Mixing
Why are the Weasleys specifically considered blood traitors?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
There are a lot of wizards that are not only okay with Muggles, but even marry them (say, Tonks' mother, for example). Actually, apart from such intense cases as the Blacks, Malfoys, Lestranges etc., a lot of wizards seem to be at least tolerant to Muggles. There are known cases when wizards helped their Muggle neighbors or protected them.
Still the whole Weasley family is the one targeted with this "blood treachery" stigma more than the others. They preserved their blood line pure (unlike many other families) and there is only one family member (Arthur) can be seen fascinated with Muggle technologies, which is seen more like being a wierdo, rather than aggressive Muggle defender.
What is their treachery exactly that is seen by the Pure-bloods as something outstanding?
harry-potter
edited 1 hour ago
TheLethalCarrot
34.8k14191233
asked 1 hour ago
Shana Tar
2,30611531
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
There are a lot of wizards that are not only okay with Muggles, but even marry them (say, Tonks' mother, for example). Actually, apart from such intense cases as the Blacks, Malfoys, Lestranges etc., a lot of wizards seem to be at least tolerant to Muggles. There are known cases when wizards helped their Muggle neighbors or protected them.
Still the whole Weasley family is the one targeted with this "blood treachery" stigma more than the others. They preserved their blood line pure (unlike many other families) and there is only one family member (Arthur) can be seen fascinated with Muggle technologies, which is seen more like being a wierdo, rather than aggressive Muggle defender.
What is their treachery exactly that is seen by the Pure-bloods as something outstanding?
harry-potter
edited 1 hour ago
TheLethalCarrot
34.8k14191233
asked 1 hour ago
Shana Tar
2,30611531
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
There are a lot of wizards that are not only okay with Muggles, but even marry them (say, Tonks' mother, for example). Actually, apart from such intense cases as the Blacks, Malfoys, Lestranges etc., a lot of wizards seem to be at least tolerant to Muggles. There are known cases when wizards helped their Muggle neighbors or protected them.
Still the whole Weasley family is the one targeted with this "blood treachery" stigma more than the others. They preserved their blood line pure (unlike many other families) and there is only one family member (Arthur) can be seen fascinated with Muggle technologies, which is seen more like being a wierdo, rather than aggressive Muggle defender.
What is their treachery exactly that is seen by the Pure-bloods as something outstanding?
harry-potter
edited 1 hour ago
TheLethalCarrot
34.8k14191233
asked 1 hour ago
Shana Tar
2,30611531
There are a lot of wizards that are not only okay with Muggles, but even marry them (say, Tonks' mother, for example). Actually, apart from such intense cases as the Blacks, Malfoys, Lestranges etc., a lot of wizards seem to be at least tolerant to Muggles. There are known cases when wizards helped their Muggle neighbors or protected them.
Still the whole Weasley family is the one targeted with this "blood treachery" stigma more than the others. They preserved their blood line pure (unlike many other families) and there is only one family member (Arthur) can be seen fascinated with Muggle technologies, which is seen more like being a wierdo, rather than aggressive Muggle defender.
What is their treachery exactly that is seen by the Pure-bloods as something outstanding?
harry-potter
harry-potter
edited 1 hour ago
TheLethalCarrot
34.8k14191233
asked 1 hour ago
Shana Tar
2,30611531
edited 1 hour ago
TheLethalCarrot
34.8k14191233
asked 1 hour ago
Shana Tar
2,30611531
edited 1 hour ago
TheLethalCarrot
34.8k14191233
edited 1 hour ago
TheLethalCarrot
34.8k14191233
edited 1 hour ago
TheLethalCarrot
34.8k14191233
34.8k14191233
asked 1 hour ago
Shana Tar
2,30611531
asked 1 hour ago
Shana Tar
2,30611531
asked 1 hour ago
Shana Tar
2,30611531
2,30611531
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
5
down vote
accepted
Because they were listed as one of the "Sacred Twenty-Eight".
In the early 1930s, a ‘Pure-Blood Directory’ was published anonymously in Britain, which listed the twenty-eight truly pure-blood families, as judged by the unknown authority who had written the book***, with ‘the aim of helping such families maintain the purity of their bloodlines’.
There are not as many true pure-blood families as might expect, or at least as many that can trace their lineage far back.
The Weasley's specifically decried their name being included on the list from the start:
A minority of these families publicly deplored their inclusion on the list, declaring that their ancestors certainly included Muggles, a fact of which they were not ashamed. Most vocally indignant was the numerous Weasley family, which, in spite of its connections with almost every old wizarding family in Britain, was proud of its ancestral ties to many interesting Muggles. Their protests earned these families the opprobrium of advocates of the pure-blood doctrine, and the epithet ‘blood traitor’. Meanwhile, a larger number of families were protesting that they were not on the pure-blood list.
answered 1 hour ago
Skooba
36.6k13187250
Pure-bloods seem to think anyone who is a Pure-blood and doesn't hate Muggles are blood traitors. It's not just marrying with Muggles, it's the act of being sympathetic towards them.
– TheLethalCarrot
1 hour ago
@TheLethalCarrot I think prior to Voldemort's first rise to power it was just marriage. Voldy took it to the extreme which is why we see it that way once Harry is on the scene.
– Skooba
1 hour ago
1
I didn't know they publicly objected against being in "Sacred Twenty-Eight", that settles it, thanks!
– Shana Tar
1 hour ago
@TheLethalCarrot Then they'd had to call blood traitors too many people. See Hogwarts statistics for example: we can assume that almost all who is in Hafflepuff, Ravenclaw and Griffindor would be blood traitors per your definition, together with some Slytherins (like Slughorn). The term "blood traitor" would lose it's significance.
– Shana Tar
1 hour ago
@ShanaTar I'm pretty sure almost all in those houses aren't classed as Pure-bloods.
– TheLethalCarrot
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
5
down vote
accepted
Because they were listed as one of the "Sacred Twenty-Eight".
In the early 1930s, a ‘Pure-Blood Directory’ was published anonymously in Britain, which listed the twenty-eight truly pure-blood families, as judged by the unknown authority who had written the book***, with ‘the aim of helping such families maintain the purity of their bloodlines’.
There are not as many true pure-blood families as might expect, or at least as many that can trace their lineage far back.
The Weasley's specifically decried their name being included on the list from the start:
A minority of these families publicly deplored their inclusion on the list, declaring that their ancestors certainly included Muggles, a fact of which they were not ashamed. Most vocally indignant was the numerous Weasley family, which, in spite of its connections with almost every old wizarding family in Britain, was proud of its ancestral ties to many interesting Muggles. Their protests earned these families the opprobrium of advocates of the pure-blood doctrine, and the epithet ‘blood traitor’. Meanwhile, a larger number of families were protesting that they were not on the pure-blood list.
answered 1 hour ago
Skooba
36.6k13187250
Pure-bloods seem to think anyone who is a Pure-blood and doesn't hate Muggles are blood traitors. It's not just marrying with Muggles, it's the act of being sympathetic towards them.
– TheLethalCarrot
1 hour ago
@TheLethalCarrot I think prior to Voldemort's first rise to power it was just marriage. Voldy took it to the extreme which is why we see it that way once Harry is on the scene.
– Skooba
1 hour ago
1
I didn't know they publicly objected against being in "Sacred Twenty-Eight", that settles it, thanks!
– Shana Tar
1 hour ago
@TheLethalCarrot Then they'd had to call blood traitors too many people. See Hogwarts statistics for example: we can assume that almost all who is in Hafflepuff, Ravenclaw and Griffindor would be blood traitors per your definition, together with some Slytherins (like Slughorn). The term "blood traitor" would lose it's significance.
– Shana Tar
1 hour ago
@ShanaTar I'm pretty sure almost all in those houses aren't classed as Pure-bloods.
– TheLethalCarrot
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
accepted
Because they were listed as one of the "Sacred Twenty-Eight".
In the early 1930s, a ‘Pure-Blood Directory’ was published anonymously in Britain, which listed the twenty-eight truly pure-blood families, as judged by the unknown authority who had written the book***, with ‘the aim of helping such families maintain the purity of their bloodlines’.
There are not as many true pure-blood families as might expect, or at least as many that can trace their lineage far back.
The Weasley's specifically decried their name being included on the list from the start:
A minority of these families publicly deplored their inclusion on the list, declaring that their ancestors certainly included Muggles, a fact of which they were not ashamed. Most vocally indignant was the numerous Weasley family, which, in spite of its connections with almost every old wizarding family in Britain, was proud of its ancestral ties to many interesting Muggles. Their protests earned these families the opprobrium of advocates of the pure-blood doctrine, and the epithet ‘blood traitor’. Meanwhile, a larger number of families were protesting that they were not on the pure-blood list.
answered 1 hour ago
Skooba
36.6k13187250
Pure-bloods seem to think anyone who is a Pure-blood and doesn't hate Muggles are blood traitors. It's not just marrying with Muggles, it's the act of being sympathetic towards them.
– TheLethalCarrot
1 hour ago
@TheLethalCarrot I think prior to Voldemort's first rise to power it was just marriage. Voldy took it to the extreme which is why we see it that way once Harry is on the scene.
– Skooba
1 hour ago
1
I didn't know they publicly objected against being in "Sacred Twenty-Eight", that settles it, thanks!
– Shana Tar
1 hour ago
@TheLethalCarrot Then they'd had to call blood traitors too many people. See Hogwarts statistics for example: we can assume that almost all who is in Hafflepuff, Ravenclaw and Griffindor would be blood traitors per your definition, together with some Slytherins (like Slughorn). The term "blood traitor" would lose it's significance.
– Shana Tar
1 hour ago
@ShanaTar I'm pretty sure almost all in those houses aren't classed as Pure-bloods.
– TheLethalCarrot
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
accepted
up vote
5
down vote
accepted
Because they were listed as one of the "Sacred Twenty-Eight".
In the early 1930s, a ‘Pure-Blood Directory’ was published anonymously in Britain, which listed the twenty-eight truly pure-blood families, as judged by the unknown authority who had written the book***, with ‘the aim of helping such families maintain the purity of their bloodlines’.
There are not as many true pure-blood families as might expect, or at least as many that can trace their lineage far back.
The Weasley's specifically decried their name being included on the list from the start:
A minority of these families publicly deplored their inclusion on the list, declaring that their ancestors certainly included Muggles, a fact of which they were not ashamed. Most vocally indignant was the numerous Weasley family, which, in spite of its connections with almost every old wizarding family in Britain, was proud of its ancestral ties to many interesting Muggles. Their protests earned these families the opprobrium of advocates of the pure-blood doctrine, and the epithet ‘blood traitor’. Meanwhile, a larger number of families were protesting that they were not on the pure-blood list.
answered 1 hour ago
Skooba
36.6k13187250
Because they were listed as one of the "Sacred Twenty-Eight".
In the early 1930s, a ‘Pure-Blood Directory’ was published anonymously in Britain, which listed the twenty-eight truly pure-blood families, as judged by the unknown authority who had written the book***, with ‘the aim of helping such families maintain the purity of their bloodlines’.
There are not as many true pure-blood families as might expect, or at least as many that can trace their lineage far back.
The Weasley's specifically decried their name being included on the list from the start:
A minority of these families publicly deplored their inclusion on the list, declaring that their ancestors certainly included Muggles, a fact of which they were not ashamed. Most vocally indignant was the numerous Weasley family, which, in spite of its connections with almost every old wizarding family in Britain, was proud of its ancestral ties to many interesting Muggles. Their protests earned these families the opprobrium of advocates of the pure-blood doctrine, and the epithet ‘blood traitor’. Meanwhile, a larger number of families were protesting that they were not on the pure-blood list.
answered 1 hour ago
Skooba
36.6k13187250
edited 1 hour ago
answered 1 hour ago
Skooba
36.6k13187250
answered 1 hour ago
Skooba
36.6k13187250
answered 1 hour ago
Skooba
36.6k13187250
36.6k13187250
Pure-bloods seem to think anyone who is a Pure-blood and doesn't hate Muggles are blood traitors. It's not just marrying with Muggles, it's the act of being sympathetic towards them.
– TheLethalCarrot
1 hour ago
@TheLethalCarrot I think prior to Voldemort's first rise to power it was just marriage. Voldy took it to the extreme which is why we see it that way once Harry is on the scene.
– Skooba
1 hour ago
1
I didn't know they publicly objected against being in "Sacred Twenty-Eight", that settles it, thanks!
– Shana Tar
1 hour ago
@TheLethalCarrot Then they'd had to call blood traitors too many people. See Hogwarts statistics for example: we can assume that almost all who is in Hafflepuff, Ravenclaw and Griffindor would be blood traitors per your definition, together with some Slytherins (like Slughorn). The term "blood traitor" would lose it's significance.
– Shana Tar
1 hour ago
@ShanaTar I'm pretty sure almost all in those houses aren't classed as Pure-bloods.
– TheLethalCarrot
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
Pure-bloods seem to think anyone who is a Pure-blood and doesn't hate Muggles are blood traitors. It's not just marrying with Muggles, it's the act of being sympathetic towards them.
– TheLethalCarrot
1 hour ago
@TheLethalCarrot I think prior to Voldemort's first rise to power it was just marriage. Voldy took it to the extreme which is why we see it that way once Harry is on the scene.
– Skooba
1 hour ago
1
I didn't know they publicly objected against being in "Sacred Twenty-Eight", that settles it, thanks!
– Shana Tar
1 hour ago
@TheLethalCarrot Then they'd had to call blood traitors too many people. See Hogwarts statistics for example: we can assume that almost all who is in Hafflepuff, Ravenclaw and Griffindor would be blood traitors per your definition, together with some Slytherins (like Slughorn). The term "blood traitor" would lose it's significance.
– Shana Tar
1 hour ago
@ShanaTar I'm pretty sure almost all in those houses aren't classed as Pure-bloods.
– TheLethalCarrot
1 hour ago
Pure-bloods seem to think anyone who is a Pure-blood and doesn't hate Muggles are blood traitors. It's not just marrying with Muggles, it's the act of being sympathetic towards them.
– TheLethalCarrot
1 hour ago
Pure-bloods seem to think anyone who is a Pure-blood and doesn't hate Muggles are blood traitors. It's not just marrying with Muggles, it's the act of being sympathetic towards them.
– TheLethalCarrot
1 hour ago
@TheLethalCarrot I think prior to Voldemort's first rise to power it was just marriage. Voldy took it to the extreme which is why we see it that way once Harry is on the scene.
– Skooba
1 hour ago
@TheLethalCarrot I think prior to Voldemort's first rise to power it was just marriage. Voldy took it to the extreme which is why we see it that way once Harry is on the scene.
– Skooba
1 hour ago
1
1
I didn't know they publicly objected against being in "Sacred Twenty-Eight", that settles it, thanks!
– Shana Tar
1 hour ago
I didn't know they publicly objected against being in "Sacred Twenty-Eight", that settles it, thanks!
– Shana Tar
1 hour ago
@TheLethalCarrot Then they'd had to call blood traitors too many people. See Hogwarts statistics for example: we can assume that almost all who is in Hafflepuff, Ravenclaw and Griffindor would be blood traitors per your definition, together with some Slytherins (like Slughorn). The term "blood traitor" would lose it's significance.
– Shana Tar
1 hour ago
@TheLethalCarrot Then they'd had to call blood traitors too many people. See Hogwarts statistics for example: we can assume that almost all who is in Hafflepuff, Ravenclaw and Griffindor would be blood traitors per your definition, together with some Slytherins (like Slughorn). The term "blood traitor" would lose it's significance.
– Shana Tar
1 hour ago
@ShanaTar I'm pretty sure almost all in those houses aren't classed as Pure-bloods.
– TheLethalCarrot
1 hour ago
@ShanaTar I'm pretty sure almost all in those houses aren't classed as Pure-bloods.
– TheLethalCarrot
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fscifi.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f197708%2fwhy-are-the-weasleys-specifically-considered-blood-traitors%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password