Actually, no. As much as we want to write history to legitimize today's sexual norms, pregnancy before marriage was not common, or even a strong minority of marriages. That trend didn't begin until the end of the 18th century (notice I said trend, not that it never happened).

From the previous link I posted (and giving the entire paragraph for context):

How do they know that? By comparing birth records and marriage records, both of which were kept with competence by the parish or church they belonged to. Remembering what their belief system was, a child would absolutely be baptized as soon as possible.

 

Aren't you contradicting yourself? First you say pregnancy before marriage almost never happens, yet the paragraph you quoted mentioned that over a quarter of births happen less then nine months after marriage.

 

Perhaps the atomic clocks that women use to time their children's births to within a microsecond of 9 months were not as precise during medieval times as they are today?

 

When did this become about pregnancy and marriage in medieval times, is my question.

 

Everyone thinks their generation invented sex, but you can trace post-pubescent teenagers sneaking off into the woods together all the way back to the dawn of terrestrial life. If you think 'sexual norms' stop teenagers from fucking you're delusional.

What's changed is not behaviour, but fertility. The average age of the onset of puberty in girls today has dropped into the single digits, whereas a century and a half ago it was around 16 (if you can trust doctors of the 1860s to keep accurate records about female sexuality). Teenagers weren't less likely to fuck back then because of cultural norms, it's just that they got interested in it later than they do today.

 

And here's mine:

Instead of being a smarmy fuckwit, why not try and get the discussion back on track?

From what I'm reading about the Wonderland interview, it seems like a good portion of this particular line of questioning was omitted from the preview. I have a sneaking suspicion that the full interview, which will be published on Feb 7, will soften her statements from "looking back, I should've done it this way" to something like "looking back, I should've done it this way, but I'm satisfied with how it ended."

I think we'll probably see a good many more of these little fire stokers in order to sustain interest in the fandom until Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them drops. Which is smart, because Newt Scamander isn't going to draw much of a crowd without help.

 

​

My headcanon with bachelor!Harry cutting off coupons from his fame still doesn't give a fuck.

Though I wouldn't be opposed to H/Fleur.

 

Putting aside the discussion of cultural norms for a second, there is also the factor of Rowling's English Wizarding World being a pretty small society. Chances are even upon graduating, you'll be seeing your former school peers for the rest of your life.

Just guessing here (so someone feel free to correct me), but I imagine in small, isolated towns with only one school, people might get married younger and to people they dated in school.

 

But now we're getting into JKR's shitty world-building - not enough people in the wizarding world for there to be purebloods without Draco looking like Charles II of Spain. You have to assume either enormous hordes of NPCs at Hogwarts that are never, ever mentioned in the books or other magical schools in the British Isles just to make it work. Or you just give up and say magic cures inbreeding.

 

If I remember correctly, there is up to 8 students per house and per year. Total of one class of 32 students per year, which is extremly small.

Edit : found the link I was thinking about : here on HP Wikia

 

What is completely inconsistent with some descriptions in books (like any number would be).

 

The UK birth rate is about 12 per year per 1000 people. Assuming that wizards have as many children as the rest of Britain (unlikely, considering that I'm pretty sure the Weasleys are the only family that didn't stop at one or two), and assuming that wizards have an infant mortality of zero, that puts the Wizarding World's population at about 2700. Take out the immigrants and first-generation British, take out the Muggleborns, take out the halfbloods, and you get a society that should be piling into boats and heading west to the Undying Lands.

That's what drives me up the wall about Harry Potter - everything about it works for long enough for you to fall in love with the world, but if you think about it for too long you realize that none of it works at all.

What were we even talking about? Social norms re: marriage? Right. There's no inference you can make about it re: wizarding society because wizarding society is not a society, it's a backdrop for a story. Some writers build a world and write stories set in that world (Tolkien was the master of this) whereas others write stories and sketch out a world around it as needed, and JKR is very much in the latter category.

So would wizarding society tend towards marrying young? Does a dog have the Buddha-nature? Have you stopped beating your wife? 無. Mu. You have asked a question to which both 'yes' and 'no' are incorrect answers because your question is built upon faulty assumptions. There is no wizarding society. Not even a fictional one.

 

Well, the 1890s was indeed still the age of horses for a lot of transport... rail didn't complete the last step of the journey for the most part and cars were just invented and still very much a novelty.

The UK didn't grant women right to vote until 1918, and not for all women over 21 until 1928:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_suffrage#United_Kingdom

Idk why you going on about "100 years ago" when Harry Potter is in the 90s so 100 years before that is in the 1890s. You should keep repeating "120 years ago" ad nauseum instead.

Actually it was reached for females in 1980 again:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005061.html

Median, so half of women got into their first marriage before 22.

I didn't reference middle ages, you did.

Well the Weasleys are purebloods...

Edit: I'd like to add that I can't make up my mind if Hogwarts is for all classes or just the upper classes with the government giving stipends for the most promising students. Hogwarts is weird in that way, because I can't see Lucius sending his boy to mix with the lower dreck if there was a better option, or at least having private tutors on the side. Who knows, maybe the shitty muggle witches get sent to Miss Cackle's Academy for Witches and the Weasley got in only on Dumbledore's good graces.

In either case, I don't see too many John Q Goatfuckers in Hogwarts. Why bother with a goat when a wizard can imperio a nice fluffy sheep instead?

Was he now? I thought he spent the majority of the 90s in wizarding society.

Well, glad to be in your company.

You should try reading some instead.

 

Which doesn't contradict what I said at all. You think there weren't suffragettes in the 1890s?

I refuse to acknowledge that my childhood was 20 years ago.

Swing and a miss.

Okay, exactly what time period did you think you were referencing with young marriages primarily for political concerns being the norm among the entire population of the United Kingdom? Possibly the future, where they have robots instead of lower classes?

And thus nobility, despite being ruinously poor, living in a scrapheap, having their primary breadwinner working in a low-level civil servant position and receiving no recognition or respect for their apparent nobility? Really?

Raise, /reɪz/, verb. Past tense: raised. To bring up (a child).

Honestly, is this the best you can do? If you can't think of any good retorts, don't go with 'yeah but you are too'. Not responding would be better than this weaksauce bullshit.

Frankly, the entire showing was just pathetic. I didn't even get my blood up. Is this the quality of meaningless arguments about pedantic bullshit we've got around here these days? Taure, get in here and defend JK, you're always good for a shouting match.

 

1
2

Basically.

 

Theirs is truly an open marriage.
I didn't know british newspapers were printed the manga way though. Or is that just wizarding news?

Which is actually a good point, I have to assume that after finally surviving against all odds for the 7th year in a row, Harry would want to do some sight-seeing on his own, without the hunting of incredibly famous relics that are incredibly hard to find.
He'd see all what the world has to offer, meet all the different wizarding societies and come back to either marry his high school girlfriend of 3-5 months or his best friend. That kid is so depressing.

It sounds ridiculous until you realize this society uses a time machine to deal with a student's hectic schedule and then holy shit magic totally cures inbreeding.

...Uh-huh.

I must confess my ineptitude: I have no clue how my question about mediaval marriage was apparently insincere or excessive.
I agree that my wit is indeed fuck-worthy, thank you.

 

My assumption is that the artist is either East-Asian or has read too many manga to remember that we start on the left over here. Or they forgot to reverse it in the pic.

 

Uh, no. Within nine months, as in, the marriage didn't reach the tenth month. It's another way of saying, "Up to a ___ of births happened within a month of the nine month anniversary."

Interesting perspective. First, my argument wasn't about "inventing" sex. It was about sexual norms. Second, there's a hell of a lot less chance to get a girl pregnant when you're on the farm or in the factory 16-18 hours a day. The whole "children get to go to school for 8 hours a day and spend time with kids their own age, especially of the opposite sex," is a construct of the last hundred and some-odd years. All of society has changed and along with it, sexual norms and sexual activity. One impacts the other.

Also, don't underestimate the power that religious conviction has on a person. If people can willing sacrifice their life due to such conviction, they can also willingly abstain due to such convictions. Doesn't mean everyone can, but when doubled with what I wrote above, it makes it a lot easier to understand.

At one point, there's supposed to be over a thousand students at Hogwarts. Harry sees literally hundreds of students when he walks in. There's something like 1200 chairs set up for the Yule Ball. Slytherin itself had two hundered or more supporters for a regular Quidditch match and there's not suggestion that people came from the outside to watch the matches.

On the other hand, there's a number of reasons that there's a small number at the school as well. So it's really an exercise in futility to try and figure out population size by student population at Hogwarts.

LMAO. I'm tempted to ask what happened, but I'm guessing the answer is someplace between "don't ask, don't tell" and "none of your business." Both I'm okay (like that matters).

Cracked me up. Good find.


_____________

All in all, what it comes down to is this: are two people stubborn enough to stick it out. When talking about being stubborn, the two at the front of the line are Ron and Hermione. The other two are Harry and Ginny.

So yeah, I have no problem accepting that those relationships lasted. Especial Ron and Hermione. I've never been to war, but those who have say the bonds that are formed are closer than blood or marriage. So to have that bond PLUS a marriage . . . not hard to believe at all.