Is there any source that "Credence" was a wizard?--Rodolphus (talk) 14:37, August 17, 2015 (UTC)

In his description, it leaves open if he is a No-maj or a wizard. We should change it.--Rodolphus (talk) 19:17, November 5, 2015 (UTC)

Love Credence barebone

I feel so bad for Credence (I love him a lot) --Jessica Scalamander (talk) 00:30, December 23, 2016 (UTC)--Jessica Scalamander

I have a theory that since Credence looks like Snape, he might be his relative.I don't think he managed to have children before he died, but what about his sister Modesty? She was born in 1918. In 1940, she might have married a certain "Prince". Her child born in 1940 (Eilien Prince) married a Mr Snape and had a child in 1960: Severus Snape.

I didn't think of that...but ya really smart...


Can we get a section explaining his name? Should be easy enough.

Kytti (talk) 03:11, January 2, 2017 (UTC)

formerly Obscurial?

Why does it say formerly Obscurial? Is there any indication that he got seperated from the Obscurus? I got the impression that it is still inside him in the end and will stopp omce he escaped the MACUSA, though could potentially manifest again.--Rodolphus (talk) 19:41, January 12, 2017 (UTC)

Just read it again. It actually saays briefly. But why? He probably remained an Obscurus for the rest of his life. Also, we do not know at what point in his life it first manifested. Grindelwald thinks he has lived with it for a long time.--Rodolphus (talk) 19:45, January 12, 2017 (UTC)

I removed it with some other minor touch ups. I think they meant that he was briefly an obscurus, but it still doesn't make sense in the Species field IMO. --Ironyak1 (talk) 04:12, January 13, 2017 (UTC)

"Adoptive" vs. "adopted"

Please note that "adoptive" means the active partner(s) in the adoption, whilst "adopted" means the passive partner(s). Thus, Mary-Lou is Credence's adoptive mother (although she was, until my edit just now, at one point wrongly called his "adopted" mother), and he is her adopted son.

The reason I point this out is that Chastity and Modesty were described as Clarence's "adoptive" sisters — meaning that his adoption was a three-way arrangement between Mary-Lou and the girls. Surely, since they had no more say in the process than he did (possibly less), it would be more accurate to describe the sibling relationship as "adopted"? — evilquoll (talk) 17:49, June 25, 2017 (UTC)

This error has been re-instated, so I have had to correct it again. The girls didn't adopt Credence (Mary-Lou did), so his relationship to them is "adopted". — evilquoll (talk) 19:25, November 16, 2018 (UTC)


He is not Corvus Lestrange. His last name is Dumbledore. --RogueOwner (talk) 21:30, November 13, 2018 (UTC)
And your proof for this is? TheTARDISLegilimens (talk) 12:43, November 14, 2018 (UTC)
The film is released internationally on Friday so all will be cleared up then. But yes, his birth name is Aurelius Dumbledore not Corvus Lestrange. - Xanderen signature 13:19, November 14, 2018 (UTC)
Even so, it shouldn't be here till the movie is released internationally and should have a source reference. Until I think it should be removed from the article.StargateFanBB (talk) 16:37, November 14, 2018 (UTC)


Lost brother? Gellert Grindelwald just announced to Credence that his true name is Aurelius Dumbledore. Nothing was said to imply he is supposed to have been a brother of Albus, Aberforth and Ariana's. Maester Martin (talk) 05:15, November 16, 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't Grindelwald specifically say that his "brother" (i.e, Albus) is out to kill him right before giving him the name Aurelius? Lamaredia (talk) 15:30, November 18, 2018 (UTC)

The only other brother it could be would be Aberforth, if it's an active known Dumbledore, unless JKR has intentions to invent a new Dumbledore out of nowhere, and given she's just pulled that stunt, doing it again is a bit risky. Even if its speaking euphemistically, like a blood brother as Albus was to Grindelwald we know of no people that Credence was that close to that would make sense to fill that role meaning it'd have to be pulled out of nowhere and that's incredibly bad plotting and not on par with what we've come to expect from the Potterverse. Estrildis (talk) 19:03, November 18, 2018 (UTC)


I'll use the Jon Snow argument (if you do not know what I am talking about, do not look it up). Yes, Credence has a birth name but he hasn't assumed the identity yet. For now, everybody knows him as Credence. I recommend renaming the page back to Credence Barebone and change to opening blurb to "Credence Barebone, born Aurelius Dumbledore, is a ...". Plus it would be less work if it's ever revealed to be a lie. Lightning Laxus (talk) 07:02, November 16, 2018 (UTC)
I would go a step further and treat anything Grindelwald says with a pinch of salt. “Supposedly born...” would be better imho. - Xanderen signature 09:39, November 16, 2018 (UTC)
I've renamed this back for now while we work through the material. I want to check the screenplay when it comes later today to see if there is any narrator commentary on this issue or if the name is given strictly from Grindelwald. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 10:10, November 16, 2018 (UTC)
I have the screenplay and the name is given strictly by Grindelwald. The only narrator commentary is about a phoenix, which is proof according to him because he says the Dumbledore family have a legend that a phoenix "will come to any member who is in dire need", after which a phoenix does indeed come to Credence, and he then gained new power. - Kates39 (talk) 11:11, November 16, 2018 (UTC)
Given we know from canon that people other than the Dumbledore family has Phoenixes (that Quidditch team, for example), I don't think that the Phoenix can really be taken as evidence for words said by a man who has lied to Credence before in the hope of getting Credence on his side. Last time Grindelwald claimed Credence was a squib and useless; that was pretty swiftly disproven. I see no reason that we should take the words of a liar as absolute truth until we have additional proof from other characters and the script itself - and as Kate says above, as yet the script says no such thing. He's still called Credence by it. Estrildis (talk) 13:01, November 19, 2018 (UTC)


Aurelius was born in 1904 and was switched with Corvus in 1901? How is this possible? If Grindelwald is not a liar and he is in fact a lost brother of Albus, he could not have been born after the 1890s. Even if he was a half-brother.--Rodolphus (talk) 18:08, November 16, 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, was just writing up the issues involved here. The screenplay gives 1901 as the date for all of Leta's story starting with Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald - The Original Screenplay, Scene 105 - "INT. LESTRANGE MANOR, NURSERY—1901—NIGHT IRMA lifts a baby from a crib and departs, watched by a desolate LESTRANGE SR.
LETA (V.O.) My father sent me to America, along with Corvus."
1901 is given for all the scenes on the ship. But the birth certificate gives the birthdate of 1904. And of course we know that Percival Dumbledore ("who was to die in Azkaban") was convicted "scarcely a year previous" to Albus entering Hogwarts, so ~1891. I don't have any great insights on how to resolve all this currently, but as 1901 comes from JKR's writing, it is more canon than the film prop, so we'll need to go by that note the date given on adoption certificate is not clear fact. If anyone has thoughts on a crafty solution to this puzzle, please do share! --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:28, November 16, 2018 (UTC)
Looks like Rowling is changing the timeline yet again? How annoying. Unless Percival got out of Azkaban and Albus never knew. He said once he wished he could apologise to Percival, and I always wondered why. Perhaps he cut contact with him? Trying to make sense of it. - Kates39 (talk) 18:42, November 16, 2018 (UTC)

The only possibility I can think of is Aurelius being a half-brother with Kendra being their mother. If Kendra was already widowed by that point, her name would already be Dumbledore. But all of this is to speculative to be put in BTS.--Rodolphus (talk) 18:48, November 16, 2018 (UTC)

I thought of Kendra too, but she died in 1899, two years earlier than 1901. And I doubt no-one would have noticed she was expecting another baby. She had Ariana to worry about too so I think it's a bit far-fetched, but I think Rowling is beginning to not give a damn about established canon. - Kates39 (talk) 18:51, November 16, 2018 (UTC)

Exactly what I thought, though this may be the reason why Aurelius was with his aunt on the ship. I'm not a native English speaker. Is the term native American also used for the indigenious people of South America? Maybe we'll see Kendra's family in FB3. Is there a way to add the Kendra possinility to BTS without getting to speculative?--Rodolphus (talk) 19:03, November 16, 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the Native American thing crossed my mind too, and Credence was being taken to America. I don't think it's a term given to the indigenous South Americans though. Imo, we could put two possible explanations in BTS, both far-fetched but then it's going to be anyway:
1) Kendra had a fourth child by the time she died in 1899. 2) Percival got out of Azkaban, never told anyone and Albus had no idea. He then had another child. But how old was Credence meant to be in 1901? I thought he was a baby, not a toddler? Could he even be born in 1899? - Kates39 (talk) 19:08, November 16, 2018 (UTC)
Also, wouldn't this make him way in his twenties when he was still living at home with Mary Lou, being beaten up in 1926? Kind of odd, but I suppose the whole thing was odd? I know this is speculation, but who knows what information people will start adding in their confusion of the whole thing. - Kates39 (talk) 19:37, November 16, 2018 (UTC)
I find it odd, too. When watching FB1 I thought Credence was in his late teens or early twenties. If he was on that ship, he has to be born in 1900 or 1901. (I don't think the baby was born earlier than that given its appearance. From the look of it I guess it was a year or younger, looking more like a newborn and not like a toddler.) 
Beeing born in 1900 or 1901, Credence would be in his late twenties. Which is odd, given the fact that he still lives with Mary Lou and is being beaten up by her in 1926.
Plus we've got that adoption certificate that was made for FB2. There Credence's date of birth is given as November 9th, 1904. Of course it can be an error. It does fit Credence's appearance in the movie better, though.
So is it possible that Credence wasn't the baby on the ship? We've got this information from Leta after all. At that time she was quite young herself. (About four or five?) All things considered the adoption was most likely done in a hurry. Maybe out of fear for detection or because of the shock after almost drowning on that ship. Heck, Irma didn't even realised that the babies were swapped. Chances are good that Leta does not know what happend to "Corvus" afterwards. (I don't think she knows the name he was given by Mary Lou for example. The only thing she knows is that Credence can't be Corvus.)
The only person who could confirm the identity of the swapped baby is Credence himself, but Leta isn't giving a date for the incident in her dialogue. We know the incident happened in 1901 only because the stage directions say so. So he can't doublecheck either.
And yeah, there is this whole lot of information given by Grindelwald, but he is a notorious liar throughout both films. So he can't be trusted either. Maybe Rowling is flinging another red herring in our faces. Dyntia (talk) 01:01, December 1, 2018 (UTC)

I don't have the script yet, and you cannot rewind in a movie theater.  But I think it is important to separate two facts (if anything from Gindelwald can be taken as fact.):  His last name is "Dumbledore", and "his brother" wants to destroy him.  I don't believe Gindelwald ever specifically said that Albus was his brother.  This seems like classic J.K.  have everyone assume one thing and then show that was an assumption in the next movie.  So who else would want to destroy ("Credence") that could have been his biological "brother"? (Even assuming that Gindelwald meant the term in a strictly biological sense.) Wva (talk) 22:29, November 16, 2018 (UTC)

Taking Grindelwald's "Proof" With a Grain of Salt?

Should we really be conclusively stating that Credence was born to the Dumbledore family, instead of adding it as a supposed "fact"? We know Grindelwald only wants to use Credence to kill Albus, lying about him being a brother to Albus is not outside his purview. Not to mention, the "phoenix" might just as well be fake as a way to fool Credence into thinking it as conclusive proof. I just feel like stating Grindelwald's words as fact doesn't really seem correct, until we've seen more proof in the rest of the movie series. Lamaredia (talk) 15:33, November 18, 2018 (UTC)

At the present moment, suggesting that Grindelwald is lying is speculation. The film has stated that he is a Dumbledore, and wanted us to accept the idea that Albus is Credence's brother. I suggest for now, everyone stops trying to be vague about something that at the moment, they don't actually have any evidence against. Yes, Grindelwald might be lying but it seems to be noteworthy in a Behind the Scenes note, or a note in the source only, because it's speculation.
I think it's better to take the facts of the information given (one never implied to be a lie in the script), and if it changes in the next film, then the information will be changed again. For a few months now, we have had the Lestrange family in the biography for being Credence's family, because we took that to be fact. I don't know why people now suddenly have a problem with doing the same for Dumbledore family, which imo is a better source than the one for the Lestrange family. - Kates39 (talk) 13:25, November 19, 2018 (UTC)
The script doesn't really back up the name change though, and Grindelwald has been shown to lie to Credence before if it gets him what he wants - Credence at his side. Further, the idea that Credence is Albus' brother makes no sense with the timelining, so I think we're well within our rights to be sceptical as heck, and to indicate that here. We've no family tree to indicate one way or the other, we do however have documents to tell us Credence's birthdate and past evidence of repeated lies from Grindelwald. And really, having the Lestrange link disproven I think only gives us more reason to be sceptical. We're being given hints and we're being reminded we can't trust any of them. Estrildis (talk) 14:30, November 19, 2018 (UTC)
At the moment, the scene is portraying the information in a factual way and fans have no evidence that Grindelwald is not telling the truth about this. The scene doesn't even imply that Grindelwald is lying. To say he is lying is only speculation at this point. You have to look at the scene the way it was written. You have the right to be sceptical, but information should be given in the article in a factual way until you have actual evidence that says otherwise. Any personal doubts you have should be in Behind the Scenes. I don't think this is an impossible piece of information. I have found a few sufficient explanations that make this possible. The Lestrange family thing was taken as fact based on videos. This is a proper source, we have every piece of information possible about this, it's the only information we have, and should be given in the article in the same way. - Kates39 (talk) 15:57, November 19, 2018 (UTC)
The issue is that the timeline makes no sense. We know that Credence was a newborn in 1901, and we also know that the Dumbledore Patriarch, Percival, was locked up in Azkaban around 1890 (and died sometime thereafter), and that Kendra Dumbledore died in 1899. At the time of Credence's birth, Albus was 19-20, and Aberforth was between 16 and 18, meaning that neither of them are a probable father to Credence. (Dumbledore being gay, and Aberforth being underage, with nothing to indicate a romantic relationship.) Sure, it might be possible that there's another line of the family from which Credence might originate, but there's nothing that indicates there being a separate line with a brother that wants to kill him, and a sister that weeps. (Ariana was long dead by this point, having died in 1899.) Lamaredia (talk) 17:23, November 19, 2018 (UTC)
Credence is definitely said to be a brother, which means he's definitely the child of Percival if he's going to be. Kendra died two years before Credence was born, but who knows when Percival died. And the only thing supporting that he died in Azkaban was Elphias Doge and Albus saying to Harry in limbo in a throwaway comment, "You know how my poor father sought revenge, and paid the price, died in Azkaban." Dumbledore is only going by what Harry "knows".
Percival might have got out of Azkaban, found Kendra and Ariana had died, maybe Albus and Aberforth cut off Percival by then and that was another reason Albus said he wanted to apologise to Percival. He was said to have hated the unwanted attention it brought him when he was younger.
I always wondered why he wanted to apologise and thought it was just about Ariana dying, but maybe not only that. He married again, had a child, maybe then he died and an Aunt sent him to America (Kendra was said to look Native American, Percival and Kendra might have ties to America). If this is true, Albus had no idea this happened until after 1927, and I doubt he would speak to Elphias Doge immediately and say "guess what?"
And besides, Newt Scamander was forbidden by the government to talk about this war for 90 years and until two years ago, fans had no idea he had any part in this war. Who is to say Dumbledore was not forbidden to talk about many things too? It's possible and I know it's a stretch and kind of manipulates established canon again, but Rowling is doing that a lot these days and this wouldn't be impossible.
Anyway, maybe Grindelwald is lying (speculation), maybe another branch of the family exists (speculation again, and this kind of loses it's power over Dumbledore if he's only a cousin, and then this brother that wants to kill him thing loses power too because if it's not Albus, then why is Credence such a game-changer in the Grindelwald-Dumbledore thing). Credence's true name begins with an A (Albus, Aberforth, Ariana, Aurelius). There is far too many connections for this to be unconnected to Albus, and then suddenly not even true because Grindelwald's lying. Based on the evidence in support of it, the article should say he was a brother/half-brother, until evidence, not speculation says otherwise. - Kates39 (talk) 23:26, November 19, 2018 (UTC)
However, what evidence do we have to say that Credence IS a Dumbledore? Currently, there are no facts that support this statement. There's the word of Grindelwald, which we already know is shaky at best, especially considering that he's known for having a silver tongue and being a masterful manipulator, and there's the old line about a Phoenix coming to a Dumbledore's aid when needed, which isn't proof either considering that we know of other, non-Dumbledore wizards, having phoenixes of their own in lore.
Currently, with the proof that we have, the evidence points against Credence being a Dumbledore, as stated before with the well-known fact that Percival died in Azkaban, which has been a staple part of the lore for a decade or so at this point. I would suggest caution when it comes to believing Grindelwald, not jumping feet-first in and believing his words to be law. Lamaredia (talk) 14:40, November 20, 2018 (UTC)

I don't get the issue right now. The current presentation in the article is the best one. Grindelwald may be telling the truth, but we also have facts from the canon proving that it is not possible. Which is why the article keeps saying "alleged" when it comes to the Dumbledores. That's the best way to write the info on the article, taking it into account, but still making clear that it is not 100% proven yet. Lady Junky 23:52, November 19, 2018 (UTC)

Seconding Lady. We have multiple reasons to be sceptical. Beyond how the script is written (I have read that, Kate, seeing as you don't seem to believe me and I know for a fact it doesn't change Credence's name) we have canon contradicting it. Continued scepticism is encouraged based on the facts we have to hand, and so the article going with "alleged" and taking it with a pinch of salt is absolutely permitted based on the contradictory evidence we have to hand. Estrildis (talk) 00:32, November 20, 2018 (UTC)
I'm more thinking of the "Early life" section of the biography. It states rather conclusively "Born c. 1901[1] to the Dumbledore family as Aurelius,[3]" instead of stating that he was purportedly born to the Dumbledore family, as claimed by Grindelwald. Lamaredia (talk) 14:40, November 20, 2018 (UTC)

Kates39: I always figured he wanted to give Percival a shamefaced apology for not holding himself to a higher standard and letting his own talents go to his head. With him in Azkaban and their mother dead, Albus should have stepped up and taken proper care of his siblings, and he never did. He did a brief, half-hearted attempt, then Grindelwald came, and he kind of abandoned them. I think he admired his father's selflessness in going to Azkaban rather than telling the Ministry about Ariana so she wouldn't be locked up and never felt he ever truly felt like he was as good a man as his father was. Maester Martin (talk) 04:01, November 20, 2018 (UTC)

For added context, Ezra Miller reveals in an interview that J.K. Rowling did tell him that Credence was Dumbledore's secret brother. Now take that as you may, (I personally take it as J.K. wanting Ezra to believe that Credence is indeed Dumbledore's brother to influence his acting, regardless of how it all pans out) but now we can say that Rowling intended for the audiences to think of Aurelius as a brother and not some other type of relative. Might be useful for future edits. Kingsman28 (talk) 19:07, November 20, 2018 (UTC)

^Whilst Ezra Miller's word shouldn't be considered at the same level of canon as JKR's, I have a hard time believing he would lie about what was said to him. I support the idea of having it stated that Credence is Aurelius Dumbledore. As Kates39 pointed out, the wiki stated, until the release of Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald that Credence was a Lestrange, even if it turned out to be false. It wasn't stated that he could have been a Lestrange, rather that he was one. Whether or not it is because of fans' frustration over his identity, imo we should still state that he is a Dumbledore, after all, canon says so. Cheers, CosmicChronos Talk to me Contribs 19:20, November 20, 2018 (UTC)
Alternatively we take the previous error as a reason why we shouldn't just leap in and accept what we think we've been shown or told without scepticism. There's still several films to go, in which a number of things may be revealed. Given we have several pieces of purported canon all contradicting each other, failing to acknowledge that makes the new form of the article no better than the previous version when everyone believed the Lestrange connection to be true! Estrildis (talk) 01:03, November 21, 2018 (UTC)
I argue that it's not about what people think about Grindelwald (he's not an actual person), it should be about the way the scene was written. In fact, the way the whole script was written. At this moment in time, nothing even implies that Grindelwald was lying.
This whole thing is simply because people have gotten confused and think it's impossible, when it's not. I seriously don't get why people keep saying it's impossible. It was never said when Percival actually died for example. Information about him after the Azkaban sentencing is limited and vague at best, and I have found ways around it. I keep saying and will say again - anyone saying Grindelwald is lying is basing that on speculation, mainly because of their own confusion. To even say "alleged" is speculation. Stop over-complicating it because your confused. And again I say, the Lestrange error was based on images - not a script with actual words. This has a stronger source, actual words from Rowling, a script which states he is a Dumbledore.
Anyway, the book foreshadowed the fact that Credence was a Dumbledore in Scene 28. Then, it announced he was a Dumbledore in Scene 120. The scene does not even imply Grindelwald was lying about that fact. It should be taken how it was given, and it was given as the truth. It is now backed up by Ezra (and case in point, Rowling has been known to tell actors the whole truth about their character, and would not lie). So until they say otherwise, or the next script say otherwise, the article should state that he WAS a Dumbledore.
And since many keep going down the speculation route, since the scene was written factual (and backed up with the phoenix) when it said Credence was a Dumbledore, Grindelwald was probably manipulating Credence into thinking his brother (Albus) wanted to kill him. Grindelwald wants Credence because he wants him to kill Albus. What better way to motivate someone to kill their own brother, by telling him he wants to kill him first. If anything, saying Albus is his brother complicates it. Would be better to say he's a powerful wizard who will kill him, than to say brother if he's not. And the script faked Credence's family once, it would be stupid to do it again.
Grindelwald is threading on ice with Credence. This is a fact. He knows one wrong move will send the uncertain Credence away and he needs him. Wouldn't be too hard for Credence to find out Percival was in Azkaban or died before he was born if he wanted to go digging. Based on the facts, Credence is a Dumbledore, and based on logical thinking, it is possible. - Kates39 (talk) 20:23, November 21, 2018 (UTC)
I've said before that the script doesn't actually confirm your claims given it doesn't change Credence's name in the directions. Scripts will usually do this in order to indicate a revelation of identity. As for the Phoenix, might I remind you that people other than Dumbledores have Phoenixes in canon? Unless you think they're all secret Dumbledores as well. Given that Credence has murdered supposed family before - Mary Lou - specifically for maltreatment, no, claiming Albus is his brother doesn't necessarily complicate it. Rather, it makes it the more likely that Credence would see it as a traumatic betrayal and Grindelwald would know this, given he manipulated Credence back then as well, and a point is made in this instalment about just how manipulative he is. As for "it faked his family once" given how convoluted the plot of this film was, and Cursed Child was, and many of JKRs more recent Potterverse developments have been... I don't think it'd be unlikely, for all it may be stupid. The Nagini thing was a stupid stunt, but that didn't stop her. I think it'd be worrisomely on brand if she did it again. But of course, if you're so desperate to ignore all of these counterpoints - some brought up before and as-yet uncountered by you - that you're going to disregard caution then fine. We've been misled once, but if you really want everyone to risk being misled again because you're inclined to be hasty, then on your own head be it. Estrildis (talk) 20:33, November 21, 2018 (UTC)
I will simply say again - the script so far does not indicate that Grindelwald is lying. The way the scene was written is what matters, and it does not even imply that. You are being far too cautious in your confusion about the situation, and not simply taking the script - the scene - as it was written.
I have proposed situations in which is is possible, because people keep saying it is impossible. Your counterpoints are based on my own speculation. I have admitted it is speculation before I wrote it. I simply proposed ways in which J.K. Rowling would get around the problem that confuses you about him being a Dumbledore. I am not saying he is 100% a Dumbledore. I am proposing to you that it's possible he might be.
I am not being hasty. I am simply asking everyone to stop over-complicating the script because your confused, and take the information as it was given in the factual way that it was, until your actually told otherwise. Grindelwald has not even lied in the script, he manipulates the situation. You don't get that by saying he is lying or "alleging" is the thing that is speculation. Whatever happens next, happens. It might be another fakeout. But you don't know that yet. This is what you do know for now - he is Aurelius Dumbledore. Your intended to take that as fact. The article should state that, and put the speculation that is alleged in Behind the scenes or in a source. - Kates39 (talk) 21:03, November 21, 2018 (UTC)

Blood Status

I believe his Blood Status should be changed to "Unknown" because we have no information about his family other than an aunt taking him on that ship. We don't know if she or Credence' parents were wizards/witches.

It is also unlikely that Grindelwald told him the thruth about being a Dumbledore so IMO it is safer to change it to "Unknown" until more gets revealed about him. Elecrom (talk) 16:42, December 3, 2018 (UTC)

Another Dumbledore father?

tHE ARTICLE CURRENTLY SAYS. ↑ Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald - The Original Screenplay, Scene 120 It's possible when Grindelwald said the word "your brother" that he actually means that Credence is in fact Albus his half-brother. Credence can't be the child of both Percival and Kendra, if it goes against canon. Kendra likely had a child with an another member from the Dumbledore family, as Credence could not be fathered by Percival as he is inprisoned in Azkaban during that time and dies later there.

Why would his father need to be a Dumbledore? If Kendra had another child with another person after Percival's inprisonment, her surname would have been Dumbledore. At least where I live, unmarried parents can choose to give their child the surname of either the father or the mother.--Rodolphus (talk) 14:59, January 2, 2019 (UTC)

It's too soon to say anything at this point (and will be for about 2 years more). My suspicion is that Credence could be the result of an incestuous relationship between Honoria and Percival Dumbledore — which would explain her unexpectedly calling off her engagement and Credence's existence being kept from the rest of the family. But of course this is all wild speculation ;) --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 19:58, January 2, 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. My point was that the info about Kebdra having a relationship with another Dumbledore should be removed from the article, then.--Rodolphus (talk) 20:41, January 2, 2019 (UTC)

Murderer category

Is Credence atually a murderer? As far as I know, murder is defined as intentional killing of another hznan with malice afterthought.The screenplay confirms that Credence didn't have control over his Obscurus until the end of COG, so the death would be accidents, wouldn't they?--Rodolphus (talk) 11:36, January 27, 2019 (UTC)

I think the correct classification would be "involuntary manslaughter" (at worst) rather than "murder". There is the same problem in The Subtle Knife with protagonist Will Parry being descdribed as a "murderer" when in fact he accidentally caused a death. — evilquoll (talk) 18:52, January 27, 2019 (UTC)