Slug Club

Is it really necessary to put that he was the head of the Slug Club at the end of the See Also section? He was the only one to head the slug club because he is Professor slughorn. I just do not think it is necessary. Freakatone 12:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree, there wouldn't be anyone else to head it because it was his personal fan club. Mafalda Hopkirk 18:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I erased that portion of the article. Freakatone 14:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Heads of Slytherin

Do we know for a fact that Snape was Slughorn's immediate successor as Head of Slytherin?This would mean there were no other Slytherin faculty when Slughorn stepped down.Being Head of House in his 30s is meteoric enough for Snape,there could well have been someone in between who retired after Snape had spent some years at Potions before adding the Headship!--Louis E./ 00:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't, any number of teachers could have been Slytherin and horase simply picked Snape for the postion. Its never actually said how the position of head of the house is passed on. In all likely hood either the previous head of the house does or the headmaster. Seeing as how there is no mention of a Head of Slytherin between Slughorn and Snape we can only assume there is none.

Slughorn born

Hello, when did Horace Slughorn born? I think in interviews with Rowling, Rowling not spoke about Slughorn born. Karutalk 09:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Slughorn in Hiding

I was reading the Half-Blood Prince and read that Slughorn had only been in hiding for a year, presumably since he heard (probably from Dumbledore) that Lord Voldemort had returned. Someone will have to change the claim that he's be hiding since 1981 Ztyran 04:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


I think there is enough information about Slughorn to add a Relationships category, possibly including; Albus Dumbledore, Lily Evans, Severus Snape, Harry Potter, and Tom Riddle. --Parodist 16:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Natural flair

The article says that Slughorn liked Lily for her "natural flair" at Potions making. I think that since it is completely possible that Snape gave her tips on Potions making while they were children, and was wondering if we should remove the word "natural" to be safe. --Parodist 21:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If Lily's exceptional performance in Potions class had depended entirely on help from Snape, her marks would've plummeted once she started her sixth year, as she was no longer on speaking terms with Snape then. Starstuff (Owl me!) 11:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
There is a debate about this on the Severus Snape page which should be removed thaen. --Parodist 14:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Maybe 5 years of help from Snape she had learned enough that she was good on her own and didn't need his help anymore, just a thought. --BachLynn23 22:47, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

Teachers' blood status

"As Muggle-born students were banned from Hogwarts during the 1997-98 school year, it is unlikely that the Death Eaters would have let a Muggle-born professor stay without being shoved into Azkaban. Since Slughorn was an active member of the Hogwarts faculty during that time, it is unlikely that he is Muggle-born." That's the reason this article assumes Slughorn is a half- or pure-blood. If we're abiding by this, why do we not assume the same for the other Hogwarts teachers? -Chogyokko

They use the same logic on the Minerva McGonagall page, but I think that, as they were removing Muggle-borns from Hogwarts to keep them from learning magic, it would have been completely pointless to remove Muggle born teachers, who already knew magic. Personally, I assume Slughorn has magical ancestry, judging by his surprise about the skill of Muggle-born students, and his Sorting into Slytherin. Not to mention in the Half-Blood Prince film, when Hermione says her parents are dentists, Slughorn asks if that's considered a dangerous job in the Muggle world, so I would think he's a pureblood. --Parodist 14:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I think they removed it from Minerva's page. And yes, Slughorn definitely seems like he's a Pureblood, with not only what you mentioned but there's the fact that he's a Slytherin, and that the Death Eaters had been trying to recruit him for years... Still, what about the Muggle-born Registration Commission? Teachers at Hogwarts certainly would've been imprisoned, methinks. So doesn't that mean they're all at least half-blood?
I don't think being Sorted into Slytherin or being pressured to join the Death Eaters are definitive proof that someone is pure-blood. There are Muggle-born Slytherins, though they're rare (DH22), and we know of at least one half-blood, Snape, who was allowed to join the Death Eaters. In an interview, JKR said that Voldemort tried to recruit James and Lily, so it seems he was willing to overlook Muggle-born status, if he deemed someone useful enough.
We know that JKR vetoed the line about Dumbledore's girlfriend that the screenwriters put in an early draft of the Half-Blood Prince script, so if the dentist question didn't reflect Slughorn's actual background, she probably would have said something. Thus, I take it as canon that Slughorn was completely unfamiliar with Muggle dentistry, and interpret this as evidence that he must have been raised in an all-magical household. If he'd come from a Muggle-wizard household, then he would have shown at least a rudimentary familiarity with the Muggle world. Snape, for instance, knew what a matchbox was (CoS11), when Arthur Weasley didn't know how to light a match (GoF7), and also knew that "only Muggles talk of 'mind-reading'" (OotP22).
Yes, Slughorn tended to underestimate the ability of Muggle-borns, but that doesn't rule out the possibility that one of his parents was Muggle-born. After all, Kendra Dumbledore was Muggle-born, but she apparently denied it, and, in hiding away her daughter for fear it would be revealed she was a "Squib," proved that it doesn't take a pure-blood to advance old wizarding prejudices. So, Slughorn might very well have been brought up by a Muggle-born, who either denied their Muggle heritage or scorned it, presumably in an effort to fit in and not be thought of as having "weak" magic.
The only source that says Kendra Dumbledore denied being a muggle-born and that she hid away ariana because she was a squib, was Aunt Muriel at Fleur and Bill's wedding, and being that it is later shown that Ariana was not a squib, but unable to control her magic, it is quite possible that it was also untrue that she denied her Muggle born heritage. --BachLynn23 22:56, July 21, 2010 (UTC)
My point ultimate point, after three paragraphs, is that we shouldn't rule out the possibility that Slughorn is half-blood. :) Starstuff (Owl me!) 05:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
My only point is that the reason that Slughorn is listed as half-blood or pure-blood is because he wasn't shoved into Azkaban when Death Eaters took over, so if we're going by that logic, the same should apply to every other teacher at Hogwarts, but it already has, so... all good. Jules R. J. Blake 11:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Chamber of Secrets

Shouldn't it be mentioned that Slughorn was teaching at the school when the Chamber of Secrets was first opened? Butterfly the rabbit 16:42, September 13, 2009 (UTC)

Black family teacher

Horace mentioned in front of harry, that he was the teacher of every Black member, except Sirius Black. Is this a blooper or not? And if not, do we put it in the story?--Station7 19:14, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

I seriously think it's a blooper! He's not that old.--Intrudgero98 20:16, December 7, 2009 (UTC)

I think what is ment by that is that he Taught all of the Black Children not every single member of the Black family. --Hogwarts09 19:58, December 29, 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't that he didn't teach Sirius, it was that Sirius was the only Black that wasn't in his House (Slytherin). Because unless Sirius didn't take potions at all, which i thought was a required class until after 5th year, and being that Slughorn was the only potions teacher the entire time Sirius was in school, clearly he taught Sirius. --BachLynn23 22:59, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

If Slughorn taught all the Black family, even the children (all adults were children once-that may sound surpising) than he would have been around 40 years old in 1826 (that's when Misapinoa Black, Siuris' great-great-grandaunt, was born).Happychickenvermin 07:36, December 17, 2010 (UTC)]]

I have a feeling he means that Sirius wasn't a Slytherin but, more likely he means he wasn't in the Slug club. Since Andromeda wasn't a Slytherin either and he said all the Blacks. By which he means Regulus, Bellatrix, Andromeda, and Narcissa plus their fathers. 22:51, October 1, 2012 (UTC)CrazyMJ


I think he need a relationship section like: Harry Potter, Hermoine Granger, Rubeus Hagrid, Ron Weasley, Albus Dumbledore.. More?--Station7 19:50, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

In The Sixth Book and Film

In the Sixth Film is Horace head of Slytherin or is it still Snape just wondering--Hogwarts09 19:59, December 29, 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that it is still Snape until the 7th book when Snape is appointed headmaster --BachLynn23 23:00, July 21, 2010 (UTC)


Was he really in Slytherin? Do we have a source for that? I would say that he's better in Gryffindor.--Station7 22:13, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Slughorn was in Slytherin. See this. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 22:18, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

Even though that is a good point Slughorn dosen't really act as a slytherin but on the other hand when he was younger he might of been bad then chose a new leaf like R.A.B (not bothering spelling his name).


20:09, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

JKR, points out that not all Slytherin are evil and that Slughorn is an example of a good Slytherin. --JKochRavenclawcrest.jpg(Owl Me!) 20:15, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

I think Horace is pretty amazing person. :D

He is intelligent, but there is something in him that really turns me down.

It is said that "Slytherins tend to be ambitious, cunning, and achievement-oriented. They also have highly developed senses of self-preservation." Slughorn is definitely cunning, and he prefers to surround himself by people who are extraordinary or special in some way, people who excel above and beyond, who have the potential to become somebody. That and considering how far he went to hide himself the year prior to being convinced to come back and teach at Hogwarts shows that he has a keen sense of self-preservation, definitely shows he probably would not have been picked for Gryffindor where they look for courage and bravery. Also, most Heads of Houses end up being the head of the house that they were in when they were in school. --BachLynn23 23:31, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

Middle Initials

Where did the "E.F." come from? --JKochRavenclawcrest.jpg(Owl Me!) 00:13, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

Half-Blood Prince, Chapter 7. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 00:20, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

Middle Initials

I think the E.F. is Eric Frederick.


Does anyone know how old Slughorn is, when was Slughorn born? I am for sure that he is younger than Albus Dumbledore. Or Is Slughorn older than Cornelius Fudge, or Umbridge?? Just want to know. 18:48, December 17, 2010 (UTC)

Not 100% sure, but I do know that he wouldn't have been a potions master at Hogwarts in 1920s, as listed, if he was born in 1920! One of those needs to be corrected.

Master Herbologist

I think Horace was a master herbologist, because he knew many things about the plants. He was a master potioner too, so he had to know the plants, which were ingredients for his potions. But if you think that he isn't a master herbologist, let's make a compromise with this: he was at least expert herbologist. User:Domynyk 19:53, January 7, 2011, (UTC)

Also, One Thousand Magical Herbs and Fungi is a textbook used for both Potions and Herbology, so clearly the subjects are intertwined so anyone teaching Potions would need to know Herbology. --BachLynnGryffindorcrest.jpg(Accio!) 19:04, January 7, 2011 (UTC)

I would avoid the word Master, honestly, I think many users are blowing the abilities of our characters out of proportion. --JKochRavenclawcrest.jpg(Owl Me!) 19:08, January 7, 2011 (UTC)
I recently edited Grindelwald's skills and abillity's section for this same reason. What exactly constitutes a "master" herbologist anyway? Or a "master" anything for that matter? Certainately he had some knowledge of herbology, and it should probably be added to his list of skills, but, apart from that I don't see anything in the text that supports him being masterfull at it. Jayden Matthews 19:29, January 7, 2011 (UTC)


"...and Harry saw Charlie Weasley overtaking Horace Slughorn, who was still wearing his emerald pyjamas." I didn't quite understand what that line meant. Does it mean Charlie and Horace engaged in a duel and Charlie won? Does it mean that Slughorn and Charlie were running up to fight and Charlie was faster? Does it mean that they were playing hopscotch and Charlie threw his stone further??? Just wondered. Thanks. 22:54, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

They were playing hopscotch, definitely. ;)
Seeing as Charlie and Slughorn were on the same side, the line means that they were running to the Great Hall and that Charlie was faster than Slughorn (which is no surprise, really, as Slughorn took forever to catch up to the other Heads of House during the Ousting of Severus Snape, a few hours before). --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 23:12, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but I wanted to make sure. I knew they were playing hopscotch! By the way, he didn't take that much longer to catch up (just a couple of weeks). --  Hunnie Bunn  owl post!

Relantionship with Albus Dumbledore and age.

I think Slughorn borns in just a few years after Dumbledore, like he saids Slughorn is an old friend and collegue, like Pomona Sprout and Minerva mcGonnagall(Two yeras pf difference). I cannot thought in Slughorn as a studant in the same year than Albus, because Albus best friend was Elphias Doge

Hogwarts staff

If Slughorn started about the same time as Dumbledore I think it's safe to assume that many of the teachers were former students of his. Also probably safe to assume he tried to "collect" McGonagall. Tjb173 (talk) 05:21, May 17, 2013 (UTC)

Entirely possible, but purely speculative without any proof to that effect. Also, please remember to sign your posts using four tildes. ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:50, May 17, 2013 (UTC)
Okay so the only four teachers we know attended Hogwarts during his time as Potions master were McGonagall, Sprout, Snape and Lupin. Given McGonagall's impressive record as a student she would have gotten Slughorn's attention. And I am sorry I forgot to sign my post I'll try to remember in the future.Tjb173 (talk) 05:21, May 17, 2013 (UTC)

According to Pottermore and timelines, Minerva McGonnagal was at the same age as Tom Riddle. Dumbledore and Sughorn were full adult at that time, implying that Slughorn and Dumbledore are in the same age line (NOT IN SAME AGE, JUST AGE LINE). Snape studied decades after McGonnagal, and still taught by Slighorn. Sprout was two years youngerthan McGonnagal. Flitwick was also at a similar age of McgOnnagal, but i'm not sure aout him. We do not know much about Trelawney. Hagrid was at the same age as Tom. Lupin was a the same age as Snape. He probably taught all present-day staff, but Binns (He's a ghost). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).


So, Dumbledore started teaching shortly after Grindelwald fled in the August of Dumbledore's eighteenth birthday. I'm assuming September of that year? So he started in 1899. Molly Weasley states that Slughorn and Dumbledore started teaching at the same time, yet it is well known that Slughorn isn't as old as Dumbledore. If you ask me, he would have been born anytime in 1882, or else in November or December 1881? Is this too speculative to put in the article? If not, it at the very least will help us marshal our thoughts. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 00:09, November 16, 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure, though, where is it stated that Dumbledore started teaching in 1899? Besides, what Molly says is that "He [...] started around the same time as Dumbledore" (emphasis added), so it's not certain if they both started teaching on exactly the same year or give or take a few years apart. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 00:25, November 16, 2013 (UTC)
Dumbledore seems to imply this in chapter thirty-five of Deathly Hallows (while I busied myself with the training of young wizards, Grindelwald was raising an army), and we know Grindelwald started his army shortly after he left Godric's Hollow.
And while I did misread that line, would it be too speculative to add "1882 - 1885" to BTS or similar for a birth-year? We know he was born after Dumbledore and thus started either the same year as him or after. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 00:32, November 16, 2013 (UTC)
My reading of Dumbledore's line is somewhat different -- Grindelwald must've been raising his army for a very long time indeed, since the global wizarding war had its roots in the 1890s and only ceased in 1945. If Dumbledore was talking about, say, the 1930s (the earliest known dates we know for sure he was working at Hogwarts), then it would still fit (Dumbledore would be teaching, Grindelwald raising an army on Continental Europe), and would not necessarily imply that he started working right away. Note that I am not saying that he didn't start working at Hogwarts right away; I am saying that we don't know if he did.
I have two problems with 1882-1885: One is that Slughorn could, concievably, have been born in 1881, after Dumbledore. All we know is that he is younger than him, not how much younger. My other problem is the 1885 year. I'm not sure, exactly, where it comes from. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 01:17, November 16, 2013 (UTC)
That's right, now I stop to think on it. I'm like Rowling in that I suck at maths. One less question in my already overflowing brain full of questions :) --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 01:21, November 16, 2013 (UTC)

Teaching for 50 years?

The article uses as reference for his latest possible birthyear to be 1913, the fact that "Slughorn was Potions Master for more than 50 years by the time he retired in 1981".

Is there a quote to back this? I thought the article said that he taught for 50 years since he was known to have been teaching in the 1930s and that's roughly 5 decades before 1981, not because it was cold, hard canonical fact that we could use in this sort of calculations. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 17:37, August 11, 2014 (UTC)

That's correct. The only thing we know for sure is that he started teaching around the same time as Dumbledore, which was sometime between 1899 and 1936 (Dumbledore was at least eighteen when he started teaching, and being born in 1881 he would have been eighteen in 1900; Riddle started at Hogwarts in 1936, at which point Dumbledore was already a teacher and had been for at least an additional year). There's no proof Slughorn started in the 1930s. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 18:00, August 11, 2014 (UTC)

Later Life worries

In the section "Later Life," it says that it can be assumed that he stayed to teach after the 2nd war.  I'm not sure this is a safe assumption, as he had retired once, and the 2 reasons he came back (Harry Potter and protection from The Dark Lord and the Deatheaters) were now gone from Hogwarts.

Restarting: c. Birth Year

If he began teaching in the 1920s, there's no way he was born in or around 1921. So should we change the birth year to just "late 19th Century"? --KiumaruHamachi (talk) 04:15, September 27, 2015 (UTC)KiumaruHamachi

Personality section woes

The personality section reads horribly. The fact that he gathered possibly talented and famous students for his own benefit is listed at least 3 times, and the fact that his personality shows how a Slytherin can have a positive outlook is mentioned twice. It seems to find a way to say the same thing for the first 3 straight paragraphs. I don't feel I have the experience to rewrite a large section like this, but I think someone who can should consider making it a bit less repetitive.Goofyd00d (talk) 13:19, December 24, 2015 (UTC)


If Slughorn indeed started at the same time as Dumbledore, this, coupled with the new information from the FB film, should mean that he sterted teaching between 1899 and and 1915, and was was born between summer 1881 and the 1890s. Should we change the article accordingly?

--Rodolphus (talk) 19:45, April 28, 2016 (UTC)

There's been a lot of discussion about this previously. We know that he is younger than Dumbledore (so born after summer 1881), but that he began teaching "around" the same time. We know Dumbledore was teaching at some point during Newt's timeframe for Hogwarts (1908-1915), but can we say that Slughorn had to start teaching by 1915? Would 1920 also be around the same time? He is also described as being the potions master for over 50 years (ending in 1981) so he had to start to teaching earlier than 1931 and hence born by 1914 to be 17 yrs old by 1931. I agree that it should be earlier than the current 1921 (calculated from Riddle's start date) just not clear how best to set the range. --Ironyak1 (talk) 20:45, April 28, 2016 (UTC)
I did some searches through PM, HBP, and DH and couldn't find an explicit mention of fifty years as Potions Master (doesn't mean it's not there, I just didn't find anything). I found other websites that used the "50 years as Potions Master" summary, but nothing with a reference.
Nonetheless, given that Dumbledore was teaching Newt sometime between 1908 & 1915, and Slughorn started "around" the same time (giving some leeway say within a decade, of the latest possible date - 1925), he would still have to be born before 1908 or so. Fuzzy math to be sure, but having the 1910s as his latest birth date seems more reasonable that 1920s IMHO. (His infobox says Potions Master from 1920s so there is some reconciling to be done anyways) --Ironyak1 (talk) 01:26, April 29, 2016 (UTC)
Well, if "fifty years" is accurate, then the latest he can be born in 1914. However, as he and Dumbledore started around the same time, and Dumbles had begun approx. c 1910, if we assume Slughorn started at 17, then we get 1893 as a D.O.B. There's no more than eleven years older than that -- otherwise he'd be the same age as Dumbles.--HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:38, April 29, 2016 (UTC)

Slughorn's actual date of birth can be calculated a bit closer on one situation. Slughorn mentions the minister of magic (a HE) by name. So, between 1881 and 1914, when were there male ministers? That puts Slughorn's d.o.b closer to being truly worked out. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 20:19, October 22, 2016 (UTC)

Infobox picture

I think that Slughorn's infobox picture should be updated to one from Deathly Hallows: Part 2. This one, for example;

Slughorn DH2.JPG

-- Saxon 14:31, June 8, 2017 (UTC)

I think the one we have is better. It is a higher quality and a proper portrait of him, instead of a screenshot. -- Kates39 (talk) 15:30, June 8, 2017 (UTC)
Agreed with Kates39. I personally think it's absurd to consider updating the picture to a picture that's of lower quality, not to mention not a proper portrait of him. I don't think it matters if it's not fully up to date. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 13:12, June 9, 2017 (UTC)

Spelling question?

The grammar in the line ". . . ' stached under' his cloak" looks a little strange to me. Should it be 'stashed under?' or just 'kept under?' Tiria Wildlough Owl Reception 20:27, July 18, 2017 (UTC)


This article states that Slughorn woud have been born the latest at 1914 because he started teaching in 1931. But if he was born in 1914, he would only have graduated Hogwarts in 1932. Plus, they don't let students fresh out of Hogwarts to teach. Tom Riddle was denied the DADA position because he had just graduated and was told by Dippet to reapply after a few years. Twilight2013 (talk) 13:35, August 10, 2017 (UTC)

Good catch about the math - I changed the latest date to be 1913 so that his 7th year would start 1930 and he would graduate 1931. While it does seem unlikely that he would immediately teach at Hogwarts, it is a possibility as Dippet may have only given that as an excuse to Riddle (given Dumbledore's reservations), or that Slughorn was hired under a different Headmaster between Dippet and Phineas Nigellus Black, as we don't know for sure who was serving at the time. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:14, August 10, 2017 (UTC)

Blood status

I would just like to point out that just because we now know that the Malfoy family were known to marry half-bloods to avoid inbreeding, and the Potters and the Weasleys were both on marrying terms with Muggles and not at all ashamed of it, that does not mean Horace Slughorn "might be a half-blood, we don't know...".

When Pottermore tells us that "to call oneself a pure-blood was more accurately a declaration of political or social intent than a statement of biological fact", that was in the context of informing the readers about the mindset of those who subscribed to the pure-blood doctrine, rather than saying that they were lying about being pure-bloods. It is already proven to be demonstrably accurate to call oneself pure-blood if you hail back from two or more generations of wizards. Yes, in Short Stories from Hogwarts of Power, Politics and Pesky Poltergeists, it is said that he have a wizard father and witch mother, but for Merlin's sake, do we have to go through this blasted heap of 'maybe, perhaps and for all we knows' every single time Rowling paraphrase a sentence because her decision not to be repetative and someone suddenly decides that her meanig was "vauge"?

Why should that mean we all of a sudden have some sort of free reign into speculating about the blood-status of his grandparents might have had when the books and the bio both already goes above and beyond to tell us Horace Slughorn is pure-blood. The fact that he comes from an ancient wizarding family, that both of his parents are wizards, the fact that they were, while not militant in their subscription to pure-blood doctrines still did subscribe to them and encouraged him to make friends of "the right sort" at school, his biased pressumptions about Muggle-borns often being less talented than students with a more exclusively magical heritage, and we already knew the Slughorns were one of the so-called ‘Sacred Twenty-Eight’, so why would Rowling remind us of it unless it was relevant to Slughorn's magical ancestry? Did Slughorn have half-bloods, muggle-borns and/or muggles on their family tree? Rowling have made no comment, so for every intent and purpsoes, for to us to say either yes or no - or even maybe - would be overly speculative. From a purely "in-universe perspective" - who knows. They "weren't militant in their beliefs" and did not raise their son to be, meaning that traditionally speaking, the Slughorns weren't, so it's conceivably true, if not even likely. But even if such is the case, any and every single canonical source make it painfully obvious that Horace is no less pure-blood than James Potter, Lucius Malfoy and Arthur Weasley, all of which were pure-blood and had non-pure-bloods on their family trees. Assuming anything else based on a purely subjective opinion that "this or that may be the case, that makes sense to me" boarders on fanfiction. Maester Martin (talk) 02:52, September 30, 2018 (UTC)

Unless JKR said Horace is a pure-blood, the circumstances allow for the possibility of him being either pure- or half-blood. Some Malfoy individuals are half-bloods, but their family is one of the Sacred Twenty-Eight, like the Slughorns, which means some Slughorn individuals like Horace may be half-blood as well. The article simply reflects this possibility as no canon source states directly that he is a pure-blood (unlike all the other examples of pure-blood individuals you gave - see the refs cited on their articles). There are no assumptions being made as to Horace's actual blood status either way because, as you said, who knows? Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 06:46, September 30, 2018 (UTC)

I accept your premise, Ironyak1, but I reject your conclusion. There is no "Professor Slughorn is pure-blood, Harry," or "I am pure-blood, Harry, but don't hold it against me, I am not prejudiced!", but that does not mean there are no canonical sources that states that he is pure-blood. The books and his biography from the aforementioned companion book authored by Rowling both above and beyond to tell us what his blood status is. When I said  'who knows', I was, again, speaking from a "purely in-universe perspective". Or rather, I was talking fro a purely hypotetical in-universe perspective, since the Slughorns could conceivably have half-bloods on their family tree, but that's worthless in terms of determining what is canon and not, since it is only a literary device/mechanism/loophole used to maintain chronological consistency in a story whenever new elements are being introduced into it, and so in the wrords of Matt Dillahunty, not reliable path to truth. The fact of the matter is, even if a canonical source had at some point established that it existed non-pure-bloods on their family tree, it is of no consequence, because if Horace Slughorn was ever supposed to have been half-blood, JKR would have told us as much, instead of stupidly throwing paraphrased affinrmations of him being pure-blood left and right and tricking us into thinking he is something he isn't. Maester Martin (talk) 15:07, September 30, 2018 (UTC)

We are not at the liberty to guess JKR's intentions - we only have the evidence she's provided to assess what is known. All the canon sources tell us is that Horace was born into a Sacred Twenty-Eight family before the publication of the Pure-Blood Directory and raised within a non-extreme version of pure-blood supremacy ideology. Nothing in canon directly states he or his parents are pure-bloods, so we are left with the various possibilities, which do not preclude one or more of them being half-bloods in a pure-blood family, like the Malfoys. Choosing one possibility or the other is an assumption. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:37, September 30, 2018 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean about 'at liberty to guess JKR's intentions', really. If you mean to say that we cannot read her mind, then I agree. Her intentions in regard to the Harry Potter' universe, however, are obvious: To make a magical world which any reader would want to live with thrilling stories to come with it. A  meticulously designed world, and carefully written stories in which coincidences ever happen because it would've have amounted to bad story-telling and, by extension, prevented the Potter franchise from reaching the popularity it have. I repeat, if you have read the books and actually bothered to take into account the facing established information without trying to make a bunch of contradictory interpretations about things one personally think sotors mentioned above, Slughorn's blood status is so glaringly obvious that pretending it isn't becomes completely ridiculous. So no - "choosing one over the other" is, granted you make the correct one, not an assumption, it is an act of objectively recordmething may or may not indicate. It is the latter that is an assumption. As per the definition of "assumption" used here these days, however, it would appear that unless what you wish to add to an article can't concivably have any number of different meanings beyond what the text itself is actually saying, it is too "vague" to be accepted as valid. Maester Martin (talk) 19:43, September 30, 2018 (UTC)

I'll try this one last way - could Horace's mother have been an half-blood? --Ironyak1 (talk) 20:36, September 30, 2018 (UTC)

No. Maester Martin (talk) 03:51, October 1, 2018 (UTC)

Why not? Even staunch pure-blood families can have half-bloods on their family tree per Writing by J.K. Rowling: "The Malfoy Family" at Pottermore. She is never even mentioned in canon, so how are you so sure she is a pure-blood? --Ironyak1 (talk) 04:31, October 1, 2018 (UTC)

If you look above, I have already acknowledged that from a purely hypotetical, in-universe perspective, then yes: Conceivably, the Slughorns could very well have half-bloods on their family tree, or even Muggle-borns and Muggles, but even if such were to be the case, that wouldn't mean that there were any half-bloods, Muggle-borns or Muggles for at least three to four generations at most, because for Horace to be pure-blood, both of his parents would have to be pure-blood, and whatever spin we might try to put on it, everything Rowling has ever told us about Horace Slughorn - from his family and personal values, etc, is essentially one big paraphrased "he is pure-blood'.Maester Martin (talk) 06:17, October 1, 2018 (UTC)

For Horace to be pure-blood, none of his parents or grandparents could be muggles or muggle-born ((see refs on pure-blood article such as JKR's FAQ2. For the Slughorn family to be pure-blood, none of its immediate members could be muggles, or muggle-borns (or possibly squibs from examples given by the House of Black). There is nothing preventing Horace's mother from being a half-blood and the family still being considered pure-blood just like the Malfoy family tree. Only pure-blood extremist families such as the Blacks, Gaunts, and Lestranges only marry pure-bloods (see Writing by J.K. Rowling: "The Malfoy Family" at Pottermore. As such there is nothing preventing Horace from being half-blood either. His being raised with or espousing pure-blood ideals does not dictate his blood status (some of the strongest proponents of pure-blood supremacy were of course not pure-bloods e.g. Dolores Umbridge). Slughorn has never been directly stated to be a pure-blood and if JKR was to announce tomorrow that he was in fact half-blood, that would not contradict any of the facts she has provided thus far, regardless of the possible implications of his family's blood status or his personal ideals. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:56, October 1, 2018 (UTC)

"Horace Eugene Flaccus Slughorn was born into an ancient wizarding family, the only son of
doting and wealthy parents. Although a fundamentally good-tempered boy, he was educated
to believe in the value of the old boys’ network (his father was a high-ranking Ministry
official in the Department of International Magical Co-operation), and encouraged to make
friends ‘of the right sort’ once he arrived at Hogwarts. The Slughorn family is one of the so-
called ‘Sacred Twenty-Eight’, (a select list of the only families designated ‘pure-blooded’ by
an anonymous author in the 1930s) and while Slughorn’s parents were never militant in
their pure-blood beliefs, they encouraged a quiet belief in the family’s innate superiority.

20:55, October 1, 2018 (UTC)Maester Martin (talk)

None of the above establishes the blood status of either Slughorn's parents or grandparents. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 20:58, October 1, 2018 (UTC)

Well, it absolutely does actually, but alas, in light of your most recent notice on my talk page, I will be respectfully ending the discussion here by saying that will, once again, have to agree to disagree. Maester Martin (talk) 21:03, October 1, 2018 (UTC) 

But it doesn't. All it says is that a) the Slughorns were an ancient wizarding family, b) Mr and Mrs Slughorn were wealthy, c) Mr Slughorn worked and was influential at the Ministry, d) the Slughorns were one of the Sacred Twenty-Eight, and e) Mr and Mrs Slughorn had some degree of belief in pure-blood supremacy, even though they weren't overly prejudiced. That is, quite literally, all the information in that quote -- and no piece of information is incompatible with Slughorn being a half-blood, as per Ironyak1's analysis above. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 21:12, October 1, 2018 (UTC)

The whole is more than the sum of its parts, Seth, and to me, it looks like you have forgotten to factor one important aspect of the text. Maester Martin (talk) 21:23, October 1, 2018 (UTC)

Yes? --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 21:27, October 1, 2018 (UTC)

Context. You listed in chronological order what the text said, but you neglected to factor in the fact that we were are talking about a biography. Maester Martin (talk) 21:43, October 1, 2018 (UTC)

Your point being? --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 21:48, October 1, 2018 (UTC)

If you don't see how that's significant, I'm not certain how I can possibly explain it to you in a manner that will do it justice. Maester Martin (talk) 21:53, October 1, 2018 (UTC)

I don't, really. If a piece of information can't be extracted from what a text says, than it's hardly in the text. Sure, things can't be taken out of context -- but I fail to see how the context of the text being a biography of Slughorn can in any way establish the blood status of his grandparents. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 21:59, October 1, 2018 (UTC)

Let me try this way: For the sake of argument, let us say that Horace Slughorn's mother was indeed a half-blood. How do you suppose her Muggle ancestry would have influenced Horace's upbringing if such was the case? Maester Martin (talk) 22:05, October 1, 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea. I'm not Rowling and, as such, I wouldn't know. Could have had some influence in his upbringing, could have none; both are equally possible without any canonical information. Your point being? --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 22:10, October 1, 2018 (UTC)
My point is that Rowling is an author, and as an author, it is not in her best interests to decieve her readers. Maester Martin (talk) 22:13, October 1, 2018 (UTC)
I don't feel particularly deceived by something absolutely non-contradictory. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 22:23, October 1, 2018 (UTC)

Rowling makes Horace and his parents out to be pure-bloods at every turn, so why would she do that if they weren't? That's quite literarily a contradiction. If Horace and his mother was half-blood, we would have known about it. Maester Martin (talk) 23:02, October 1, 2018 (UTC)

All that's said is that Mr and Mrs Slughorn espoused some degree of pure-blood beliefs (the same could be said of half-blood Dolores Umbridge, as Ironyak1 pointed out above), and that the Slughorn family was old and one of the Sacred Twenty-Eight (the same could be said of the Malfoys, in which family there are known half-bloods). --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 23:09, October 1, 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect Seth - to compare Slughorn to Umbrdige, and using the pure-blood wizarding Malfoys to try to demonstrate how the Slughorns supposedly could be a part-wizards-part-Muggle, half-blood wizarding family, are both incredibly intellectually dishonest.

Also, it did not occur to me to point it out before now, but  on Slughorn's biography, before the bio itself, Rowling wrote on that "fact file" thing, and I quote: 

PARENTS  Wizard father, witch mother (family one of the so-called 'Sacred Twenty-Eight')

By the time the book came out, the Slughorns' status as one of the sacred twenty-eight had been common knowledge for any fan of the potter universe who know what Pottermore is for - what? A year? Two years? Why would Rowling emphasise its status as one of the 'twenty-eight truly pure-blood families' in his bio - a fact already known to every Tom, Dick and Harry by the time the book came out, lest it was purposefully put there to tell us the status of the Slughorn family at the time of Horace's birth? Maester Martin (talk) 13:11, October 2, 2018 (UTC)

I never said the Slughorns were a half-blood wizarding family; I said the Slughorns are a pure-blood family (they definitely are, canon says so) that could have half-blood members, just like the Malfoys. I fail to grasp the intellectual dishonesty. And, again, "wizard father, witch mother" says nothing about their blood status (note how several half-blood characters, namely Harry Potter, also fit that description). --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 19:19, October 2, 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. Exactly, right, the Slughorns are a pure-blood family, and therein lies the problem, see, because although "wizard father, witch mother" fit Harry's description, technically - that is only true if we dismiss the added emphasis on how the wizarding Slughorn family being one of the twenty-eight 'truly pure-blood families' in the very same entery when we already were aware of the fact, which does say something about the state of Horace Slughorn's ancestry in contrast to Harry's. A more apt comparison would be Harry's children, who were all born to one half-blood and one pure-blood parents and were all half-bloods. The Potters were no longer a pure-blood family by that point, because Harry's ancestry was full of Muggles on his mother's side, making it a half-blood family, and the same would have been the case for the Slghorns. Prior to the Statute of Secrecy, Muggle marriage was common, and since the family was not militant in their beliefs, so it stands to reason that from a purely hypotetical, in-universe perspective, there might very well be both Muggles, Muggle-borns and half-bloods on their family tree, so I'm not trying to rule that out. All I am saying, is that until Rowling comes out and officially retcons herself, and establishes Horace's blood status as a half-blood beyond any reasonable doubt, their Muggle ancestry would have had to be every bit as distant as that of the Malfoys by the time Horace came around, lest it is to become a half-blood family. Which of course contradict canon, so it cannot be the case. Maester Martin (talk) 05:35, October 3, 2018 (UTC)

Your confusion appears to arise from the fact that "pure-blood family" means no muggles, or muggle-borns on the family tree - (social intent - "I will not marry a Muggle and I consider Muggle/wizard marriage reprehensible") - half-bloods are ok to marry for most pure-blood families. The family tree isn't every branch of every member ever - it's those born or married into the family - see the Black family tapestry, and other family trees JKR has drawn. As given for the Malfoy ("From the imposition of the Statute of Secrecy onwards, no Malfoy has married a Muggle or Muggle-born.") - however some of them married half-bloods after the Statue of Secrecy and these half-bloods appear on the Malfoy family tree. This is contrasted with the Blacks, Gaunts, & Lestranges where every member on the tree are pure-blood individuals (no muggle or muggle-born parents or grandparents, but certainly more distant Muggle ancestry as "There is not a witch or wizard in existence whose blood has not mingled with that of Muggles" - TBB). As the Slugnorns are not extremist in their Pure-blood doctrines, there is no reason to assume they insist on only marrying pure-bloods. As such, members on their immediate family tree, such as Horace or his mother, could be half-blood and the family is still as pure-blooded as the Malfoys and one of the Sacred Twenty-Eight - that is they have no muggles or muggle-borns on their family tree (at least none they haven't crossed out). Please read all the refs from pure-blood if this still doesn't make sense. --Ironyak1 (talk) 06:07, October 3, 2018 (UTC)

And I would say that an argument could be made that your confusion appears to arise from the assumption that I think "pure-blood family" means no muggles, or muggle-borns on the family tree, but that's not what I am saying. I have in fact repeatedly acknowledged that from a purely hypothetical in-universe perspective, yes, there is indeed the conceivable possibility that there is muggles, or muggle-borns on their family tree - All I am saying is that in case of the Slughorns, there were no immediately close muggles, or muggle-borns on their family tree, as in no muggle or muggle-born parents or grandparents, because if such had been the case, the wizarding family in question would have become, as stated above, half-blood.Maester Martin (talk) 10:51, October 3, 2018 (UTC)

Again, not how it works. Imagine there is a Malfoy Family tapestry, like the House of Black. On it are all members born to or married into the Malfoy family name. As JKR stated, since the imposition of the Statute of Secrecy no Malfoy has married a Muggle or Muggle-born , but they have not restricted their marriages to only pure-blood individuals, and many a half-blood appears on the Malfoy family tree. That is some Malfoys on their tapestry are half-bloods and have muggle or muggle-born parents or grandparents by definition. This is how the Malfoys differ from the Blacks, Gaunts, & Lestranges in which all members on their respective tapestries are pure-blood individuals with no muggle or muggle-born parents or grandparents. Most pure-blood families like the Malfoys, and likely the Slughorns, have no qualms with marrying half-bloods, only the fanatics.
You can talk all you want about author intent or hidden information, but Rowling has made her blood purity system quite clear and consistently stated the rules and distinctions used. They just need to be fully understood. --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:06, October 3, 2018 (UTC)

Are you kidding me right now? Excuse me, Ironyak1, did you even read what I wrote? At this point, you are, with all due respect, just strawmanning me. I have time and time again acknowledged that hypotetically, if not necessarily Muggles and Muggle-borns, there is no reason why there would be any less half-blood Slughorns than there have been half-blood Malfoys throughout the centuries. An argument can even be made for how the Slughorns might have even more ancestral ties to half-bloods since the Slughorns were not militant and the Malfoys were, but that's irrelevant to whether Horace Slughorn and his parents, or ttheir parents' parents', were half-blood, because even if the Slughorns were to have "eschewed the somewhat dangerous practice of inter-marrying within such a small pool of pure-bloods that they become enfeebled or unstable" as a general rule just like the Malfoys, that would not mean that they, as of the 1930's, after Horace was born, mind you, could not have traced their ancestors through a sufficient number of exclusively wizarding families to fulfill the "pure-blood if one has no Muggle or Muggle-born grandparents" without inbreeding like the Gaunts did. And here is my 

  1. The Malfoys had ancestral ties to half-bloods, but by 1900's, they were pure-blood, as was its members.  (Ex. Lucius).  
  1. The Weasleys had ancestral ties to muggles, but by 1900's, they were pure-blood, as was its members. (Ex. Arthur).
  1. The Potters had ancestral ties to half-bloods and Muggles, but by 1900's, they were pure-blood, as was its members. (Ex. James).

Why oh why is Horace Slughorn such an unique exception in your mind? He belongs to a pure-blood family, as established by canon, but the family would not have been recognised as pure-blood if Horace had as much as a single Muggle or Muggle-born grandparent. The blood of his mother, and his blood, would have been "polluted" by the Muggle ancestry, 'reducing' the family to a half-blood family. Not a pure-blood family, a half-blood family. Which contradicts canon. And since canon establish the Slughorns as pure-blood, and not half-bloods clinging to wizarding heritage, that means Horace Slughorn had no Muggle or Muggle-born grandparents, making him pure-blood. Just like the rest of the family. Your assessment of what you percieve to be possible is in direct conflict with both canon and their status as one of the Sacred Twenty-Eight. Maester Martin (talk) 22:46, October 3, 2018 (UTC)

The half-blood Malfoys mentioned in Pottermore are all post-Statute of Secrecy, so, after the start of the 18th century. These are hardly "ancestral ties". The fact, which I think you still have not fully grasped, is that marrying half-bloods (and, by extension, having some half-blood members and, yes, some degree of Muggle heritage -- then again, all families have) didn't stop the Malfoy family from being considered pure-blood at any point, as it would've happened if they married Muggles or Muggle-borns. The Slughorns could be in a similar situation. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 02:12, October 4, 2018 (UTC)

Also, whe know for sure that the Olivanders were part of the Sacred Twenty-Eight, and Garrick Ollivander was half-blood born before the 1930s.--Rodolphus (talk) 04:46, October 4, 2018 (UTC)

Seth: Okay, you sound completely and utterly self-contradictory, so once and for all: Is a pure-blood, lying hypocrits like Umbrdige not withstanding, any witch or wizard who have no Muggles or Muggle-borns counted among their parents or grandparents? Because to me, the only thing I can hear from your attempted distinction here is that Rowling is wrong, the information provided by the wikia here itself is inaccurate, the whole; "pure-bloods are people without a Muggle or Muggle-born grandparent" is really just a clever deception to confuse us for the hell of it, and in truth, you're considered a half-blood only if you marry a Muggle or Muggle-born with a Muggle parent, not if you marry a half-blood with one Muggle/Muggle-born parent and one magical parent. Which, of course, is completely ridiculuous, so I don't think that's what you're saying.

Mind trying paraphrasing this and using something beyond the Malfoys as an example? After all, unless we are to assume Lucius was actually half-blood because Abraxas married a half-blood without our knowledge -  which is a fanfiction, and Arthur Weasley was likewise also secretly a half-blood all along because hey, "his father Septimus may have been married to the daughter of an interesting Muggle/well-known Muggle-born, who knows, right?!", which is, of course, also fanfiction, I don't really see that you have much of an argument here.The Slughorns is established to be a pure-blood family. As such, any hypothesis any fan might have about potential Muggle grandparents, which would mean there are two generations of half-bloods in the family and a Muggle/Muggle-born grandparent and 'reduce' the family to bieng half-blood, not pure-blood, as per "the rules" provided by the wiki and Rowling herself, contradict the whole canon "pure-blood family" status and is, in my ears, likewise - fanfiction. I have no idea, whatsoever, about what you are trying to get at here. You've lost me, Seth.  Maester Martin (talk) 06:01, October 4, 2018 (UTC)

That is true, but there is an obvious difference between the two: People like Arthur Weasley and Albus Dumbledore, two of the most sociable people presented in canon and who knows a ton of people around the block, both personally and/or by reputation, never talks of the Ollivanders unless wands and wandlore is the topic of discussion. Mr. Ollivander was also never established to have a wife and children in canon before Rowling told us on Pottermore, and why is this? Because Ollivanders, they are a secretive lot about which little is known except for their famed tradition of forever adding to the ancient line of some of the most accomplished wandmakers wizarding Britain has ever known, meaning every single witch or wizard that subscribed to the pure-blood doctrine and made something of themselves, (either in the literary sense of achieved something they saw as advantageous through wand and incantation), would be indebted to the Ollivanders to some extent for providing them with such reliable tools (wands) with which they accomplished their feats. This is backed up by how, if  if Garrick Ollivander is any indication, the Ollivanders more often than not prefer to keep their own company, jealousy guarding their secrets and don't mingle much, meaning that either, people didn't know Garrick was a half-blood, or - because of the above - it was generally felt that certainly, the existence of occassional Muggle or Muggle-born in the family might be dismissed/ignored in light of such renown?

The Slughorns, however, is an old, wealthy wizarding family who by the 1930's was already reasonably well-known and well-connected in wizarding society by virtue of Horace's father, whose high-ranking position in the Department of International Magical Cooperation and strong ties to the "old boy's network", meaning they knew many and many people knew them. As such, the geneology of the Slughorns would be much easier to subject to thourough scrutiny to determine if the Slughorns were one of the "truly pure-blood" families or not. Maester Martin (talk) 06:01, October 4, 2018 (UTC)

For an individual to be a pure-blood, they must not have any muggle or muggle-born parents or grandparents. For a family to be considered to be pure-blood, they must not have married any muggles or muggle-borns. This is exactly what JKR 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.” There is nothing against marrying half-bloods, except for an extreme few families (Gaunts, Blacks, Lestranges) that only marry pure-blood individuals. This is why many a half-bloods appears on the pure-blood family tree of the Malfoys and why an even less fervent family like the Slughorns could have the same.
JKR has answered this a variety of ways - when asked if the pure-blood families were dying out, she said "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." Again, nothing about not marrying half-bloods, as being a pure-blood is an anti-muggle and anti-muggle-born ideology. Marrying a half-blood does not jeopardize the family's pure-blood status (although it is not up to the fanatical standards of the Blacks, Gaunts, and Lestranges). All this and more that makes clear these rules is on pure-blood. --Ironyak1 (talk) 06:45, October 4, 2018 (UTC)

Ooooooh... Okay, I see. Have to admit that I am more than a little embarrassed at being this slow. Sorry, guys. Maester Martin (talk) 07:36, October 4, 2018 (UTC)

*Disclosure: Some of the links above are affiliate links, meaning, at no additional cost to you, Fandom will earn a commission if you click through and make a purchase. Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.