Talk: Matilda Weasley

Pure-blood

Would it be 100% accurate to label her a pure-blood due to her family name? The same would go for Garreth Weasley too. RedWizard98 (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

We don't have a source stating that she was born into the family, haven't we? Also, canon tells us that Sacred 28 families have had half-blood members, (Malfoys) Also, the Sacred 28 article on PM states that the Weasleys protested against the inclusion because they indeed had Muggle ancestry.Rodolphus (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The term "Pure-Blood" is pretty much a social construct by the 1890s, because wizard-Muggle marriages had been common for centuries. To call oneself 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", but to be a pure-blood just means that you don't have any immediate Muggle family, meaning your parents and grandparents, were all wizards, so if the Pure-Blood Directory was published in the 1930s, if they had had any immediate Muggle family within the last three or four generations in the 1890s, they wouldn't have made the cut.

As for Matilda Weasley being married in - well, no, we don't have a source stating explicitly that she was born into the family, but there is such a thing as "show, don't tell". She has the characteristic red hair of the Weasley family, and is the aunt of Garreth Weasley, meaning that it'd make intuitive sense that for the two of them to have the same surname, Matilda would be the sister of Garreth's father, from whom Garreth would have inherited his last name. Not to mention just how pointlessly misleading it would be of Avalanch to introduce a character who looks like a Weasley, and has the name, without being a Weasley, in the strictest sense. She was a famously accomplished witch and former Curse-Breaker for the Ministry, and one would think that given its irrelevance to the overall story in terms of spoiler territory, one would have thought that if she had married in, that would've been noted on her character card or in the The Art and Making of Hogwarts Legacy that such was the case. A passing mention of how his exceptionally gifted witch was frowned upon for marrying into a stigmatised family of blood-traitors, but that she did not let other people's attitude inform her decisions for her, let's say.

She has red hair, she's named Weasley, and to think she was married in is an entirely unfounded assumption. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

As Rodolphus stated, being in a pure-blood family does not make every member a pure-blood (see Writing by J. K. Rowling: "The Malfoy Family" at Harry Potter (website) - but given that they are on the Sacred Twenty-Eight list after this time, it is extremely unlikely the family had known Muggle-born members, and she is in a very visible role, so Pure-blood or Half-blood (likely) with a ref explanation seems best IMHO. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid Rodolphus is wrong. If you read the Harry Potter (website)} article again, you will find that the reason why the weasleys protested their inclusion on the list is because the Pure-Blood Directory was a product of Pure-blood supremacy. It was written "with ‘the aim of helping such families maintain the purity of their bloodlines’", and this is what they protested against, since they were proud to have "many interesting Muggles" on their family tree. Also, if Matilda had a Muggle(-born) or half-blood parent or grandparent, that would've "diluted" her wizarding bloodline and make her family a half-blood family, which the Weasleys are not, as of the 1890s. Remember what the Directory is stated to do, it "listed the twenty-eight truly pure-blood families" in Britain. This does not mean that they can't have half-bloods, muggle-borns or muggles on their family tree, but for her family to be truly pure-blood in the 1930s, Matilda could not have been half-blood in the 1890s. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

No, Rudolphus is correct as there is a well-established difference between pure-blood families and pure-blood extremist families - Writing by J. K. Rowling: "The Malfoy Family" at Harry Potter (website) - "From the imposition of the Statute of Secrecy onwards, no Malfoy has married a Muggle or Muggle-born. The family has, however, eschewed the somewhat dangerous practice of inter-marrying within such a small pool of pure-bloods that they become enfeebled or unstable, unlike a small minority of fanatic families such as the Gaunts and Lestranges, and many a half-blood appears on the Malfoy family tree." The Malfoys are Sacred 28 and have many a half-blood on their family tree as "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." from Writing by J. K. Rowling: "Pure-Blood" at Harry Potter (website). Only the pure-blood extremist families like the Gaunts, Lestranges, and Blacks took to only allowing pure-bloods onto their family trees. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, as I said above, half-bloods, muggle-borns and muggles can and does appear on the family tree, but I repeat, not within a certain number of generations. This well-established difference between pure-blood families and pure-blood extremist families is a complete non-sequitur, because a pure-blood family is still what a pure-blood family is regardless of their sentiments on the matter, and bottom line is that the only way Rodolphus are right is if Rowling is wrong. In order for the Weasleys to be a truly pure-blood family in the 1930s, they'd have to be a third-generation wizard or witch, so your parents and grandparents must be all-wizarding families.Maybe Matilda's four times great-grandmother was half-blood or muggle-born, but nobody earlier than that, because that would've made the Weasley a half-blood family in the 1930s, and exclude them from the directory. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Your restriction has never been in stated as applying to pure-blood families, only how to figure if an individual is pure-blood. If you want to speak for Rowling, maybe include a source instead of just your own take on the matter? --Ironyak1 (talk) 05:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

It's so frustrating (however predictable) to see that yet again, WIOK89 you've again restored that she is "without question" a pure-blood despite three people expressing some fair doubt on this. Even when Ironyak1 said very fairly above that this isn't 100% the proven case yet, of course that still isn't enough! It's the same with this and virtually every other discussion and it's tiresome and disruptive. And this isn't something I think should be tolerated.

Going back to the topic itself, perhaps to be wise, rather than unnecessarily rash and hasty, maybe we should wait to see if the game properly clarifies if she's a pure-blood member and not a possible half-blood. RedWizard98 (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

"My own take?" You think that citing an article Rowling herself wrote that affirms that the Weasleys are a pure-blood family, and that Matilda, due to the timeframe, would necessarily have to be guilty of being a pure-blood by association because of how a "pure-blood" is defined, translates to "my own take"?

RedWizard98: If she had been married in, it'd be acknowledged by now, but as you wish. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 05:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Rowling said directly - "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." Pure-blood means being against Muggle (or Muggle-born for some) marriage - marrying a half-blood does not go against this for most pure-blood families as Rowling makes clear the distinction between the Malfoys and the pure-blood fanatic families. You cannot just use the "plain meaning" here but rather have to actually go by what the author says. As for a source - you're the one claiming the multi-generation necessity as well as the notion of a "half-blood" family status. Please point to a source for either of these claims. --Ironyak1 (talk) 06:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Pure-blood means being against Muggle (or Muggle-born for some) marriage

In the context of calling oneself pure-blood supremacy, when it's used as a status symbol, that's what it means, yes, but in the context of being a pure-blood, it's means you're a third-generation wizard. I fact-checked myself, and I found that if two half-bloods had an offspring, and that offspring married a pure-blood, and theirs offspring's offspring married a pure-blood, that third-generation witch or wizard would be considered a pure-blood because the9r parents and grandparents were all wizards, whilst any Muggle or Muggle-born grandparent would've made them a half-blood, Rowling said this in an interview.

Your restriction has never been in stated as applying to pure-blood families, only how to figure if an individual is pure-blood.

I fail to see what the difference is supposed to be? For a family to be considered pure-blood, the couple both has to meet the criteria for being pure-blood, which means that their child would be pure-blood too. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk)

I was asked to prove that Matilda Weasley wasn't married into the Weasley family, and here it is. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

It's different because Rowling directly tells us it's different. Being a pure-blood family means not marrying Muggles (and Muggle-borns for some). It's a "wizards-only" statement against Muggle marriage specifically. Only some pure-blood extremist families (Gaunts, Lestranges, Blacks) take it to the extent of only marrying pure-blood individuals. Rowling directly says "The [Malfoy] family has, however, eschewed the somewhat dangerous practice of inter-marrying within such a small pool of pure-bloods that they become enfeebled or unstable, unlike a small minority of fanatic families such as the Gaunts and Lestranges, and many a half-blood appears on the Malfoy family tree." That means the Malfoys, and other families considered pure-blooded, do not restrict their marriages to only pure-blood individuals. You do not get to say "well they did that for awhile but changed this practice sometime before the Pureblood Directory was published" just so the term makes sense to you. Rowling is the author and has made the definition of what a pure-blood family means perfectly clear, so unless the family is known to be extremist pure-blood fanatics, their pure-blood family tree could contain pure-blood and half-blood individuals, but not Muggles. --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Again - no, being a pure-blood supremacist family means you won't marry Muggles or Muggle-borns, when you use the term as a status symbol, but being a pure-blood family in and of itself just means that its members meets the criteria for what it means to be a pure-blood according to said ideology. And that means, as pointed out and confirmed by Rowling herself in that link I provided, to have no Muggle/Muggle-born relatives three generation up the family tree. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Here is the primary source for what Rowling said on this matter that is referenced in your news article. She is talking about how an individual is considered a pure-blood, not how a family is. The Malfoys and the Blacks are both pure-blood families as they do not marry Muggles or Muggle-borns, but only the Blacks/Gaunts/Lestranges restrict themselves to only marry pure-blood individuals. Rowling has made this point abundantly clear regardless of what you choose to believe. --Ironyak1 (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I fact-checked myself, and I found that if two half-bloods had an offspring, and that offspring married a pure-blood, and theirs offspring's offspring married a pure-blood, that third-generation witch or wizard would be considered a pure-blood because the9r parents and grandparents were all wizards

Ironyak has already posted the correct link.
She is referring here to the Nazi theories. And not that you are automatically considered a pureblood from the 3rd generation onwards, where does it say that? I'm happy to be educated.
The Blacks are in the habit of simply deleting the "impure" members of the family from the chronicle. See Andromeda and Isla and Cedrella who were of Muggle descent or married a Muggle or a blood traitor. LG♥ Hauselfe Ayla (talk) 19:28, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

No, she's not referring to the Nazi theories, she is comparing the Nazi theories to the idea of blood status. If you read it again, what Rowling said is that "I saw one in the Holocaust Museum in Washington when I had already devised the ‘pure-blood’, ‘half-blood’ and ‘muggle-born’ definitions and was chilled to see that the Nazis used precisely the same warped logic as the Death Eaters.". That ""As far as somebody like Lucius Malfoy is concerned, for instance, a muggle-born [wizard] is as bad as a muggle. Therefore Harry would be considered only half-wizard because of his mother’s grandparents." WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, for the teaching, I was able to read the article too.
That doesn't answer my question, where does Rowling say that from 3rd generation "wizard" onwards you are considered pureblood? You did check it over, didn't you?LG♥ Hauselfe Ayla (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

She didn't explicitly say that three generations worth of wizards makes you a pure-blood, but it necessarily follows from the premise: Harry is considered as a "half-blood", as a "half-wizard" by those who subscribe to pure-blood supremacy because of how his mother's parents were Muggles. But if Lily's parents hadn't been Muggles, Harry wouldn't have been considered a half-wizard either. And what would a pure-blood supremacist call somebody who's not considered only half a wizard? A pure-blood. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 19:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

So, by implication, does that mean Harry and Ginny's children are purebloods? Aja, ok I got it, good logic.LG♥ Hauselfe Ayla (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The current way it is written in the blood status field is fine with me. I agree she is probably pure-blood. However, the details of her family situation are unknown. Ironyak pointed out Rowling's words which state that it is a political and social intent of not marrying non-magic people rather than biology itself. So a Weasley could marry a half-blood and that wouldn't "ruin" their family tree/status. It would only affect the status of an individual.

What if she had a half-blood parent? It doesn't sound like she had children of her own. What if her half-blood sibling married a pure-blood, would her nephews be considered pure-bloods? What if her nephews only married pure-bloods? Surely in that case, they'd be considered pure-bloods in the 1930s. Look at the Malfoys. They had half-bloods on their tree. Did they have a period of time where they weren't considered pure-bloods? At what point did society reaccept they were pure-bloods? Pure-bloods can marry half-bloods and still keep their status, and I've never had the impression the Weasleys were concerned enough with their blood to inter-breed. How did the writer of the Pure-Blood Directory weigh up family blood status? If the Malfoys are on it when it is known they married half-bloods, why couldn't the Weasleys have the same scenario? There are lots of questions about how blood status works that can't be known. - Kates39 (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

That actually, literally just occurred to me K. You beat me to it, but this was the response I had for Ayla:

Technically speaking, that would mean Harry and Ginny's children are purebloods, yes, because both of their parents and all four grandparents are magical. While pure-blood supremacists regard Muggle-borns to be as bad as Muggles, they generally seem to acknowledge that they themselves are not actually Muggles, since they do have magical ability and all that. However, the Pure-Blood Directory adds the extra qualifier to the families listed as being truly pure-blood, which, because Muggle-borns are as bad as Muggles in their eyes, there'd be no Muggle-born grandparents within three generations.

Which... come to think of it would mean that Matilda could conceivably be half-blood after all. The Pure-Blood Directory came out in the 1930s, around which time Matilda's nephew Garreth Weasley would've been in his mid- to late fifties. In order for the Weasleys to be seen as truly pure-blood family at the time, none of its living members at the time could have a Muggle or Muggle-born grandparent, but that would not disqualify Matilda herself from having a half-blood parent. She could be half-blood because her grandparent was a Muggle, but Garreth would be a pure-blood because his parents and all four grandparents were magical, and neither of the latter was a Muggle or Muggle-born. I retract my prior insistence that she was a pure-blood, but if you check that other link I added, I did find proof that she was born - and not married into - the Weasley family. WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

So... Can I add back the part about Matilda being born into the Weasley family? WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 23:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Born in the Weasley family

Am I the only one who doesn't like the idea of Mathilda being born into the Weasley family? Because it goes against canon from the books. Ginny was the first girl in- I think it was seven generations, I forgot, if one generation is about 30 years it can't have been seven generations between Ginny and Mathilda... Correct me if it's not seven —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fleur Gelee 22 (talk • contribs).

I knew that she was the only girl in her generation, but - where did you get it from that she was the first girl in seven generations? WeaseleyIsOurKing89 (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Her wiki page, but I just rechecked and it says several, not seven, I must've misread that —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fleur Gelee 22 (talk • contribs).

I know it's been a while but it seems that I had indeed saw seven generations somewhere, as it is in the notes of Septimus Weasley's page (https://harrypotter.fandom.com/wiki/Septimus_Weasley#cite_note-5). I'm now wondering if this is a mistake or if this was actually cited somewhere canon? Fleur Gelee 22 (talk) 17:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

https://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2007/07/28/jkrhbp3/

JKR: The backstory with Ginny was, she was the first girl to arrive in the Weasley family in generations, but there’s that old tradition of the seventh daughter of a seventh daughter and a seventh son of a seventh son, so that’s why she’s the seventh, because she is a gifted witch. I think you get hints of that, because she does some pretty impressive stuff here and there, and you’ll see that again.

There is no indication that she said "seven generations", and I will fix Septimus Weasley's page now as that's just wrong. Castlemore (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

New discussion

Hi, I thought I would start a new discussion under a new heading for a fresh start. I actually now think she should be sorted under pure-bloods since we know her family is historically pure-blood with no known non-pure-blood natural members, and she isn't said to have married into them either. RedWizard98 (talk) 22:44, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Not sure why this same discussion needs to be rehashed, but being a pure-blood family does not mean every member is a pure-blood. From Writing by J. K. Rowling: "The Malfoy Family" at Harry Potter (website): "From the imposition of the Statute of Secrecy onwards, no Malfoy has married a Muggle or Muggle-born. The family has, however, eschewed the somewhat dangerous practice of inter-marrying within such a small pool of pure-bloods that they become enfeebled or unstable, unlike a small minority of fanatic families such as the Gaunts and Lestranges, and many a half-blood appears on the Malfoy family tree." It's only the pure-blood fanatic families (Gaunts, Lestranges, Blacks) where we can assume that any individual on their family trees must be pure-blood. As the Weaselys are anything but pure-blood extremists, they could also have half-blood members, like the more pure-blood minded Malfoys, just no known Muggles or Muggle-borns by the 1930s when the Pure-Blood Directory was published (if we believe the directory is accurate - see Garrick Ollivander's mother who was a muggle-born yet the Ollivanders are still part of the Sacred Twenty-Eight). Regardless, Matilda is most likely a pure-blood or half-blood member of the pure-blood Weasley family, which is all covered in the current ref. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 02:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Recruitment of Chiyo Kogawa and Mudiwa Onai

In what quests, letters or other sources is it confirmed that it was Matilda who recruited Chiyo Kogawa and Mudiwa Onai, if it's confirmed at all? The letter Matilda wrote to Kogawa says "Marvellous news that you will be joining the faculty…", which seems to me that Matilda didn't really have the final say on who got recruited. MalchonC (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I think it comes from this. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  17:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)