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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2004-12-07 12:56 pm (UTC)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.