Is there any sort of DLP consensus on the ratio of purebloods to half-bloods to muggleborns in the wizarding world?

I'm assuming, along with the Lexicon, that purebloods don't have ANY muggle blood in their ancestry. That should mean that purebloods are exceedingly rare in the wizarding world, and are vastly outnumbered by half-bloods and muggleborns.

But other articles in the Lexicon suggest that the breakdown of Hogwarts is 20% muggleborn, 40% half-blood, and 40% pureblood. If we can extrapolate from those numbers to the general population, then purebloods are anything but rare. It would also explain the stranglehold on power they seem to have.

Ignoring JKR's impossibly stupid claim that there are only 3000 wizards in the UK, what sort of blood status ratios does everyone else envision in the HP universe?

 

I think purebloods are down around 15%, with half bloods making up about 35% and about 50% muggleborns.

That would give us about 450 purebloods, 1050 halfbloods, and about 1500 muggleborns.

This, of course, is just a guess based on the 3000 wizard thing.

 

I think this is an impossible question given the fluid nature of the Pureblood doctrine.

Lots of people who are not technically Purebloods declare themselves so anyway and are treated as such, so in one sense it's a political doctrine.

On the other hand if we take JKR saying its a parallel with the Nazi approach to "Jewishness" then it's if you have a single grandparent who is a Muggle or Mudblood (Mudblood is considered as bad as a Muggle) then you're not a Pureblood.

And then you have the extreme people like the Blacks who would only consider you a Pureblood if you have no traceable Muggleness on your family tree (which not even the Blacks had as they simply blew those bits off the tree).

 

Math is not Rowling's strong point. That's an important caveat.

The 'class list' gives a ratio of about 40-40-20 pure:half:muggleborn

As Taure says, this is incredibly fluid, given the lack of (and differing) definition as to what constitutes what. Simplistically speaking:

Both parents are muggle: muggleborn
Both parents are muggleborn: muggleborn
One parent is muggle/muggleborn, one is half/pure: halfblood
Both parents are halfblood: halfblood
Given enough time and enough status, the above situation can become 'pure'.
One parent half, one parent pure: pureblood
Both parents pureblood: pureblood

An important note is the marriage lines. For all the jokes about Malfcest, at some point they need new blood. I assume that even in the distant pass, there was a slow progression wherein muggleborns marry muggleborns or lower class halfbloods, who then in a few generations are able to marry the lower echelons of the purebloods... The result is a very slow moving flow of blood through the community, but it's better than all out stagnation, and it could fit in with the rigid class system that was clearly at one time in place, if it isn't still in an unofficial sense.

 

Are you sure about that Vlad?

http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/James_Potter_II thinks that James Sirius Potter is a half blood, because his father is a half blood.

James' grandmother is muggle, so that makes him a half blood right?

 

Like I said - it's different for everyone.

The above is how I would do it. There isn't a set standard used in the series.

For Malfoy/Voldemort hardcore followers, then the only purebloods are those that can trace their ancestry all the way back to forever with no muggles/muggleborns/or half bloods. This we know is wrong, as both the Weasley's and the Blacks do have 'impure' blood at times... they just don't talk about it.

It's a goofy system. So yeah, the caveat is the above is how I would do it, if I were to impose a dictatorship with a class system based on magical blood purity...

 

I have question for you regarding muggleborn and your caste system outlined. How many magical generations would a muggleborn have to have before he or she ceases to be considered muggleborn assuming they only marry magical people from non-magical lines?

To outline my guestion better. Would a third generation magical person (both sides) still be considered muggleborn? What about a fourth (both sides) or fifth (same)? At what point do they cease being "mudbloods"?

The reason I mention this is because at some point in the distant past one of the purebloods of the present day could have had a muggleborn ancestor.

 

That's a bit of an assumption.

But were it true, I don't see a problem with your objection, in that the whole point of the Pureblood ideology in the books is that it doesn't work. It's not true.

 

That's an important point, I think, and I agree with it. The notion of being 'pureblood' is a political invention with, in most cases, little basis in reality.

But we can still rephrase the initial question: how many people are considered purebloods by other purebloods, regardless of the reality?

I think the number has to be pretty substantial. Purebloods seem to have a monopoly on political power, and it was all too easy for a radical pureblood agenda to gain favor after LV took power in Book 7.

Anyway, 40% of the population being considered pureblood sounds pretty reasonable to me.

 

No, James' grandmother is a muggleborn. His great-grandmother is a muggle.

I remember reading somewhere (I can't find it now) that the Potter family has regained its pureblood status with Harry's children, given that the three heirs were born pureblood (halfblood father, pureblood mother). I'll keep looking for the source.

 

Under Pureblood doctrine, a Muggleborn is the same as a Muggle.

Remember DH: Muggleborns are Muggles who have "stolen magic".

 

I'd call that under Voldemort's "pureblood" doctrine. Not necessarily the same as actual pureblood beliefs.

And I thought the goal for many on this site was to forget DH ever happened.

 

If you go by Rowling's pronouncement that Muggleborns are the the result of a squib somewhere in the family tree, I would argue that Lily's mother or father was actually a squib. Pure muggles have neither the recessive magical gene, nor the dominant squib gene (a likely mutation of the magical gene). Thus, all non-magical descendants of squibs are also squibs, and if they never happened to have encounter the magical world, then they're just squibs who live as muggles, not pure muggles themselves.

I would posit that muggleborns are the result of two squib parents who carry both the dominant squib gene and the recessive magic gene, and the muggleborne is the lucky recipient of both magic genes, and their non-magical siblings, like Petunia to Lily, is the unfortunate recipiant of the dominant squib gene: Petunia is a squib, not a muggle. It would explain why she was able to get to Hogwarts, if only to be rejected.

 

1. There is no difference between a Squib and a Muggle. A Squib is just a Muggle in different social circumstances. In fact, Squibs are defined as being Muggles born to magical people.

2. Muggleborns being the result of two Squib parents doesn't work, numerically speaking. You'd need 2 Squibs in existence for every Muggleborn, but Muggleborns are much more common than Squibs.

3. Trying to explain magical inheritance with Muggle genetics doesn't work. It's inconsistent.

 

Squibs can see dementors, muggles don't.

 

Squibs can't see Dementors; Mrs. Figg lied.

 

We don't know that, but it's highly improbable, someone would call her on that lie considering how badly they wanted to discredit Harry.

 

Other than the utter fail of a description that is "big and black", we do know that.

http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/extrastuff_view.cfm?id=19

If I had a penny for every time I've linked that paragraph on this site...

 

... It's magic, not biology.
Just like it's magic, not physics.
Or it's magic, not chemistry.

While it's obvious science has some place in Rowling's world, it's not the trump card you want to make it out to be.

 

I'm just going on what Rowling said (Muggleborns are the result of a squib in the family tree) and extrapolating from there, nor am I trying to "trump" anyone here - there's nothing TO trump. Also, my extrapolation fits neatly into the canon.

Oh, and look, I can link to paragraphs too:

Quoth the Lexicon.

If a squib is the result of a mutation on the magic gene, then yes, they would be a rare phenomenon, kind of like, in relation to normal humans, women born with three X chromosomes are rare. If a muggle has NO magical gene (mutated or not), then it is possible that a squib marrying a muggle would pass the mutated squib gene down the line. After only a few generations, a MASSIVE number of people would have this squib gene, and because they are phenotypically indistinguishable from muggles, no one would suspect that they are in fact squibs (defined here as someone carrying a mutated magic gene).

Ugh, and then I read the link Taure posted . . . Rowling has no understanding of Genetics at all. Magic is a dominant gene? If it were, there would be 6 billion wizards, not muggles. It's no coincidence that recessive genes only show up in limited populations. Blue eyes are recessive, black and brown eyes are dominant. Most of the world has black and brown eyes, only a small number relative to the rest of the world, have blue eyes.

You know what? Never mind. You can't extrapolate a single thing when basic logic is contradicted by canonical inconsistencies with reality.