be MM - as there is no other gene variant present.
When a pure-blood MM and a half-blood Mm have children, they have 50% chance to be genetically MM (pure-blood), and 50% chance to be genetically half-blood (Mm).
When two half-bloods (Mm) have children there is a 25% chance their kids could be genetically MM (pure-blood), 50% chance of being Mm (half-blood), and 25% chance of being mm (squib) (see WP favicon Punnett square on Wikipedia if this isn't clear). This is how genetic purity can be obtained from mixed genetic individuals and fits with JKRs statements on the matter.
Pure-blood families are working to increase the likelihood of MM and Mm (magical) children through minimizing the introduction of the recessive gene to varying degrees (no marrying muggles or muggle-borns like the Malfoys, or only marrying pure-bloods like the Gaunts/Lestranges/Blacks).
Note I am NOT saying this is how the magic gene works (one problem is there is no possibility for "muggle-borns in this model, except for a spontaneous mutation causing m to become M), but it explains how a dominant gene functions that goes against the common interpretation that once you have a mixed genetic condition (half-blood) none of your descendants can be genetically pure (pure-blood).
Cheers (sorry HPR1 but how I sign my posts is my business - the intent is not to be condescending, even if you choose to interpret it that way) --Ironyak1 (talk) 02:58, May 7, 2017 (UTC)

For ease of future reference, I am going to summarize this information, noting the sources and implications.

A pure-blood individual is one with no muggle or muggle-born parents or grandparents.
Source: FAQ: Why are some people in the wizarding world (e.g., Harry) called 'half-blood' even though both their parents were magical? from J. K. Rowling's Official Site (Archived) "The expressions 'pure-blood', 'half-blood' and 'Muggle-born' have been coined by people to whom these distinctions matter, and express their originators' prejudices. As far as somebody like Lucius Malfoy is concerned, for instance, a Muggle-born is as 'bad' as a Muggle. Therefore Harry would be considered only 'half' wizard, because of his mother's grandparents. If you think this is far-fetched, look at some of the real charts the Nazis used to show what constituted 'Aryan' or 'Jewish' blood. I saw one in the Holocaust Museum in Washington when I had already devised the 'pure-blood', 'half-blood' and 'Muggle-born' definitions, and was chilled to see that the Nazis used precisely the same warped logic as the Death Eaters. A single Jewish grandparent 'polluted' the blood, according to their propaganda."
Implications: We cannot infer that a parents or grandparents of a pure-blood individual are pure-bloods themselves, just that they are not Muggles or Muggle-born.

A pure-blood family is one that has not married Muggles or Muggle-borns.
Sources:

  • F.A.Q. Section: "Are all the pure-blood families going to die out?" at J. K. Rowling's Official Site (Archived)- "Don't forget that, as Sirius revealed in 'Order of the Phoenix', none of these families is really 'pure' – in other words, they merely cross Muggles and Squibs off the family tree and pretend that they didn't exist. But yes, the number of families claiming to be pure is diminishing. By refusing to marry Muggles or Muggle-borns, they are finding it increasingly difficult to perpetuate themselves."
  • Writing by J.K. Rowling: "Pure-Blood" at Pottermore - "As Muggle/wizard marriage had been common for centuries, those now self-describing as pure-bloods were unlikely to have any higher proportion of wizarding ancestors than those who did not. To call oneself a pure-blood was more accurately a declaration of political or social intent ('I will not marry a Muggle and I consider Muggle/wizard marriage reprehensible') than a statement of biological fact."
  • Writing by J.K. Rowling: "The Malfoy Family" at Pottermore - "From the imposition of the Statute of Secrecy onwards, no Malfoy has married a Muggle or Muggle-born. The family has, however, eschewed the somewhat dangerous practise of inter-marrying within such a small pool of pure-bloods that they become enfeebled or unstable, unlike a small minority of fanatic families such as the Gaunts and Lestranges, and many a half-blood appears on the Malfoy family tree."
  • The Tales of Beedle the Bard - "Albus Dumbledore on “The Fountain of Fair Fortune”" - "So-called pure-blood families maintain their alleged purity by disowning, banishing or lying about Muggles or Muggle-borns on their family trees. They then attempt to foist their hypocrisy upon the rest of us by asking us to ban works dealing with the truths they deny. There is not a witch or wizard in existence whose blood has not mingled with that of Muggles, and I should therefore consider it both illogical and immoral to remove works dealing with the subject from our students’ store of knowledge."

Implications: Members of a pure-blood family may themselves be half-blood; we cannot infer pure-blood status for an individual from their family's blood status. For those marrying into the Malfoy family, they cannot be Muggles or Muggle-borns, but may be half-blood, and as such, their children born into the Malfoy family may be half-blood as well.
Those marrying into the Gaunt, Lestrange, and Black families (and not disowned or removed from the family tree) can be inferred to be pure-blood themselves i.e. they have no Muggle or Muggle-born parents or grandparents.

The magic gene is dominant and resilient
Source: Extra stuff: Squibs at J. K. Rowling's Official Site (Archived)
Implications: Dominant genes override recessive ones so the magic gene will override the non-magical ones. As such, two half-bloods may have children that are genetically pure-blood, and if they have no muggle or muggle-born grandparents, would be a pure-blood by all measures. This may explain how the Malfoys and Weaselys explicitly had muggle ancestry but were considered pure-blood by the 1930s, as the dominant magic gene would weed out the non-magical or Muggle one. Note this also allows for pure-blood individuals to be born into non-pure-blood families - just because an individual is pure-blood does not mean the family's blood-status is pure-blood as well.

Let me know if there are any clarifications or corrections needed. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 19:18, May 10, 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with the implications of the section right above "magic gene is dominant"; it is physically impossible (as we see with many wizards throughout the series) for a wizard to be pure-blood if they have a half-blood member. If that was the case Lorcan and Lysander would not be half-blood; they have four wizard and witch grandparents, which, per new rules constitutes "pure" - and it also makes Albus Potter pure too, as Albus has four grandparents who were all magic. Sure, Lily comes from Muggle, but per the new ruling, that is irrelevant - she's a witch, as is James, as is Molly, as is Arthur, so Albus has four wizard grandparents and classifies as "pure"... which we know he's not as J.K. Rowling has confirmed his father is only "half" wizard because of Lily. So that entirely invalidates the idea of half and half grandparents making pure; any half-blood anywhere prevents pure-blood from being possible. Thus, as an example, Theodore Nott is pure-blood (J.K. Rowling has confirmed this on Pottermore)... so his father has to be pure-blood for this to be possible. You have opened a massive can of worms that should not have been opened. Ever.--HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 23:31, May 10, 2017 (UTC)
it is physically impossible (as we see with many wizards throughout the series) for a wizard to be pure-blood if they have a half-blood member.
Who are the many wizards who clearly show this? Most blood-status information has been inferred by rules that do not derive from the sources above, so examples would be helpful.
Lorcan and Lysander's blood-status is unknown as we don't know about Luna's parents - one or both may be muggle-born, as well as Rolf may have a muggle parent, or not.
Albus, and all of Harry's children, are half-bloods because his grandmother is muggle-born which as JKR says "as far as somebody like Lucius Malfoy is concerned, for instance, a Muggle-born is as 'bad' as a Muggle." As a single grandparent "pollutes" the blood, Lily's Muggle-born status pollutes theirs.
Yes, Theodore Nott is a pure-blood as stated by JKR, and the Notts were considered a pure-blood family in the 1930s, but that does not mean his father Nott has to be pure-blood. He may be a half-blood on the Nott tree like the many half-bloods on the Malfoy's pure-blood tree.
As for cans of worms, there has been so much speculation built up on this topic that does not have any backing from JKR's statements, and actually runs counter to what she has said. The notion that pure-blood means no muggle ancestry is directly countered by her repeated statements about the Malfoys, the Weaselys, and the Potters. Fixing problems, no matter how long standing, is part of what we do as editors. If you have statements or examples (from JKR, not guessed at by us) that counters what I am saying, I look forward to seeing them. --Ironyak1 (talk) 23:53, May 10, 2017 (UTC)

We can infer the Scamander twins as Pure, for one reason: Luna's never picked on for her ancestry - her father's madness, yes, but her parents' blood? No. Never, meaning both her parents were half at minimum. Per the new ruling 4 halves make pure.

Actually, I think you'll find, it does. A half-blood parent cannot birth a pure-blood; as an example, any kids of Albus's would be half-blood, because their great-grandmother, Lily, is muggleborn. Any, no matter how distant, pollutes the bloodline. As we see by Tina - she has at least one American grandfather, correct? (as she and Queenie know of him and breeding owls and if he's muggle/muggleborn contact wouldn't be possible due to Law.) As he's American, this has to have occurred before 1793 - no marriage after is allowed - so it's over 100 years of ancestry and Tina's still half.

I will fight this to the end -- I've messaged J.K. on twitter to get a reply to "pure + anything = not pure". --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 00:12, May 11, 2017 (UTC)

Never is it ever said that any muggle blood pollutes the bloodline - that would imply that the muggle gene is dominant and can never be overcome, but JKR has said the exact opposite. Three families with pure-blood members have known muggle ancestry - Malfoys, Weaselys, & Potters - so your statement does not line up with the known facts.
Great-grandparents are not said to factor in, only parents and grandparents. JKR says this explicitly in making her Death Eater and Nazi comparison (which I've added above to make clear). As such Albus Potter's children could in fact be pure-blood depending on the mother.
You still fail to acknowledge the many, many ways Tina could be a half-blood. There is no evidence that all the Goldsteins were all born in America and therefore subject to Rappaport's Law since its inception. Go back and read that discussion please and address there.
Fight this interpretation all you want, but please find evidence for your statements instead of asserting the same point over and over without acknowledging any of the counter-evidence or arguments. --Ironyak1 (talk) 01:26, May 11, 2017 (UTC)

This may have been done before, but I'm suggesting why Ironyak is wrong to suggest this. Harry and Ginny. Per Ironyak's theory (further up) Nott Sr can be half-blood because his son Theo is pure-blood. This cannot be true. Because the marriage of Ginny and Harry proves it impossible. Harry is half-blood (how is unimportant, that's not the bit we're focusing on here) and Ginny is pure-blood, so their children are half-bloods. By the same reasoning - if Nott is Half and his wife is pure, Theo would be half as Nott/Harry and Nott's wife/Ginny make the same situation. As Theo is pure, both his parents have to be. Which is what I've been saying from the beginning. Pure + anything different = half. So a family that is said to be "pure-blood" has to fit the pure + pure bill.--HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 23:57, May 12, 2017 (UTC)

Harry and Ginny's sons and daughters are half-blood because they all have a Muggle-born grandmother, Lily Potter, and when it comes to blood status (to those prejudiced), "a Muggle-born is as 'bad' as a Muggle". --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 00:00, May 13, 2017 (UTC)
I've read many of the arguments on both sides, and... Wouldn't the answer to this question depend on whether we're talking biology or society? 
Biology = Muggle/Muggle-born marriage render family forever half-blood on vritue of being "polluted".
Society = Pure-blood if your parents and grandparents are witches and wizards.
The point is that Muggle blood pollutes the line correct? That's what it's saying with "From the imposition of the Statute of Secrecy onwards, no Malfoy has married a Muggle or Muggle-born." They emphasizes that Muggle or Muggle-born pollutes the line to make it half-blood, (which is how "many a half-blood appear on the Malfoy Family Tree").
Is it? My understanding of the text were that the Malfoys throughout the centuries has been marrying people with one non-magical parent and kept quiet about it or married a half-bloods born to two half-bloods with a Muggle grandparent on each side, but on virtue of being half-blood, they don't "pollute" the family tree, allowing them to maintain the pure-blood status in social circles? Ninclow (talk) 00:16, May 13, 2017 (UTC)

YES. AND AS I HAVE STATED TIME AND TIME AND TIME AGAIN, OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN, TO YOU, TO IRONYAK, TO EVERY PERSON ON THIS WIKI WHO SEEMS TO BE AGAINST THIS - HARRY IS A HALF-BLOOD (HOW IS IRELLEVANT IN THIS SITUATION, WE'LL GET TO THAT IN A MINUTE!) WHO MARRIED A PURE-BLOOD AND BIRTHED A HALF-BLOOD. WHETHER HARRY IS HALF BECAUSE OF HIS MOTHER'S BLOOD OR HIS MOTHER 65TH TIMES REMOVED GRANDMOTHER IS IRRELLEVANT. A HALF-BLOOD WIZARD HAS MARRIED A PURE-BLOOD WITCH AND BIRTHED A NON-PURE' WIZARD/WITCH. BY THAT, AS I HAVE SAID TIME AND TIME AND TIME AND TIME AND TIME AND TIME AGAIN, IT PROVES THAT A PURE MARRIAGE TO ANYTHING BUT A PURE DOES NOT BIRTH A PURE. EVER. END OF THE GODDAMN CONVERSATION. I HAVE TWITTERED J.K. TO FIND OUT TO FINALLY END THIS CONVERSATION. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 00:27, May 13, 2017 (UTC)

So am I to understand you are talking about biology, then? There is a distinction between being a pure-blood and being considered a pure-blood. So if you have a pure-blood parent and a half-blood with exclusively magical parents and grandparents. I still don't think to call that child pure-blood is wrong, on virtue of a half-blood hailing from Muggle blood but not "posessing" it like a Muggle-born does, if you know what I mean? Ninclow (talk) 00:36, May 13, 2017 (UTC)

A half-blood does possess muggle blood -- it's how the half-blood (or their ancestor, if they have two half-blood parents) became half blood in the first place. Somewhere a muggle/muggleborn married a wizard of some different blood status - half, pure, squib, whatever - and birth a half-blood child. That half-blood child had a child, also half-blood, who had a half-blood child, who had a half-blood child, who had a half-blood child, who had a half-blood child and so on because the Muggle/muggleborn blood is still there, which is the crux of my argument. No matter how distant, the blood is still there. The 9 time great-grandson of a jew... still has Jewish blood, albeit diluted by many generations. It's still there, no matter how distant. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 00:41, May 13, 2017 (UTC)
It is said over and over that "there is not a witch or wizard in existence whose blood has not mingled with that of Muggles" so how is anyone pure-blood? --Ironyak1 (talk) 00:47, May 13, 2017 (UTC)

By that standing, even your theory doesn't hold up as, even with all four magic grandparents, James can't be pure then as "there is not a witch or wizard in existence who's blood has not mingled with that of Muggles". So, do we just scrap pure-blood entirely then? It shoots you in the foot more than it does me. By that basis, pure-blood doesn't exist; James wasn't one, Draco and Lucius and Narcissa aren't, none of the Blacks are. By that basis we just get rid of pure-blood entirely. See? By your interference the entire wiki is now screwed beyond belief. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 00:51, May 13, 2017 (UTC)

HarryPotterRules1:
Technically, yes, but I think that the muggle blood they'd "physically" possess not necessarily is considered as such by society. Kind of like... If we assume the "muggleness" of their blood are "dilluted" or in some ways cleaned due to the magical blood that was mixed in. But that's tricky business, though, since we are talking about technicalities in regard to pro-pureblood norms, about which he don't know all that much. But if one are pure-blood when one have no Muggle or Muggle-born parents or grandparents, that seems to be the logic applied to determine what society deems pure-blood or not pure-blood. 


That being said: I find your unjustified accusations to be inappropiate and disrespectful. So stop. The entire wikia is not "screwed" in any sense. I believe the issue is that you fail to realize the answer to what pure-blood is, is two-fold. Nevertheless, I firmly believe you owe Ironyak1 an apology for the sentiment.


Ironyak1:
True pure-bloods? I don't think there is any such thing, not even among the more radical like the Gaunts and/or the Blacks, but they could still be considered pure-blood by society by virtue of magical ancestry. I think that for a wizard to be considered pure-blood, a sufficent amount of their ancestry needs to be to be purely magical, not necessarily that their ancestry needs to be purely "pure(ly)" magical, if that makes sense? Ninclow (talk) 00:58, May 13, 2017 (UTC)

And the point you made to Ironyak is what I have been saying since the beginning. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:01, May 13, 2017 (UTC)

Had that been the case, you've both would've been right, you'd realized and subsequently acknowledged as much, and you would feel no need to get angry or to insult him/her and accuse them of "screwing up the wikia". If you are going to weasel your way out of the figurative "noose", which is what I'd call me calling you out on being inappropiately disrespectful being disrespectful, please, do so with an excuse that is at least half-way decent. You still owe Ironyak1 an apology. Ninclow (talk) 01:08, May 13, 2017 (UTC)

JKRs statement that all wizards have muggle ancestry isn't inference and doesn't lead to: "the entire wiki is now screwed beyond belief", it just ends the belief that pure-blood means "no muggle ancestry". It doesn't. It means not marrying Muggles or Muggle-borns. This is said three times directly. JKR is emphasizing the hypocrisy of this system - JKR: "none of these families is really 'pure' – in other words, they merely cross Muggles and Squibs off the family tree and pretend that they didn't exist."
However, there are families that jump through the hoops to be considered pure-blood: They don't marry Muggles or Muggle-borns for enough generations and they demonstrate that they don't agree with Wizard/Muggle marriage. Writing by J.K. Rowling: "Pure-Blood" at Pottermore Marrying a half-blood is still marrying a wizard so that is acceptable. Writing by J.K. Rowling: "The Malfoy Family" at Pottermore
The Gaunts/Lestranges/Blacks are fanatical pure-bloods so even half-blood is not good enough for them. Only those without Muggle or Muggle-born parents or grandparents can acceptably marry into the family. Iola Black married a muggle and was blasted off the Black family tree to keep it pure - she is still a pure-blood biologically but now doesn't fit the political or ideological requirements. Andromeda Black marries a muggle-born and is also removed from the tree to keep it pure. Others are removed for similar pro-muggle actions.
As JKR has clearly stated there are pure-blood wizards and families (so you can't scrap the concept), and has stated the rules for each, why is this so hard to accept? --Ironyak1 (talk) 01:11, May 13, 2017 (UTC)

Ironyak: Because it's wrong, as I've shown with Harry and Ginny's marriage and their kids.
Ninclow: In a few days -- right now they're the last person I want to talk too and, if an apology is deemed necessary by the admins, I'd rather it be genuine and right now it won't be. Also... I'm not sure noose needed quotation marks; it wasn't a quote - but I may be wrong on that. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:13, May 13, 2017 (UTC)

Double edit conflict: Blood status is not a biological concept, it's a social construct. That much is clear. As Rowling has repeatedly asserted (and is basically the whole point of the blood status thing), "none of these families is really 'pure' – in other words, they merely cross Muggles and Squibs off the family tree and pretend that they didn't exist". It doesn't "shoot him in the foot" the slightest. The concept of "Pure-blood" shouldn't exist, since the term only exists to express its originators' prejudices -- you're entirely correct, and yet seem to be missing the point entirely.
Either way, it is hard, solid canonical fact that there are no wizards without any Muggle ancestors: "those now self-describing as pure-bloods were unlikely to have any higher proportion of wizarding ancestors than those who did not". --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 01:19, May 13, 2017 (UTC)

While we're on the subject it is biological. Someone with Jewish blood will always be Jewish - that blood will always be there even five bajillion years later. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:22, May 13, 2017 (UTC)

So, are you suggesting Muggle-borns are an ethnic group? --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 01:25, May 13, 2017 (UTC)
As JKR has said, magic is a dominant and resilient gene. This explains why Squibs are rare and implies that the magic gene will override the recessive muggle gene. After "enough" generations without Muggle intermarrige those descendants would be genetically pure-blood (sooner than 5 bajillion years most likely ;) See above for a primer on Mendelian genetics as a simple model for how this works. Pure-blood as a system has both an biological basis (although it does not mean no muggle ancestry) and social/political intent (I am against muggle/wizard intermarriage). --Ironyak1 (talk) 01:34, May 13, 2017 (UTC)
  1. Jewish blood? How can blood be religious, I thought that was a social consturct made by the Nazi party as an excuse to hunt and treat them like animals?
  2. Then my I suggest that you take a break for the computer and go for a walk or something? 
  3. The quotation marks were because I changed my sentence while writing it and forgot to remove them... Ninclow (talk) 01:36, May 13, 2017 (UTC)
In Writing by J.K. Rowling: "Pure-Blood" at Pottermore, Rowling states that “to call oneself a pure-blood was more accurately a declaration of political or social intent (‘I will not marry a Muggle and I consider Muggle/wizard marriage reprehensible’) than a statement of biological fact.”
By the 20th century, anyone “now self-describing as pure-bloods were unlikely to have any higher proportion of wizarding ancestors than those who did not.” As Rowling said in an interview “none of these families is really ‘pure’” they just want to “pretend that (any such ancestors) didn’t exist”. The “number of families claiming to be pure” anyway are “diminishing”.
In Writing by J.K. Rowling: "The Malfoy Family" at Pottermore, Rowling states that “many a half-blood appears on the family tree”. That is certainly in Draco and Lucius’ line as Rowling implies they did so to stop the disintegration of their mental well-being. Therefore, marrying a half-blood is at least acceptable by most people's standards.
I would say that the distant muggle / muggle-born ancestry is certainly from a female line, rather than the family name. But that does mean someone like the Malfoy family can have distant muggle / muggle-born ancestry and still be pure-blood as magic is a dominant and resilient gene, and society has the grandparent rule.
The grandparent rule as adopted by Rowling states that in order to be pure-blood, you must have no muggle or muggle-born grandparents. But what about your great-grandparents?
What we were trying to ascertain is how far back does your muggle or muggle-born ancestor have to be in order for your blood status to be pure again by both the standards of society and politics, as well as some biological fact. It is not as simple as there has no be muggle ancestry at all anymore, even though that is how some want to define it. -- Kates39 (talk) 10:57, May 13, 2017 (UTC)
Well, one thing we have to take into account is the extremists' views, like the Blacks. The Black's consider anything but pure (and by pure, they mean no muggle anywhere, whether it be one generation or five hundred or just general fraternization with them) to be bad... so if the Malfoys did have half-blood members (or, at least, half-blood between Armand and Lucius), then they would not be "pure" by the Black standards... so Narcissa would have been disowned on her marriage to Lucius due to his tainted half-blood ancestry (which for most would be fine to qualify the family as "pure", but for the Blacks, who considered Narcissa to have made a "respectable, pure blood marriage" and are extremists it'd be taboo) and the same goes for the other families that married in. All the families that were not disowned - Flint, Potter, Gamp, Tripe, Malfoy - classify under the Black Family's extreme "no muggle blood anywhere" category. And, given the nature of their extremity, they'd check before the marriage. So, that makes all families that married into the Black's 100% no muggle to fit their (admittedly warped) specifications.--HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 12:04, May 13, 2017 (UTC)
The fanatical families require those that marry in to be pure-bloods which as JKR defined have no Muggle or Muggle-born parents or grandparents (not zero muggle ancestry). As stated clearly "There is not a witch or wizard in existence whose blood has not mingled with that of Muggles" so even the Blacks/Lestranges/Gaunts could not use this as a criteria as no one would be fit to marry. Pure-blood does not mean what you keep asserting; JKR has made that clear. --Ironyak1 (talk) 12:42, May 13, 2017 (UTC)