= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Alsadius comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 15, chapter 84 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
Comments (1221)
Can't you? Multiple titles, and even personal union of crowns, are pretty common in RL nobility and royalty. It being allowed would be my default assumption, and I know of no Potterverse evidence to the contrary.
There's a difference between dynasties and titles. Houses are dynasties- lots and lots of people were Habsburgs, even though only one person held a title at any particular time. For example, Philip I was, in 1505, King of Castile, Duke of Burgundy, Duke of Brabant, Duke of Limburg, Duke of Lothier, Duke of Luxemburg, Margrave of Namur, Count Palatine of Burgundy, Count of Artois, Count of Charolais, Count of Flanders, Count of Hainault, Count of Holland, and Count of Zeeland, but only a member of one House- the Habsburgs.
Also, take a look at cadet branches.
It doesn't seem likely that wizards actually have hereditary titles that are linked to locations, since their power comes from magic, not farmland. Lord Malfoy is probably only a Lord because he's on the Wizengamot- Draco doesn't seem to have a courtesy title, as would befit the son of an important position in Muggle Britain.
In MoR, Malfoy is a Noble and Most Ancient House, which presumably comes with a title. In canon, Lucius is neither a Lord, nor on the Wizengamot.
Also, in MoR we have
My presumption is that title comes from being on the Wizengamot, not that he's on the Wizengamot because he has a title. That's mostly because I don't quite see what they would use the titles for, except as a medieval version of "Senator."
Except we have an example in MoR of a prominent member of the Wizengamot not having a title, and one- Lord Greengrass- of someone having a title without being on the Wizengamot.
Chapter 78 suggests that Lady Greengrass has a vote on the Wizengamot, and referring to consorts as Lord or Lady is standard. Not referring to Mrs. Longbottom as Lady seems odd, but I don't know how significant it is. (If EY has done extensive worldbuilding about the politics and courtesies of Wizarding Britain, it is opaque and appears to be a significant departure from canon.)
Yes, since he married a Lady of a Noble House it would make sense for him to become a Lord. It doesn't make sense for him to become a Senator because he married a Senator, though.
It seems to me that the face value of
is that the titles come from the family.
Edit: Not to mention Amelia Bones is on the Wizengamot, and she's not Lady Bones.
Yes. We know this to be the case because people are being addressed by "Lord" and "Lady", which no one ever was in canon. (Except Voldemort.)
Mr. Greengrass wasn't born to a House- and even if he were married to her matrilineally, I believe he'd remain houseless (under European rules).
My guess is that the system is not internally consistent, or at least not internally consistent enough to use formal logic instead of fuzzy logic. Bones is the head of a department of the Ministry, and may have been seated with Fudge and Umbridge instead of with the voting members.
So, wait, is this the case or is it true that "referring to consorts as Lord or Lady is standard."? Or both, somehow? I'm confused.
I looked back through, and it seems you're right that her location wasn't mentioned. I guess the fact that she was on the Wizengamot in canon isn't much evidence in this case.
Again, titles and dynasties (houses) are different things.
If the appellation accompanies the dynasty, then I'm pretty sure Lady Greengrass's husband would neither use her name or have a Lord title. For example, Prince Philip is a member of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, not the House of Windsor, the house of his wife, Queen Elizabeth. A patrilineal marriage is one in which the children are of the husband's house, and a matrilineal marriage is one in which the children are of the wife's house. (The practice of forming a new line with each new pairing, like with 'Potter-Evans-Verres', is incredibly short-sighted and is very uncommon. I know of no society where that was the norm for an extended period of time.)
If appellations follow the title, like in the UK, you get things like John Morrison, lowborn but raised to the peerage. His appellation is now Lord because of the barony he holds, and his wife's appellation is now Lady because her husband holds a barony. Similarly, Lady Greengrass would be married to Lord Greengrass under this system. (The Morrison dynasty would be everyone who can trace their lineage back to him and has the surname of Morrison- which comes with no legal benefits.)
This is modern UK politics, so I'm not clear on it, but I think ministers get votes in parliament? But that adds another wrinkle- I guess it would be a temporary vote, where Malfoy may have a life vote, and so he gets a title and she doesn't.
Edit again: I should mention that kinship, and the etiquette surrounding it, can get really thorny. So far I've been assuming patrilineal dynasties, which fits with canon Harry Potter and most of European history, but might not fit with MoR (as Greengrass and her husband are clearly a matrilineal couple). Sophia Dorothea was born into the House of Welf but became a member of the House of Hanover after marrying George I. So if both patrilineal and matrilineal marriage are common, then it could be that the Lord and Lady follow dynasties rather than titles.
In that case I'd expect in that case there to be more people whose title is something like "Lord of Malfoy, Black, Longbottom, and Potter".
Oh god, bad fanfiction flashbacks...
I wasn't sure whether it was relevant to include a note about those there.
If only Harry realized earlier that he was a descendant of all four Hogwarts founders, Merlin, Amaterasu, and Voltron.
Don't forget Naruto!
Or better yet, do forget Naruto.
I'd throw in son of Mr. Fantastic for good measure. (nobody says Lilly was faithful)
Long-form noble titles are used very rarely, because they're so unwieldy, and we've only seen a couple of folks who would be in a position to have multiple titles at all in the sort of detail where the long form would be used. Dumbledore is the only example I know of where they actually used anything longer than a few words. You're right that we might have seen one, but Rowling would likely have found it a bit too complex, and they're not so common that the lack is significant.
Rowling wouldn't have done it because the only nobility in canon Harry Potter is the Black family.
I thought this contradicted at least some of what JKR said about the later (post-Hogwarts) reformation of the wizarding world accomplished by Hermione Granger, but it seems JKR just mentioned laws favoring pure-bloods, not laws favoring an aristocracy/nobility. The relevant passage is this:
I'm pretty sure that Lucius Malfoy was Lord Malfoy in canon.
The canon Potterverse showed no signs of being semi-feudal though. I imagine that he was a lord in much the same way that present day Lords of the Commonwealth are, ie. upper class but without meaningful rights over the rest of the population.
Edit: a google search for Lord Malfoy doesn't appear to bring up any text results from canon, but the potter wiki describes him as "aristocratic".
You would be wrong.
Edit in response to your edit: He is "aristocratic". He's rich, he lives in a manor, he carries a cane, and he's a pureblood. He's just not a lord, or any other sort of noble.
Really? That doesn't seem right.
You're right, actually, it isn't. The Black family is just called "the Noble and Most Ancient House of Black", it doesn't actually have any members with any sort of title. So there isn't any nobility.
Sources: NaMAH search, nobility in Harry Potter