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.