I haven't read everything on pottermore but I don't think any of JK's new information talks about wealth in numbers. However there was a thing about the Malfoy family that said how they had been close to muggle nobles before the statute of secrecy was put into effect. Also James Potter was happy to show off his expensive broom to the Dursleys the one time he met Lilly's family.

 

This is why Pottermore is retarded. (Some of the) Most bigoted people in the books, and suddenly their back story is a long history of Muggle cooperation.

 

I dunno, I think it fits well with their opportunism (see how quickly they abandon Voldemort when they see the tide turn).

 

According to Pottermore, Pureblood Supremacy is a thoroughly modern affair, probably mimicking the rise of nationalism in muggle cultures. Different times means different cultures so it doesn't surprise me in the least that the Malfoys were involved with the rich and powerful amongst the muggles way back in past. Modern Malfoys probably look back on this the same way we look back on slavery; as a regrettable aspect of a time long since past.

 

And not to mention, there's no reason that "bloodpurity" has to be a call more than a few decades old, or a century at the most. "Always Pure" can mean a whole lot more than just the current concept of bloodpurity.

 

But then there's also Salazar Slytherin who was at least against muggleborns attending Hogwarts, going so far as leaving a monster to kill them behind. So maybe the thought wasn't as wide spread, but it was there.
And take the Gaunts. Even before Voldemort there was the idea of keeping magical blood 'clean' and certain families like the Malfoys and Blacks have been following this idea for generations. So even if they interacted with muggles for financial gain I still think that the whole pureblood idea is more than a few decades old.

 

There is no need for there to have been a single pure-blood movement sustained throughout history. In the case of anti-semitism, for example, medieval "mob anti-semitism" was something very different in nature to the radical, organised and political anti-semitism of the early 20th century, which is itself different from the anti-semitism that can be seen today in certain Muslim communities.

Yes, they're all anti-semitism, but they're different flavours of the one concept, and separate movements.

I think it would be quite reasonable to consider Salazar Slytherin's dislike of Muggleborns as distinct from the post-Statute of Secrecy turn against Muggles, which was itself in turn different from the radical pure-blood philosophy of the late 20th century led by Voldemort.

 

On a side note, how did Gellert Grindelwald feel about Muggleborns? I know he saw Muggles as inferior but did he put any stock in pure-blood philosophy or was it purely a distinction between magicals and non-magicals?

 

Absolutely nothing in canon about Grindelwald's thoughts on Muggleborns. We only know how he felt about Muggles. I wouldn't quite say that he felt that Muggles were inferior - not in the sense of inferiority used by pure-blood philosophy, at least. Rather, I'd say Grindelwald was paternalistic regarding Muggles. He regarded them as worthy beings, it's just that they needed guidance and leadership from wizards (and in particular, him).

 

But doesn't it say something about a society and its values if most of the rich people in power have been following a certain idea for generations, which, taking into account how long wizards live, means more than one century at least? The Potters, Malfoys, Lestranges, Blacks, Crouchs have all been considered pureblood families. I don't think canon mentioned a single family, that held power over generations, that wasn't pureblooded.

Considering this I think the earlier idea of pureblood supremacy could be better compared to aristocrats. The idea that purebloods were better was there, they only married other purebloods and it was frowned upon marrying muggleborns as they were of "lesser standing". Otherwise there would be no reason for these families to have remained pureblooded over such a long time. Especially if the people like the Malfoys did business with influential muggles and muggleborns.

I'm not saying that there was "single pure-blood movement sustained throughout history", only that I don't think pureblood supremacy is a "thoroughly modern affair", as pottermore apparently says.

About Grindelwald: I think it was about wizards ruling over muggles for their own good. I can't imagine Dumbledore supporting the idea of pureblood supremacy.

 

I always thought that before blood purity there was simply a disdain for the poor and uneducated. Nearly every magical for over a millennia has been educated and with magic can find work. Muggles on the other hand, for the majority, were poor and uneducated - as were muggleborns. The Malfoys however were perfectly happy with hanging out with the rich and educated muggles.

 

Yes, but if it was only about being poor and uneducated why didn't families like the Malfoys intermarry with those rich and educated muggles and muggleborns, if not for blood related reasons? I think they considered them good enough for business deals but not good enough to marry.

 

I'm pretty sure that according to pottermore that the Malfoys did in fact make babies with muggles until the statute of secrecy. Then they left their muggle relations out to dry. Remember all that matters is whether you have magic and after enough generations who will know whether or not you have muggle ancestors.

 

All Malfoys mentioned in canon or on pottermore are purebloods. To be considered pureblooded your ancestors dating a few generations back must have been wizards or witches too. At the time Harry lived the aforementioned families were considered purebloods, which means that they either only married other purebloods or hid their muggleborn relations from the beginning - and have been doing so for quite some time. Otherwise people would know about them, which would take away there current status as pureblooded. Either option suggests that marrying muggleborns was frowned upon.

 

Pottermore states that before the Statute of Secrecy, the Malfoys interacted with and occasionally married rich Mugges, yes. They even campaigned quite hard against the Statute of Secrecy. But once the Statute was passed they did an abrupt about face and loudly declared that they had supported it all along.

 

I think it is important to point out that their is no formal definition of a pureblood (one might have existed during Voldemort rule of the Ministry but before and after that no). What one person considers a pureblood another might consider a halfblood. Part of that will be different personal definitions but we're dealing with a bigoted movement here. Hypocrisy will be in full swing. The 'right sort of person' is going to be judged a lot more favourably than the wrong sort of person. Bob Wizard the Blood Pursit will have is black sheep overlooked by Alice Witch, the muggleborn activist, will have hers ceased upon.

 

I don't think that it was disdain for the uneducated and poor. Rather, Pureblood parents saw that muggles and muggleborn could not support a family to the standard that other Purebloods can. In the end, you want the best for your child, and that very well may have warped into blood supremacy.

Even after Hogwarts was build and education besides that from the church became available for muggleborn, they still lacked the money to support a family.

 

My internet isn't fast enough to search pottermore but, JK wrote up an explanation about the so called blood purity and it basically said that witches and wizards thought that the purer your blood the more powerful you are. This theory came during the Renaissance era when the statute was put in place. Of course we have examples that show this is BS ie. Voldemort, Dumbledore, Harry, Hermione, and others.

 

Interestingly, that means that the Malfoys are, in fact, aristocratic, in that everyone who moved in those circles (in Queen Elizabeth I's court) would have had some kind of landed title. Which means that "Lord Malfoy" is a correct term of address, as the title will be hereditary and the monarch can't have revoked it, because they don't know it exists thanks to the Statute of Secrecy.

Of course, that the Malfoys officially have a landed title does not say anything about the attitude of wizarding society towards said titles, nor the willingness of the Malfoys to air the title, which they may consider a kind of shameful dirty laundry.