Relationship with Ron Weasley
- How about we put it in the article since it isn't there? -- Kevin5593 Talk 15:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Relationship with Pomona Sprout
Maybe instead of just one Professor we could have "Hogwarts Staff" or something like that. This relationship with Pomona Sprout is not very well written.--Adumb1881 23:49, September 27, 2009 (UTC)
The relationship with Pomona is good, even i can say that is very good, because both women have the same thinks about Hogwarts, Snape and Dumbledore, and both being Head of House, they share a bit thir personality.Lestrange97 10:37, July 31, 2011 (UTC)
SPOILERS - if Pottermore revealed that Minerva is two years older than Sprout, why is Sprout's birth year 1933 and Minerva's 1935? --Adumb1881 12:50, August 22, 2011 (UTC)
What Pottermore said was that Minerva's school career overlapped Sprout's by two years. It doesn't say if Sprout is younger or older than her; so Minerva could have been in her 6th or 7th year when Sprout was in her 1st or 2nd, or vice versa. 220.127.116.11 13:37, August 22, 2011 (UTC)
Picture & parentage
Can we please change the picture? The picture is creepy..
- The one right bellow on the article would be much better. --Bluelantern 21:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Added picture of last poster of Minerva on Deathly Hallows part 2. I enjoy a lot, hope u guys too. If some1 wants to change i would appreciate it to b discussed first. Dumbeldorefan 8 June, 2011
The article says she's muggle-born but where's the evidence for this? It was never mentioned in the books (in fact, she seems to express some contempt for muggles) and I've never seen any interviews mentioning it. Metathesiophobia 18:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that she is muggle-born --Lupin & Kingsley 03:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think she's muggle-born, either. During the Muggle-Born Registration Committee, it wasn't mentioned if, and I doubt that she was, interrogated. Many Death Eaters (The Carrows, for example) and Umbridge did more than dislike and disrespect her- they probably wouldn't have hesitated to act on the excuse to throw her in Azkaban. Yet she remained at Hogwarts to protect the students during the 1997-1998 school year.
This info from Pottermore http://www.hypable.com/harry-potter/2011/07/15/live-coverage-of-pottermore-talk-at-leakycon/ makes it sound like she didn't know about her magical heritage.
New info on McGonagall. "Was the first child, and only daughter. Grew up in highlands of scotland in the early twentieth century and only gradually became aware that there was something strange, both about her own abilities and her parents' marriage. "
She is perhaps a Half-blood whose father/mother decided not to tell his/her Muggle spouse and his/her children about Hogwarts until Minerva got her letter. 18.104.22.168 05:46, July 31, 2011 (UTC)
She is Head of Gryffindor too...
Maybe someone with rollback powers can fix this page so it is in english again? Mafalda Hopkirk 13:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
"McGonagall also managed to put aside her dislike of Professor Trelawney for a time, just to undercut Umbridge's authority." It has been a time since I last readed it the chapter, but I had the impression that Minerva was true in her motives and not using some kind of manipulation.
I don't know if she ever disliked Trelawney, but I would rather it read that she didn't neccessarily believe in the art of divination and was highly skeptic of Trelawney's claim to be a "Seer", as made apparent by several of her remarks on the subject of Professor Trelawney's class to her students.
22.214.171.124 22:44, August 7, 2011 (UTC)
Was any indication given e.g. in interviews, who replaced her as head of Gryffindor when she took over as headmistress after 7? Well it is AFAIK never directly stated, the information from the books suggests that a headmistress/masters is not usually the head of a house which kind of makes sense too (to try to improve impartiallity and also because it would be better if headmistresses/masters are freer to do stuff in an emergency etc) 126.96.36.199 14:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
It isn't confirmed, but it wouldn't surprise me if Neville Longbottom became Head of House during his time as Herbology professor, as McGonagall knows he's a Griffyndor at heart, and a worthy one at that, having Godric Griffyndor's sword preseted to him and everything. User:Simen Johannes Fagerli
Whoever wrote in the "Background information and notes" section seems to forget that she was Stunned four times during Harry's OWLs, which may have contributed to her early retirement. OneWeirdDude 19:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, McGonagall only states that she has made a full recovery to Severus Snape, which the impression I got from reading was because he was shocked to see her and she was trying to show/tell him she was not easily gotten rid of whether or not she actually did make a full recovery is unknown, because Madam Pomfrey was suprised she wasn't killed on impact
- It wasn't really an early retirement,she'd already been teaching for 61 years! By 2017 (when she retired) she was 92 years old!
Shouldn't the biography section be from an in-universe perspective? The part in the 'After the War' section concerning Rowling's statements about McGonagall's retirement are stated in the Behind the Scenes section, so in AtW shouldn't we just say that she had retired by 2017? AngelQueen 15:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Why are all the pictures in this article deleted????? Iluvgracie129 15:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- They're okay for me. Probably an image caching issue. Try clearing your cache and reloading the page. - Cavalier One(Wizarding Wireless Network) 16:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, weird. When I went back to the page, they were back. Thanks anyway.
Iluvgracie129 16:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Head of Gryffindor
Does anyone no who is the head of Gryffindor house now the McGonnagall is head of hogwarts
Let me know on my talk page cheers--Dumbledore08 18:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah i wanna know what happened to Head Of Grffindor as well --Hogwarts09 09:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Probably Hagrid as far as I'm aware he is the only Gryffindor professor at Hogwarts post Second Wizarding War brodieduncan 01:07, August 5, 2011 (UTC)
Also Neville Longbottom may have become Head of Gryffindor when he became Herbology Professor pre-2017 brodieduncan 01:11, August 5, 2011 (UTC)
There are some better pictures that could be used. I think the picture of her at the yule ball would be more fitting. 188.8.131.52 08:59, April 13, 2010 (UTC)
I made an edit saying that McGonagall began teaching in December 1956. If you'd like a source;
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, American paperback edition, pg. 321:
"How long have you been teaching at Hogwarts?" Professor Umbridge asked.
"Thirty-nine years this December," said Professor McGonagall brusquely, snapping her bag shut.
I don't mean to be rude, but if anyone cared about that edit they would have asked who made it. Agent B 16:07, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
Minerva's blood status
I think it's unlikely that she's Muggle-born, as the Death Eaters allowed her to continue her teaching career at Hogwarts even when they'd taken over and sought to rid the Wizarding world of so-called Mudbloods. I personally think she's a pure-blood witch, but we don't have any firm statement regarding her blood status. Should we not, however, write in her article that she's either a pure-blood or half-blood witch? -Chogyokko
We don´t know for sure if the "no muggle policy" was also applied on muggle-born teachers.--Rodolphus 11:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
You're right, but the same rule is used in Slughorn's article. -Chogyokko
Assuming that it is a nephew/niece, that would mean she had to have had a sibling, which still technically doesn't rule out muggle born as in the case of Dennis and Collin, they are both magical and have muggle parents. --BachLynn(Accio!) 13:31, December 19, 2010 (UTC)
The Slughorn article has some speculation in it, then.--Rodolphus 11:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- Seems to be the case with a lot of articles. Still, Death Eaters attempted to recruit Slughorn several times, which reinforces the fact that he's not Muggle-born, and him being a Slytherin as well. But those are the reasons that should be listed in reference to his supposed blood status, not that he wasn't kicked out of Hogwarts when Voldemort. If that were the case, the same would apply to not only Minerva, but to Pomona and Filius, and all the other teachers.
- Don't forget that Filch was still at Hogwarts, and he's a Squib. - Nick O'Demus 11:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- I thought I would mention that, but Squibs come from Wizarding families. It's possible that he was treated harshly and like scum, but we shouldn't forget that he was just the caretaker. I don't think Death Eaters would've put many pure-bloods to wipe the floor.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chogyokko (talk • contribs).
- Lets not forget that Voldemorts rule for not permitting muggle-borns attendance to Hogwarts was to prevent the TEACHING magic to muggle-borns to stop muggle-born witchcraft and wizardry, getting rid of muggle-born teachers who already know magic would have been pointless. Patr0nus 14:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- But there was still the Muggle-born Registration Commission. Anyone Muggle-born at Hogwarts would've been shoved into Azkaban. Following that norm, Minerva McGonagall should be either half-blood or pure-blood. -Chogyokko
She can't have been a squib, because squibs cannot attend hogwarts as students. I always thought she was pure blood. 184.108.40.206 09:01, April 13, 2010 (UTC)
There's no ways that she's muggle born. She's probably pure blood, as she does not seem to have extensive knowledge of the muggle world.Agent B 16:01, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
Looks like my browser has a problem with the page, and it screwed everything up. Sorry about that. Can someone with the undo rights please help to revert my mistakes? Thanks. - Wheezyy
- Done. There seems to be a problem with the page format right now. Are you seeing some garbled text overlapping on the left side too? - Nick O'Demus 16:55, September 30, 2009 (UTC)
- Yep. But it looks alright today. Except that my username is overlapped on the community box, but much better than yesterday. Wheezyy 14:14, October 1, 2009 (UTC)
Should it be noted in the infobox that she retired sometime inbetween 2008-2017? Maybe put Headmistress (formerly as of 2017)? I think it should i just wanted to see if anyone else agrees. Ratneer 21:29, November 29, 2009 (UTC)
It's not formerly at all, as 2017 is not for another 7 years! 220.127.116.11 08:57, April 13, 2010 (UTC)
I have edited the infobox so it now says Headmistress (formerly as of 2017)Agent B 16:04, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
Is there any evidence in the books to show that McGonagall ever played seeker? She just doesn't seem the type of person who would play quidditch, if you know what I mean18.104.22.168 16:14, April 12, 2010 (UTC)
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone the movie confirms that McGonagall was indeed a seeker. In the scene where Hermione takes Harry to see the trophy with James name on it it also has M.G Mcgonagall on it. Angela Diabolica 18:42, April 22, 2010
- Not confirmed to be the same person. Besides, she couldn't have played on the same team as James Potter as she's much older than him. 22.214.171.124 15:53, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
- So basically its confirmed that she didnt play seeker. James Potter was seeker on the team on that trophy anyway. I have removed the title from the infobox.126.96.36.199 15:16, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, but there were different years on the trophy, so it could still be her.
what other family she does she have? Is there any mentioning of her relatives?Alex&Draco4evr 23:47, April 12, 2010 (UTC)Alex&Draco4evr
There's no mention of any of her family members, but she had to have parents!
Nov. 1, 1981
It was the height of the First Wizarding War and Dumbledore and Hagrid were also away from Hogwarts on missions to transfer Harry to his new home. I'd suspect classes were suspended that day in celebration of Voldemort's defeat. 188.8.131.52 21:04, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
Dumbled mentions that he'd "passed a dozen feasts and celebrations" on his way to the Dursleys, so it's likely that everything had stopped as soon as the news had come.HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 20:10, August 21, 2012 (UTC)
McGonagall comes from the Scotsman William Topaz McGonagall, who is to be considered one of the worst poets in the English language, although Rowling stated that this has nothing to do with Minerva, she only liked the surname.
Guess who's last name is McGonagall (not spelled with an -all...spelled differently)? Mine! ProfessorMcG 01:48, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
Relationship with Lee Jordan
There isn't even a mention of Lee on this page, while there definately was a relationship between those two characters. I think Lee should at least be mentioned, but I'd prefer a section abput the relationship between those two. (PS: Sorry for my bad English, I'm Dutch ;) -- Studio101 Talk 22:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
McGonagall a ghost?
Neither look transparent at all to me. The light on the top of M.M.s head is just a light reflection. Maybe I'm looking at it wrong. 184.108.40.206 20:02, April 27, 2011 (UTC)
I just watched the film again, and its actually wrong in the movie and so very clear! Bad mistake not to notice it in editing but the window in the background is clearly a visual effect added in after, possbily filmed against green screen? The layering of the editing is wrong and that is why you can see the window panes going across both McGonagall and Snape - you notice it clearer on the big screen at home! Patr0nus ( Expecto Patronum! ) 20:44, April 27, 2011 (UTC)
After Rowling's Pottermore announcement, the Leaky Cauldron has listed that "JKR is excited to include a long backstory on McGonagall - her childhood, ministry career, early heartbreak...". Should we include she was a Ministry employee before joining the Hogwarts staff, or should we wait until more confirmation? -- 11:59, June 23, 2011 (UTC)
JKR is excited to include a long backstory on McGonagall - her childhood, ministry career, early heartbreak...
- I'd say add the Ministry to her list of affiliations, but wait for more details before going into specifics. This is really exiting. Apparently Minerva was in love with a muggle during her youth. Jayden Matthews 12:07, June 23, 2011 (UTC)
I agree that we should list ministry official as a former occupation. Rowling's word is law. --Rodolphus 17:38, June 23, 2011 (UTC)
- I know, but what is the fan sites' source? It wasn't mentioned on Rowling's announcement, and they don't say where Rowling said that. -- 17:40, June 23, 2011 (UTC)
- It would explain why she is titled "Madam". -- SaXon 20:14, June 23, 2011 (UTC)
- I think they are their own source. They were given exclusive access to the site, after all. Jayden Matthews 21:43, June 23, 2011 (UTC)
- I think it would be fine to mention McGonagall worked for the Ministry before joining the faculty at Hogwarts. The reference to "early heartbreak," on the other hand, strikes me as too vague to produce anything that could be integrated into the article. We'll just have to wait until further information is revealed. ★ Starstuff (Owl me!) 06:07, June 24, 2011 (UTC)
"During Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 Filch response to Minevra is Mom"
lol... Must've been written by an American... Filch says 'Ma'am'.
It's just the accent; while he is saying "Ma'am" the accent makes it sound like he could be saying "Mom". Alkia 16:56, July 23, 2011 (UTC)
According to this article from someone who attended LeakyCon, Pottermore tells us that, just like the Sorting Hat debated putting Harry in Slytherin, it considered putting McGonagall in Ravenclaw, but she chose Gryffindor instead. This seems like very relevant information to the article. -- Parodist 04:20, August 3, 2011 (UTC)
- It also says that "Professor McGonagall’s father was a Presbyterian minister by the name of Reverend Robert McGonagall. More information about her Ministry career as well as early heartbreak will also be revealed through Pottermore. Personally, I find her lineage very interesting, and I can’t wait to learn more." -- Parodist 04:22, August 3, 2011 (UTC)
- More conflicting info on McGonagall's background drawn from various sources:
- "Another sneak peek I got was into McGonagall’s background! (She reminds me of Hermione.) -She was muggleborn. -Her father was part of the clergy in a Presbyterian congregation. -She was the best in her year. -She was a hatstall. -She experienced early heartbreak. </3" 
- "On that note, we also glimpsed McGonagall’s mysterious backstory! I was able to catch that she was the daughter of a Presbyterian minister and a witch, she did indeed play Quidditch at Hogwarts, and she fell in love with a Muggle boy. Very interesting…." 
- "McGonagall was muggle born, her father was a presbiterian priest, named Reverend Robert McGonagall." 
- A comment in response to your first source clarifies, "Actually, I think the info said that McGonagall's mom was a Hogwarts educated witch and her dad was a muggle. So she would be a half-blood. It's hard to remember though." This seems more correct, as the community has already concluded that McGonagall was either half- or pureblood, and Presbyterian minister seems much more like a Muggle career than a wizard one. I personally speculate, although I wouldn't hold myself to this, that the thing McGonagall realized about her parent's marriage was that her mother was a witch, and that the thing she learned about her own powers was that she had them in the first place. Given the attitude of the, er, greater religious community towards witchcraft in the late nineteenth/early twentieth century, it strikes me as possible that the Reverend might have wanted to hide the fact that his wife was magical. -- Parodist 13:02, August 3, 2011 (UTC)
- Another possibility is that Rev. McGonagall was a wizard who chose to live as a Muggle because he was deeply religious and couldn't reconcile magic with Biblical condemnation of witchcraft. Personally, I'd find that a lot more interesting, but the scenario you laid out (McGonagall's mom being a witch and not telling her husband) seems more likely, considering the general pattern of what JKR has done previously. ★ Starstuff (Owl me!) 01:03, August 5, 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone have a source for the details of McGongall's appearance? I know the black hair was described when Harry first meets her in PS/SS, but I cannot find any reference to either her eye colour or height.
Squibstress 18:39, August 6, 2011 (UTC)
Pottermore & dates
We all know math isn't J.K. Rowling's best subject, but the new information from Pottermore must make us reconsider some dates.
As we found out in "Order of the Phoenix," McGonagall began teaching at Hogwarts in December 1956. It's not explicitly stated that she became Transfiguration professor that year, simply that she began teaching then.
We now know from Pottermore that, after the summer following her graduation from Hogwarts, McGonagall worked at the Department for Magical Law Enforcement for two years before joining the Hogwarts faculty. BUT...it says, "The owl returned within hours, offering her a job in the Transfiguration department, under Head of Department, Albus Dumbledore."
This means a couple of things...1) McGonagall did not succeed Dumbledore as Transfiguration professor in December 1956, she became something of a junior professor/professor's assistant. 2) If she joined the Hogwarts faculty in 1956, that means she worked at the Ministry from 1954 to 1956...which means she graduated from Hogwarts in 1954...and was born circa 1936 (not 1925). The 1925 birthyear came from an interview where Jo said Dumbledore was 150 and McGonagall was 70; that Dumbledore birthyear was later "overriden" by Jo's Wizard of the Month, which showed that Dumbledore was 115 when he died -- so the credibility of the 1925 year has been lacking.
And 3) Since McGonagall didn't replace him as Transfiguration professor right away, Dumbledore didn't become Headmaster in 1956 -- which makes sense with Lupin's testimony from "Prisoner of Azkaban", that he became Headmaster when Lupin was 11 (1971). Apwbd150 21:58, August 15, 2011 (UTC)
- I've been thinking about that myself. I tend to agree with you. After all, Pottermore gives us definite and concrete time frame information, while on that interview Rowling was apparently making a rough estimate of her age from the top of her head. -- 14:10, August 16, 2011 (UTC)
JKR has stated that Minerva was born in 1925, but with the information given from Pottermore it seems as though she was born in 1935. I noticed that her birth date in the article was changed to 1935, but are we sure this is correct? Especially because Minerva was described as a "sprightly seventy year old," and therefore she would have been born c.1925. Though, if she started teaching at Hogwarts in 1956 and was at the Ministry for two years before right after graduation, then it would seem the 1935 date is correct. How can we know which year to keep in the wiki, considering we don't know whether to go by the Pottermore estimate or JKR's given date? Beccamcgonagall 02:04, August 18, 2011 (UTC)
- I think we can be fairly certain with the 1935 birth year. As I mentioned in the previous topic, in the same interview that JKR said Minerva was 70, she also said that Dumbledore was 150. She later gave Dumbledore's birth year as 1881 on her Wizard of the Month feature, which overrode the 1840-ish birth year she intimated in that interview. So, the fact that the Pottermore information is more recent and in a more organized format, I go with the 1935 year. Plus, the 1925 birth year is impossible to reconcile with her joining the Hogwarts faculty in 1956 (which we know for certain from the books). Apwbd150 02:12, August 18, 2011 (UTC)
Infobox image vote
Follow the link. Nominations are still open. Voting starts in 3 days. - Nick O'Demus 15:03, August 26, 2011 (UTC)
Conjuring / Manipulating Fire
I believe McGonagall conjured the fire from the torches in the Great Hall,to duel Snape.With that she attacked him and when they ended their duel, she moved her wand and the flames returned to the torches.If you look closely the duel scene you will notice that by the time Snape leaves Hogwarts the flames of the torches have deminished. 220.127.116.11 15:46, August 28, 2011 (UTC)
William Topaz McGonagall?
Reading one of "J.K. Rowling's thoughts" on Pottermore, I was left wondering if we should consider it canon that she was related to Sir William Topaz McGonagall, regarded as the worst poet in British history. As Rowling herself says:
- Minerva was the Roman goddess of warriors and wisdom. William McGonagall is celebrated as the worst poet in British history. There was something irresistible to me about his name, and the idea that such a brilliant woman might be a distant relative of the buffoonish McGonagall.
We tend to have Rowling's opinions and personal views about her characters canon, so would it be canon that she might be a "distant relative" of his, through her Muggle father, Robert McGonagall? --12:08, September 8, 2011 (UTC)
- I think it's fine to include this information, so long as we keep it in perspective that it's only a possibility ("idea" and "might be"), not something that's been conclusively confirmed. ★ Starstuff (Owl me!) 18:56, September 8, 2011 (UTC)
Reading Portuguese Literature?
Where is it ever said McGonagall enjoys reading Portuguese literature? Gryffindor1991 20:10, September 13, 2011 (UTC)
- Nowhere that I know of. I removed it. -- 21:02, September 13, 2011 (UTC)
Relationship with Tom Riddle
Since the release of the Pottermore info has made McGonagall 10 years younger, she would no longer have been at Hogwarts at the same time as Voldemort; he would have left two years before she started.--18.104.22.168 01:51, September 30, 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing this out. I removed the outdated paragraph. In the future, if you see something that needs to be changed on this wiki, you can easily do so by clicking the "edit" button at the top of the section. ★ Starstuff (Owl me!) 04:13, October 6, 2011 (UTC)
Page GONE! NOOO!
Where has this page gone?!?! Someone's deleted it! What will we do?? AlastorMoody 23:58, December 3, 2011 (UTC)
Redirect from Portrait of a young maiden to Minerva McGonagall
What has "Portrait of a young maiden" to do with Minerva McGonagall? This lady was presented with flowers from Sir Cadogan in the deleted scene of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. This image: File:Portrait of a young maiden.jpg is another image as the new of the young Minerva McGonagall. I think the merging is a mistake.
22:07, April 28, 2012 (UTC)
- The "portrait of a young maiden" is identified as a portrait of a younger Minerva McGonagall in The Making of Harry Potter. -- 22:15, April 28, 2012 (UTC)
- That does surprise me, because the moving picture in the above mentioned file does not look like the one that you today uploaded for me, but I can be wrong of course. 22:22, April 28, 2012 (UTC)
- It is, though. You can see it here (although you cannot see the whole label, you can get the jist of it). -- 22:59, April 28, 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for the link. I didn't find this image but I trust you and I found a lot of other images, I am very fond of. Thanks again. 12:43, April 29, 2012 (UTC)
Citatation for eye colour?
I'm still searching for a non-fanon source for the statement that McGonagall has green eyes. Given that there doesn't seem to be one--unless anyone here knows of one--would it be reasonable to either change the infobox eye colour status to "unknown" or to add a "citation needed" notation?
Squibstress 17:15, May 8, 2012 (UTC)
Minerva The Cat
Shouldn't it be a page for Minerva McGonagall's Portrait? We definetly know that it hang in the Headmaster's Office, and it would be relevant for Hogwart's 'history'.
Alright, so the article says her birthday is October 4th... The reference links to a so-called "screenshot" of her Pottermore profile. However, on Pottermore, the article about her never gives a birthdate. The way we got 1935 makes sense but October 4th does not have a reliable source. If there is a source we can link it to, we need to do that. If there isn't, we need to take it out and put "1935 or 1936". -- Allsevenbooks (Talk by Patronus!)00:34, July 12, 2014 (UTC)
- Pottermore did a huge update recently, and for some reason part of that was removing information on McGonagall. The information in the screenshot is 100% accurate: I remember it from before the site changed. Unfortunately, unless Pottermore restores the content they removed, that site is the only source we'll have. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 00:36, July 12, 2014 (UTC)
Still headmistress in 2014?
I think she'd still be headmistress now, Dumbledore was headmaser until he was 115 so I guess that wizards/witches live longer than muggles. She'd be 78 years old now (Or 88 if she was born 1925 as some think). She seem love her job so I think it's quite likey that she'd stay in service.
- Pottermore says she was born in 1935. And Rowling said in an interview that by 2017 she had retired as Headmistress, as she was getting on a bit. Remember, a lot of people were astounded that Dumbledore stayed Headmaster as long as he did, and thought he was losing his touch. Also, he only served as Head for 26 years (or 56 depending what you choose to believe; he either started in 1956 (according to this wiki) or 1971 (according to Lupin in Prisoner of Azkaban)). --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 13:34, July 17, 2014 (UTC)
Underage magic cotrol
I find no evidence in her biography that she could actually control her magic as a baby. It talks about "small signs of magic." Personally, I´d interpret it that these magical effects were triggered by her emotions. I´m imagining a little Minerva, very angry when she can´t reach a toy, triggering Accio with it.--Rodolphus (talk) 07:23, July 20, 2015 (UTC)
Cursed child information
I haven´t watched the play myself, but from what I have read, it seems that McGonagall is Hogwarts headmistress. How does fit with Rowling's earlier statement that she was retired by the time Harry's children attended? The only explanation I can think of is that she retired at a point while they attended ( at a point between late 2017 and 2026) --Rodolphus (talk) 06:55, June 13, 2016 (UTC)
- Alternatively, J. K. Rowling could simply have changed her mind. She only mentioned that McGonagall was no longer headmistress in one interview, I believe, and she has been known to change her mind from what she has said in interviews a few years down the line. Unclebulgaria1989 (talk) 07:29, June 13, 2016 (UTC)
- What exactly is the rule on the canonicity of Cursed Child? It wasn't written by JK Rowling but did have input from her, which would seem to place it as second tier canon along with the movies: Only information that doesn't contradict first tier canon counts. So surely under this wiki's rules, JK Rowling's comments on the subject would take precedence and she had still retired by 2017? Skteosk (talk) 08:02, August 7, 2016 (UTC)
- JKR has said that Cursed Child is canon, and the wiki policy states that her most recent comment on the topic supersedes her previous statements (she's done this before such as Dumbledore being 150 years old that was revised later to 115.) So while she said in 2007 that McGonagall had retired by 2017 as she was getting on a bit, that actually hasn't happened as of 2020 now. --Ironyak1 (talk) 09:36, August 7, 2016 (UTC)
Birth year - 1935 or 1925
Hullo, Kirkburn from Wikia Support here. A visitor noticed that the infobox and lead paragraph disagree about her birth year: 1925 or 1935.
Is it possible to settle on one of them? I don't have any specific info about which is correct, but wanted to flag it up in case it hadn't been noticed!
- This had been fixed (again) with a more complete explanation for the reasoning, and a message left with the user responsible for repeatedly changing it without justification. Thanks for flagging it! --Ironyak1 (talk) 15:28, August 3, 2016 (UTC)
- I'm guessing the confusion stems from the fact that a 1925 birthyear was the norm before Pottermore came along with a sturdier timeline for McGonagall (1925 came from an interview with J.K. Rowling back in 2000, around the time of publishing Goblet of Fire, in which she said McGonagall was a "a sprightly seventy" -- info which we had to take with a grain of salt because a) we didn't exactly know where to subtract 70 from and b) she said Dumbledore was 150 (which we later learned wasn't the case) in the same interview). -- 15:45, August 3, 2016 (UTC)
The article says that she was born 4 October, but this (more recent) source says 9 October. This may have already been sorted, but thought I'd check just in case.
08:27, August 5, 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, that is inconsistent with their own McGonagall fact file which has 4 Oct so likely a typo, not a revision. I've gotten a reply by Twitter before - let me see if I can again. --Ironyak1 (talk) 15:10, August 5, 2016 (UTC)
When did that ever happen in the books or movie?
Harry spots her in a Muggle dress at 12 Grimmauld Place in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix during his first stay there. Unfortunately, I don't have the English edition of the book.--Rodolphus (talk) 13:34, August 24, 2016 (UTC)
- Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Chapter 6 (The Noble and Most Ancient House of Black) states "he also caught sight of his Transfiguration teacher, Professor McGonagall, looking very odd in a Muggle dress and coat, though she also seemed too busy to linger." --Kates39 (talk) 13:57, August 24, 2016 (UTC)
Why Does Filch Seem To Call Minerva "Mum"?
After Filch is yelling about students out of bed, Minerva calls him a blithering idiot, and unless my ears deceive me, he says: "Sorry, mum."
- It is accent/slang. It isn't "mum", it's "ma'm", as in madam. Ninclow (talk) 15:57, March 11, 2018 (UTC)
Wrong date implied from Tales of Beedle the Bard reference in bio
What is the reasoning behind suggesting that McGonogall gave permission to Hermione to translate The Tales of Beedle the Bard in 2020? Shouldn't it be 2008 when the real book was published? I feel like it would have been a more relevant plot point in the Cursed Child then in that case.
- Well-spotted! That stems from a sloppy edit post-Cursed Child; the paragraph originally read 2008. I've fixed it now. Thanks for pointing it out. -- 03:21, October 26, 2018 (UTC)
At least some content in this article is derived from information featured in Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald. As such, spoilers will be present within the article.
- Hi there! Sorry for sounding silly with the following comment: I wanted to check the question raised above, but I'm confused, because when I Googled, all the results (from various websites) just keep saying "Warner Bros. released the full credits/cast list for Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald" without actually providing any links to this statement (if there are links, it's Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald related, like where to buy tickets, not the actual source of this statement.) So where or how exactly did Warner Bros. release this said info? On SnitchSeeker.com it's even very specific and should have been helpful:
The full cast list can be found under the second cut, and this is done specifically as it is listed in ORDER OF APPEARANCE (which would spoil when a character were to appear on screen).
- But I'm like, what second cut? Like where am I looking for this said second cut? Super confused. Yes, the page above lists out the apparent cast, but I'd just like to see it coming from WB, does anyone know if it's possible? --Sammm✦✧(talk) 00:05, November 4, 2018 (UTC)
- Huh... Either our timeline is really off, or JK are retconning McGonagall's age to make her closer to Newt's age. (Granted we don't see a young Minerva at Hogwarts, I now half-expect her to pop up in the Ministry of Magic. With Torquil Travers as head of MLE, I suspect there would be an atmosphere of pure-blood bias indeed, just like the one Minerva's bio described. Maester Martin (talk) 00:51, November 4, 2018 (UTC)
- The only thing I can pinpoint is that, what's absolute:
- "Finally, after two years at the Ministry, she was offered a prestigious promotion, yet found herself turning it down. She sent an owl to Hogwarts, asking whether she might be considered for a teaching post. The owl returned within hours, offering her a job in the Transfiguration department, under Head of Department, Albus Dumbledore."
- —The passage the HPW calculation seemed to be basing on[src]
- It did not, however say, when she actually started the said job. It said the offer (a job in the Transfiguration department) was known to her within hours after her asking for consideration, but I don't think we know the exact time span between "her getting the offer" and "her starting to teach". I think the calculation is assuming she took up the post immediately after she got the response, which may not necessarily be true. (I'm not saying it's not true, I'm saying odd as it may be, she could have decided to take a break and travel around the world first or whatever unlikely scenario for whatever duration we don't know, and then start teaching.)
- There's also the fact that the passage said "a job", which, also does not necessarily equate to a teaching post, and the "Thirty-nine years this December," used for the calculation, is to answer Umbridge's specific question "How long have you been teaching at Hogwarts?" I don't know if I'm over thinking this, but, while Minerva asked to be considered for "a teaching post"; does "offering her a job in the Transfiguration department, under Head of Department, Albus Dumbledore." absolutely mean the "job" he got is a "teaching" one? Because if not, then who knows how long she was doing this "not teaching" job before actually teaching?
- It don't sound stupid at all. Also - Hogwarts a school, with more than a thousand students, so it would make sense for McGonagall to be one of several teachers in a subject. I don't quite see what other prupose or function McGonagall would realistically serve as part of the Transfiguration department if she wasn't teaching. Maester Martin (talk) 02:59, November 4, 2018 (UTC)
Speculation aside, I think I finally understood what I previously didn't with the "second cut" comment and I feel absolutely silly. I think it simply meant the 2nd [show/hide] thing within the article, which I personally find the wording completely unnecessarily misleading, simply saying "below" would have sufficed, for I believe most people have eyes and can read "SPOILER!!: Fantastic Beasts 2 cast list." with a "show" button right next to it, I had no problem looking at the list, it was the instruction/statement that got me confused. I thought it was indicating where they got the list, instead, it is additional note on how they listed what they found. So it's back to square one. Why do people say "Warner Bros. released the full credits" without providing any source other than them saying so? --Sammm✦✧(talk) 07:26, November 5, 2018 (UTC)
Okay, just dawned on me that the spell she cast was in fact a charm and not a transfiguration, like I for a moment thought it were - but why on earth do you have to keep insisting what I add to articles are speculative when it clearly isn't? The Head of Hogwarts is tasked with upholding its defences, and all I said was that when she occupied the position, she also did that thing that - you know, is established in canon and acknowledged by this very wiki to be part of the job description?
Oh, btw: If Minerva McGonagall can have "healing magic" on her abilities and skills section, but not the other head of houses despite the fact that all four worked together to restore the leg? It makes no difference "who did what", they restored/mended a magically separated limb, they mended an injury, and it was a collaborated effort. What exactly is the problem? Maester Martin (talk) 20:31, November 3, 2018 (UTC)
- So you have a single example or any reference for her maintaining the magical protections around the school after the Battle of Hogwarts? Or perhaps things were done differently after the fall of Voldemort. It's again unknown as we are not told.
- As for healing magic, all the line from Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter 18 (Birthday Surprises) says is "The Heads of House converged on her; there was a great bang and a puff of purple smoke, which cleared to reveal Susan sobbing, reunited with her leg but looking horrified." Maybe they all helped, maybe just one of them handled the magic and the others just blocked the view of the other students. It's entirely unclear so should not be presumed. --Ironyak1 (talk) 22:36, November 3, 2018 (UTC)
Do you disagree that Minerva McGonagall occupied the position of Headmistress of Hogwarts? If yes, I will happily provide sources, if no, then there should be no problem with it being there, because as the wiki itself acknowledges, its a part of the job. Technically speaking, I can't add anything you don't want there because you're an admin and all, but there have been several instances of special pleading going on lately, and it's getting kind of old. Maester Martin (talk) 23:31, November 3, 2018 (UTC)
- So again, you don't have a single example or reference for McGonagall doing this task after the Battle of Hogwarts? Just because things were handled one way under Dumbledore does not mean everything works the same for McGonagall. To say so is presumption and speculation. I agree, having to repeat this again and again is getting quite old. Please provide a reference or don't add it. --Ironyak1 (talk) 23:38, November 3, 2018 (UTC)
Heh, nice way of twisting my words around to make me look like an idiot. Pretending to agree with someone while saying something completely different. Classic. Anyway, I don't remember if it was me or somebody else who added that Phineas Nigellus Black and Armando Dippet both presumably would've been good with defensive charms considering they were heads of Hogwarts, (without it being a problem because it's treated as part of the job), should that be removed too? Maester Martin (talk) 23:50, November 3, 2018 (UTC)
In Scene 64 of Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald, a young Minerva McGonagall was a teacher in c. 1910 (Leta was 13 years old) and 1927. Except she has a determined timeline from both the book and pieces Rowling wrote for Pottermore, which states she was born in 1935 and began teaching in 1956. I mean, what the hell Rowling? (please excuse my language, but I don't get why she has done this.) It cannot be another Minerva McGonagall because she was given her first name in memory of her maternal grandmother who was not a McGonagall, and it specfically states it was "a young Minerva McGonagall".
I vote that this be treated in the way of an error, and be noted in Behind the Scenes. The evidence in support of the 1935 birth date outweighs this error and should not be forgotten or changed. It changes too much for her personal timeline, and the timeline overall. Rowling needs to fix this one right away, otherwise I think she's lost the plot. :) - Kates39 (talk) 18:47, November 16, 2018 (UTC)
- But we already know that film canon is different from book canon, and the fact that Rowling published her screenplay is mostly a technicality. It’s enough to state the facts (one Minerva McGonagall was a professor back then) and not change the book canon version unless a revision is later confirmed by Rowling. --PreviouslyOn24 (talk) 20:59, November 16, 2018 (UTC)
- I have saw this explanation a few times - that it's somehow only film canon and not book canon and I have to strongly object to that perception. This is not the same as the making of the Harry Potter films. J.K. Rowling is simply using another medium to tell HER story. Everything she writes is new information about her own world, the highest canon (otherwise what's the point tbh. not much point even trying to invest in this story if it's not true canon in the Harry Potter books. Kind of takes away from this world a lot if it's not book canon). Rowling has wrote this. This is not someone's else adaptation of her work. - Kates39 (talk) 21:11, November 16, 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, but then again, she could be using the change in medium to streamline aspects of her canon. Sure, the general idea is to keep the stories in sync, but if there is an opportunity to connect with prior films at the cost of one line from a book and some Pottermore info… well, it’s still Rowling, just in a more collaborative medium. Remember, it has always been traditional for films to deviate from published source material, even when the original author is involved. The Star Wars/MCU model is comparatively recent and rare. --PreviouslyOn24 (talk) 21:45, November 16, 2018 (UTC)
- I don't believe 1935 was ever specified on Pottermore, otherwise it would be noted by this wiki, Tatsuyo. 1935 is derived by this wiki from that "teaching for 39 years" reference by Minerva in Order of the Phoenix then comparing it against the biography on Pottermore. That said, I wouldn't take it against her to edit that 39 years line in a future edition of Order of the Phoenix.
Unless I missed an interview somewhere we do not know this was Minerva McGonagall. We know that Minerva came from a powerful magical family (on one side). I found it either very odd or very significant that we did not have the extra 3 seconds of Albus addressing her as "Minerva." That would seal the deal. I also don't think the J.K. would blow the canon for a pretty-much throw-away segment. It would have been just as significant if it was Slughorn imposing order. Note that on Pottermore, J.K. says that Minerva's grandmother was an "immensely powerful witch." "An immensely powerful witch" who also taught at Hogwarts? I think we will get the answer in a couple days, but I am not willing to say that this was Minerva, ... yet. Wva (talk) 22:21, November 16, 2018 (UTC)
- It may seem farfetched, but whilst perhaps Minerva McGonagall was named after her Grandmother, so was her mother, in turn making it possible for there to be another "Minerva", just one that would fit better in to the timeline of the movie. With so many fans asking questions, I think JKR will have to answer to them, and eventually we'll get a correct answer. For now, I'd propose to put this under the BTS section. Cheers, 23:08, November 16, 2018 (UTC)
Just so we're all on the same page (rim-shot ;) the 1935 date has been CALCULATED from these statements:
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Chapter 15 (The Hogwarts High Inquisitor) (1995) "“How long have you been teaching at Hogwarts?” Professor Umbridge asked. “Thirty-nine years this December,” said Professor McGonagall brusquely, snapping her bag shut."
This puts her start of teaching in 1995 - 39 = 1956. This alone runs against Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald - The Original Screenplay, Scene 64 which is in 1927: "TRAVERS, THESEUS, and four other AURORS enter, YOUNG MINERVA MCGONAGALL behind them. [...] DUMBLEDORE (to the students) Go with Professor McGonagall, please."
So somehow she is a Professor in 1927, but has only been teaching since 1956 according to her statement to Umbridge?
Calculating back to her birthday in 1935 comes from Writing by J.K. Rowling: "Professor McGonagall" at Pottermore: "Upon graduation from Hogwarts, Minerva returned to the manse to enjoy one last summer with her family before setting out for London, where she had been offered a position at the Ministry of Magic (Department of Magical Law Enforcement). These months were to prove some of the most difficult of Minerva’s life, for it was then, aged only eighteen, that she proved herself truly her mother’s daughter, by falling head-over-heels in love with a Muggle boy. [...] She left him devastated, and set out for London three days later. [...] Finally, after two years at the Ministry, she was offered a prestigious promotion, yet found herself turning it down. She sent an owl to Hogwarts, asking whether she might be considered for a teaching post. The owl returned within hours, offering her a job in the Transfiguration department, under Head of Department, Albus Dumbledore. [...] The school greeted Minerva McGonagall’s return with delight. Minerva threw herself into her work, proving herself a strict but inspirational teacher."
So if you take the 2 years at the Ministry, the 7 at Hogwarts, and the 11 of her age when she started, you get 20 years back from 1956 to 1936 (1935 comes from her October birthdate as she was nearly 12 when starting Hogwarts). Her timeline was written so specifically without any gaps or vague wording such as "joining Hogwarts" but not as teacher, etc, it's hard to imagine where an extra 40+ years come into play so she can be running after Leta around 1910 (making Minerva born ~1890 at the latest).
Note this math was convincing enough that the [HP Lexicon] adopted it from the wiki and wrote an article about it. The HPL highlights that Rowling gave other contrasting information previously in an interview as well.
I don't have a solution as to how to reconcile this (Minerva was straight up lying to Umbridge?); however, JKR's word is law and the newest material is higher canon than the older so I hope JKR takes the time to explain it soon. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 23:48, November 16, 2018 (UTC)
- For people who think "1935" is "absolute", please consider reading what's posted in section #COG timestamped "02:30, November 4, 2018" (use browser find option to located it.) I do not think the two given information are without leeway for other interpretations, but that's just me.
- --Sammm✦✧(talk) 01:07, November 17, 2018 (UTC)
- To clarify a little, the "The school greeted Minerva McGonagall’s return with delight. Minerva threw herself into her work, proving herself a strict but inspirational teacher." quoted above, was under a different heading "Friendship with Albus Dumbledore", as opposed to "Ministry Career", the one about getting a promotion, turning it down, and asking if she could join Hogwarts. Strictly speaking, the timespan between the statements from "Ministry Career" and "Friendship with Albus Dumbledore" is technically also unclear, though it is understandable to assume not much time has past, but I don't think it's a fact without wiggle room.
- Just my personal opinion, but I think JKR may have envisioned Minerva to be older than what most people here believed her to be. Should Minerva be envisioned to be born at 1935, the sentence "Minerva McGonagall did not teach the young Tom Riddle" under heading "Voldemort’s First Rise", to me seemed a little unnecessarily ambiguous. I mean, should we take Voldie being born in "1926" as a fact, then obviously someone born in 1935 would not have been able to teach him, short of being some sort of genius and finished school+worked in the ministry thus capable of teaching someone almost a decade older. Providing that sentence to readers who may have not gone through all those calculations, to me, feels like implying that Minerva could have taught him (and thus, has to be older than Tom to do so,) but just didn't. Again, that's just me.
- Also, I am very interested to know, how, prior to this edit Minerva's page had her birth year stated as "1925" for the longest time. How did gaining new insight and knowing she had worked additional years elsewhere make her birth year calculation pushed back 10 years latter? Like, how did people first get "1925" and was okay with that?
- Overall, I think it's safe to assume she has to be born prior to 1935 so that if she took the job immediately (that happened to be a teaching one;) nothing would be contradictory; and should she not have taken the job right away, or the said job is not about teaching, then she could have been born earlier than 1935. 1935 looks like the latest year she definitely has to be born by; but not necessarily the year she is in fact born in. If that makes any sense. lol --Sammm✦✧(talk) 03:23, November 17, 2018 (UTC)
- While I can agree with this, I'm not sure how it helps. The problem is that she needs to be teaching for 39 years in 1995 by her own admission. If she took a long break between her Ministry job and returning to Hogwarts to teach, this would still have to happen before 1910 as she is "Professor McGonagall" when chasing after Leta (scene 67). So again, she is teaching in 1910 but only accumulates 39 years of teaching by 1995, meaning she missed 46 of teaching in that period something that is never hinted at in her PM bio. Actually it is stressed how much she dedicated herself to Hogwarts - ("Through all her early years at Hogwarts", "small cottage in Hogsmeade for the pair of them, whence Minerva could travel easily to work every day.", "Known to successive generations of students as 'Professor McGonagall'", " Minerva could not bear to remain alone in their cottage, but packed her things after Elphinstone’s funeral and returned to her sparse stone-floored bedroom in Hogwarts Castle [...] Always a very brave and private person, she poured all her energies into her work" None of this points to either multiple decade long breaks or taking every other year off. Obviously something doesn't add up. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 02:00, November 18, 2018 (UTC)
- Oh oops; I guess I should have emphasized that regardless, something would still not add up. I was more focused on the part where, if going with the previous calculations (born in 1935), she literally is stated to not have been born yet when the film took place; I thought that was a bigger problem than the accuracy of the number of years she taught in Hogwarts, hence the post was more about pitching to fix the statement to born before 1935; while not fixing much and still having other issues, it'd at least dodge an obvious one: "What do you mean she's born in 1935? She's already present and titled as Professor back in the 1910s!" If that makes any sense. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 02:56, November 18, 2018 (UTC)
With all due respect, Sammm, to be, it looks like you are grasping for straws with this one.To be honest, I think Rowling simply did the unredeemably stupid decision of disregarding her own canon for the sake of fan service. Kind of like - "she is born prior to 1935 - but not really", type of thing. Maester Martin (talk) 04:28, November 18, 2018 (UTC)
I get your pain, Sammm. The truth is, I think J.K. probably wasn't going to let herself be restrained by one line of dialogue in Order of the Phoenix in spreading out McGonagall's backstory a bit more. There's probably a reason why she never mentioned McGonagall's birth year. Kingsman28 (talk) 16:21, November 18, 2018 (UTC)
So... about fantastic beasts....
What in the WORLD have they done?!
Because if she's at LEAST 30 in CoG... that would make her at LEAST 100 in DH.
I mean, it's plausible, but geez.
I think the Mods of this site need to do something about what information we are going to consider is canon and what is not. Like there is SO MUCH CONFLICTING information because of FBWTFT. I honestly think that there needs to be an established hierarchy of what is canon and what is not. Either something Chronological (canonical power in the following order: HP Books, HP Movies, Dumbledore sexuality interview, Pottermore, tweets, Cursed Child, Fantastic beast) or, some other hierarchy but like this is something that is very needed, because there is a bunch of new information that is going to change underlying truths of the books that I don't think should be altered. or they should have their own section such as "Fantastic Beast continuity" Alchemist1330 (talk) 23:46, November 17, 2018 (UTC)
- So there is a Harry Potter Wiki:Canon policy that places Rowling's writings as the highest canon. The trouble is that Rowling wrote Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald - The Original Screenplay so the inclusions of a YOUNG MINERVA MCGONAGALL is on the same level as all her other writings involved here. For now, there is plenty of discussion going on although to try and resolve the problem, but I for one are hoping JKR will address this directly in the near future. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 00:36, November 18, 2018 (UTC)
My brain honestly hurts and to be honest, I literally can't trust Rowling anymore. This has got to be the largest error to Canon I've ever faced.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by RoseRomola (talk • contribs).
Perhaps that's a different McGonagall that wasn't related to her. Mike 05:17, November 18, 2018 (UTC)
- Personally I think this error changes far too much, and an exception needs to be made to the "the last thing Rowling said, beats everything else she wrote and said" rule. She's made an error to established canon and that should be stated, not certified. I have a feeling though that she will have to address the problems Fantastic Beasts has caused established canon soon, because the reviews from both critics and fans have been negative or mixed. It's the main thing about the film that is being talked about in media outlets at the moment, and McGonagall is the number one thing they mention. But an admin needs to make their mind up about what to do in the meantime based on what people want and how big this impacts established canon, and they need to make a rule about it soon otherwise this will be talked about to the death. Her part was not important anyway, and mentioning it in Behind the Scenes should be good enough because of the problem.
- Anyway, I am seeing a lot of people attempting to excuse the problem, and I want to say a few things - this IS Harry Potter book canon, not film canon. Rowling has wrote it, it is intended to be book canon, end of. And this is the McGonagall who taught Harry, not another Minerva McGonagall (Minerva got her name from her maternal grandmother, not paternal anyway. Her surname came from her Muggle father). The book made it clear and defined her as "a young Minerva McGonagall". Rowling has confused canon and attempted to change something set in stone (whether she intended to or not), and she shouldn't because it's unnecessary for a start. So I think we need to stop debating ways to excuse it, and confront the actual problem, and hope Rowling makes a good statement about it ASAP. - Kates39 (talk) 17:51, November 18, 2018 (UTC)
- The central tenant of the wiki's policy is Rowling's Word is Law. As such, we don't choose which information to accept and which not to. I've been holding off on making any changes to see if anyone here (or in discussions elsewhere) can find a reasonable interpretation to reconcile the information given or for Rowling to address this directly. I have not seen either. Ultimately this isn't the first time Rowling has retconned previously given information (Dumbledore originally being 150 comes to mind), although this appears to be a more grievous change given the "39 years teaching" comes from the novels. not an interview. However given that JKR said for FB that Newt could not accio his creatures back as you can't accio living things, yet in COG it's 'Accio Niffler' not once but twice, consistency does not seem to a major concern for her lately? --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:18, November 18, 2018 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I don't think you will find the reasonable interpretation you are hoping to find, because it's too much of a contradiction (again) that is very confusing and impossible to reconcile with established canon. I think it's wrong to simply discredit every other piece of information because of an error, and begin acting as though Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix was wrong.
- A part of me has always found the "Rowling's Word is Law" thing to be faulty - it has pros and cons and perhaps a revision that notes it's limitations and refines what it means, should be made because it's confusing, and changing the information on Minerva's page, throwing other information to side and saying oh well, is the same to me as choosing which information we want, because Rowling isn't a perfect writer, however much we love her work. - Kates39 (talk) 19:18, November 18, 2018 (UTC)
I second that Kates. This contradiction in particular is such that I think that in the interest of logical coherence and chronological accuracy, to avoid unnecessary canonical confusion, we should leave the article as it is until we know more. Maester Martin (talk) 19:44, November 18, 2018 (UTC)
This is obviously another "Marcus Flint", owing to JKR's admitted weakness in math. With the script and movie out, though, at this point she will probably just have to retcon the backstory of McGonagall she wrote that indicates she was born in 1935. AsianAvatar101 (talk) 20:58, November 20, 2018 (UTC)
- If it's of interest, the Doctor Who Wiki has lots of precedents for similar situations of conflicting information of equal canonicity. Their solution is to use "according to another account…" type language in the body of the article — stating both versions as equal possibilities, without trying to suggest that one is superior to the other or that the two can be reconciled. --Scrooge MacDuck (talk) 22:20, November 20, 2018 (UTC)
- Or simply start the article with Prior life (before 1935) --PreviouslyOn24 (talk) 15:03, November 21, 2018 (UTC)
- I edit on a wiki about My Little Pony, which is absolutely horrendous with internal chronology and continuity (to the point where a certain character has been a toddler, teenager and adult all at the same time thanks to conflicting storylines). What we've done is we use a template that notes that the current section is non-canon/contradictory with other sources. The Metal Gear Solid wiki does something similar too.--Darkanine: The Dork of Steel (T/C) 23:07, November 25, 2018 (UTC)
- Or simply start the article with Prior life (before 1935) --PreviouslyOn24 (talk) 15:03, November 21, 2018 (UTC)
There needs to be a note for continuity for the books and the most recent film. Right now, the credits it seems say its Minerva, while it was implied a McGonagall worked there. This is a massive retcon since JK Rowling wrote the screenplay. — MechQueste talk 23:32, November 25, 2018 (UTC)
Has anybody thought of / already suggested somewhere that we just make a new page (Minerva McGonagall (early 20th Century) or something) with a link to it from somewhere on this page and a note in that one saying something like that it's very possible that they're supposed to be the same person but that this hasn't yet been officially confirmed in canon? The precedent for this sort of thing that I can think of is from Wikipedia, for example for certain names mentioned in the bible, which may or may not refer to the same people mentioned by the same or similar names in other books of the bible; they have separate pages with known or extrapolated information known about each person listed on their own page in case they're different people, rather than attempting to put together a unified timeline. ADJD (talk) 13:31, November 26, 2018 (UTC)
It is possible that this McGonagall is a relative whom Minerva is named after. Although the McGonagalls are muggles, muggles have been known to have muggle-born relatives.--NarendraMartosudarmo (talk) 09:40, December 10, 2018 (UTC)
The 1935 is a dead assumption.
People have took that as gospel, when it was only based on the assumption we knew everything about McGonagall's life and/or she was telling the truth about her Hogwarts tenure time. The assumption was wrong, so therefore the guestimate was too.
Rowling and the books infer she was much older than just 50s/60s (which isn't even old by Muggle standards, let alone wizards and witches who have a much longer life expectancy. Despite this, JKR and the books talk about her as if she was old. Pesa123456789 (talk) 16:00, November 26, 2018 (UTC)
- It wasn't an assumption, it was based on math:
- We know from the second book that Harry, Ron and Hermione attended the five-hundredth Deathday Party of Nearly Headless Nick, and his year of death was established to be 1492.
- 1492 + 500 = 1992.
- Book 5 takes place 3 years later. In that book, McGonagall tells Umbridge she had taught at Hogwarts for 39 years.
- 1995 - 39 = 1956.
- According to Pottermore, after McGonagall left school at 17, she worked two years at the Ministry of Magic before applying for a job at Hogwarts. That means she was 20/21 when she began teaching at Hogwarts, I believe she began teaching in Deember, so 21 - she's born in October, isn't she?
- 1956 - 21 = 1935.
- It isn't an assumption, it is math. Rowling just disregards her own canon for the sake of a silly little fan service in the new movie. Also, the only people who talk about McGonagall being old is Harry and other students, who are essentially kids. So - yeah, I can see how 60 year olds seem old to them Maester Martin (talk) 16:42, November 26, 2018 (UTC)
Actually, McGonagall's age is very rarely implied. Her first appearance on the wall outside the Dursleys, she's described as 'severe-looking' and 'with black hair tied up in a tight bun'. Whereas Dumbledore is explicitly mentioned to be old, she isn't (understandably, as according to canon she is only in her mid-forties at this point). Her physical descriptions later only ever refer to her as looking stern and the way she ties her hair up (and it's significant that her hair is black - if she was meant to be older it would surely be grey).
The only time I can recall that anyone refers to her age is when she's attacked by Umbridge's Aurors. Hermione says, 'She's not exactly young, is she?' and Madam Pomfrey says something like 'Four Stunners at her age!' But I think that makes sense. McGonagall is around 60 at this point, and even if that's not exactly old, it's old enough that a very violent attack is more likely to have lasting consequences than a violent attack on someone a bit younger.
I really think this assumption of her being elderly is just in relation to Maggie Smith's performance. Lots of other characters are described as being elderly (Professor Grubbly-Plank, for instance, who has significantly fewer appearances) and McGonagall isn't.
Wrong on both counts. Maester, you're wrong because it is an assumption. JKR has NEVER said "the information you have is complete", therefore it's a fan made conclusion based only on the limited info we do have. That is an assumption. You can use maths all you want, but maths without all the facts is meaningless. It's like adding up the total number of guests at an event before they've all arrived. You're also wrong that the only people who reference her age are kids; Pomfrey says it too. Grow up and work out the reasoning instead of idly complaining, because it makes you look neither edgy or intelligent.
George, 60 isn't even old by muggle standards, let alone wizards who live an extra 30-40 years on average. At 60, she'd be relatively young and Snape has shown that a similar barrage he suffered only knocked him out because of being knocked back into something. Once he was revived, he was walking around that same night as if nothing happened. But when McGonagall got hit, she was hospitalized for days and even after leaving, was still on a walking stick! That's a much more dramatic impact, suggesting she really was enfeebled by great age. So her being 90-100 is much more likely as she'd be in the last 20-30 years of life.
When someone says "at her age", the implication is that they're old and enfeebled. In '07, she even said that McGonagall would be "getting on a bit" in 2017... an 82 year old is getting on a bit for wizards? Nope. Elphias, Dumbledore, Bathilda, Marchbanks, Muriel, Newt and I could go on and on... were all well over 100 and alive. If a film prop is anything to go by, average life expectancy is 137. An 82 year old would be the equivalent of a middle aged muggle, and nobody considers 50ish year old as old. Either way, the books show and JKR has said that they live much longer lives.
- Thank you, George. :-)
- Firstly, Rowling has not addressed McGonagall's presence in the Crimes of Grindelwald, or otherwise accounted for the apparent retcon in any shape or form. Adding it to the article before we know more would be premature. Secondly - Rowling changing her mind after establishing a canon timeline don't magically turn fact into assumptions, Pesa. When Rowling put McGonagall's name in that script, she essentialy sacrificed her integrity as an author for the sake of fan service, and no number of, for a lack of a better term, "after-the-fact apologetics", will change that. Sixty-something might not be old by wizard or Muggle standard, but don't try to deny that a thirty year old in a reasonably good health can take a hit better than someone in their sixties in a reasonably good health. It is also a false equivalence, seen as Snape was struck by three disarming charms, which merely threw him into the wall. McGonagall was struck by four stunning spells, designed to knock someone unconcious. How that spell work is not clear, but it stands to reason that multiple spells aimed at knocking you out cold would do more damage than multiple spells aimed at making you lose your wand. "At her age" does in no way suggest she is particularily old, it suggest that relative to the harm potentially caused by several stunning spells, she was old enough to suffer greater injury than she would if she was a bit younger. Also - neither Elphias, Dumbledore, Bathilda, Marchbanks, Muriel or Newt were ever struck by four stunning spells as far as canon information goes, meaning neither suffered from whatever aftereffects there might be from that later on in life.
- I don't aim to look either edgy nor intelligent, I aim to see to it the articles on the wikia are as accurate as possible. To that end, I consider all the facts available to us - in context. Have a nice weekend. :-) Maester Martin (talk) 23:50, January 24, 2019 (UTC)
Obscuring all dates
Since the page history indicates that a number of members aren't happy with leaving 1935 be until Rowling has clarified just how much needs to be changed and where, I've initiated the mass action of moving beyond mere lip service (such as the back-and-forth of whether 1935 needs to be in the infobox) and deleting the date everywhere and all the related calculations and assumptions in all articles. Hopefully the impasse will thus be resolved with a simple "both sides agree that we just don't know for sure, so let's not say anything until we do". PreviouslyOn24 (talk) 17:06, February 6, 2019 (UTC)
- Why can't we say both things? The section on her early life would be structured in two parts, something like "According to one account, Minerva McGonagall was already a grown woman teaching at Hogwarts in the late 1920's, when… (…) According to another account however, McGonagall was born in 1935 and only started teaching at Hogwarts…".
- It's how this kind of problem where two contradictory statements are equally canonical is usual handled on other Wikis. --Scrooge MacDuck (talk) 17:54, February 6, 2019 (UTC)
Because strictly speaking there are no two accounts, only a) the reasonable calculation of 1935 matching (roughly) an old and possibly obsolete Rowling interview quote b) a massive contradiction of it in the film series, which as a whole has never been as canon as the books. So let’s just remove the uncertain dates and keep the basic bio, the facts everyone can agree upon regardless of source. --PreviouslyOn24 (talk) 20:46, February 6, 2019 (UTC)
- Fair enough, but as far as we’re concerned, the Fantastic Beasts movie scripts are every bit as canon as the novels. Not their filmed selves, mind you; maybe McGonagall doesn't appear in the relevant print script. But I doubt it.
- And while the birth date per se is theorizing, I am pretty sure that at some point in OotP McGonagall states that she's been working at Hogwarts for — I think it was 39 years? — which still conflicts with the Crimes of Grindelwald cameo already having her as a Professor. --Scrooge MacDuck (talk) 20:49, February 6, 2019 (UTC)
Unlike a novel, a script is nothing but an internal tool for making a movie (though scripts are often published as tie-in products), so it doesn’t make sense to split hairs and draw any kind of meaningful line between the script and the finished film. Either the movie is fully canon or Rowling allowed herself and others liberties because the film series never said anything about the 39 years, which is the simplest explanation here. And then she could come up with a creative retcon such as 39 years in two installments, because the evidence for the latter isn’t overwhelming; the quote could even be changed in later reprints. However, what makes the most sense is that films are already their own continuity, giving Rowling the freedom to change a few things without necessarily impacting the books. --PreviouslyOn24 (talk) 21:19, February 6, 2019 (UTC)
- The script (for the first one at least) has been sold in libraries as a product of its own, so it's clearly more than a behind-the-scenes tool in this instance.
- Either way, I don't make the rules, y'know. Check out this Wiki's canon policy. It's right there in black and white that the Fantastic Beasts scripts are considered more canonical than the finished movies (because they come directly from J.K. Rowling, whereas anything in the movies that's not in the scripts is presumably someone else).
- And there are a few places where the script has contradicted the movies, and we've accordingly gone with the script. For example, the first script mentions Grindelwald as having blue eyes and says nothing about weird mismatched Mr Teatime eyes. Therefore Grindelwald doesn't canonically have a weird left eye 'far as we're concerned.
- Your personal views (and, indeed, mine) are irrelevant here. We need to abide by the Wiki's canon policy, and it is that the Fantastic Beasts films are canonical to us in the same continuity as the books, insofar as they don't contradict the scripts directly penned by Rowlings — much like we don't see the original HP movies as their own continuity, but rather as alternate, distorted accounts of the events from the books, such that movie info that contradicts the relevant book is non-canonical, but if the movies add something, we accept that thing as canon. --Scrooge MacDuck (talk) 21:25, February 6, 2019 (UTC)
But this canon policy is just the Wiki’s own: it’s not like Rowling has written extensively and precisely on “canon law”. There are fans who may rewatch the movies but not necessarily reread the books, and now that it’s the films adding material and creating anticipation for more, the original eight can no longer be seen as merely “alternate, distorted accounts”: Rowling has to write scripts with the final product in mind (she isn’t free to think only of the novels), and the final product has to match the previous films. Either way, though, it doesn’t change the need to stick to undisputed facts regardless of source, hence the removal of dates based on the calculated 1935. --PreviouslyOn24 (talk) 22:21, February 6, 2019 (UTC)