I appreciate that the book doesn't outright say "The Selwyn family was a pure-blood family", however, following the rules of grammar, Umbridge does confirm they are pure-blood when she says, "Indeed, there are few pure-blood families to whom I am not related" when referring to the Selwyn Family. I think that it kind of sounds like i'm being nasty by saying "following the rules of grammar" but thats unintentional :p it's just true! Mafalda Hopkirk 05:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
It is true, technically the book confirms that they are pure blood. The same would be true for Umbridge's own blood status. Wether we think Umbridge is a reliable source or not, JK (maybe inavertantly) made her a pure blood when she wrote that sentence. So she is a pure blood until proved otherwise. Jayce Carver Talk 07:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- This is the passage in question from Chapter 13 of Deathly Hallows:
- “That’s – that’s pretty, Dolores,” she said, pointing at the pendant gleaming in the ruffled folds of Umbridge’s blouse.
- “What?” snapped Umbridge, glancing down. “Oh yes – an old family heirloom,” she said, patting the locket lying on her large bosom. “The S stands for Selwyn.... I am related to the Selwyns.... Indeed, there are few pure-blood families to whom I am not related.... A pity,” she continued in a louder voice, flicking through Mrs. Cattermole’s questionnaire, “that the same cannot be said for you. ‘Parents professions: greengrocers’.”
- Yaxley laughed jeeringly. Below, the fluffy silver cat patrolled up and down, and the dementors stood waiting in the corners.
- It was Umbridge’s lie that brought the blood surging into Harry’s brain and obliterated his sense of caution – that the locket she had taken as a bribe from a petty criminal was being used to bolster her own pure-blood credentials. He raised his wand, not even troubling to keep it concealed beneath the Invisibility Cloak, and said, “Stupefy!”
- The way I read this was that the Selwyns are indeed pure-bloods, but Umbridge's relation to them is not clear; she might have been lying. And even if she is related to them, that doesn't automatically make her a pure-blood - Tonks, for instance, is related to the Blacks but is a half-blood. Umbridge is obviously not Muggle-born, but it's possible that she's a half-blood. We know many half-bloods who care about blood purity lie about it, especially if they are affiliated with the Death Eaters. Oread (talk) 18:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that the passage quoted by Oread confirms that the Selwyns were pure-blood. Umbridge probably would have known better than to claim the Selwyns were among her pure-blood relatives if she didn't know the family's actual blood status. As for whether Umbridge is pure-blood herself, the text is unclear, but I take the part about her using the locket to "bolster" her "pure-blood credentials" as a hint that she wasn't. One thing I've always wondered is why no one ever raised any questions about hard-line pure-blood supremacists with surnames that don't belong to known wizarding families. I mean, really, could Voldemort have gotten as many followers as he did without at least one of them realizing they'd never heard of any other wizards or witches called Riddle? I disgress. ★ Starstuff (Owl me!) 16:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Starstuff, Thats why Voldemort chnged his name. The Riddles were Muggles!
- As for Dolores, she could well be a dsitaff member of the family. She could be a descendant of a female Selwyn.
- Sirius said all pure-blood families are interelated. Umbridge could be a pure-blood or a half-blood (in which case her ancestors were pure-blodds). She is most certainly not a muggle-born (though if she was, her ancestor would be a Squib, who's ancestor would be a pure-blood. Happychickenvermin 23:29, December 5, 2010 (UTC)
That's possible, too. But we don't know for now. Perhaps we're lucky and Pottermore tells us eventually.21:12, August 20, 2014 (UTC)