In the latest book, Harry is called a “mudblood” (or something similar). But both of Harry’s parents were magical. Doesn’t that make him “pure”?
His mother was a “mudblood”, and therefore Harry isn’t really part of any “pure” wizqrding family. Not in the way the Malfoys are.
Johnny L.A. I was just pouring my tea and I had a revelation. We don’t know that Lily was from a Muggle family, just that Petunia has no magical ability (and an affinity for Muggles). Therefore, with the possibility of Petunia being a squib, it is not impossible that Lily came from a wizarding family (in The Philosopher’s Stone, which I am reading again this morning, Petunia even implies that Lily’s family was expecting a letter from Hogwarts).
In conclusion, disregard my above post. I am an idiot. I don’t know how I manage to tie my own shoes, really.
So how far back do you go? The standard seems to be that a wizard or witch, both oof whose parents are magical, is considered a “pureblood”. Certainly there are people who put a premium on the number of generations (see Voltaire’s Candide, for example); but up until this book I’ve been under the impression that a “mudblood” was by definition someone who had one non-magical parent.
Well it’s safe to think that as Harry’s world gets bigger (as it does for us all as we age), where he comes from, and what he is, becomes more complicated. Maybe the Black Family Tree was a metaphore for that; like a signal that extended family was going to have more significance. It was kind of a theme in Order Of The Phoenix, culminating in the revelation about why Harry had to return to the Dursley’s every summer.
Maybe Harry was just called a “mudblood” as a general insult. Maybe his father was a Muggle (can’t remember reading anything discounting that possibility, but if someone else has, please correct me).
And it also just occured to me that maybe Petunia isn’t a squib, after all.
James Potter was a BMoC at Hogwarts.
Spank you very much, darling. My memory has been jogged.
Johnny L.A.–From the way Siris said (paraphrased) “there are hardly any pureblood families left” in this last book, I imagine a mudblood to be anyone with muggles in their family tree.
Well, perhaps if you’ve got muggles in your family tree, you’re not pureblood, but you’re only a mudblood if one of your parents is a muggle?
Peace,
~mixie
Firstly, it’s muggle-born, please and thank you. Secondly, your blood status only goes back as far as your parents–as long as your parents are both witch/wizard, you are a pureblood. The status of your grandparents and further back is irrelevant, unless you are tracing the tree of a pureblooded family–but you don’t have to be of a pureblooded family to be a pureblood. The only people who think otherwise are the snotty families that have been pureblooded for centuries–and with that much inbreeding, pureblood is not something of which I’d want to be proud.
I don’t think Harry was ever called a “Mudblood” in Order of the Phoenix. If anyone has a page number I’ll be happy to check in my copy, but I am pretty sure he was not. I did notice that he was called a “half-blood” on more than one occasion. Considering that Lily Potter was Muggle-born this is an understandable insult, if not entirely accurate. But to people like the Malfoys, having one parent who’s Muggle-born is probably little better than having one parent who’s actually a Muggle.
Lamia: I could be wrong about Harry’s being called a “mudblood”. I didn’t feel like looking it up this morning. “Half-blood” is probably the word. And if both parents had one magical and one “muggle” parent, then he would indeed be a “half-blood”. But my understanding throughout the series has been as BuckleberryFerry explains it:
We know that the parentage of a witch/wizard apparently has no impact upon their abilities as a w/w. Magical ability is probably at least partially hereditary, as most witches and wizards seem to have at least one magical parent and Muggle-born witches and wizards are relatively rare, but it seems that when it comes to magic you either got it or you don’t. “Half-bloods” don’t have half the ability of “purebloods” or anything like that. I think it is safe to say that there is no real difference (either magical or biological) between a Muggle-born w/w, a w/w with one Muggle parent, a w/w with magical but Muggle-born parents, and a w/w from a family that had been all-magical for generations.
The concept of “blood purity” is an invented one that has no real meaning other than what people in the wizarding world give to it. To many witches and wizards the status of one’s parents probably is the only thing that matters, and that is likely as much because they recognize the differences in upbringing in magical and Muggle homes as anything else. But to the Malfoys and their ilk, people who believe that blood purity is really important, of course it’s going to matter who your grandparents, great-grandparents, etc., were. These people are snobs, and that’s the way snobs are. They care about magical blood purity the way Muggle snobs might care about “old money” or “noble blood”.
Where do you get that from? I don’t remember that ever being said in the books. The whole mudblood-pureblood business is just a metaphor for racism anyway, so you can’t expect there to be a logical codified system for establishing it. Nobody but the nastiest of the Slytherins care; most wizards & witches don’t care.
I don’t know where he got it; but as I said, I am under the same impression. Probably from a passage in book 1 where someone is taunting Hermione and it needs to be explained to Harry what a “mudblood” is.
The only instance I can recall of Harry being called a “half-blood” or anything like it:
Was when Dumbledore was explaining the prophecy to Harry near the end of the book. He pointed out that part of the reason Voldemort went after Harry rather than Neville was because his parentage reminded Voldemort of himself. He saw himself in Harry, and so figured he was the more likely child to grow up to become his destroyer.
That scene was in Chamber of Secrets, which is book 2, if anyone is trying to look it up. It’s in the chapter entitled “Mudbloods and Murmurs.” I’m too lazy to get my book at the moment, terribly sorry. I’m not even sure if the subject is explained fully. Oh, and I’m a ‘she,’ for future reference.
As for where I got it, well, I sort of devised a bit of logic, and I could be mistaken, but I think my theory is in decent standing. (I don’t mean to sound haughty with that, and I apologize if I do.) Ron is a pureblood, correct? His parents are witch and wizard. Well, he does have muggle family–I believe it’s an aunt or uncle who’s an accountant–clearly not a wizard. I’m pretty sure this relation is not a Squib, as Ron would have said so, at least in passing, so we are to assume the relation is Muggle from descent. This would mean that a set of Ron’s grandparents or further back would have to include at least one Muggle. However, Ron is still a pureblood, despite his Muggle heratige, no matter how minute and far back. Therefore I am assuming that your ‘blood status’ only counts as far back as parents. (Draco also admits that the Weasleys are pureblooded–however, it is unlikely that he knows about this ‘accountant,’ so his statement is almost moot. It is one pureblood (of high standing) making the statement, though.)
I like to think of myself as one of the nastiest of Slytherins 
True, look at Hermione, a muggle-born, and Neville, a pureblood. ‘Blood status’ has nothing to do with anything but giving Voldemort fuel for his crusade.
Isn’t that exactly where he does mention it? When they are talking about what a squib is (having found the correspondance course in the office).
Talking out my bum. It’s book one, on the train after meeting Ron.
[qoute]Oh, and I’m a ‘she,’ for future reference.
[/quote]
My apologies, BuckleberryFerry/ :o
From OotP, p. 105, The Noble and Most Ancient House of Black:
Clearly, then, the criteria for pure-bloodedness are a lot more stringent than having magical parents - it would seem that the one drop rule applies.