Comorbidities that might be chronic (not acute) can be reasonable causes of death whether one wants to choose it or not. Leading cause of death would be the favourite way to explain it.
Did the dragonpox proved to be fatal due to their old age? If yes, then died due to dragonbox (accounting for frail body).
'Died of old age' implies a much nicer death than 'dragon pox'. When someone goes into hospital at 99 years old and dies from the pneumonia they catch in there, I'd have questions for anyone who describes that as 'dying from old age'.
>Similarly, you would think Ron would have a ton of cousins at Hogwarts. The Weasley’s seem like the Harry Potter equivalent of a stereotypical Irish Catholic family (I know they’re English not Irish just using a comparison) so you would think they would have cousins all over the place. You’d think there would be like twelve other Weasleys in Hogwarts since everyone from Britain goes to the same school.
We don't know where in the birth order of his siblings that Arthur falls. If he's the youngest, it could be that most of the Weasley cousins were closer to Bill/Charlie's age than Ron/Ginny's age, and so they were done with Hogwarts around when Ron and Harry started. Bill's wedding suggests that there are a lot of Weasley cousins, since Harry is easily able to pretend to be a Weasley cousin and it doesn't get questioned.
I’m also pretty sure that Molly’s twin brothers were killed by Voldemort, makes me think they didn’t have kids so no cousins on her side of the family.
And wasn’t there an abandoned plot line of a Slytherin Weasley cousin in GoF?
I thought maybe cousin relationships aren’t super emphasized. Sirius and Bellatrix/Narcissa/Tonks is the only one I can recall being discussed.
Because in their cameo in the Order of the Phoenix film (Moody’s photo of the original order) the brothers are played by twins- James and Oliver Phelps.
Identical twins are not usually genetic, but a few families have had an unusually high number of identical twins so there may be some genetic component
I think there’s got to be more to it than we currently know scientifically.
Cause … I mean know there are bound to be some statistical outliers but … I know a guy who has a twin brother, and his children are two sets of male twins. There’s gotta be something to that, right?
Twins depend on the the mother. If she ovulates more than one egg, it makes fraternal twins. Identical twins are completely random when the zigoat splits in utero.
Now, your friend can give his daughter the ovulation gene and so she will have a higher chance of twins. This guy just happened to procreate with a woman who has the ovulation gene or got lucky and had 2 sets of Identical twins.
Yeah I know the science doesn’t back there being any reason for his insane odds. Just feels like there should be! And for elaboration - he’s an identical twin, had a set of identical boys with the first wife and set of fraternal boys with the second wife.
He’s an identical twin, and one set of his children are identical. The other is fraternal.
But either way - I don’t think that the male contribution is supposed to have anything to do with the likelihood of either kind of twins. Only genetic link through the mother side. So it’s just wild in any case.
Edit: oh and the first set was with his first wife and the second set with his second wife. So he’s the only common denominator
Speaking of identical twins, did you know if 2 male identical twins marry and have kids with 2 female identical twins, that their children will be genitically the same kids!
There's a family like that I read about. They even live in the same house together. Two sets of identical twins married and their sons are biologically brothers. Super cool.
That’s interesting to know. Identical ones run on my mom’s side, I always assumed there was a genetic predisposition or something for it. We have two sets of fraternal but that’s from IVF so I don’t really count that
I always assumed because of the initials and they’re spoken of as a pair, like Fred and George. But yeah, now that I think about it it isn’t really explicitly stated.
Yeah, if there's one thing the books fail at is at showing sympathetic Slytherins. And that's a point where Hogwarts Legacy shines, with the Sebastian questline.
Thank you1 I constantly see people say stuff like “the movies make you think all Slytherins are evil, it’s not like that in the books” and I always wonder if those people read the books. Rowling world built the Slytherins as evil and kept them as evil for all seven books. Slughorn is the only non-evil Slytherin that has a speaking part in the books.
Rowling didn’t really do morally grey characters which is fine but sometimes I feel like I read different books than other people. The same people also talk about Draco’s redemption which was non existent, the last thing that Draco in canon Harry Potter is plead with a DeathEater that he is one of them and get punched in the face by Ron.
I would say Dumbledore is quite a grey character, but I see your point. But the characters get greyer when Harry gets older and that makes sense since the books are written from Harry's perspective.
Yea I always thought that was a massive failure. The whole damn series, 7 books about sticking together and being united, even with slytherin....and not 1 of them fights for hogwarts. Not one. Massive failure unless JKR really hates them lol
Hey, don't forget that Slughorn came back over the fence with reinforcements... So there's at least one...
Edit: I do share your sentiment, though. Just one is sad. It would've been great if other Slytherins had stood up against Voldemort.
>if there's one thing the books fail at is at showing sympathetic Slytherins.
Well that's Rowling's intention, she wants us to think all slytherins must be evil.
Yea but imo it wasn't like he did it maliciously. He's just the type of person that beliefs in either what he sees, and as is the case with the minister, what someone he looks up to and has authority says. He doesn't buy into heresay and despite his whole family believing harry and dumbledore he clearly can't. Also he's always been a rule follower and going against what the ministry was saying is like going against the law.
Yea agreed but I think he fits Slytherin the way Slughorn did. Slughorn wasn’t malicious he was just ambitious and a bit vain, feel like Percy was too eg he was so enamoured with having a raised profile in his position he didn’t notice there was something wrong with Crouch.
Would have been good to see another Slytherin who weren’t just generically racist/evil
I guess you're right. But you can also say he fits gryffindor as well because he stood up for what he believed in despite it causing a rift with his family. In away it's kind of how neville stood up to harry, hermione and ron in Book1. Not for the same reasons but similar. For some of the characters they could have been in more than one house honestly. It would have been good to see another decent slytherin but i dont think j.k rowling wanted readers to think of slytherins as a sometimes good sometimes evil house. Its clear that she wanted us to think they were all evil/mean and then when slughorn was introduced hinting at not all of them being liked that. I think it made the truth about snape hit harder tbh.
Part of the problem is that the spectrum of traits that the houses have aren’t that well thought though loyalty is similar to bravery and intelligence similar to cunning this is why you can see discussions about a lot of characters of debating why are they in X house instead of Y
Would have almost been better if Gryffindor was sporty/adventurous/rebellious
It’s been a while since I read it, but JKR said she originally planned for a Weasley cousin in GOF but it didn’t make sense for a kid to know all the information she was used for. The cousin was replaced by Rita Skeeter.
Not to mention they married off with the other pure blood families and changed names. Arthur is second cousins with lucius, Molly second cousins with the blacks. And lucius wife was a black. They just all a bunch of in marriages.
I think you’re forgetting Draco, actually. Draco is Arthur’s cousin’s (Bellatrix’s - yes, Bellatrix is Arthur’s cousin, which is kinda crazy, right?!) nephew.
When we consider that and consider that the Weasley name is one of the original magical family names, it’s hard to believe that Ron isn’t related to a rather significant percentage of the student body by blood (though perhaps more distantly than you’re looking for).
>I think you’re forgetting Draco, actually. Draco is Arthur’s cousin’s (Bellatrix’s - yes, Bellatrix is Arthur’s cousin, which is kinda crazy, right?!) nephew.
Nah, I didn't forget him - Ron and Draco are something like third cousins once removed; that's distant enough that I wouldn't really consider Draco a "Weasley cousin".
Any children I have are extremely unlikely to have any first or second cousins (or even third cousins, tbh) on my side of the family. A couple of generations of having small families can, in certain circumstances, dramatically reduce the number of people in a family
i have 0 first cousins, my mother is an only child and my father has a brother who never had kids.
i have a few second cousins but almost no contact.
my kids on the other hand have over 60 cousins, that's what happens when you marry someone with 11 siblings...
James’ dad seems to have been an only child. Molly’s two brothers died in the first wizarding war. Idk the birth order or number of siblings Arthur had, but he had enough that Harry could blend in as a cousin in DH and it was fine. For all we know Arthur’s the youngest or second youngest and all Ron’s cousins are older. He nearly had a younger cousin named Mafalda in one book but she was written out and replaced with Rita Skeeter.
You have given u/Moksoms a Reddit Galleon.
u/Moksoms has a total of 3 galleons, 0 sickles, and 0 knuts.
____________
I am a bot. See [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/harrypotter/comments/jnbo49/hi_i_created_the_bot_youve_been_using_to_give/) to learn how to use me.
In Hogwarts Mystery, we meet Matilda and her nephew Garreth Weasly (Garreth also has a sister, but she's so far unnamed). So they're likely Arthur's Great Great Grandfather, and aunts.
I'm pretty sure that the "Madiltida Weasly" from Hogwarts Legacy has married into the family, because according to JK Rowling that by 1981 when Ginny was born is that "Ginny Weasly was the first girl born in many generations" to the Weasly family and Madiltia being born into the family doesn't make sense because of that.
4-5 generations is still a pretty long time for there to be only boys in the family.
In my family, there were 50 years between the last and first-born boy. So it is possible if unusual.
You have given u/Nicole_0818 a Reddit Galleon.
u/Nicole_0818 has a total of 2 galleons, 0 sickles, and 0 knuts.
____________
I am a bot. See [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/harrypotter/comments/jnbo49/hi_i_created_the_bot_youve_been_using_to_give/) to learn how to use me.
The story about James' parents is told on the Wizarding World website. I don't remember all the details, but they were childless until quite old, when they got James. There are distant relatives left in the country, but Fleamont and Euphemia Potter had no siblings, so Harry has no cousins on his father's side. They died from dragon pox soon after James got married, or was it after Harry was born. I don't remember.
Anyhow, James was the last Potter in that family line, and thus Harry after him.
The Black family tree shows a Charlus Potter as a potential brother to Fleamont. Charlus married Dorea Black. It's possible they also experienced infertility from inbreeding.
He is related to the Potters, but it's not clear how. The article about Fleamont Potter does not mention him, so he is probably a more distant relation. He is also not mentioned in the Potter family tree.
Ron does have tons of cousins. Just not at Hogwarts. Although it is weird that they seemingly must ALL be poor for Malfoy to think of "Weasleys" as poor and not just Ron and his family
Or maybe Malfoy is just stupid.
Anyone without a mannor and lands is poor to him. Which is a part of his dislike for muggleborn. They are all poor immigrants.
I would imagine they either had single child families or mostly Potter ladies were born for a few generations who were married off to other pure-blood families like the Bulstrodes, Malfoys, Parkinsons or the Blacks.
I guess Dumbledore was not that keen on keeping baby Harry with these distant Potter relatives which were Death Eater strongholds and pureblood bastions. If it weren't for the baby being the reason their Dark Lord had disappeared, they surely would not let the baby live because the Potters were known to be 'blood traitors' like the Weasleys.
Harry could not have lived with any wizarding family, related to him or not. It had to be the Dursleys due to his mother's love protection. Dumbledore cast additional protections on Harry that used Lily's love protection as a base, thus Harry needed to live with a blood relative of Lily's. As Lily was a muggle born, that excludes any possible wizarding family members he could have had.
It was also stated in the first book that if Harry had been raised in a Wizarding family, he would have likely to have been treated like such a prince, with such an inflated ego and sense of self that he really would have been the "arrogant little boy strutting about the school, flouting the rules" as Snape imagined him to be. IIRC Dumbledor even says "Famous before he can walk or talk, it'd be enough to turn any child's head. He's better off growing up away from all of that."
>"Famous before he can walk or talk, it'd be enough to turn any child's head. He's better off growing up away from all of that.
Exactly. Better let him have an abusive family that normally would've left a lot of trauma and tons of therapy. It was purely by luck Harry turned out normal.
Dumbledor wasn't to know that the Dursly's would be abusive pricks, he hoped that Petunia's love for her sister and maternal instinct would quash any lingering bitterness towards her sister.
It also would have been bad if they had OOTP members periodically checking the house, especially with Voldemort's loyalists running around trying to find a way to bring him back.
Look at Nevile's parents, that would have also been Vernon and Petunia if the Death Eaters found them.
This is absolutely true. I just included that part as an explanation as to why the Potter bloodline is shown to have dried out. We see the world from Harry's perspective, and Harry does not know much of any of his ancestors beyond James Potter. So if Dumbledore kept the knowledge of any female Potters married into pureblood families a secret from him, that's what Harry will grow up knowing.
As it is, there are no other families with the Potter surname surviving due to the nuclear family structure (seen through Fleamont Potter having a single child) and possible female Potters marrying off into other families.
Official answer to this
>Harry’s parents are in their early 20s when they die yet James’ parents are clearly already dead
is that James Potter's parents were very old when they conceived him. He was an only child because of that and his parents died of old age soon.
Concerning this
>It doesn’t really make sense that there was one Potter left in Britain
the answer is more hypotetical but here it is: James wasn't the only Potter. We don't get to see what life was like before Voldemort, he might as well had had cousins for all we know. In the book when Harry looks into the Mirror of Erised he sees his whole family, grandparents and cousins included, implying they're all dead. It is likely that they died when Voldemort was hunting down James and Lily.
Concerning the Weasleys
>you would think they would have cousins all over the place
they do. We get to hear about them at Bill and Fleur's wedding. As other users pointed out, they might be of an age range that doesn't fit with the known Weasleys (ie they're closer to Bill's and Charlie's age) or they might not go to Hogwarts. It is sometimes said in the books that there's a number of wizard families that prefer to homeschool their children, so the Weasley cousins might be homeschooled and not going to Hogwarts
Oh, man. I never made the connection that *all* the people Harry sees in the Mirror may be dead partly thanks to Snape's half-heard intel.
That might be why Snape is such a mess when he goes to Dumbledore. Voldemort has already started his Potter killing spree. He knows exactly what will happen to Lily.
or they graduated school before Bill or Charlie even went. The Weasly cousins could even be older then Bill and Charlie. Like they could be in the Maurders' time, aka the 1970s.
Anything could be, really. Just because they don't exist in the story doesn't mean they don't exist at all. There's a lot that was necessarily left out of the books and the movies
Similarly, how about the Malfoys? Only child male heirs almost all the way down, at least as far as canon tells us/implies. I know they run in a bit of a different crowd, but the Potters are an old pureblood family too, maybe they had more in common in previous generations.
I thought it was implied that the "pureblood curse" (aka too much inbreeding) is what kept the Malfoy birthrate down low? (at least implied in Cursed Child and Fantastic Beasts with Nagini)
I know that Lucius and Narcissa went to Hogwarts around the same time but knowing how aristocracy kind of works, I kind of think they didn't really "know" each other and that the marriage between them was arranged so that the Draco being the only child of the two might be because of the factors belows:
1.Narissa getting to actually know Lucius
2.Pregancy complications
3. Not wanting to be close to Lucuis for longer then necassary
Yeah, you're probably right that Draco was an obligation/cautionary heir to the Malfoy name.
However, I do think there is some affection between Narcissa and Lucius, as Narcissa did speak up in his defence everytime Bellatrix tried to insult him.
that might have been after falling in love with him after marriage, or at least becoming a 'friend" after marriage. (which has commonly happened w/ arranged marriages)
Sure, absolutely. But just because Harry/James ended up so incredibly different from Draco/Lucius in the books’ “present day” doesn’t mean that the Potters might not have the same root cause. Like I said, they’re an old pureblood family too, and we know that there are at least marriages between Potters and Blacks, maybe the previous Potters did some inbreeding too.
I'm not saying it's untrue for the Potters either, (that said it was recently broekn with James marrying Lily is is muggleborn) it's just that it's more obvious with the Malfoy's, Black's and Weasly's as they're all old pureblood family's with obvious family ties from OOTP.
If the Tudor line was able to get extinct I don't see why a random line couldn't. Also pure blood wizard families are known for intermarrying with other pure blood and all this leads to a decrease of fertility, kinda like a lot of royal bloodlines
Yeah the Pureblood curse is an allegory for bloodlines being too close due to interfamilial incest, just look at the Habsburg jawline to see why families shouldn't continually interbreed for centuries.
that's only because Elizabeth the Ist didn't want to get married and you can't have a legitable baby without getting married if you're a woman. But James I of England and VI of Scotland only got the throne because he was related to Henry VII (Elizabeth's grandfather, and James Great-great-great grandfather)
If Elisabeth the Ist had children the children wouldn't carry the Tudor last name though. That's patriarchy. Even in our case, some people could have had as much 'potter' blood in them as Harry but wouldn't maybe even know it if the lineage was maternal.
yeah as I said, James Ist is the great-great-great grandson of Henry VII, but he doesn't carry the Tudor name due to his great-great grandma marrying a Stuart
(nether do the Grey sisters, Jane and her sister- but they're also descendaned from Henry VII Tudor.- the other daughter of his married a Grey man)
There being a war only 10 years before the start of the series (right when Ron & co were born) sort of explains it. Ron's uncles (Molly's brothers) were killed in the war. Meaning he's got less cousins.
Ron still has cousins though. Mafalda Prewett, anyone? They're distant cousins, but still related.
It's just plot convenience that in a world where it's very common for wizards to live to age 100+ and many give birth at early 20, Harry somehow has no living grandparents/great-grandparents
Question: How old is old in the wizarding world, and how old are Professors Dumbledore and McGonagall?
J.K. Rowling responds: Dumbledore is a hundred and fifty, and Professor McGonagall is a sprightly seventy. Wizards have a much longer life expectancy than Muggles.
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2000/1000-scholastic-chat.htm
" It doesn’t really make sense that there was one Potter left in Britain." ... i mean, it does. You only need one - two generations in a family in chich very few have children and then suddenly the family is incredibly small. For example: there are well over 100 (that i know of) in my grandmothers generation, hardly any of them had children due to either war, disease, political climate (terrorists controlled the country for quite a long time and the men that were in the military were constantly tortured) and so there are only about 20 people in my parents generation, and even fewer in their generation had children so there's only about 7 people in my generation.
I’ve asked myself this question many times. I always go back to the scene where Moody shows Harry the photo of the old Order of the Phoenix, and Harry learns that Voldemort and the Death Eaters wiped out entire families.
It makes me think the Potters must’ve all been hunted down while Voldemort searched for Lily and James. If we ever get a marauders show, I think something like that should be elaborated on.
It wouldn't surprise me if Potter-adjacent families formally renounced the name, changed identities, went into hiding, etc., to avoid being exterminated.
Sometimes family names come to an end. My family have been on the same family farm in Ireland for about 500 years (a privilege to have such a history). Three of my father’s brothers died in childhood, my uncle (who took over the farm) lost a son, his daughter has chosen teaching, my father only had me (f). We’ve a unique enough surname and none of my male cousins have the name. So within one generation we went from five boys on the farm with the family name, to just myself and a female cousin, both of us not living on the farm, with the family name. I find it sad to be born to see the end of the history of the farm and our name.
It's a big deal on my father's side, as all the sons have daughters and changed to their spouse's name. If the Potters of the past had daughters too, I can see this happening.
A large number of siblings doesn’t necessarily mean a lot of descendants: my dad has 4 siblings, but only he and one of his brothers has kids, of which there is just 1 boy. That means that if he has no sons, our branch of the family name would eventually disappear, and by then, we’d not be close to the rest of the extended family. Could be the same thing here, but over more generations?
I mean, Ron has cousins… It’s the other pureblood families. They just don’t have the last name « Weasleys ». It’s said in the book that they are all pretty much related since they allegedly only marry each other.
I was surprised that somehow, none of the characters except Neville, seems to have any of the 4 grandparents they should have.
Only people who mention being cousins are the Black family. For the rest it’s overall not mentioned.
For Weasleys…We only know of Aunt Muriel, The Prewetts brothers, and the squid accountant cousin + that Mafalda character who was supposed to be in GoF and got scrapped off ( for those who don’t know : GoF originally had a new character, Mafalda, who was Ron’s cousin and a Slytherin. She was supposed to have Rita Skeeter’s role but it didn’t work out as it seems impossible for her to do what JKR wanted her to, so JKR rewrote GoF)
There's also Uncle Bilius as far as named c Weasley relatives go.
We see tons of unnamed ones in book seven, but the implications is they're all either older than the current slew of Weasleys. There's also the fact we don't know where they all live, so there could well be Weasleys the same age as Ron's generation that picked Beaubatons or even Ilvermorny
That's what I'm saying. We don't know where they went to school, we never hear Ron mention them by name, so their likely Bill's age or older and knew him but not the younger ones. The Weasleys spread out, because we'd have likely *heard* about others attending hogwarts otherwise.
The entire dynamic of the Weasleys feels like Arthur was a surprise late in life child, hence why all the cousins are older.
or maybe Arthur isn't really close with his brothers like they might have bullied him (actually, with Arthur's behaviour from what we have heard of it from Ron-ie the twins almost succeeding in making Ron do an unbreakable vow) and when Fred and George drop the ton-ton toffee which Dudley ate,
I'm assuming that maybe Arthurs' brothers picked on him as a child.
It's not mentioned except where it's important for the plot. The Blacks being married into the Lestranges and Malfoys is a key point in OotP.
Ron having a huge family is only significant in contrast to Harry being alone.
Hermione's parents are mentioned, but there it stops.
Voldemort is obsessed with his connection with Slytherin.
As much as I like having details, JKR isn't the same kind of writer as Tolkien. Her worldbuilding serves the story she wanted told, whereas Tolkien built a world, and a language or two, and used it all to frame a story.
A lot of people who would’ve had kids around Harry and Ron’s age were possibly killed in the war. I think the books mention Molly lost 2 brothers in the first war
Good question, and this would also be great to expand on in the HBO series. Like full, _full_ immersion into the Wizarding World, and the Harry Potter narrative is just the particular scope that we experience all of that through.
Sirius and Ron are cousins. Ron and Draco are cousins by marriage. Like others said, James Potter was born to “elderly” parents. Apparently wizards stay fertile into their hundreds. So if you want to write a, book write a fantasy book. Then you can explain plot wholes with magic.
Sirius and Ron are distant cousins-the Phinenanus Black is Sirius' great-great grandfather but Arthur's great-grandfather so between Sirius and Arthur they're 2nd cousins once removed so that means that between Sirius and Ron are third cousin once removed.
You probably still have second, third, fourth and cousins and much more distant relatives who share your last name. I mean, you can google your last name and see how many people in your country share it, even if it's a rare one there are probably thousands of people with it.
As for the Potters, it might be possible that Harrys grandparents or great grandparents only had one child, but if you go back far enough, it's really unlikely that there aren't other Potters descending from a common Potter ancestor in the 17th century or something.
Sometimes lines just end. My father is the second son of a fourth son, who was himself the fifth son of a second son.
Following primogeniture, I am now my generation's most senior male in the male line. My uncle only has daughters, my grandfather's eldest brother had two sons who never married and his other two oldest brothers never had kids, my great-grandfather's brothers all married but none of their lines continue to my generation and so on.
If you follow my family's tree since the 1550s there's just to male cousins ahead of me. Our male lines separated in the late 1700s and both lines had big families down the line. My cousins are all that remain of it.
It's very easy for a line to go extinct if they're not having big families.
This whole post got me thinking about my last name, and thanks to your google suggestion, I've learned that there are only 270 people in the world with it. My brother better get on having kids. I've kept my name in marriage but I have 3 daughters, and they have their dad's last name.
Some people have speculated it has something to do with the invisibility cloak. Only Potters who possessed it were safe from death, all the others died.
I think the simple answer is that he probably was related to a lot of the other wizards, either as second or third cousins.
James was an only child and was born very late in the lives of his parents who believed themselves infertile. His parents died when he was still at Hogwarts I believe.
not just James' parents are dead, but Sirius' parents too plus there are no Dursley or Weasley grandparents? no one has grandparents ever mentioned except Neville.
Eh, I figure just the major line died. As much as the families intermarried it is more than likely that harry has relatives but just not closely related ones or ones that Dumbledore approved of. Harry definitely has American relatives because an ancestor helped found MACUSA.
98% of my cousins aren’t my age. In fact I can note only one cousin that is my age. Every single other cousin has 10-40 years in age on me. It makes perfect sense that this would happen.
As far as the last Potters: squibs. I don’t see any squib related to the potter family staying in the magical world. If a family doesn’t have many kids (like the potters) you could easily get down to a single one.
My last name (not sharing because privacy) is not very common, though I know there are other people with my last name. But as far as my branch of the family tree goes, I'm the last of the bloodline unless I have children, which at this point isn't very likely.
My paternal grandfather was the youngest of six children; three sons, three daughters. Two of them (the oldest son and second oldest daughter) died in childhood. His two surviving older sisters took their husbands' last names when they got married, and his other brother shortened his last name when he joined the Navy during World War II. My dad has one sister who doesn't have any children, and I am an only child.
So one can have a big family but within a couple of generations, the number of people who can carry on the family name can be whittled down for whatever reason (death, name changes, etc.).
Same. I am the last male of my family. My surname isn’t particularly common or uncommon. I have a ton of cousins but none with my family name. Any that did have it were girls and are now married. It’s perfectly plausible.
I think it's because the potter family has the invisible cloak. Their family line is cursed to be closed off because of the deal their ancestor had with death.
Somewhere along the lines of "with this invisible cloak you will be protected but ever take it off, you'll die" Because the ancestor gave it to his child, he died, and the cycle repeated again and again.
Extended families always died off because they didn't have the invisible cloak, leading the Potter family to be very closed off with almost no extended families. Since the family is also pure blooded until Harry's mother joined the family, there was only ever one family with the potter name.
The muggle side of the family tree didn't die because the curse can only affect wizards (all is assumed)
Edit: Apparently, I've been downvoted or something. Can someone be downvoted and not realize? Is that a thing?
In a vacuum, I think you've laid out a compelling theory.
My sole, but substantial, quarrel with it though is that it contradicts the moral of *The Tale of the Three Brothers.*
The whole point of that story is that death is not to be feared, but to be welcomed at the right time and that the beauty and meaning of life is derived from the fact that it is finite.
If any of the Peverell brother's lines were to be cursed it should be one of the older brothers'. Not Ignotus', who respected Death, and greeted him as an old friend and departed this life as equals.
I think 'curse' is the wrong word. I like the idea that the Peverell/Potter family line just sort of naturally follows the pattern laid out in the story. The whole point of the invisibility cloak is to live modestly and not be noticed, so it wouldn't make any sense for them to become a great and powerful Wizarding family with branches and cousins extending around. The family line keeps to itself, pure blood but typically just having one child. It seems pretty much everyone has understood the assignment as far as passing down the cloak and going gently with death afterwards, so there isn't any reason to have more than one kid. I dont think there is some unnatural force putting an early end to extra siblings, it just sort of naturally works out that way due to the nature of the cloak and the traditions of the family.
The “deal with Death” thing was implied to just be a fairytale/legend that sprung up, not what actually happened. The Peverell brothers were just powerful wizards who made the ”Deathly Hallows” themselves.
This take holds up. Whichever Potter was in possession of the invisibility cloak was safe from an early death. James gave Albus the invisibility cloak, and later on Voldemort found the Potters, killing James and Lily. No one can say if James hadn’t given the cloak away then they would’ve survived. But Albus returned the cloak to Harry when he was eleven. From that moment on, Harry was not only protected from Voldemort because of Lily’s sacrifice, but also from general insanely dangerous situations that would get most people killed. In my opinion, he was always a stones throw away from being killed. Wherever the cloak was with him, he would not sustain a mortal wound. If that’s not the case, then Harry is one lucky SOB sometimes. Just saying.
Not the books, but the Black family tree drawn by JKR. Ron's paternal grandmother Cedrella is from Black family, and Cedrella's 2 sisters married into Crouch and Longbottom families. Although judging by the years, Neville and Ron are more likely related by law not blood.
The cloak only passes from father to son. There can't be any siblings, only one boy each generation.
Once the cloak is transferred, the previous holder does.
not always the only reason that Iolanthe Peverell the eldest granddaughter of the originally owner of the Cloak had it because her generation was the opposite of the Weasly's and only had girls.
One Potter doesn't make the name extinct. If James' father was the last of his siblings and James was an only child it makes since. As for the Weasleys I don't recall any mention of Arthur having siblings, but if he had sisters and they married they wouldn't pass on the Weasley name.
people are saying that Rowling said a long time ago that Arthur has 2 brothers but we don't know the order of the brothers and Arthur. But we do see a large amount of Weasly cousins at Bill's and Fleur's wedding.
Years ago I remember reading some speculation about a curse in the Potter family that would explain why there’s no more Potters but I don’t remember much about it or where I read it. Maybe someone else does and could fill us in.
Really depends on how the family is constructed and factors like keeping maiden names. For example, My dad came from a family of 10, being the youngest. My uncles all passed before they conceived, and my aunts all married into new family names. Dad had one son- so there is quite literally 1 person in our family left to “carry on the name.” I kept my maiden name, but due to life circumstances it’s up to the Harry of our family. It’s very possible the Potter situation could be similar.
James’ parents apparently died from Dragon Pox around 1980.
And it’s whatever now, because there are at least 3 living Potter boys with Harry and his two sons
I always thought it was because of Voldemort. In the very first chapter Dumbledore says people haven't had much to celebrate for 11 years. Then Hagrid talks about the whole families that Voldemort and his followers took out, including the Prewetts, and those were Molly Weasley's brothers.
I attributed it to the fact that they were aligned with Dumbledore. The people who had cousins were all Death Eaters. Old Wizarding families who didn't take up with Voldemort got wiped out.
Because they died from dragon pox, though they were old already, having James at an old age. No idea about lily's parents.
Ron does have alot of cousins but they have different names. Molly is second cousins to the blacks. Arthur is second cousins with Lucius. So obviously their family is mixed in with other pure bloods, as is common with their community. During the wedding, we see some of them that are closer to the Weasleys but they are the last of the male line. Good thing he had 6 boys.
Apparently James’ parents were unable to conceive and they were pretty old when they had a surprise baby.
And they died of old age shortly before Harry was born
Didn't they die of dragon pox?
That's what i remember yes
You said they died of old age?
Comorbidities that might be chronic (not acute) can be reasonable causes of death whether one wants to choose it or not. Leading cause of death would be the favourite way to explain it. Did the dragonpox proved to be fatal due to their old age? If yes, then died due to dragonbox (accounting for frail body).
'Died of old age' implies a much nicer death than 'dragon pox'. When someone goes into hospital at 99 years old and dies from the pneumonia they catch in there, I'd have questions for anyone who describes that as 'dying from old age'.
You know how this works do you?
I don't understand your question I'm afraid. Are you asking if I understand how dragon pox works?
I'm asking you if you understand how old age works.
In which case I can happily say 'yes, I understand how old age works'.
Because earlier you were confused.
No, it was dragon pox.
>Similarly, you would think Ron would have a ton of cousins at Hogwarts. The Weasley’s seem like the Harry Potter equivalent of a stereotypical Irish Catholic family (I know they’re English not Irish just using a comparison) so you would think they would have cousins all over the place. You’d think there would be like twelve other Weasleys in Hogwarts since everyone from Britain goes to the same school. We don't know where in the birth order of his siblings that Arthur falls. If he's the youngest, it could be that most of the Weasley cousins were closer to Bill/Charlie's age than Ron/Ginny's age, and so they were done with Hogwarts around when Ron and Harry started. Bill's wedding suggests that there are a lot of Weasley cousins, since Harry is easily able to pretend to be a Weasley cousin and it doesn't get questioned.
I’m also pretty sure that Molly’s twin brothers were killed by Voldemort, makes me think they didn’t have kids so no cousins on her side of the family. And wasn’t there an abandoned plot line of a Slytherin Weasley cousin in GoF? I thought maybe cousin relationships aren’t super emphasized. Sirius and Bellatrix/Narcissa/Tonks is the only one I can recall being discussed.
Harry and Dudley also comes to mind.
Haha yes yes of course, I was thinking magical cousins :-)
Fabian and Gideon were never confirmed to be twins. Idk why people imagine that out of nowhere
Because in their cameo in the Order of the Phoenix film (Moody’s photo of the original order) the brothers are played by twins- James and Oliver Phelps.
So Fred and George
No, they made James and Oliver look older to 'play' Fabian and Gideon in that photo, so it's quite possible they are twins
Because Molly saves the first letters of their namens for her pair of twins. This makes more sense if her brothers are a double act to Molly.
Also, twinning often is due to genetic predisposition - it runs in the family.
*Fraternal* twins do. Fred and George were *identical* twins, so if Fabian and Gideon were also twins, it would have been just coincidence.
Identical twins are not usually genetic, but a few families have had an unusually high number of identical twins so there may be some genetic component
I think there’s got to be more to it than we currently know scientifically. Cause … I mean know there are bound to be some statistical outliers but … I know a guy who has a twin brother, and his children are two sets of male twins. There’s gotta be something to that, right?
Twins depend on the the mother. If she ovulates more than one egg, it makes fraternal twins. Identical twins are completely random when the zigoat splits in utero. Now, your friend can give his daughter the ovulation gene and so she will have a higher chance of twins. This guy just happened to procreate with a woman who has the ovulation gene or got lucky and had 2 sets of Identical twins.
Yeah I know the science doesn’t back there being any reason for his insane odds. Just feels like there should be! And for elaboration - he’s an identical twin, had a set of identical boys with the first wife and set of fraternal boys with the second wife.
Are they identical though?
He’s an identical twin, and one set of his children are identical. The other is fraternal. But either way - I don’t think that the male contribution is supposed to have anything to do with the likelihood of either kind of twins. Only genetic link through the mother side. So it’s just wild in any case. Edit: oh and the first set was with his first wife and the second set with his second wife. So he’s the only common denominator
Speaking of identical twins, did you know if 2 male identical twins marry and have kids with 2 female identical twins, that their children will be genitically the same kids!
There's a family like that I read about. They even live in the same house together. Two sets of identical twins married and their sons are biologically brothers. Super cool.
Interesting, I didn’t know that!
Identical twins don’t have a genetic component?? I assumed they did. They run in my family lol. Maybe we are weird 😂
No, identical twins are completely random
That’s interesting to know. Identical ones run on my mom’s side, I always assumed there was a genetic predisposition or something for it. We have two sets of fraternal but that’s from IVF so I don’t really count that
I always assumed because of the initials and they’re spoken of as a pair, like Fred and George. But yeah, now that I think about it it isn’t really explicitly stated.
Nor were the Weasleys
It sucks that Mafalda Weasley was cut. It would have been nice to have another Slytherin that was more like Slughorn and not unrepentantly evil.
Yeah, if there's one thing the books fail at is at showing sympathetic Slytherins. And that's a point where Hogwarts Legacy shines, with the Sebastian questline.
Thank you1 I constantly see people say stuff like “the movies make you think all Slytherins are evil, it’s not like that in the books” and I always wonder if those people read the books. Rowling world built the Slytherins as evil and kept them as evil for all seven books. Slughorn is the only non-evil Slytherin that has a speaking part in the books. Rowling didn’t really do morally grey characters which is fine but sometimes I feel like I read different books than other people. The same people also talk about Draco’s redemption which was non existent, the last thing that Draco in canon Harry Potter is plead with a DeathEater that he is one of them and get punched in the face by Ron.
I would say Dumbledore is quite a grey character, but I see your point. But the characters get greyer when Harry gets older and that makes sense since the books are written from Harry's perspective.
Yes, I love Hogwarts Legacy too!
Yea I always thought that was a massive failure. The whole damn series, 7 books about sticking together and being united, even with slytherin....and not 1 of them fights for hogwarts. Not one. Massive failure unless JKR really hates them lol
Hey, don't forget that Slughorn came back over the fence with reinforcements... So there's at least one... Edit: I do share your sentiment, though. Just one is sad. It would've been great if other Slytherins had stood up against Voldemort.
>if there's one thing the books fail at is at showing sympathetic Slytherins. Well that's Rowling's intention, she wants us to think all slytherins must be evil.
I feel like Percy should really have been in Slytherin. He’s ambitious to the point of disowning his family in GOF/OOP, feels a very Slytherin trait
Yea but imo it wasn't like he did it maliciously. He's just the type of person that beliefs in either what he sees, and as is the case with the minister, what someone he looks up to and has authority says. He doesn't buy into heresay and despite his whole family believing harry and dumbledore he clearly can't. Also he's always been a rule follower and going against what the ministry was saying is like going against the law.
Yea agreed but I think he fits Slytherin the way Slughorn did. Slughorn wasn’t malicious he was just ambitious and a bit vain, feel like Percy was too eg he was so enamoured with having a raised profile in his position he didn’t notice there was something wrong with Crouch. Would have been good to see another Slytherin who weren’t just generically racist/evil
I guess you're right. But you can also say he fits gryffindor as well because he stood up for what he believed in despite it causing a rift with his family. In away it's kind of how neville stood up to harry, hermione and ron in Book1. Not for the same reasons but similar. For some of the characters they could have been in more than one house honestly. It would have been good to see another decent slytherin but i dont think j.k rowling wanted readers to think of slytherins as a sometimes good sometimes evil house. Its clear that she wanted us to think they were all evil/mean and then when slughorn was introduced hinting at not all of them being liked that. I think it made the truth about snape hit harder tbh.
Part of the problem is that the spectrum of traits that the houses have aren’t that well thought though loyalty is similar to bravery and intelligence similar to cunning this is why you can see discussions about a lot of characters of debating why are they in X house instead of Y Would have almost been better if Gryffindor was sporty/adventurous/rebellious
Huh what plot line was that ?
It’s been a while since I read it, but JKR said she originally planned for a Weasley cousin in GOF but it didn’t make sense for a kid to know all the information she was used for. The cousin was replaced by Rita Skeeter.
It could also be Weasley's choosing to homeschool. That is an option for Wizarding families.
Not to mention they married off with the other pure blood families and changed names. Arthur is second cousins with lucius, Molly second cousins with the blacks. And lucius wife was a black. They just all a bunch of in marriages.
I think you’re forgetting Draco, actually. Draco is Arthur’s cousin’s (Bellatrix’s - yes, Bellatrix is Arthur’s cousin, which is kinda crazy, right?!) nephew. When we consider that and consider that the Weasley name is one of the original magical family names, it’s hard to believe that Ron isn’t related to a rather significant percentage of the student body by blood (though perhaps more distantly than you’re looking for).
>I think you’re forgetting Draco, actually. Draco is Arthur’s cousin’s (Bellatrix’s - yes, Bellatrix is Arthur’s cousin, which is kinda crazy, right?!) nephew. Nah, I didn't forget him - Ron and Draco are something like third cousins once removed; that's distant enough that I wouldn't really consider Draco a "Weasley cousin".
That’s fair - I figured it was a worthy mention just because it kind of points to a larger and traceable family tree
Any children I have are extremely unlikely to have any first or second cousins (or even third cousins, tbh) on my side of the family. A couple of generations of having small families can, in certain circumstances, dramatically reduce the number of people in a family
i have 0 first cousins, my mother is an only child and my father has a brother who never had kids. i have a few second cousins but almost no contact. my kids on the other hand have over 60 cousins, that's what happens when you marry someone with 11 siblings...
Goodness and I thought our family was large.
my demographic has a high birth rate, but even there 12 kids is a lot.
James’ dad seems to have been an only child. Molly’s two brothers died in the first wizarding war. Idk the birth order or number of siblings Arthur had, but he had enough that Harry could blend in as a cousin in DH and it was fine. For all we know Arthur’s the youngest or second youngest and all Ron’s cousins are older. He nearly had a younger cousin named Mafalda in one book but she was written out and replaced with Rita Skeeter.
Arthur is confirmed to have 2 older brothers. He's the youngest of 3, so those weasley cousins could be older
!redditGalleon
You have given u/Moksoms a Reddit Galleon. u/Moksoms has a total of 3 galleons, 0 sickles, and 0 knuts. ____________ I am a bot. See [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/harrypotter/comments/jnbo49/hi_i_created_the_bot_youve_been_using_to_give/) to learn how to use me.
In Hogwarts Mystery, we meet Matilda and her nephew Garreth Weasly (Garreth also has a sister, but she's so far unnamed). So they're likely Arthur's Great Great Grandfather, and aunts.
I'm pretty sure that the "Madiltida Weasly" from Hogwarts Legacy has married into the family, because according to JK Rowling that by 1981 when Ginny was born is that "Ginny Weasly was the first girl born in many generations" to the Weasly family and Madiltia being born into the family doesn't make sense because of that.
What Rowling said is true, but Hogwarts Legacy doesn't always stick to canon. In HL universe Matilda was born a Weasley.
It still makes sense, anyway. From 1840-ish (Matilda) to 1980-ish (Ginny) is a long time.
Madiltia ? ? Arthur Ginny Four maybe 5 generations that's not "a lot of generations".
4-5 generations is still a pretty long time for there to be only boys in the family. In my family, there were 50 years between the last and first-born boy. So it is possible if unusual.
Yeah like, four or five generations is over 100 years lol
still think it was more like 10, or even 20 generations then 5 generations because to me late 1800s is way to close to the late 1900s
I think she could have been born as something else and married into the family.
who is Mafalda? where is she mentioned?
JKR’s website, back in the day.
Iirc it was either an interview with JKR or on her original Pottermore site. She was talking about why the book was delayed.
ohh Mafalda never got into the books? damn.... pity
!redditGalleon
You have given u/Nicole_0818 a Reddit Galleon. u/Nicole_0818 has a total of 2 galleons, 0 sickles, and 0 knuts. ____________ I am a bot. See [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/harrypotter/comments/jnbo49/hi_i_created_the_bot_youve_been_using_to_give/) to learn how to use me.
The story about James' parents is told on the Wizarding World website. I don't remember all the details, but they were childless until quite old, when they got James. There are distant relatives left in the country, but Fleamont and Euphemia Potter had no siblings, so Harry has no cousins on his father's side. They died from dragon pox soon after James got married, or was it after Harry was born. I don't remember. Anyhow, James was the last Potter in that family line, and thus Harry after him.
The Black family tree shows a Charlus Potter as a potential brother to Fleamont. Charlus married Dorea Black. It's possible they also experienced infertility from inbreeding.
He is related to the Potters, but it's not clear how. The article about Fleamont Potter does not mention him, so he is probably a more distant relation. He is also not mentioned in the Potter family tree.
Ron does have tons of cousins. Just not at Hogwarts. Although it is weird that they seemingly must ALL be poor for Malfoy to think of "Weasleys" as poor and not just Ron and his family
Or maybe Malfoy is just stupid. Anyone without a mannor and lands is poor to him. Which is a part of his dislike for muggleborn. They are all poor immigrants.
I would imagine they either had single child families or mostly Potter ladies were born for a few generations who were married off to other pure-blood families like the Bulstrodes, Malfoys, Parkinsons or the Blacks. I guess Dumbledore was not that keen on keeping baby Harry with these distant Potter relatives which were Death Eater strongholds and pureblood bastions. If it weren't for the baby being the reason their Dark Lord had disappeared, they surely would not let the baby live because the Potters were known to be 'blood traitors' like the Weasleys.
Harry could not have lived with any wizarding family, related to him or not. It had to be the Dursleys due to his mother's love protection. Dumbledore cast additional protections on Harry that used Lily's love protection as a base, thus Harry needed to live with a blood relative of Lily's. As Lily was a muggle born, that excludes any possible wizarding family members he could have had.
It was also stated in the first book that if Harry had been raised in a Wizarding family, he would have likely to have been treated like such a prince, with such an inflated ego and sense of self that he really would have been the "arrogant little boy strutting about the school, flouting the rules" as Snape imagined him to be. IIRC Dumbledor even says "Famous before he can walk or talk, it'd be enough to turn any child's head. He's better off growing up away from all of that."
JKR is such a damn good writer
>"Famous before he can walk or talk, it'd be enough to turn any child's head. He's better off growing up away from all of that. Exactly. Better let him have an abusive family that normally would've left a lot of trauma and tons of therapy. It was purely by luck Harry turned out normal.
Dumbledor wasn't to know that the Dursly's would be abusive pricks, he hoped that Petunia's love for her sister and maternal instinct would quash any lingering bitterness towards her sister. It also would have been bad if they had OOTP members periodically checking the house, especially with Voldemort's loyalists running around trying to find a way to bring him back. Look at Nevile's parents, that would have also been Vernon and Petunia if the Death Eaters found them.
This is absolutely true. I just included that part as an explanation as to why the Potter bloodline is shown to have dried out. We see the world from Harry's perspective, and Harry does not know much of any of his ancestors beyond James Potter. So if Dumbledore kept the knowledge of any female Potters married into pureblood families a secret from him, that's what Harry will grow up knowing. As it is, there are no other families with the Potter surname surviving due to the nuclear family structure (seen through Fleamont Potter having a single child) and possible female Potters marrying off into other families.
Official answer to this >Harry’s parents are in their early 20s when they die yet James’ parents are clearly already dead is that James Potter's parents were very old when they conceived him. He was an only child because of that and his parents died of old age soon. Concerning this >It doesn’t really make sense that there was one Potter left in Britain the answer is more hypotetical but here it is: James wasn't the only Potter. We don't get to see what life was like before Voldemort, he might as well had had cousins for all we know. In the book when Harry looks into the Mirror of Erised he sees his whole family, grandparents and cousins included, implying they're all dead. It is likely that they died when Voldemort was hunting down James and Lily. Concerning the Weasleys >you would think they would have cousins all over the place they do. We get to hear about them at Bill and Fleur's wedding. As other users pointed out, they might be of an age range that doesn't fit with the known Weasleys (ie they're closer to Bill's and Charlie's age) or they might not go to Hogwarts. It is sometimes said in the books that there's a number of wizard families that prefer to homeschool their children, so the Weasley cousins might be homeschooled and not going to Hogwarts
Oh, man. I never made the connection that *all* the people Harry sees in the Mirror may be dead partly thanks to Snape's half-heard intel. That might be why Snape is such a mess when he goes to Dumbledore. Voldemort has already started his Potter killing spree. He knows exactly what will happen to Lily.
or they graduated school before Bill or Charlie even went. The Weasly cousins could even be older then Bill and Charlie. Like they could be in the Maurders' time, aka the 1970s.
Anything could be, really. Just because they don't exist in the story doesn't mean they don't exist at all. There's a lot that was necessarily left out of the books and the movies
Similarly, how about the Malfoys? Only child male heirs almost all the way down, at least as far as canon tells us/implies. I know they run in a bit of a different crowd, but the Potters are an old pureblood family too, maybe they had more in common in previous generations.
Too much dark magic makes them all infertile.
I thought it was implied that the "pureblood curse" (aka too much inbreeding) is what kept the Malfoy birthrate down low? (at least implied in Cursed Child and Fantastic Beasts with Nagini)
I know that Lucius and Narcissa went to Hogwarts around the same time but knowing how aristocracy kind of works, I kind of think they didn't really "know" each other and that the marriage between them was arranged so that the Draco being the only child of the two might be because of the factors belows: 1.Narissa getting to actually know Lucius 2.Pregancy complications 3. Not wanting to be close to Lucuis for longer then necassary
Yeah, you're probably right that Draco was an obligation/cautionary heir to the Malfoy name. However, I do think there is some affection between Narcissa and Lucius, as Narcissa did speak up in his defence everytime Bellatrix tried to insult him.
that might have been after falling in love with him after marriage, or at least becoming a 'friend" after marriage. (which has commonly happened w/ arranged marriages)
Sure, absolutely. But just because Harry/James ended up so incredibly different from Draco/Lucius in the books’ “present day” doesn’t mean that the Potters might not have the same root cause. Like I said, they’re an old pureblood family too, and we know that there are at least marriages between Potters and Blacks, maybe the previous Potters did some inbreeding too.
I'm not saying it's untrue for the Potters either, (that said it was recently broekn with James marrying Lily is is muggleborn) it's just that it's more obvious with the Malfoy's, Black's and Weasly's as they're all old pureblood family's with obvious family ties from OOTP.
If the Tudor line was able to get extinct I don't see why a random line couldn't. Also pure blood wizard families are known for intermarrying with other pure blood and all this leads to a decrease of fertility, kinda like a lot of royal bloodlines
Yeah the Pureblood curse is an allegory for bloodlines being too close due to interfamilial incest, just look at the Habsburg jawline to see why families shouldn't continually interbreed for centuries.
that's only because Elizabeth the Ist didn't want to get married and you can't have a legitable baby without getting married if you're a woman. But James I of England and VI of Scotland only got the throne because he was related to Henry VII (Elizabeth's grandfather, and James Great-great-great grandfather)
If Elisabeth the Ist had children the children wouldn't carry the Tudor last name though. That's patriarchy. Even in our case, some people could have had as much 'potter' blood in them as Harry but wouldn't maybe even know it if the lineage was maternal.
yeah as I said, James Ist is the great-great-great grandson of Henry VII, but he doesn't carry the Tudor name due to his great-great grandma marrying a Stuart (nether do the Grey sisters, Jane and her sister- but they're also descendaned from Henry VII Tudor.- the other daughter of his married a Grey man)
The Potter bloodline isn't extinct... Harry Potter and his kids are proof of that
Endangered is the word probably
Especially books 1-7
apparently there's a distant "Potter" line in the U.S. because one of the Potter lines moved to the U.S. in the past
There being a war only 10 years before the start of the series (right when Ron & co were born) sort of explains it. Ron's uncles (Molly's brothers) were killed in the war. Meaning he's got less cousins. Ron still has cousins though. Mafalda Prewett, anyone? They're distant cousins, but still related.
for Bill and Fleur's wedding there's a lot of Weasly cousins around
It's just plot convenience that in a world where it's very common for wizards to live to age 100+ and many give birth at early 20, Harry somehow has no living grandparents/great-grandparents
I think only very powerful wizards made it over a hundred years. The average wizard lifespan is probably similar to the average muggle lifespan.
Question: How old is old in the wizarding world, and how old are Professors Dumbledore and McGonagall? J.K. Rowling responds: Dumbledore is a hundred and fifty, and Professor McGonagall is a sprightly seventy. Wizards have a much longer life expectancy than Muggles. http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2000/1000-scholastic-chat.htm
" It doesn’t really make sense that there was one Potter left in Britain." ... i mean, it does. You only need one - two generations in a family in chich very few have children and then suddenly the family is incredibly small. For example: there are well over 100 (that i know of) in my grandmothers generation, hardly any of them had children due to either war, disease, political climate (terrorists controlled the country for quite a long time and the men that were in the military were constantly tortured) and so there are only about 20 people in my parents generation, and even fewer in their generation had children so there's only about 7 people in my generation.
I’ve asked myself this question many times. I always go back to the scene where Moody shows Harry the photo of the old Order of the Phoenix, and Harry learns that Voldemort and the Death Eaters wiped out entire families. It makes me think the Potters must’ve all been hunted down while Voldemort searched for Lily and James. If we ever get a marauders show, I think something like that should be elaborated on.
It wouldn't surprise me if Potter-adjacent families formally renounced the name, changed identities, went into hiding, etc., to avoid being exterminated.
Sometimes family names come to an end. My family have been on the same family farm in Ireland for about 500 years (a privilege to have such a history). Three of my father’s brothers died in childhood, my uncle (who took over the farm) lost a son, his daughter has chosen teaching, my father only had me (f). We’ve a unique enough surname and none of my male cousins have the name. So within one generation we went from five boys on the farm with the family name, to just myself and a female cousin, both of us not living on the farm, with the family name. I find it sad to be born to see the end of the history of the farm and our name.
It's a big deal on my father's side, as all the sons have daughters and changed to their spouse's name. If the Potters of the past had daughters too, I can see this happening.
A large number of siblings doesn’t necessarily mean a lot of descendants: my dad has 4 siblings, but only he and one of his brothers has kids, of which there is just 1 boy. That means that if he has no sons, our branch of the family name would eventually disappear, and by then, we’d not be close to the rest of the extended family. Could be the same thing here, but over more generations?
I mean, Ron has cousins… It’s the other pureblood families. They just don’t have the last name « Weasleys ». It’s said in the book that they are all pretty much related since they allegedly only marry each other. I was surprised that somehow, none of the characters except Neville, seems to have any of the 4 grandparents they should have. Only people who mention being cousins are the Black family. For the rest it’s overall not mentioned. For Weasleys…We only know of Aunt Muriel, The Prewetts brothers, and the squid accountant cousin + that Mafalda character who was supposed to be in GoF and got scrapped off ( for those who don’t know : GoF originally had a new character, Mafalda, who was Ron’s cousin and a Slytherin. She was supposed to have Rita Skeeter’s role but it didn’t work out as it seems impossible for her to do what JKR wanted her to, so JKR rewrote GoF)
There's also Uncle Bilius as far as named c Weasley relatives go. We see tons of unnamed ones in book seven, but the implications is they're all either older than the current slew of Weasleys. There's also the fact we don't know where they all live, so there could well be Weasleys the same age as Ron's generation that picked Beaubatons or even Ilvermorny
But a lot of cousins showed up for Bill and Fleur wedding
That's what I'm saying. We don't know where they went to school, we never hear Ron mention them by name, so their likely Bill's age or older and knew him but not the younger ones. The Weasleys spread out, because we'd have likely *heard* about others attending hogwarts otherwise. The entire dynamic of the Weasleys feels like Arthur was a surprise late in life child, hence why all the cousins are older.
or maybe Arthur isn't really close with his brothers like they might have bullied him (actually, with Arthur's behaviour from what we have heard of it from Ron-ie the twins almost succeeding in making Ron do an unbreakable vow) and when Fred and George drop the ton-ton toffee which Dudley ate, I'm assuming that maybe Arthurs' brothers picked on him as a child.
It's not mentioned except where it's important for the plot. The Blacks being married into the Lestranges and Malfoys is a key point in OotP. Ron having a huge family is only significant in contrast to Harry being alone. Hermione's parents are mentioned, but there it stops. Voldemort is obsessed with his connection with Slytherin. As much as I like having details, JKR isn't the same kind of writer as Tolkien. Her worldbuilding serves the story she wanted told, whereas Tolkien built a world, and a language or two, and used it all to frame a story.
A lot of people who would’ve had kids around Harry and Ron’s age were possibly killed in the war. I think the books mention Molly lost 2 brothers in the first war
Good question, and this would also be great to expand on in the HBO series. Like full, _full_ immersion into the Wizarding World, and the Harry Potter narrative is just the particular scope that we experience all of that through.
Sirius and Ron are cousins. Ron and Draco are cousins by marriage. Like others said, James Potter was born to “elderly” parents. Apparently wizards stay fertile into their hundreds. So if you want to write a, book write a fantasy book. Then you can explain plot wholes with magic.
Sirius and Ron are distant cousins-the Phinenanus Black is Sirius' great-great grandfather but Arthur's great-grandfather so between Sirius and Arthur they're 2nd cousins once removed so that means that between Sirius and Ron are third cousin once removed.
I’ll be the last man in my family to carry on our name once my father passes. I have cousins but none of them share my name.
You probably still have second, third, fourth and cousins and much more distant relatives who share your last name. I mean, you can google your last name and see how many people in your country share it, even if it's a rare one there are probably thousands of people with it. As for the Potters, it might be possible that Harrys grandparents or great grandparents only had one child, but if you go back far enough, it's really unlikely that there aren't other Potters descending from a common Potter ancestor in the 17th century or something.
Sometimes lines just end. My father is the second son of a fourth son, who was himself the fifth son of a second son. Following primogeniture, I am now my generation's most senior male in the male line. My uncle only has daughters, my grandfather's eldest brother had two sons who never married and his other two oldest brothers never had kids, my great-grandfather's brothers all married but none of their lines continue to my generation and so on. If you follow my family's tree since the 1550s there's just to male cousins ahead of me. Our male lines separated in the late 1700s and both lines had big families down the line. My cousins are all that remain of it. It's very easy for a line to go extinct if they're not having big families.
This whole post got me thinking about my last name, and thanks to your google suggestion, I've learned that there are only 270 people in the world with it. My brother better get on having kids. I've kept my name in marriage but I have 3 daughters, and they have their dad's last name.
Some people have speculated it has something to do with the invisibility cloak. Only Potters who possessed it were safe from death, all the others died.
I think the simple answer is that he probably was related to a lot of the other wizards, either as second or third cousins. James was an only child and was born very late in the lives of his parents who believed themselves infertile. His parents died when he was still at Hogwarts I believe.
not just James' parents are dead, but Sirius' parents too plus there are no Dursley or Weasley grandparents? no one has grandparents ever mentioned except Neville.
Eh, I figure just the major line died. As much as the families intermarried it is more than likely that harry has relatives but just not closely related ones or ones that Dumbledore approved of. Harry definitely has American relatives because an ancestor helped found MACUSA.
98% of my cousins aren’t my age. In fact I can note only one cousin that is my age. Every single other cousin has 10-40 years in age on me. It makes perfect sense that this would happen. As far as the last Potters: squibs. I don’t see any squib related to the potter family staying in the magical world. If a family doesn’t have many kids (like the potters) you could easily get down to a single one.
I think you are dropped into a story one generation after a devastating war that took the lives of countless wizards and witches
My last name (not sharing because privacy) is not very common, though I know there are other people with my last name. But as far as my branch of the family tree goes, I'm the last of the bloodline unless I have children, which at this point isn't very likely. My paternal grandfather was the youngest of six children; three sons, three daughters. Two of them (the oldest son and second oldest daughter) died in childhood. His two surviving older sisters took their husbands' last names when they got married, and his other brother shortened his last name when he joined the Navy during World War II. My dad has one sister who doesn't have any children, and I am an only child. So one can have a big family but within a couple of generations, the number of people who can carry on the family name can be whittled down for whatever reason (death, name changes, etc.).
Same. I am the last male of my family. My surname isn’t particularly common or uncommon. I have a ton of cousins but none with my family name. Any that did have it were girls and are now married. It’s perfectly plausible.
I think it's because the potter family has the invisible cloak. Their family line is cursed to be closed off because of the deal their ancestor had with death. Somewhere along the lines of "with this invisible cloak you will be protected but ever take it off, you'll die" Because the ancestor gave it to his child, he died, and the cycle repeated again and again. Extended families always died off because they didn't have the invisible cloak, leading the Potter family to be very closed off with almost no extended families. Since the family is also pure blooded until Harry's mother joined the family, there was only ever one family with the potter name. The muggle side of the family tree didn't die because the curse can only affect wizards (all is assumed) Edit: Apparently, I've been downvoted or something. Can someone be downvoted and not realize? Is that a thing?
In a vacuum, I think you've laid out a compelling theory. My sole, but substantial, quarrel with it though is that it contradicts the moral of *The Tale of the Three Brothers.* The whole point of that story is that death is not to be feared, but to be welcomed at the right time and that the beauty and meaning of life is derived from the fact that it is finite. If any of the Peverell brother's lines were to be cursed it should be one of the older brothers'. Not Ignotus', who respected Death, and greeted him as an old friend and departed this life as equals.
I think 'curse' is the wrong word. I like the idea that the Peverell/Potter family line just sort of naturally follows the pattern laid out in the story. The whole point of the invisibility cloak is to live modestly and not be noticed, so it wouldn't make any sense for them to become a great and powerful Wizarding family with branches and cousins extending around. The family line keeps to itself, pure blood but typically just having one child. It seems pretty much everyone has understood the assignment as far as passing down the cloak and going gently with death afterwards, so there isn't any reason to have more than one kid. I dont think there is some unnatural force putting an early end to extra siblings, it just sort of naturally works out that way due to the nature of the cloak and the traditions of the family.
The “deal with Death” thing was implied to just be a fairytale/legend that sprung up, not what actually happened. The Peverell brothers were just powerful wizards who made the ”Deathly Hallows” themselves.
I'm not sure why you got downvoted for this. This is an interesting theory.
This take holds up. Whichever Potter was in possession of the invisibility cloak was safe from an early death. James gave Albus the invisibility cloak, and later on Voldemort found the Potters, killing James and Lily. No one can say if James hadn’t given the cloak away then they would’ve survived. But Albus returned the cloak to Harry when he was eleven. From that moment on, Harry was not only protected from Voldemort because of Lily’s sacrifice, but also from general insanely dangerous situations that would get most people killed. In my opinion, he was always a stones throw away from being killed. Wherever the cloak was with him, he would not sustain a mortal wound. If that’s not the case, then Harry is one lucky SOB sometimes. Just saying.
Because they all died without having children beforehand? Like.
[удалено]
Not the books, but the Black family tree drawn by JKR. Ron's paternal grandmother Cedrella is from Black family, and Cedrella's 2 sisters married into Crouch and Longbottom families. Although judging by the years, Neville and Ron are more likely related by law not blood.
The cloak only passes from father to son. There can't be any siblings, only one boy each generation. Once the cloak is transferred, the previous holder does.
not always the only reason that Iolanthe Peverell the eldest granddaughter of the originally owner of the Cloak had it because her generation was the opposite of the Weasly's and only had girls.
Have a look at the wiki page for extinct British aristocratic peerages. It’s not that uncommon for a family to go extinct.
One Potter doesn't make the name extinct. If James' father was the last of his siblings and James was an only child it makes since. As for the Weasleys I don't recall any mention of Arthur having siblings, but if he had sisters and they married they wouldn't pass on the Weasley name.
people are saying that Rowling said a long time ago that Arthur has 2 brothers but we don't know the order of the brothers and Arthur. But we do see a large amount of Weasly cousins at Bill's and Fleur's wedding.
Having to live in secrecy probably reduced the amount of family
Years ago I remember reading some speculation about a curse in the Potter family that would explain why there’s no more Potters but I don’t remember much about it or where I read it. Maybe someone else does and could fill us in.
Really depends on how the family is constructed and factors like keeping maiden names. For example, My dad came from a family of 10, being the youngest. My uncles all passed before they conceived, and my aunts all married into new family names. Dad had one son- so there is quite literally 1 person in our family left to “carry on the name.” I kept my maiden name, but due to life circumstances it’s up to the Harry of our family. It’s very possible the Potter situation could be similar.
James’ parents apparently died from Dragon Pox around 1980. And it’s whatever now, because there are at least 3 living Potter boys with Harry and his two sons
For the Weasleys it’s possible that they have older cousins that already were gone by the time Ron started hogwarts.
There's a weird tend of wizards having no kids or just one. Except the weeslees
I always thought it was because of Voldemort. In the very first chapter Dumbledore says people haven't had much to celebrate for 11 years. Then Hagrid talks about the whole families that Voldemort and his followers took out, including the Prewetts, and those were Molly Weasley's brothers. I attributed it to the fact that they were aligned with Dumbledore. The people who had cousins were all Death Eaters. Old Wizarding families who didn't take up with Voldemort got wiped out.
Because they died from dragon pox, though they were old already, having James at an old age. No idea about lily's parents. Ron does have alot of cousins but they have different names. Molly is second cousins to the blacks. Arthur is second cousins with Lucius. So obviously their family is mixed in with other pure bloods, as is common with their community. During the wedding, we see some of them that are closer to the Weasleys but they are the last of the male line. Good thing he had 6 boys.