Of heirs and prophecies

[donnaimmaculata]

I was wondering, does anyone else have a problem with the whole "heir of..." business? Godric Gryffindor and Salazar Slytherin lived over a thousand years ago. No way they've got only one heir each. If any of their descendants had more than one child, all their children would be "heirs of..." as well. And their children's children. And their children's children's children. Seeing as the wizarding population is rather small and as children of witches of wizards more often than not are witches and wizards, too, there must be hundreds of "heirs of..." running around, who, by blood, have the same claims to being the heir of Slytherin as Tom Riddle. In addition, Tom is half-blood, so there is no reason to assume that his lineage is that of long line of inbreeding Slytherin descendants.

I really hope that Rowling doesn't build her story around Harry's being the heir of Gryffindor.

I also consider the prophecy as a problematic plot device. Harry wasn't destined to be the one to kill Voldemort. He was programmed. Voldemort for his part was challenged to antagonise Harry. Had the prophecy not existed, Voldemort would have had no reason to single Harry out and to kill his parents. Harry only goes after Voldemort, because Voldemort tried to kill him first.

Of course, it is well possible that Harry would still have to fight Voldemort, even if the prophecy didn't exist. But it is its existence which makes the confrontation inevitable in the first place. Self-fulfilling, anyone?

Comments

[florahart]

1. If it's "heir"--not just descendant but the one heir--the firstborn, then one who is orphaned, assuming no living grandparent that was the heir, then there would be just the one.

2. Or, if it means heir in the sense I've thought it did, which meant, also born of that line with the gift/talent of being a Parselmouth, then there might be only one, as it's stated to be rare.

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

Hm, I didn't consider the firstborn aspect. But, this rule is more a legal thing. The fact that the firstborn (son) is the heir is a legal regulation, which, in addition, doesn't apply if there is no firstborn or if the firsborn dies. If, say, Salazar's great-grandson didn't have children, the heir status would fall to the next of kin, who might be the firstborn of Salazar's great-granddaughter. And if that firstborn died, would the second child be the heir? Or the firstborn of the great-grandson's third child? This is the point where it all becomes a bit imprecise, and this is basically what I meant. 1000 years later, one cannot fix with absolute certainty on only one heir.

I've never thought of the heir as being defined by the inherited ability. I'm not sure what to think of it. If it were true and the heir of Slytherin had to carry the ability of speak Parseltongue, then it is well possible that there have been generations where an heir didn't exist, because there was no Parselmouth among Slytherin's descendants. Plus, it's only fair for Godric, Rowena and Helga to have heirs, too, and would they be defined about the Founders' respective singular abilities (of which we haven't heard, as yet)? Hm. I'm just trying to make things complicated. Don't mind me.

[rosina-alcona.livejournal.com]

I suppose it's governed by the same sorts of outdated rules that our Kings and Queens are appointed by. There'll be all sorts of rules about 'marrying out' and first born boys and whatnot, I would have thought.

The prophesy - there must be more to it than we realise yet, as the reason Voldemort chose Harry over Neville is pretty unclear...at that age, who could tell how powerful a wizard either of them would become? There's something missing here.

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure the whole "heir of" thing is actually governed, you know? It's not as though it's a legal business; it's more a moral heirloom. And therefore, I find it difficult to determine who the "heir of" is, because it's not strictly regulated in accordance with any legal succession laws. If Salazar's firstborn had no children, then his secondborn's firstborn would become the heir. And if he died, would it be his secondborn's secondborn or his thirdborn's firstborn? Or what? Here, my brain shuts down.

The point I'm trying to make is that, more than 1000 years later, the entire "firstborn" sequence must have been interrupted so many times that one cannot fix on one person as the "heir". Throughout the history, hundreds of wars have been led only to determine who the heir to a throne really was. And here, we have no legal rights, but only moral heritage, which makes things much more complicated.

I expect that we will learn more about the prophecy, too, but the fact remains, it does exist. And apparently, it made Voldemort go after Harry. He might have tried to kill Harry in any case, but as the matter stands, the prophecy had been the triggering factor.

[rosina-alcona.livejournal.com]

I see what you mean. But if it's magically decided rather than a law thing, then maybe it's more infallible, almost like a genetic trait going through generations? Or perhaps it's encapsulated in some physical thing or power? I imagine it almost like a birthmark showing up.

Sorry, I would be more coherent if I couldn't see Jason Isaacs on The West Wing doing an accent out of the corner of my eye! OMFG!

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

Ah, the infamous birthmark! *imagines Draco Lucius Malfoy with Heir-Of-Slytherin-Birthmark(TM)*

Would you believe that I don't really know Jason Isaacs? I'm probably the last person in the fandom who's never seen Peter Pan. I don't think West Wing is on German telly, either... But I saw him on a talkshow, promoting Black Hawk Down, and understand fully why everybody's raving about him *g*

[rosina-alcona.livejournal.com]

he gives great interview. and right now he's doing a Northern Irish accent and he's a bit sweaty and open-shirted. *sigh*

Yeah something like a birthmark. Like the parseltongue, but more specific perhaps.

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

a bit sweaty and open-shirted

*has pervy Mr. Darcy flashback*

*slashes Mr. Darcy with Mr. Darling*

You know, Jason Isaacs looks a bit like a bloke I know in London. I always though he didn't like me when I first met him, but when I saw him the next time, he was flirting with me rather shamelessly. He'll be in my area on Thursday... hm...

Um, what was the original topic, again? Ah yes, birthmarks.

If Rowling takes the "heir of" concept further, I would wish for her to elaborate the heir's origins and the reasons that make him the Chosen Heir. Then again, she can't elaborate everything, can she?

[rosina-alcona.livejournal.com]

He'll be in my area on Thursday... hm...

That's not the only placed he'd be, if I was you! YUM YUM!

i think she'll have to take it further at some point. She doesn't tend to mention things lightly (Mark Evans being the exception!) so I'd say we'd definitely get more on this one...

[donnaimmaculata.livejournal.com]

Let's hope the Half-Blood Prince will bring the answer. (Any answer would be good, considering that OotP left us with nothing but questions.)

Unfortunately, the Jason Isaacs lookalike is still-BF's mate. I might be lacking many essential morals, but there are some no-go areas left!