It's transgressive, it's needed for his anagram to work and it's unique because he reframed the title from something bequeathed by muggle kings into a signifier of his Slytherin ancestry, highlighting the fact that his line goes back to one of the four families in wizarding Britain that could be considered royalty among wizards.

 

It's just one more way he's trying to set himself apart. He is, and sees himself superior to everyone, including other dark wizards. Past present and future.

 

Because only families that existed before the SoS could have had noble titles, it helps establish him as a "pureblood".

That said, I think narcissism is more likely.

 

How so? The purebloods would surely know for a fact that there has never been a "Voldemort" family, much less a noble one. And canonically, Voldemort kind of has the "right" to call himself a Lord, if only a Lord of a manor through his muggle father. In that sense, calling himself a Lord would definitely prove Voldemort to not to be a pureblood.

 

Nobel titles commonly transfer with land and/or position, not a name.

 

Voldemort describing himself as a lord is also just factually accurate, by the traditional meaning of the word. He is the lord of the Death Eaters.

 

But you know he's a harsh master because he demands way more than the traditional 40 days of military service a year.

 

I don't think he is using the title to mean the same thing that it means when a muggle is bequeathed that title by royalty or whatever. Of course, it's the same word, but I think the actual intent behind it is clear.

 

It all pretty much goes down to Riddle's vanity rather than any other justification. Another way to think about the meaning of Lord is in terms of godhood - that is, Voldemort wanted to make himself the new god to humanity. Just as Christians call God "The LORD", the Death Eaters call him "The Dark Lord," and refrain from saying his actual name. Interesting parallel.

 

Another way you could take it... Tom Riddle was halfblood, but muggle raised. And raised during the war. Lordships were more intwined with society then on the muggle side of the UK than they are now.

It's a stumble, from someone interested in the trappings of power, and those that seemed to have life made, from when he was a child

 

Merlin studying in Hogwarts and being sorted in Slytherin. I already wrote in another thread about how the seeds of Merlin's myth go way back and Hogwarts would have to be a lot older than 1000y, but also how Merlin's druidical characteristics don't fit with having being educated at Hogwarts and Harry Potter magic in general (at least not with the modern magic we see).

I'll also add here, that the legends concerning Merlin span a thousand years. The tales of his life numerous. Even in HP, characters use "Merlin" as exclamation a few times. Not Gryffindor/Slytherin/Ravenclaw/Hufflepuff.

It feels like the legend is somewhat diminished by making Merlin fit in an already established magical system. So, that's my "regrettable fanon" even if pottermore says otherwise, for me it'll forever be fanon.

 

There is so much crap in Pottermore that I think most people here don't consider it canon.

 

This seems very odd to me. Every single piece of folklore that is incorporated into HP is twisted, with none of it surviving in its real world form. Dragons in real life myth are fearsome and dangerous creatures; in HP, they are livestock kept in reserves and farmed for ingredients.

Similarly, it is a common theme of HP that Muggle history is simply wrong, especially regarding their perception of magic and the mythological. E.g. Wendolin the Weird and witch burnings.

So it seems odd to me to single out Arthurian legend as the one piece of folklore which has to be kept intact and accurate to its real world form rather than completely transformed and subverted.

 

@Taure Haha, you got me there. I suppose I do need to explain myself.

I'm singling out the Arthurian legend because it's about an individual, a specific person. While dragons, elves, etc consist of folklore done differently in HP, it is folklore that is malleable and allows tinkering because it is about abstract ideas expressed in many stories in different ways.

However, the Arthurian legend concerns specific people and, having been shaped over the last thousand years (even with conflicting stories (and films, and tv-series)), some background and characteristics emerge. If you ask me who Merlin was, I'll have some answers. On dragons though? A winged creature that breathes fire. And even "real" elves JKR didn't really touch, but instead brought us house-elves.

Maybe I'm not making any sense, but for me it's like hearing that Odin, Thor, Loki and Athena all attended Hogwarts and were sorted in Hufflepuff, Gryffindor, Slytherin and Ravenclaw respectively.

 

For me it'd more that merlin is treated as a mythological figure even by the wizards. That seems to imply he's a pre hogwarts figure from when the most reliable records are legends and folklore. Otherwise he'd just be a particularly interesting historical figure, like the founders. And if he predates the statue of secrecy, chances are his myth is similar among wizards and muggles, except perhaps with wizards having a more accurate account courtesy of seeing it as non fiction and knowing the difference between plausible and impossible magic, limiting the exaggeration.

 

He's not really treated as mythological though? Like he literally has a Chocolate frog card like other historical people such as Dumbledore or Paracelsus.

The only special thing about the way merlin is treated in canon is that people occasionally swear by saying something along the lines of 'Merlin's beard' or 'Merlin's pants.