is that him?.....oh, i figured that, but....hmm never mind
- Yes that picture is him, Rabastan Lestranges appearance in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film) is played by actor Richard Trinder and his scenes invole him holding Ginny Weasley hostage in the Department of Mysteries.
Yes, some of the information is incorrect.But the names of the actors are properly assigned, so we can say that
richard trinder plays rabastan.Pol 871 10:39, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
- Why can we say that? Where's the proof? Jayden Matthews 11:27, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
- IMDB is not a reliable source, as anyone can edit it. Same as anyone can edit this wiki. As far as I'm aware there are no official sources that say which Death Eaters are which. Jayden Matthews 11:33, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
- Then we should ask ourselves if we really Richard Cubison played Dolohov,no?Pol 871 11:36, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
- I'm afraid so. IMDB and Wikipedia both claim that Cubison played Dolohov, but due to their editable natures, they are subject to false information, as are we. Jayden Matthews 11:42, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
Richard Trinder either Plays Rabastan or Rodolphus (In Order of the Phoenix and Deathly Hallows Part 2)
Arben Bajrakrarj plays Antonin Dolohov (Order of the Phoenix, Deathly Hallows Part 1 and 2)
Tav MacDougall plays Travers (Order of the Phoenix)
Richard Cubison plays Jugson (Order of the Phoenix)
Is this him?Edit
Assuming Richard Trinder's character is Rodolphus, of course, the Death Eater in Deathly Hallows Part 2 who says "No sign of him, my lord" certainly isn't Dolohov (who says it in the book) but is thin and nervous-looking, which the Goblet of Fire book uses to describe Rabastan, could that be him? Ghostkaiba297 07:34, November 30, 2011 (UTC)
Are Rodolphus and Rabastan Lestrange the great-grandsons of F. Lestrange?Edit
To me, it all fits.
With the dates for F. Lestrange (1854) and R. Lestrange (1867) being so close it is likely that R. Lestrange was his son. It is also likely that the Lestrange in 1926 was the grandson of R. Lestrange and thus, Rodolphus and Rabastan Lestrange are, most likely, the great-grandsons of R. Lestrange and the great-great-grandsons of F. Lestrange. Do you agree? HarryPotterRules1 02:22, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
- No, there's nothing to indicate the degree of their relationship. And please don't insert fanon or speculation into the articles without a source in the future. -- 1337star (Owl Post) 00:54, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
I have looked over my original evaluation and have changed my mind a bit; It sorts of makes sense though; 1867 - 1926 is 59 and is way to old to be having a child, even for Purebloods. So Lestrange has to be the grandson of either F. Lestrange or R. Lestrange (it depends if F. Lestrange is the father of R. Lestrange; they might just be brothers), which means that Rodolphus, born in 1951 and Rabastan, born sometime after him, are, most likely, the kids of the Lestrange from 1926 which makes them the great-grandkids of F. Lestrange or R. Lestrange. HarryPotterRules1 02:23, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
I cannot find any reference that backs the claim that Rabastan was younger than his brother Rodolphus. Anyone? --20:54, July 8, 2013 (UTC)
- Bellatrix had no children. She said "If I had a child, I would happily sacrifice them to the dark lord," or something like that to Narcissa. --Bad Wolf 13:01, August 27, 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, Rabbitty! But what has your comment to do with this question? 19:48, August 27, 2013 (UTC)
- It's done from the dates given in OOTP. Rodolphus hung around, at Hogwarts, with Snape. Snape began in 1971, so Rodolphus had to have been born between September 1st 1953 (which would let him miss the year gap and still be in 7th year when Snape begins) and 1963 (he is 18 and old enough to be, legally, imprisoned in Azkaban); as for Rabastan - he is said to not have hung around with Snape, but was old enough, in 1981, to be legally imprisoned in Azkaban, making him at least 17. By that, we can put Rodolphus's birthdates as "between September 1st 1953 - 1963" and Rabastans as "in or before 1964"; this makes Rodolphus anywhere between 18 and 28 and Rabastan around 17.
- I don't mind if you disagree - that's just my two cents. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 13:13, August 28, 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, Rodolphus could be with Snape at Hogwarts. But, why Rabastan could not be older than his brother? In your explication, you used "Rabastan is younger" as information. So yes, he was old enough to be send to Azkaban, but he could be older than Rodolphus. In this case too, he would be old enough. Lady Junky 14:22, August 28, 2013 (UTC)
- True, but Bellatrix married him; if she was to make a "noble, pureblood marriage" as she did, surely it'd be with the heir? Money would be useful to Voldemort's cause and a younger son - Rabastan - would not have much. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 14:52, August 28, 2013 (UTC)
- It is only a supposition by you. Rodolphus could have been chosen because their ages can be almost the same. Moreover, Rabastan could have a wife too. It is not known for now, so why he could not? Particularly because, as you said, he is a member of a noble and pureblood family :) Lady Junky 15:08, August 28, 2013 (UTC)
- Rabastan can't have a wife as he's been imprisoned in Azkaban since 1981 - no time for marriage; and after his public escape would be announced, surely a wife - if he had one - would be brought in for questioning? Also, Bellatrix, being devoted to Voldemort, would marry the head of the family - or heir - so that she could have "lots of money" to serve Voldemort with; to bribe people, like Lucius does. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 17:29, August 28, 2013 (UTC)
- And I can hear already Seth Cooper: "Pure speculation". :D And that it was.
17:38, August 28, 2013 (UTC)
- And I can hear already Seth Cooper: "Pure speculation". :D And that it was.
I have new info that proves me right. Rabastan has to be at least 17 to be sent to Azkaban; yet, Rodolphus hung around with Snape so has to be born between September 1953 (to miss the 1964 start and begin in 1965 and be in his 6th/7th year when Snape began) and 1963 (any younger and he and Rabastan would be too young to go to Azkaban in 1981.) Thus, Rodolphus is the elder and Rabastan the younger. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 15:35, December 8, 2013 (UTC)
- That isn't "new info", it's the same case you've already presented. True, Rabastan wasn't said to have hung around with Snape, but there could be a multitude of reasons for that. Not liking Snape (not hard to imagine, is it?) would be one explanation. And as someone else has pointed out, Rabastan could already have finished Hogwarts (or dropped out). Speculation is never "necessary". We our called upon to record facts, not "come up with answears".-- 17:35, December 8, 2013 (UTC)
- Fudge didn't suggest sending Harry to Azkaban in his trial; he merely suggested expulsion and, as Minister for Magic, he is well within his rights to suggest Azkaban imprisonment - he did to Dumbledore, after all. As well as this, Rabastan uses magic - outside of Hogwarts - to torture Alice and Frank, so was at least 17 in 1981, making him born in 1964 at the latest. Thus, by both these, 17 is the minimum age to go to Azkaban.--HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 22:19, December 8, 2013 (UTC)
- Please provide evidence that a single breach of the Statue of Secrecy and Decree for the Reasonable Restriction of Underage Sorcery is sufficient to warrant time in Azkaban. In fact, Fudge states exactly the opposite in Prisoner of Azkaban ("We don’t send people to Azkaban just for blowing up their aunts!"), though it could be argued that he was, at the time, adamant on getting on Harry's good side and keeping him safe. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 01:33, December 9, 2013 (UTC)
- Harry has broken the decree 3 times; Dobby and the cake; Marge; Dementor - all valid enough to get him sent to Azkaban. The fact that Fudge didn't suggest it for him - merely explusion and snapping of a wand - and did suggest it for Dumbledore, to me, at least, seems enough to be relatively sure that anyone underage cannot go to Azkaban. As for the blowing up their aunts, the fact that Tom laughs and points at Fudge could imply he did it too; in that case, Fudge would be understanding, even in OOtP. And, anyway, I wasn't saying that Rabastan went to Azkaban for breaking the decree. I was saying, the fact that he used Magic outside of Hogwarts and was only caught later and brought in for trial, implies and almost directly states that he was not under seventeen at the time and was of age and left Hogwarts.--HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:50, December 9, 2013 (UTC)
- And, again, you fail to directly address my concerns, instead circumventing them with meaningless points. Unless you have direct evidence that Harry's crimes could land him in Azkaban in the first place, and the reason he wasn't placed in Azkaban was because he was underage, I think we're done here. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 01:57, December 9, 2013 (UTC)
- In a minute, I am going to *insert swear here* scream; YOU in the first place, misunderstood ME. I said Fudge did not suggest that Harry go to Azkaban for underage magic, implying that you can't. Hell, Hagrid, still at Hogwarts and UNDER-FREAKING-AGE!!!!!!!!! was framed for releasing a Basilisk and didn't go to Azkaban for that! To me, that's enough to say someone underage cannot go to Azkaban, no matter how many times the law is broken. Lily broke the law at sometime between the ages of 11 and 17 (Petunia says she came home transfiguring cups and J.K. has said she got some warnings) and she didn't go to Azkaban either. Only people who are of age - Barty Jr, Bellatrix, Rodolphus, Rabastan, Stan, 50-something year old Hagrid, Dumbledore (threat of being sent there) - have ever been to Azkaban, or in Dumbledore's case been threatened with it. Thus, to me at least you CANNOT go to Azkaban under the age of seventeen. As for you, I'm not really bothered anymore. Do a Staff Survey, like the Once Upon a Time wiki did, and see how many people think you're a good (or bad) admin. THEN, we can decide what value your opinions have? UNDER-BLEEPING-STAND?! --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 02:11, December 9, 2013 (UTC)
- I will admit your theory is interesting, and makes logical sense. However, there is still no hard evidence that someone under 17 cannot be placed in Azkaban. I think you've argued a strong enough case to warrant a "Behind the scenes" note on both this and Rodolphus's page noting their possible birth order, but I would still resist a direct mention in the main article as your points, though likely, are still unproven. And I would vastly prefer it if you keep incidental comments like my suitability of being an admin (which, incidentally, I am not one) out of this otherwise civil discussion. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 02:31, December 9, 2013 (UTC)
No-one in canon - not in the books or revealed by J.K. Rowling - has been underage and gone to Azkaban. Hagrid was a MURDERER - albeit framed - at 15 and he didn't go to Azkaban. Harry and Lily both broke the statute of Secrecy, Lily by transfiguring cups and getting warnings and Harry by blowing up Marge and saving Dudley's ass. And, as Fudge - the Minister of Magic, no less - didn't suggest it, it's incredibly likely to not be an option at all. Expulsion and made to live as a Muggle, yes; Going to Azkaban, no. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 02:37, December 9, 2013 (UTC)
- In several books, Harry fears he had done something worthy of a sentence in Azkaban. Why would he fear this if it were impossible? -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 02:45, December 9, 2013 (UTC)
He grew up with Muggles and, even in OOtP - as he has to ask what the Wizengamot is - he doesn't know much about the Wizarding World; he's fearing because he knows Hagrid went there, but is ignorant of it himself. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 02:56, December 9, 2013 (UTC)
- 'Tis true. And thus we arrive back at "convincing argument, but no hard proof". I would like someone else to weigh in on the matter, as I think we've reached equilibrium as far as our arguments for and against this point. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 03:08, December 9, 2013 (UTC)
- Case in point, Hagrid was not sent to Azkaban for killing Myrtle because he was never formally accused of anything. Dippet expelled Hagrid and had his wand snapped but kept the whole incident hush-hush: Riddle says in chapter 13 of Chamber of Secrets "I caught the person who'd opened the Chamber and he was expelled. But the Headmaster, Professor Dippet, ashamed that such a thing had happened at Hogwarts, forbade me to tell the truth. A story was given out that the girl had died in a freak accident. They gave me a nice, shiny, engraved trophy for my trouble and warned me to keep my mouth shut. But I knew it could happen again. The monster lived on, and the one who had the power to release it was not imprisoned."
- Riddle's wording makes it seem that they could've had Hagrid imprisoned if they'd gone ahead with it, although I still am not convinced of either possibility: whether underage students can go to Azkaban or not, we don't know (and, of course, since we don't know, we mustn't use that to support another argument). -- 03:23, December 9, 2013 (UTC)
- True. Anyway, the "new info" HarryPotterRules1 presented doesn't really allow us to conclude anything about Rodolphus and Rabastan's relative ages. Consider this: even if we go ahead and assume one has to be of-age to be sent to Azkaban (which is currently unproven; unaddressed in canon) and if we ignore the complications that arouse from the whole "Snape went to Hogwarts with the Lestranges" piece of info (Snape went to Hogwarts 1971-1978, while Bellatrix went there 1962-1969 or 1963-1970 -- the dates don't overlap; I think the correct interpretation of that line is that "they ran with the same crowd"), we'd still be unable to conclude Rabastan is the younger brother.
- What we'd be able to conclude is that Rodolphus would have been born between September 1953 and 1963; and that Rabastan would have been born before 1963. We wouldn't know how long before. It would be entirely non-contradictory to affirm that Rabastan was born before Rodolphus. -- 21:10, December 9, 2013 (UTC)
I can see I'm going to lose this fight too. Sometimes, you know, I do think you hate me. It's obvious - absolutely obvious. Sometimes, I wonder why I bothered reading the books at all? I'd have never found this place and not been so stressed that I'm in therapy over "the reason admins and other wikia members are evil and hate me." --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 21:50, December 9, 2013 (UTC)
- It's not about win or lose and even if it were, we've all lost at one time or another. It so happens that this, being the biggest and most well-known wiki about Harry Potter (my teacher made us look things up on here, and the Pottermore information confused the heck out of most kids, as did the move from "Gregorovitch" to "Mykew Gregorovitch"), is also the strictest wiki. Over the course of eight years (nine this coming summer), a lot of information has been added without direct book or film sources, and that's what the wiki is trying to cut out. I do hope you know it isn't you everyone is trying to go after - absolutely not! Nobody on here hates you, it's just that over however many years each editor has been on here, we've all developed a sort of dislike towards anything new or radical ... I think I'm the last "new" user to be really and truly accepted, and I can't help but wonder if it's a stiff sort of net disapproval for everything that isn't old and old-fashioned. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 22:05, December 9, 2013 (UTC)
They do hate me and they are out to get me. If things are so strict on this wiki - and seem to be almost Victorian in values - then maybe it's time some of the older ones, the nagging fuddy duddys, moved on and let the younger ones have a shot. In the words of Sirius (paraphrased), their time is over and we're the young ones now. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 22:11, December 9, 2013 (UTC)
- This is nonsense. I don't believe I've ever been offensive or disrespectful to you, in fact, when I see no fault in an argument you present I, logically, support it; if one proves another wrong it's not because he hates him, it's because, well, he thinks the other is wrong. If you think my case against yours does not apply, in this particular argument, then argue back -- don't start saying that everyone is persecuting you and that no one likes you.
- There are no winning sides on any discussion, as far as this wiki is concerned; there are just arguments for the sake of arguments. -- 22:36, December 9, 2013 (UTC)
- HPR1, no offence, but to me this latest post makes little sense. How can Seth telling you he supports you and your opinion and that people argue for the topic rather than for the others arguers' characters, ever amount to him saying everyone hates you? --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 22:53, December 9, 2013 (UTC)
- I see what I said was pointless. Great. At any rate, HarryPotterRules1, can you refute my counterargument about Rabastan and Rodolphus's relative ages, seeing that is what we're here discussing? -- 22:54, December 9, 2013 (UTC)
- Where I live (perhaps not elsewhere) the younger is usually, almost always, the thinner. Rabastan is thinner and more nervous-looking, twitchy, eyes flashing around the room. He is scared. I think he is the younger, especially compared to his brother Rodolphus, who is thickset and has a deadpan stare. I see it as Rabastan being younger. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 23:06, December 9, 2013 (UTC)
- Now, that's a hasty generalisation. A younger brother needn't necessarily be thinner and more nervous -- that does not prove anything, really, does it? -- 23:38, December 9, 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see why. Is it absolutely inconceivable that someone can be jumpier than his younger brother? -- 13:06, December 10, 2013 (UTC)
In this case, yes - Bellatrix and her husband are loyal followers and, in the scene, neither of them are jumpy - Bellatrix is a bit mad, but that's normal for her - thus implying that Rabastan is young; certainly younger than Rodolphus and possibly coerced into being a Death Eater. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 14:02, December 10, 2013 (UTC)
- Implying, how? One can be nervous at the prospect of life imprisonment regardless of age. And where in the world is it ever suggested that Rabastan has been coerced to do anything at all? -- 14:28, December 10, 2013 (UTC)
- It's the fact that Bellatrix speaks of the loyalty of herself and her husband; the fact that she didn't mention Rabastan seemed odd to me - implying, to me at least, that Rabastan was young (possibly right out of Hogwarts) and coerced into it. Of course, as you said, there is no canon information for this. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 02:55, December 11, 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, Bellatrix does never speak exclusively of herself and her husband; she always says "Throw us into Azkaban; we will wait!" and "We alone were faithful! We alone tried to find him!" -- we have no apparent reason to exclude Rabastan from that "we".
- Of course, as you say it yourself, your argument is based on conjecture. Shall I presume, then, that there is no evidence to say Rabastan is younger than Rodolphus, and call this discussion closed? -- 14:44, December 11, 2013 (UTC)
True, we there is no apparent reason to exclude Rabastan from that "we" but there is also no reason too include him too. Apart from Snape hanging around with the Same crowd and Rabastan hanging around with Snape - making him born between 1953 and 1963 - and Rabastan being born before 1964 (there's no indication that he is underage...)--HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 21:16, December 11, 2013 (UTC)
- Of course, even to assume those dates as true, even without saying Rabastan is the younger brother, can be potentially problematic. To say that Rodolphus was born between 1953 and 1963, and that Rabastan was born before 1964 we'd first have to:
- Prove that one has to be of-age to be sent to Azkaban (which, as of yet, seems to be something that has been unaddressed in canon);
- Address the complications that arouse from the whole "Snape went to Hogwarts with the Lestranges" piece of info. The actual citation is this: "'Snape knew more curses when he arrived at school than half the kids in seventh year, and he was part of a gang of Slytherins who nearly all turned out to be Death Eaters.' Sirius held up his fingers and began ticking off names. '[...] The Lestranges - they're a married couple - they're in Azkaban."
- As you know, this statement cannot be true, not on the whole, at least: Snape went to Hogwarts from 1971 to 1978, while Bellatrix went there either from 1962 to 1969 or from 1963 to 1970 -- no matter how you put it, the dates don't overlap. Given this, a possible interpretation of that line is that both Snape and Bellatrix/Rodolphus ran with the same crowd, but not necessarily at the same time: the Gang of Slytherins Sirius is referring to might have spanned (and likely did span) several school years, with some members leaving Hogwarts and some joining while still keeping the gang. They both (Snape and Rodolphus) would've, thus, been part of the same gang of Slytherins, without ever actually have attended Hogwarts together. -- 21:45, December 11, 2013 (UTC)
- As you can see, Sirius expressly states The Lestranges. Bella, he wouldn't count as that - she wasn't a Lestrange when he was at Hogwarts. But the statement of The Lestranges would refer to BOTH Rabastan and Rodolphus, meaning that BOTH OF THEM had to be at Hogwarts for at least Snape's first year (1971 - 1972). For that to be correct, Rodolphus has to be born between September 1953 and 1963 (I'll explain the 1963 in a minute) and Rabastan has to be born sometime after (to be at least able to do magic outside of Hogwarts in 1981) and be at least 17. That is where the 1963 comes in; 1963 is the latest date that Rodolphus can be born for Rabastan to be at least 17 and be able to do magic outside of Hogwarts. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 21:56, December 11, 2013 (UTC)
- Oh boy, I only want to mention that in the article of Rodolphus Lestrange there is invisible text in the infobox which makes a note to his birthdate that could be interesting here. 21:59, December 11, 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, for those who cannot or don't want to read themselves, here is the text:
- He cannot have been born after 1963, as he went to Azkaban in 1981 and had to be at least 18 - for his younger brother, Rabastan, had to be at least seventeen as well - so being born any later would make him too young. However, he was said to have attended Hogwarts with Severus Snape, meaning he was born after September 1953 which would make him just miss the date for starting in 1964 and start him in 1965, allowing him to be in his 6th year when Snape started
22:07, December 11, 2013 (UTC)
- That I don't know. 22:17, December 11, 2013 (UTC)
- Edit conflict: Harry granger, as the article history shows, that comment was actually added by HarryPotterRules1, back in March. So, that cannot possibly be used as an argument, it's circular reasoning.
- HarryPotterRules1, as you can read for yourself in the quote I presented, Sirius specifies that the Lestranges he's referring to are "a married couple" so, unless you are suggesting that Rodolphus and Rabastan married sometime in the 1970s... -- 22:21, December 11, 2013 (UTC)
I'm not, LOL! J.K. Rowling isn't that mad; despite Sirius referring to them as a married couple, we know from GOF that ALL THREE came in together. And, being on trial for murder and not breaking the statute of secrecy, means they were of age. Thus, the dates provided fit. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 22:26, December 11, 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, Seth! That I have overlooked. But without any prove I think that this comment should be deleted. 22:34, December 11, 2013 (UTC)
- However, not all of the dates fit. One cannot say that Rodolphus was born between 1953 and 1964 without infering it from that piece of information by Sirius, which is problematic as it is. I'd be willing to accept a birthday of "Before 1964 (most likely)", for both brothers, but that's about it. -- 22:37, December 11, 2013 (UTC)
The dates do fit. We know by "The Lestranges" being at Hogwarts with Snape, that Sirius cannot mean Bella - by her D.O.B she'd come and gone - so that leaves the brothers. For Rodolphus, this means the between September 1953 (to be at Hogwarts with Snape) and 1963 (to be old enough for his brother to be at least 17) would be correct. Then, as you said, it would be a 1964 or before for Rabastan. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 22:45, December 11, 2013 (UTC)
- Sirius says, and I quote once again: "The Lestranges - they're a married couple - they're in Azkaban." If you say Sirius cannot mean Bella, think again: he specifies that he is talking about Bellatrix and Rodolphus, and Rabastan is nowhere to be mentioned. That is why that piece of information is problematic: as it goes against the DOB set forth in the Black family tree, it's unclear what Sirius means there. Of course, it's quite likely it's one of Rowling's "Oh, dear, Maths!" moments, but there is a possible interpretation of the line, to make sense of it, that does not necessarily imply that Rodolphus was born after 1953 -- see my comment about it above.
- Also, saying 1963 is Rodolphus's latest possible birth year ("to be old enough for his brother to be at least 17") is a) assuming that Rabastan is younger than Rodolphus, which is still unproven, and b) even if that was proven, it would be faulty reasoning: two non-twin brothers can actually be born in the same year. -- 23:01, December 11, 2013 (UTC)
- He does not specify Rabastan, I admit. But, their trial in GOF shows all three coming in together. Thus, all 3 were at least 17 - they were on trial for torture after all and not breaking the statute of secrecy - making 1964 Rabastan's latest D.O.B. This, combined with the whole 'Rodolphus was at Hogwarts with Snape' thing, put his D.O.B sometime after September 1953 (this would make him 16 going on 17 in Snape's 1971 year) and before the 1964, as that clashes with Rabastan.--HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 23:13, December 11, 2013 (UTC)
- You are not following me. You cannot use the whole Rodolphus was at Hogwarts with Snape' thing, because it's never said 'Rodolphus was at Hogwarts with Snape'! It's said that both Snape and Rodolphus were part of the Gang of Slytherins, as was Bellatrix, there's a difference. This can mean that they all, in their respective times, were part of that same gang, because it is not chronologically possible for the three of them to have attended Hogwarts at the same time (in the same way, for example, that both Balfour Blane and Arthur Weasley both were part of the Ministry of Magic, without their times there overlapping in any way). -- 23:23, December 11, 2013 (UTC)
I never said both; I don't give a flying fig as to when Rabastan attended - he could be a bajillion years younger than Snape for all I care (we know he isn't, of course). We do know that, as they were on trial for torture and not for doing underage magic (Barty Jr even says it in disguise as Moody that any unforgivable curse usage will "earn you a ONE WAY TICKET" to Azkaban), both Rabastan and Rodolphus were of age (making them born in or before 1964). And, as I said with the dates. (After September 1953 and in or before early 1964) it is chronologically possible for, at least, the two brothers to have attended with Snape. Bella, like Charlie, we can stick down to J.K. making a mistake - she made Charlie younger (given McG and Wood's convo about not winning since Charlie left - which would have been 1991) and made Bella a tad to old. But, then again, the entire Black Family tree is riddled with problems with dates. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 23:30, December 11, 2013 (UTC)
- Problems we have to deal with, considering we don't disregard them because we just feel like it. Even moreso, when there's a non-contradictory alternate explanation, that I have already repeatedly presented, but which you choose to ignore the validity of.
- "It is chronologically possible for, at least, the two brothers to have attended with Snape" -- First off, Rabastan is never mentioned in that passage from Goblet of Fire, so I don't for the life of my know why you keep including him in this particular consideration. Second, it is possible, though not proven.
- " Bella, like Charlie, we can stick down to J.K. making a mistake [...] and made Bella a tad to old." -- and what if Rowling intended to make Bellatrix and Rodolphus the same age and, therefore, the same mistake would also apply to him, that she made him too old in that particular passage? We cannot presume to know if Rowling made a mistake or not until she acknowledges, partly because of that. The line is what we have to work with, and the line says what the line says: that Snape AND Bellatrix AND Rodolphus were all members of the same gang. It does not say they were members at the same time, or that they were members together.
- I already said that a date of birth prior to 1964 for both brothers is likely, and the only thing it's suggested in the book -- that's not what I am contesting. A date of "after 1953" for Rodolphus is what I find speculative. -- 23:50, December 11, 2013 (UTC)
Well, one thing I can wave in your face almost as an "I WIN! WOOHOO!" thing is this. Directly copied from the top of the page that this talk page belongs too. "The Dark Lord will rise again, Crouch! Throw us into Azkaban; we will wait! He will rise again and will come for us, he will reward us beyond any of his other supporters! We alone were faithful! We alone tried to find him!" —Bellatrix Lestrange declaring the loyality of her, Rodolphus and her brother-in-law Rabastan to the Dark Lord
Thus, by that, ALL THREE LESTRANGES came in together. From what it seems, she made Bellatrix to old. Either 13 years to old (if we go for 1964 for Rodolphus) or made Rodolphus 2 years too young to fit with the "at Hogwarts with Snape" and "same group" stuff. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 23:56, December 11, 2013 (UTC)
- Erm. Not to bust your bubble, but what does that have to do with anything? The three Lestranges were arrested together and imprisoned together, sure, I mean, it's explicitly stated in the book, and I never said otherwise. What I am not entirely sure is what that has to do with the years they attended Hogwarts?
- My beef is that you cannot say that Rodolphus and Snape attended Hogwarts together without further evidence, thus making claiming that Rodolphus was born after 1953 speculation. -- 00:15, December 12, 2013 (UTC)
- The point it, even if Rodolphus was born in 1963 or 4 (to roughly fit with the correct age - 17 - of their arrest in 1981) this would also coincide him with Snape. Anywhere between 1953 and 1967 would fit for Rodolphus, but it cannot be later than 1964 due to the arrest. By this, we can be 99.9999999999999% sure that both Rod and Rab were at Hogwarts with Snape for at least one year. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 00:20, December 12, 2013 (UTC)
- Ugh. They could've been born earlier than that. Nowhere it is said that their age in 1981 was 17! All we know is that they were older than 17 -- that could mean 18, 19, 30, 50, 93, 125, 256! We don't know how older than 17 they were! We cannot possibly say with any degree of certainty that Rodolphus and Rabastan attended Hogwarts with Snape, with just this information (and, by the way, using arbitrarily large parcentages doesn't make your argument any better). -- 00:30, December 12, 2013 (UTC)
- Technically, Seth, we can. If we go with the between September 1953 and 1964 dates, then we get this:
b. September 1953 - 1963
- Hogwarts: September 1965 – 1972
- Hogwarts: September 1966 – 1973
- Hogwarts: September 1967 – 1974
- Hogwarts: September 1968 – 1975
- Hogwarts: September 1969 – 1976
- Hogwarts: September 1970 – 1977
- Hogwarts: September 1971 – 1978
- Hogwarts: September 1972 – 1979
- Hogwarts: September 1973 – 1980
- Hogwarts: September 1974 – 1981 (leave in June, arrested in November).
As you can see, the b. between September 1953 and 1963 fits DIRECTLY with all seven years of Snape's education, meaning that both did hang around with him. This also fits with the dates of both of them being, at least, old enough to go to Azkaban in 1981 at 17. See? --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 00:35, December 12, 2013 (UTC)
- "If we go with the between September 1953 and 1964 dates..." -- What I am saying is that you can't go with "after September 1953" because you are begging the question which is a informal fallacy! You are going with the 1953 date because you are presuming Rodolphus attended Hogwarts with Snape, and that Rodolphus attended Hogwarts with Snape is what you are attempting to prove!
- You are failing to prove anything other than what you have already assumed without having any evidence to do so. -- 00:56, December 12, 2013 (UTC)
With those dates, I have managed to fit with a) the "same gang of Slytherins" as this fits Lucius, Narcissa, and others; b) Rodolphus and Rabastan being at least 17 in 1981 (which as you see is the last one and STILL FITS WITH SNAPE!) and c) attending Hogwarts with him. Whatever the case, whichever year in between it is, the two dates fit and work with all information we have about them. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 00:59, December 12, 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not going to repeat myself: semantically, Rodolphus may have been part of that very same group of Slytherin bullies before Snape's time, just like Bellatrix. The quote provided by Sirius in Goblet of Fire is ambiguous -- it can be interpreted to mean something other than your option c "Rodolphus attending Hogwarts with Snape", as I've repeatedly explained, and you have repeatedly ignored (and, by the way, I don't know why you are bringing up Lucius and Narcissa, they are never mentioned to have been part of that gang, as far as I know).
- No one says those dates are impossible. What I am saying is that a date of before 1953 is not incompatible with Sirius's remarks, when you take in consideration that Bellatrix, born in 1951, is put in the same bag. All we know is that they were born before 1964, nothing else. -- 01:11, December 12, 2013 (UTC)
- I never said before 1953; I said between September 1953 and 1963. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:21, December 12, 2013 (UTC)
- Naturally, I know you didn't. I'm saying before 1953 is a possibility. -- 01:26, December 12, 2013 (UTC)
- Too old for what? Bellatrix was born in 1951. That's before 1953. Are you, then, implying that she didn't become a Death Eater because she was "too old"? -- 01:34, December 12, 2013 (UTC)
No, no. I'm not implying that, I'm merely saying that while they can be born before 1953 - Bellatrix, as you say, is - they can't be born in 1890 odd. So, they can't be too old. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:39, December 12, 2013 (UTC)
- And who's saying they are? All I'm saying is that they could potentially have been born before 1953. Full stop. -- 01:43, December 12, 2013 (UTC)