Timeline for What is the definition of "pure-blood"?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 6, 2018 at 20:28 | comment | added | Conrad Bennish Jr | @QuestionAuthority well anything’s possible isn’t it. | |
| Sep 6, 2018 at 17:26 | comment | added | QuestionAuthority | @ConradBennishJr Unless in the books he tells Harry the truth and in Beedle the Bard he just wants to hackle Lucius Malfoy. Remember, he isn't talking to the reader, it's a letter to Lucius Malfoy. | |
| Sep 5, 2018 at 21:34 | comment | added | Obsidia | @ConradBennishJr That’s what I think too. In addition, in some situations it matters more who’s considered pure-blood by the people who it matters to. When the Chamber of Secrets is opened, for example, those considered pure-blood wouldn’t be in danger (even if they do have a small amount of Muggle ancestry). | |
| Sep 5, 2018 at 5:48 | comment | added | Conrad Bennish Jr | Unless in the books he’s simply using commonly used vernacular among others, and speaking more precisely to the reader of Beedle the Bard | |
| Sep 5, 2018 at 5:10 | comment | added | QuestionAuthority | Such a definition would support Dumbledore's first statement that pure-bloods don't exist, mainly because without a limit is it impossible to prove that the ancestry is without Muggles. But it would make his statements from the books wrong. | |
| Sep 4, 2018 at 22:54 | history | answered | Conrad Bennish Jr | CC BY-SA 4.0 |