51

This question mentions that on Pottermore there is a list of the pure-blood families (by 1930).

I don't see the Potter family in there. We know that James Potter was pure-blood so both his parents must have been also pure-blood. James was born in 1960 so his parents were born around 1930-1940.

So why doesn't the Potter family appear on the the 'pure-blood list'?

Community
  • 1
vap78
  • 19,271
  • 13
  • 90
  • 150

2 Answers2

72

This is described elsewhere on Pottermore under the heading "The Potter Family":

Potter is a not uncommon Muggle surname, and the family did not make the so-called ‘Sacred Twenty-Eight’ for this reason; the anonymous compiler of that supposedly definitive list of pure-bloods suspected that they had sprung from what he considered to be tainted blood.

There's also the fact that it's explicitly noted that the family is not actually pure-blooded at all, with numerous inter-marriages with muggles:

The Potters continued to marry their neighbours, occasionally Muggles, and to live in the West of England, for several generations, each one adding to the family coffers by their hard work and, it must be said, by the quiet brand of ingenuity that had characterised their forebear, Linfred.

As Hagrid points out in the Chamber of Secrets film, the concept of 'pure-bloodedness' is a complete nonsense anyway.

Hagrid: "And it's codswallop, to boot. 'Dirty blood.' Why, there isn’t a wizard alive today that’s not half-blood or less."

Valorum
  • 689,072
  • 162
  • 4,636
  • 4,873
63

According to J.K. Rowling on Pottermore:

Occasionally, a Potter made it all the way to London, and a member of the family has twice sat on the Wizengamot: Ralston Potter, who was a member from 1612-1652, and who was a great supporter of the Statute of Secrecy (as opposed to declaring war on the Muggles, as more militant members wished to do) and Henry Potter (Harry to his intimates), who was a direct descendant of Hardwin and Iolanthe, and Henry "Harry" Potter served on the Wizengamot from 1913 - 1921. Henry caused a minor stir when he publicly condemned then Minister for Magic, Archer Evermonde, who had forbidden the magical community to help Muggles waging the First World War. His outspokenness on the behalf of the Muggle community was also a strong contributing factor in the family’s exclusion from the ‘Sacred Twenty-Eight’.

J.K. Rowling - Pottermore - Writings from J.K. Rowling - The Potter Family

The exclusion of the Potter family from the Sacred Twenty-Eight seems to be more due to politics than bloodlines.

Slytherincess
  • 164,854
  • 146
  • 684
  • 899
  • 2
    Interesting. JKR seems to have contradicted herself a bit here. – Valorum Oct 15 '15 at 09:41
  • 1
    I usually do but this one was very clear to me. BTW your source is the same like the one of Richard. – vap78 Oct 15 '15 at 09:43
  • 12
    The two are not necessarily contradictory. "outspokenness on the behalf of the Muggle community" probably directly equals "the anonymous compiler of that supposedly definitive list of pure-bloods suspected that they had sprung from what he considered to be tainted blood." – gowenfawr Oct 15 '15 at 12:30
  • 1
    @gowenfawr - I don't disagree. For me, the biggest killer fact is that the Potters simply aren't pure-blood, by any definition of the word. They've openly inter-married with muggles which the mysterious compiler would undoubtedly have uncovered. – Valorum Oct 15 '15 at 15:24
  • @vap78 -- There's nothing wrong with using the same source as another user. Especially when, you know, one uses the portion of the source that actually directly answers your question. Even Richard agrees -- we discussed it in chat. – Slytherincess Oct 16 '15 at 15:48
  • @Slytherincess I agree. Just the initial version of the answer was an direct answer of the question coming from a canon source. I did not assume that it would become more true :) – vap78 Oct 16 '15 at 19:14
  • @Richard I think you are missing the point that none of them are actually pure-blood and who gets to make that claim depends on politics. This is a reflection on real world prejudices. – JamesRyan Oct 17 '15 at 12:27
  • @JamesRyan - I think you're missing my point which is that they're openly not pure-blooded. Putting them on the list would be impossible, regardless of their political clout at the time. – Valorum Oct 17 '15 at 13:02
  • @Richard you are still not understanding that the list isn't actually a list of pure-blooded families at all – JamesRyan Oct 18 '15 at 17:55
  • 1
    @JamesRyan - "In the early 1930s, a 'Pure-Blood Directory' was published anonymously in Britain, which listed the twenty-eight truly pure-blood families, as judged by the unknown authority who had written the book, with 'the aim of helping such families maintain the purity of their bloodlines'. The so-called 'Sacred Twenty-Eight' comprised the families of...[etc]". Which part is unclear? Putting a family which has openly intermarried with muggles would make the list pointless. – Valorum Oct 18 '15 at 18:00
  • @Richard if you think that quote makes your point then you are perhaps a bit too naive to understand this concept. What people call things and what they actully are are not the same. – JamesRyan Oct 18 '15 at 18:04
  • @JamesRyan The list contains families that probably actually are pureblood but don't care (as I suspect the Weasleys are) and those that aren't but have kept up appearances. The Potters are neither. They were openly Muggle-lovers, so they weren't on the list. – SQB Oct 19 '15 at 05:45