The Radical J.K. Rowling

As a keen student of Shakespeare & Cervantes...& as the author of a little book entitled "The Shakespeare-Cervantes Code", I am used to reading allegory, & used to being tipped off to allegory by lines that appear not quite right or even dead wrong.

As a break from mind-bending William & Michael a few years ago, I decided to kick back with a book which, at the time, was wildly popular with the younger set, "Harry Potter & the Sorcerer's Stone".

Things were moving along much as expected when I came to the chapter entitled "Diagon Alley".

On his eleventh birthday, Harry Potter, who is an orphan living with an unpleasant aunt & uncle, Petunia & Vernon Dursley, gets a visit from a rustic, good-natured big-guy named Hagrid who informs Harry that he has been accepted to Hogwarts boarding school for wizardry & witchcraft.

His foster parents object but they are no match for Hagrid, who on the next day takes Harry to London to shop for school supplies.

Hagrid takes Harry to a mysterious shopping street called Diagon Alley, & then to an underground bank called Gringotts...all the time telling Harry about his parents, who unbeknownst to the boy were famous wizards...& telling Harry that he is one as well.

Having shown Harry the time of his life, Hagrid then takes Harry to Paddington Station on the underground. Paddington Station, in west London, is a stop for both above-ground, British Rail line trains as well as underground, London Transport trains. From Paddington, Hagrid
will put Harry on a train that will take him to his home with the Dursleys, which is in Little Whinging, Surrey.

"Up another escalator & out into Paddington Station, Harry only realized where he was when Hagrid tapped him on the shoulder. "Got time fer a bite to eat before yer train leaves", he said. He bought Harry a hamburger & they sat down on plastic seats to eat them..."

Then..."Hagrid helped Harry onto the train that would take him back to the Dursleys"...then..."The train pulled out of the station. Harry wanted to watch Hagrid until he was out of sight. He rose in his seat & pressed his nose against the window...but he blinked, & Hagrid was gone.

Now...JK Rowling is nothing if not meticulous...but there is something not quite right about this passage.

For one thing the departure scene is nothing like what one would expect at a British Rail, above- ground station. It is, however, exactly what one would expect at an underground station.

For another thing, British Rail trains leaving from Paddington Station don't go to Surrey...they go to western England & Wales. To get to Surrey from Paddington Station, you have a choice of only one town, Richmond-on-Thames, which you can get to only on the District Line, which, at Paddington, is underground.

Now...typically you don't wait for an underground train at an above-ground station...& when Hagrid says "Got time to eat before yer train leaves", the reader is led to believe that, say, at 4 PM, Harry has all of a half hour to get onto his British Rail train, say, the 4:30 leaving from Platform 5. This
would give the two of them time for a hamburger.

Another meaning that would make more sense, is that Harry, who is carrying at least 50 pounds of school supplies...& who could get them home only if his uncle Vernon picked him up at the Little Whinging Station, has agreed to meet his uncle there at a certain time...say 5 PM...& that if it
takes a half hour to get from Paddington to Little Whinging on the District Line, Harry still has a half hour to hang out with Hagrid.

The meaning of this passage, I believe, is to let the tuned-in reader know that the Dursleys live in Richmond-on-Thames...more specifically, "Little Richmond", Richmond Kew, home of the Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew...a place where any London resident who wished to study herbology would
probably log numerous hours.

The author clearly identifies the home of the Dursleys as Richmond-on-Thames...but just as clearly, doesn't want the general reader to know it.

Another cryptic message at the beginning of the first book is the location of "Godric's Hollow".

Godric Gryffindor, the founder of Gryffindor House at Hogwarts Academy, a thousand years ago, has a Hollow named after him where Harry's parents were killed by one Lord Voldemort when Harry was just an infant.

Hagrid, on a borrowed, flying motorcycle, in the middle of the night, picks up Harry at Godric's Hollow & flies him to the Dursleys in Richmond Kew. The flight, the author mentions, takes the two over the city of Bristol.

Now...quite near Richmond, Surrey is Heathrow International Airport...& if you were to take a scheduled flight from some point in the UK to Heathrow that would take you over Bristol, it would probably be Cardiff International in Wales. Godric's Hollow then is somewhere in Wales

In 1485, Henry Tudor, the Earl of Richmond, who was Welsh (Tudor is Welsh "Theodore"), defeated Richard the Third at the famous Battle of Bosworth Field. The battle marked the end of a feudal era begun by the Normans at the Battle of Hastings in 1066...one in which the entire ruling
class had French antecedents...& it began a mercantile era in which the Welsh & Saxon English
began to rule the roost from London. Richmond-on-Thames, named after Henry Tudor, was the first Tudor capital of England, before the Tudors set up shop in Whitehall, west London, which is the home of today's British government. (The Earl of Richmond got HIS title from the original Richmond...Richmond, Yorkshire)

Harry's muggle uncle, Vernon Dursley, who lives in Richmond-on-Thames, has a name that evokes the Battle of Bosworth Field. "Dursley" is a clipped form of something like "Dursieglea", which means "dear victory field"...while "Vernon" kind of suggests "Green", the heraldic color of the
House of Tudor...(as well as the primary color of Slytherin House). The secondary color of Slytherin is Silver. In the French language, which I believe, JK Rowling once taught, "silver" & "money" are the same word. Uncle Vernon, Like Henry VII, Tudor is very mercantile.

Back at thousand years ago, back in the days of Godric Gryffindor, the Saxons, who had driven the original inhabitants of England, the Welsh, into what is today Wales, did something remarkable. A Saxon king, Offa, who I don't hesitate to call "Offa the Great" built a military dyke the full length of the English-Welsh border...thus putting an end to English-Welsh wars, & becoming, willy nilly, the godfather of the Welsh nation.

Now a military dyke has a ridge on one side & a trough on the other...& whoever builds such a dyke, puts the ridge on his side & the trough or "hollow" on the side of the foreigner. Chepstow,Wales, an abandoned English town located in Offa's Hollow, is the childhood home of JK Rowling.

Unlike the Saxons, who, after the construction of Offa's Dyke, respected the Anglo-Welsh border for the next hundred years, the conquering Normans, already having subjugated the Saxons, wasted no time overrunning Offa's Dyke & subjugating the Welsh,....& this brings us to the story of St. George & the Dragon.

St. George, the patron saint of chivalry & a pan-European saint, is the Patron Saint of England. He is popular in every European country save one, Wales, which is the Land of the Dragon. It was during the conquest of Wales that St. George, invariably depicted skewering the sinewy reptile, was made
the Patron Saint of England. The heraldic symbol of Henry VII, Tudor, was the Welsh Dragon.

Now Harry Potter, is an English boy, in Wales as an infant, perhaps even born in Wales, who escapes an attempt on his life in the form of a killer curse administered by Lord Voldemort. He is left with a scar on his forehead, but more than that, a perfect knowledge of Parseltongue, the language of be-scaled creatures. Parseltongue, say I, is Welsh.

For this reason, when Harry is being "sorted" into one of the four Hogwarts boarding houses, the Sorting Hat assumes the boy is meant for Slytherin House, & relents only because Harry keeps thinking "Not Slytherin!" In the words of Gilbert & Sullivan "In spite of all temptations/ to belong to other nations/ he remains an English Man". It was up to Hagrid, your basic Saxon, who is not unfavorably disposed to Dragons, knowing Harry was on the wrong side of Offa's Dyke, to bring him home to his own side of the Dyke.

The Gryffindor colors are Red & Gold...Red, the color of the Cross of St. George...& Gold, the color of the fleur-de-lys, the color of feudal France. Harry's mother is named "Lily".

Now...only an elite few of us...("we few/ we happy few") will know what the "Weasleys" are all about.

The author is quoted as saying..."In Britain and Ireland the weasel has a bad reputation as an unfortunate, even malevolent, animal. However, since childhood I have had a great fondness for the family mustelidae; not so much malignant as maligned, in my opinion. There are also many
superstitions associated with redheaded people and most state that they are in some way
unlucky (Judas Iscariot was supposedly red-haired), but this is nonsense; I happen to like red hair as well as weasels."

As Alastor Moody once warned Harry Potter about pretty, Tri-Wizard Champion, Fleur Delacour..."She is as much a fairy princess as I am".

A profoundly red-headed, English family, red-headed for hundreds of years, just like the Weasleys, are the Spencers of Althorp. Even Winston Spencer Churchill, who I don't believe was an Althorp, had red hair. The Althorp Spencers get their red hair from one Henry Wriothesley, to whom
Shakespeare dedicated "Venus & Adonis", "The Rape of Lucrece" & even, many believe, "The
Sonnets".

Either Elizabeth Vernon, who Henry married, or Sir William Spencer, who their daughter Penelope married, or both, were red-headed, because the persistent red-headedness of this family is remarkable.

What makes the Weasleys wizards, however, is one of the best-kept secrets in the British Isles. Namely, it's how Henry Wriothesley came by HIS red hair.

By the most obscure law in English history, ratified by Parliament & still on the books...the Treason Act of 1571, states that any "natural" (as opposed to "lawful") line of Elizabeth I, is royal English. The red-headed Spencers of Althorp are thus potentially, royal English...unlike the Windsors who were Germans until they became Royal British in 1723 & have never been English nationals, let alone English royals.

What today makes the Windsors royal & not the Spencers of Althorp, is the Act of Union of 1707 which put Scotland under London & the Union Jack, & thus eliminates sovereign English nationality. Unlike the Welsh, Scots & Irish, today's English are officially, simply "British", a term originally
meaning "Welsh", but today a catch-all term meaning only "British Passport Holders". Unlike the Welsh, Scottish & Irish national soccer & rugby teams, there is no "English" national team...only an "England" team with an "England" team captain, who MAY be English but doesn't have to
be.

Should Scotland secede from the United Kingdom, however, the Cross of St. George would replace the Union Jack in London, & the Windsors...English name notwithstanding, would become, Germans once again...& as Germany is now a republic, they would become German commoners.

To keep the Spencers of Althorp, who, in this event, would have become royal English, from turfing the Windsors out of England, Charles, the heir to the British throne, would have had to marry one of the three daughters of John, the Earl Spencer, which, perforce, he did.

Charles married a "Diana", which, co-incidentally, was the courtly, code-name of Elizabeth I. "Diana" in Shakespeare, is always Elizabeth. "Virginia" like the state (& which has much the same meaning as
"Diana"), is another reference to Elizabeth I. Ron Weasley's kid sister, & Hermione's Hogwarts chum is "Ginny".

Now...a "Muggle", in Harry Potter, in contrast to a "Wizard" is simply someone who is a non-believer in magic. Far from being a humorous sounding made-up word, a "Muggle is a most obscure Saxon term meaning a "man with a tail". The author is not above an esoteric slur...but while it is highly
unlikely the author would ever be called to account for "Muggle", there are a couple of names on which she might be...& so...it appears to me, that she has taken pains to prepare herself for a confrontation at some future press conference.

As a former bush ranger in Africa who is still alive after having tracked various wounded animals through tall, vlei-grass I am well aware of the bag of tricks employed by any savvy creature with a keen sense of survival.

"Parseltongue", for one thing, is not the language of postal employees. English verbs beginning with "par"..."to part", "to parse" or even "to parcel" usually mean "to split". In Wales, the land of the
Dragon there is a fricative consonant "chl" which does not exist in English...& sounds not unlike a dragon firing up.

The English, who as a nation are unlikely to understand even one word of Welsh, when mimicking this language, will usually go "chl, chl, chl". I have no doubt that "Parseltongue" in Harry Potter is meant to be Welsh...but also very little doubt that the author would like to have this come to light. Her device has been to give Harry's mother Lily, the maiden name "Evans".

This prepares her for the inevitable press conference set-to in which the questions arise..."Harry Potter is allegory isn't it? It's about the Land of St. George versus the Land of the Dragon, isn't it? Parseltongue is Welsh, isn't it? "Draco Malfoy" means Perfidious Wales, doesn't it?

The author would then be in a position to answer. "That's just silly. Harry's own dear mother was an "Evans". I say so in my book."

Likewise the name "Ginny", the Weasley girl, is covered by giving her the proper name "Ginevra". It is highly unlikely that the daughter of Arthur & Molly, & sister of George, Fred, Charlie, Percy & Ron would have such an exotic name as Ginevra...or even why the author would bother mentioning it.

If it wasn't mentioned, 999 readers out of a thousand would just assume Ginny is a "Virginia". If then, at the aforementioned press conference, the author was asked "Red-headed Ginny is an allusion to the Virgin Queen, Elizabeth I, isn't it? The red-headed, wizard Weasleys are the
red-headed Wriothesleys, the Spencers of Althorp, aren't they? What you are saying is that Ginny Weasley, like Diana Spencer, is an English royal, aren't you?

The author maintaining her composure could reply. "But this Ginny is not a "Virginia". She's a "Ginevra".

Finally, "Gringotts", the underground London bank run by elves, I believe, is a play on "Ringgoetters" as in Wagner's "Goetterdaemmerung". If there is one composer of cinematic scores on the scene today who can do Wagner's smoldering, minor-key riffs, it is Patrick Doyle, who, notably, has been
brought on board for the latest Harry Potter film, "Goblet of Fire".

JK Rowling may say that her favorite author is "Jane Austen"...& I suppose, the monster-free Yule Ball episode in Goblet of Fire is not unlike Jane Austen, but her principal influences, I would say, are
Shakespeare & Wagner.

Harry Potter is certainly about wizardry & witchcraft...& it's also about growing up...but mostly, I would say, it is about esprit de corps & guts, so I think this posting is not out of place.

G

Ooh, that was rather intense...mmm....okay, let's see...



Well to begin with, I'm not altogether sure that there is anything deeper to be read into the HP series really, and while I think that some allegories could be seen, they are most likely not what the author intended. It is a children's series after all, and certainly not a great work of literature as Shakespeare's writings were.



I'm not sure I see where you're going with this. Why wouldn't this be expected? The section you quoted doesn't give any indications that anything is wrong. Harry wanted to see Hagrid so he looked out the window - he would be able to do that, wouldn't he? Why is this more like an underground train departing? I've been to London, I've ridden both types of train, and I don't see anything wrong with what she's written.



Yes, you do, sometimes. There are connections all over the place in a city as complex as London. I really don't think it matters where the train left from, or where it's going. I very much doubt that JKR sat there with maps of the train system to figure out which one would have taken Harry back to Surrey. I don't think we're meant to look into it that deeply.



Okay, I can see your logic there, but why would she want to? If she has cleverly hidden that Little Whinging is really Richmond-on-Thames, then surely all that means is that she had that town in mind when writing the books and disguised it a little? And then, using a little bit of artistic license, moulded the rest of events at the station to suit the story? It's an excellent spot, if this is the case, and it was cleverly done by JKR, but I don't think there's anything more deep here than just clever usage of reality to form her own world. Which is basically what a lot of authors do. I don't think that she's making any statements by having Harry come from this particular area.



I wouldn't argue with you there. It probably is, but I figured that out when Hagrid said that Harry 'fell asleep over Bristol' - he's obviously flying east towards Surrey and the only place he could come from that would take him over Bristol is somewhere in south or south west Wales.



That's all a highly complicated way of choosing a name though, don't you think? Why would Jo have taken the time to choose something like that so carefully? I can see your connections, and they are marvellous spots, but they're the type of connections that can only be seen in hindsight if you look for them. I highly doubt they were in JKR's mind at the time of her writing.



Well, it's actually called Offa's Dyke, but I won't split hairs And I really don't think that the people living in Chepstow would appreciate you saying that it's "abandoned" or that it's English It most certainly is neither. And I should know, being Welsh



I can't even begin to tell you how offensive I find that I hardly think that JKR would draw comparisons between the Welsh, their language, and snakes



You're churning up such ancient history here that it's almost unrealistic. If JKR were to have such allegories in her books, she'd never be able to set foot in Wales again. His parents chose to take him to Godric's Hollow, and hence wouldn't the "Saxons" be taking him back against his will, to a place he doesn't want to go? Doesn't he say how much he hates being at the Dursley's? He might be bringing him "home", but it's not where his heart is and so the allegory is not valid.



You've lost me now, I'm sorry. "British" encompasses all the countries that make up the British Isles as a secondary (or occasionally primary) nationality. I have never heard of "British" being originally "Welsh". And I beg to differ in that people from England are not "British", though they may choose to say that is their nationality if they wish, just as Scots, Welsh or Irish people may say they are "British" too. They are English, because they are from England, which has always been distinct from the other countries that comprise Britain.

I appreciate the amount of work that must have gone in to seeking out these allegories, but in all honesty, I think that the majority of them are stretching the text, at best. Some of them, particularly those with the royal family and the Spencers are so vague that I am surprised you managed to link them to the stories at all. I really don't think that JKR would have spent anywhere near the amount of time it would have taken to include these allegories. Whilst I don't deny that they can be made, I really don't think this is what JKR intended at all. Aside from the racial slurs and the dredging up of a history so ancient as to only be of interest to scholars, why spend so much time hiding messages in a children's book?

In my opinion, an excellent case for allegories could be made with many children's texts - most notably "Alice in Wonderland" and "The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe" - but these are great works of literature. Whilst I adore the HP series and admire Jo's gift in crafting such a wonderful world from a mixture of legend, myth and imagination, HP is not great literature.

Thanks for giving us something to think about though. Very interesting post.

Mr. Yuhas, I found your post a very interesting read. However, being the author of a self-published work of derivative nature on Shakespearean authorship that has been panned by critics aside, as a scholar myself familiar with the nature of allegory, I find your analysis of Rowling's work much like your analysis of Shakespeare. In other words, and not to put to fine a point on it, you seem to be, in a phrase, "spinning your mental wheels" here. Your research is commendable, but your links are thin and the benefit of your analysis is nil. Furthermore, the conclusions of your analysis, which you fail to draw, violate the nature of the oppositions that Rowling attempts to set up. By correctly identifying that "Godric's Hollow then is somewhere in Wales" (Yuhas 20), you also identify the hero, Godric Gryffindor, the head of Gryffindor house and symbol of heroism and bravery, with Wales, the villain in your interpretation of the St. George hagiographic account. Furthermore, you state that "Vernon' kind of suggests 'Green', the heraldic color of the House of Tudor...(as well as the primary color of Slytherin House). The secondary color of Slytherin is Silver. In the French language, which I believe, JK Rowling once taught, 'silver' & 'money' are the same word. Uncle Vernon, Like Henry VII, Tudor is very mercantile" (22 sic). Thus, Slytherin, the villain in the Harry Potter books, is linked with England. However, you also link Slytherin with Wales: "[Harry] is left with a scar on his forehead, but more than that, a perfect knowledge of Parseltongue, the language of be-scaled creatures. Parseltongue, say I, is Welsh" (27). Slytherin is linked with England, but, being a Parseltongue, is linked with Wales as well? How can this be? You identify Wales as "The Land of the Dragon" (45), and yet Rowling makes no attempt to match Harry against the Welsh Green dragon that she incorporates into her story, nor does she link him to it in any positive way either. If Rowling were attempting to set up an "England vs. Wales" dichotomy, as you say, wouldn't she wish to do something with such a powerful image as a Welsh dragon? By your analysis, we do not know if Rowling is attempting to paint England as the conquering hero over a vilified Wales or if the story is being put on its head, where Wales is the tragic victim. If the former is true, then Louise's proclamation that "[Rowling would] never be able to set foot in Wales again" (10) is true. If the latter is true, then Rowling would face a similar fate in England, who would, no doubt, find insult at their patron "Hallow" dishonored in such a drastic fashion. However, your analysis provides us with neither conclusion. Instead, you leave us with several links that are tenuous at best and tell us nothing about the work in question. In conclusion, I quote Charles Rammelkamp, whose summary of your analytic methodology says it best:
-S. Kyle Davis, M.A.

Thanks, Louise. Thanks, Thelma. G.

Mod Edit: Hi! Could I ask you to have a read through the rules, please? One liners aren't allowed as they do not contribute to the discussion. Thanks!

Oh...there we are then... I thought we were going to have an interesting discussion where you defended your views and gave us something else to think about. Oh well...nice while it lasted.

Thanks, Fish - didn't know you had an M.A!

All Right, Louise & Fish...Time for your Veristaserum. Open Wide.

What does this have to do with JKR, you might ask? Well...for one thing...there are a couple of skeletons in the English closet, that I know about...& that I can tell JKR, whose is much more diplomatic than I am, also knows about...some of which can be found in the following. Also...I just finished knocking this out...& well..."a smile costs nothing". G


Things to Know about Don Quixote de la Mancha

"La Mancha" or in Shelton, "The Mancha", has three distinct meanings. The ostensible meaning is the "Upper Valley of the River Guadiana" or "La Mancha, Spain".

Another meaning of "La Mancha", a "blemish" or "stain", which goes along with "Ingenioso Hidalgo"..."hidalgo" from "hijo de algo", is "son of a somebody" means "ba****d nobleman".

The most important meaning, however, which I have just figured out...is a reference to an imagined Anglo-Spanish military alliance, which like "The Nato" , "The North Atlantic Treaty Organization" refers to the water between the partners. Just as an adherent of NATO is called an "Atlanticist", an adherent of the Mancha would be called a "Manchegan". Just as the HQ of NATO is Brussels the HQ of the Mancha would have been Calais...which is on the English Channel, & known in Spanish as "La Mancha". De Vere considered Calais part of the English heartland...& in "Love's Labours Lost" gently ribs Elizabeth I, who amongst the titles she was crowned with was "of France", even though, aftere the loss of Calais, there was no "France" to go with the title. "the "French Princess" travels to Navarre (in Spain) to ask Ferdinand, (the name of a Spanish king) for money for the territory that was lost...but Ferdinand, trying to be polite, clearly doesn't know what she is on about.

The valley of the Upper Guadiana in Spain & the English Channel are both called "La Mancha" because they are largely uninhabited "sleeves" or "slots" between populated regions...in the former case, between the valleys of the Tagus & Guadalquivir...& in the latter case between England & the European Continent.

The originator of the Mancha concept was Emperor Charles V, Charles I of Spain whose four inherited territories were discontinuous & were overextending the Habsburg Empire. The odd territory out was the Spanish Netherlands, which was theoretically wealthy, but being continuously uproarious, was bankrupting Spain...& more than that it was putting the Habsburgs on the defensive against Protestant northern Germany. Charles, seeing that England was on its way up in the world was quite prepared to cede the cockpit of Europe to the Tudors on the condition that it would be to CATHOLIC Tudors. This was the reason his son Philip married Mary Tudor.

Once England got hold of the Low Countries, especially Flanders, he assumed that England would take on the Saxons of north Germany, just as Charlemagne did, an act that made the Frank the first Holy Roman Emperor.

Reference to "Meissen" in "Henry V" & "Wittenberg" in "Hamlet" are references to the eastern border of Charlemagne's empire located on the River Elbe. The phrase "going to school in Wittenberg" has nothing to do with Wittenberg University...it means "having your mind set on the conquest of Saxon northern Germany.

In 1066 Saxon England fell like a house of cards after Hastings...& what pen name did Edward de Vere give himself? William!

When Don Quixote & Sancho Panza, at least 200 times throughout the novel, discuss the promise that the Knight has made to his Squire of a "Governorship" of an "Insula", with the title "Count" he is promising Cervantes the Governorship of Flanders whose then capital was Lille, which derives from "L'isle" which derives from "Insula". The Governor of Flanders was always the "Count of Flanders"

An English invasion of northern Germany would almost certainly have precipitated a French attack on English Flanders. It would have been the task of the Count of Flanders, professional soldier & Lepanto veteran Michael de Cervantes to take on the French while the "Duke of la Mancha", Edward de Vere, led the invasion of German Saxony. De Vere, by the way, had made this promise to Cervantes in Palermo Sicily in September of 1575, when the two 27 year olds were guests at the palace of Gonzalo Fernandez de Cordoba, the Spanish Viceroy of southern Italy. (my namesake here)

What queered the pitch for Edward & Michael, it appears, were events that caused Elizabeth I to become "enchanted"..that is to say, "irrational"...AND in "Don Quixote", these were events that took place in the summer of 1553.

Quite in contrast to the fairy-tale image that most have of "Gloriana" & "Her Serene Highness", Elizabeth was a life-long, traumatized orphan. At the age of two her father had her mother's head cut off. A few years later he had her step-mother's head cut off. Upon the death of her father, Henry VIII, her half-brother, then Edward VI, was poisoned...then came 1553 when Lady Jane Gray & her husband, both teenagers were packed off the to Tower, later to be executed...the very Catholic entourage of Mary Tudor, backed by Philip II backed by the Pope went looking either for Elizabeth herself, or her five year old son, Edward, fostered as a "de Vere", or both of them.

One thing kept Elizabeth & Edward alive throughout the reign of Bloody Mary in 1558...William Cecil...& for this reason Elizabeth, throughout her life was beholden to Cecil.

NOW...what emerges in England in 1558 is an ethnic divide. Edward de Vere, whose antecedents came from the Continent...& specifically from northern France, regarded the Continent as "the Old Country"...the cradle of the English language, architecture, chivalry & wine culture. The England of Shakespeare is from top to bottom, this Franconian England.

Cecil on the other hand, might well be called the first of the "British English". The Cecils, originally the "Sitsilts" arrived in England with Henry VII Tudor...(Welsh "Theodore"). Like the English today who identify themselves as "British" Cecil almost certainly referred to the European Continent as "Europe"...that is to say, in "third person". Cecil didn't care anything for tournaments or Crusades. Cecil was a "Dursely".

To the native Brits, the Continent was not the source of anything wonderful. It was the cradle of invasions that first with the Saxons, pushed the British into Wales...& then with the Normans, overwhelmed the Welsh. Cecil for his part then, would have an icy ancestral mistrust of any alliance with a Continental power.

Elizabeth, half Welsh "Tudor" & half Franconian "Boleyn" or "Boulogne" , considered herself "mere English"...neither "Franconian" nor "British"...but England, sooner or later, would have to choose between an empire based on the Continent, the Franconian way...or overseas...the mercantile, British way. Elizabeth may have spoken Latin, French, Italian & Spanish...& in her early years, just like our Diana, liked to dress Italian...however...she also regarded Philip II a sociopath...& was not keen to form an alliance with anyone she expected would make a play on her life at the first opportunity.

Doing it the British way meant just the opposite of a "Mancha"...it meant going into head-to-head competition with Spain.

To Edward de Vere, whose life-long regret was not to have been on board one of the Spanish or Italian ships at the historic Battle of Lepanto, where the Catholic fleet, against all odds, defeated the Turks, a cold war with Spain, by itself, was bad enough....but when Elizabeth angled for an alliance with Muslim Turkey against Catholic Spain, he definitely believed she was enchanted.

Until 1598 the idea of the Grand Anglo-Spanish Alliance seemed hopeless. But, then, within a month, both William Cecil & Philip II were dead...& Cervantes, perpetually dirt poor & in debt in Spain was let out of prison in Seville.

Between 1598 & 1604, I believe, Cervantes lived in England with the de Veres, Edward & Elizabeth Trentham, at their home in Hackney, now part of Greater London, but then a rural suburb.

It was during these six years, that de Vere, continually under surveillance, & from time to time under house arrest, & his Spanish lieutenant, Cervantes, over sherry, in the Italian language, put together all of Don Quixote Part One & almost all of Part Two. The protocol for these literary evenings was something they called the "Bagatelle".

When you read "Hamlet" or "Don Quixote" pay attention to the relationship in the first work between Hamlet & Horatio...& in the second between Quixote & Sancho. The way they address one another & their relationship generally, I would say, is quite the same. ("Sancho Panza" by the way, does not mean "Fat Sancho". It means "Holy Armor" or "Lepanto Veteran". "Dulcinea del Toboso", means "Diana of Ephesus" or "Elizabeth I". Dulcinea's proper name is given as "Aldonza Lorenzo" which means "Maiden Laureate"...again Elizabeth I.
When "Cid Hamet Benengeli", "Lord Hamlet of England" describes Dulcinea of "having the best hand at salting pork of anyone in Toboso" he is identifing her as a "butcher's daughter")

The Last Departure of Quixote & Sancho, which I would like to capture in a film entitled "The Vineyard" would be a late night escape from Hackney to the White Cliffs of Dover during a late-rising full moon that have the two visiting the spots mentioned in DQ...& in "The Tempest".

Crossing London Bridge at night they may have stopped in Bermondsey...in Spanish "La Isla de Bermudos" or in "The Tempest" the still-vexed Bermoothes" just across from Tower Wharf where the Spanish delegation would be arriving in August 1604...& from which sailors went to get liquored up after midnight when the pubs in London were closed.

The would also pay a stop at the Sussex Downs, the then, "windmill capital of Europe", where "between thirty & forty windmills" could be seen on a ridge overlooking "Freston" which is another name for "The Long Man of Wilmington" a giant carved into limestone holding what look to most to be "two staves" but to Quixote & also myself, a "broken lance"...in other words, a giant to ward off invaders coming across "La Mancha" G

*Yawn* Wow, that sure was enlightening. Actually I didn't read past the first line of the post above mine, found it quite rude that you told two people it was time for their Veritaserum. You do know that Veritaserum is a Truth Serum? So that them drinking it wouldn't do anything but make them speak the truth. So I think that line of yours is wrong. You seem to like disecting JKRs work so I thought I'd disect yours, although I'm not an...what did you call yourself....a keen student of Shakespeare & Cervantes, I do know a few things about Harry Potter, as does everyone, (bar a select few) on this site. I thought that someone who seems to know quite a lot of other things (once again I'll say that I didn't read your post) didn't seem to get that certain part right. Forgive me though if you intended to do that, but it seems like you don't know enough about Harry Potter to use it in everyday postings.

Can I ask you something gonzalo? Do you really think that everyone who reads the Harry Potter series is going to gasp in shock when things like Muggle don't mean what JKR has said they mean? You do know that Harry Potter is a fictional story don't you?

To better understand what you are trying to say I have attempted to read your posts...but I'm afraid to say they make no sense. I'm not a lover of Shakespeare, and I confess to never having read any of this work but perhaps for the members like me (of which there a quite a few thousand) who don't understand what you are saying could you simplify it for us? Without using every single name, place or phrase.

Can I just say, in the nicest possible way, that I really think you ought not make such comments as those. It tends to give the impression of arrogance, and that tends to make people "tune out" to anything of substance that you might be about to say. I would advise against it if this conversation is to proceed along the pleasant paths it has enjoyed thus far



What has NATO to do with an imagined alliance between England and Spain? More to the point, what has it to do with JKR? Whilst pointing out these alliances, you have failed to relate it back to the HP books.



All you're doing here is giving us an interpretative, subjective history, which does not explain any allegories you are alluding to JKR making in her books.



Whilst I disagree with you about Elizabeth I being "traumatised", it is beside the point...as is your inaccurate assumption that Edward VI, her half brother, was poisoned. I believe you'll find he died of consumption, more commonly known today as tuberculosis. The point is that this has nothing whatsoever to do with Harry Potter.

The rest of your post, forgive me, was rambling and disjointed at best. You have made no attempts to relate any allegories you may or may not have identified through your subjective interpretation of wildly different periods of British history to JKR's work and thus any arguments for your allegorical view of the books are, at this time, entirely groundless.

Don't you think that one would need extensive knowledge of British history, both literal and interpretative, in order to be able to make such allegories in a work of fiction? Is there any evidence that JKR has the necessary depth of knowledge or experience? If anything, JKR seems far more acquainted with classical history, myths, legends, and folklore than the intricacies of Elizabethan history.

First things first, I completely agree with Triad. Veritaserum is a truth serum (hehe, kind of a wierd sentence given the meaning of the potions name.) There is the first problem I had with your post. Unless Louise and Kyle had something to tell you, why would you be feeding them Veritaserum when you are about to drop a large quantity of information onto them? It's attempted, smart little quips like these that really make me angry.. especially when it was one of the only allusions you made to the Harry Potter series... and it was wrong in context.

The Rest of your Post:

I read alot of theories on here Gonzalo, and I must say I suffer through some of the drier ones... but I am going to be honest and say I had a great deal of trouble with reading your post becuase there was a serious lack of fluidity and content worth reading. Im glad in a way that I now know some random things about English History, but I really would like to see some more direct references to JKR's work. Then it *maybe* interesting to read. Until then, I cant really have an quality discussion about your findings with you until I actually understand what your getting at.

~Albus

I'll just start by saying that I am definitely not an expert on Shakespeare or Cervantes or Elizabethan history. I'd like to think I'm relatively objective when it comes to history, though, and I have a reasonable amount of common sense.



May I ask how it is possible that you can know about these skeletons? Neither you nor J.K Rowling were present when these skeletons came into existence, so what are your sources? Why should they be of any more worth than the sources that are widely believed to tell a close version of the truth? I'm not talking about the nature of the information itself, but of the historical integrity of your sources. I do not deny that many bits and pieces of history have been lost or tampered with, but how can you be so sure that your sources are exempt of that?

I flatter myself I can read and understand things. In fact, I am an engineering student, which means that I am well used to reading technical texts that have not been written with literary excellence in mind. However, having not understood a word of your post, I cannot comment on it much.

I don't know where you started and where you went with it. How does Elizabeth I's mental state fit in with an acclaimed children's book or a defense organisation founded during the Cold War? And Welsh dragons? Forgive me for saying, but it's the kind of combination that looks good on the back of a Dan Brown novel.

My father is an historian. A very good one, if I may say so myself, and an expert in his field. And if I've picked up one thing from him it is that careless use of facts and evidence is worth as much in historical terms as Terry Pratchett's work. That is, highly entertaining, but not very close to reality. What is the philosophy behind rejecting evidence that fits on several levels with known history to replace it with evidence that rests on things like Elizabeth I's psychology and the way two fictional characters adress each other?

Also, you haven't defended your first post - you've simply made more accusations and assumptions. None of Louise and Fish's questions have been answered. I would be interested in reading your rebuttal, instead of more and more history that's been yanked out of context.

Hello Capricorn...

If your father is in fact an historian...& if his specialty is the history of the British Isles, please let him know that he is cordially invited to jump in on this thread...as I would like to run a few things by him.

For example...if Harry Potter mania has a precedent it would probably be Beatlemania. The Beatles, as we know were Four & called the "Fab Four". As the Isles are home to Four historic nations...being the English, Welsh, Scots & Irish, it is interesting to note that if the Four can be said to have a meeting ground, it would have to be Liverpool. The Beatles, like Harry Potter seemed to have come out of nowhere. The exploded on the scene in 1964 & broke up in 1970...in like what appears to be the form for Seven Harry Potter novels...a phenomenon with a distinct Beginning Middle & End. It is also noteworthy that the Beatles appear to have had their own, personal, British Prime Minister. Like the Fab Four, Harold Wilson came in with the Mopheads in 1964, & went out in 1970. No Prime Minister I can think of before or since has ever talked, like a Beatle, through his nose. Also the easily recognizable, but hard to define Mersey Beat, which itself had a distinct Beginning Middle & End bears a striking resemblance to the Pulsar that is set of at the core of an overextended star when it collapses & becomes a "Mini" version of its former self. Mini Mania, as we know, accompanied Beatlemania. Which brings us to the Hogwarts of Harry Potter.

Hogwarts, of course, consists of Four Houses. The primary colors of the Four Houses are Red, Green, Blue, & Black. Now, let's say that the Houses in some way represent the Four Nations. England, clearly would be Gryffindor, Scotland, Ravenclaw...as Green is the very symbol of the Emerald Isle, Ireland...Ireland should be Slytherin...but for a couple of things.
One is that Black & Yellow would be Wales...& I don't see the connection. Another is that the author seems to like, not dislike the Irish...& the most identifiable Irishman in HP is Seamus Finnegan who is in Gryffindor.

Wales has two flag colors...Red & Green...& with Red already spoken for, Green the color of the Welsh, House of Tudor & the color of the Welsh Green Dragon might represent Wales...but that would leave the Black for Ireland. Now a common term for Protestant Irish, at least here in the States, is "Black Irish"...& the color of the Black Irish in Ireland is Orange...which is not exactly Hufflepuff Yellow...but close. Helga Hufflepuff the founder of the House, kind of means "Holy Hufflepuff"...& when one thinks of the Rev Ian Paisley, the Icon of Ulster, that is what most people will imagine. Moreover the names Cedric & Amos Diggory, sound to my ear anyway, like Protestant Irish. So...I think that Hogwarts represents not the Four Nations of the Isles exactly, but the Four States of the United Kingdom...with Green definitely representing Wales.

And where exactly is Hogwarts? Clearly it is somewhere in the British Isles...& most people would say Scotland...& so did I until I saw Goblet of Fire. Unless Hogwarts were on an inland sea or fjord I did not see how the Beauxbatons & Durmstrangers could have arrived for the Tournament. Now it is clear to me that the two Academies could have made it there even at an inland venue.

I have yet to make a calculation here but judging from Harry's first trip to Hogwarts, I think the Academy might be in the Lake District. Harry's train, which has a track of its own, leaves at noon, I believe, in late August to Hogwarts from King's Cross Station & arrives after sundown at the Academy. So that would be about a seven hour trip at maybe 40 MPH under steam which is less than 300 miles...but I think that the Scottish Highlands are farther than that. I shall have to check. Somewhere in the Lake District central to the Four States can be found a town like Hogsmede at on a Lake at the base of a hill that might be a likely Hogwarts.

Your turn. G
s

No, he is a specialist in South African history and specifically the Anglo Boer War. But that's beside the point. What he knows has nothing to do with what I said. I was making a point about how one should approach history. Without agreeing on that, there is little point in exchanging 'facts'. Any two people who can read can do that. Expertise lies in the analysis of these facts to form the truest possible picture.

There is no place for sensationalism based on random facts. History is about the bigger picture. It's about understanding great patterns of change, and how these changes occasionally collided into memorable incidents. It's also about understanding the regularity of human behaviour - and the resulting clash between change and tradition. In the end it's a study of human nature. (This is an opinion I have formed myself, though. )

It is therefore foolish and ignorant to take random pieces of fact and weave together a fantastical story, while selectively ignoring the pool of accepted knowledge about certain events and times. Accepted history is greater than most conspiracy theories (and yours included) by orders of magnitude. There is no logic behind ignoring that, or rejecting parts of that, and replacing it with less reliable evidence.

You haven't answered my question either, and it was a simple one:

Why do your sources have more historic credibility than the accepted version of events?

(I should just add that this is a question that is totally unrelated to the contents of your posts, because they do not contain 'evidence' that would tempt me to believe ... whatever it is you're saying. Still haven't figured that out, because now the Beatles have joined Harry Potter, NATO, Elizabeth I, Shakespeare, Cervantes, the London train schedule, Hamlet, Minis, dragons, Liverpool, the lakes, and who knows what else.)

I am (again) not asking for more unrelated evidence - which is exactly what you just gave. I am questioning the credibility of your sources for knowing about these skeletons.



Magic, perhaps?

I think this illustrates to what extent you're missing the point of these books. I don't think you ever read Harry Potter with anything else in mind but to find these 'skeletons'. If you could read it without such dire expectations, you may be surprised to find that it's quite a fun read - and ever so void of political conspiracy theories.

I'm excusing myself from this discussion until you have answered my question on the credibility of your information versus that of accepted history - without knowing your stance on that, there is little reason for me to comment.

*note*- to be taken in an analytical voice, not sarcasm


For example ...what? There has been four reasonable length posts chock full of questions and the only solution is for you to tell us more facts? Anyway, I will now dredge through this post and analyze it.

This first paragraph is stretching the bounds of believability to the limits. I cant even begin to think how the Beatles being related to Harry Potter's four houses, as well as the Four Isles... what purpose does this serve... other than it *may* be another fad to fade? And how may I ask does all that bring us to the "Hogwarts of Harry Potter"?



I dont comprehend your logic here at all... Simply because Hogwarts has four Houses, and there are four Nations... and each are associated with color... and all this means they are related? Apparently only one of the Houses of Hogwarts match the Color of one of the Nations... Slytherin to Ireland. You yourself even said you dont see the connection as you fail an attempt to match the colors "black and yellow" to something. Why is Gryffindor to England, and Ravenclaw to Scotland?

This part I dont understand at all--->:





You realize what this sounds like dont you?

lets see that in a more easier to understand format:

wales has red and green for a flag--->

red is already taken(where?), leaves green--->

green is color of Tudor and Welsh Dragon--->

these two lead us right back to green being the color for welsh--->

green is already on their flag--->

leaves black for Ireland--->

protestant irish in the states are supposedly called "Black Irish"--->

the equivalent of the Black Irish in Ireland is orange--->

orange is close to yellow--->

yellow is the color of Hufflepuff

To get Wales to match Hufflepuff, you had to take the colors of the flag of Wales out to something like 6 or 7 degrees, when referring to a theory. Not holding much water to me.



*emphasis my own*

Using evidence like "Helga Hufflepuff the founder of the House, kind of means "Holy Hufflepuff" is very shady at best. Then you bring is Rev. Ian Paisley... whoah! what does that have to do with anything!... then we *think* that Cedric and Amos Diggory sound like Protestant Irish... even though they live in the same area as the Weasleys? Mr. Yuhas, Mr. Yuhas...



Im glad it *became clear to you* because you must remember that we are dealing with magic... not feasible means of Transportation that would be affected by geographical obstacles...its magic!



Alot of this is relying on averages involving normal time constraints and the limits of such steam powered trains. Hogwarts Express is most likely driven by magic, as well as the time is most likely altered in some way to keep the location a secret to those who may visit. I really doubt the Hogwarts Express only goes 40 miles and hour.




Im sorry to be so critical, but we have given you, as I said before, 4 solid posts and you keep throwing stretched facts and history at us...


~Albus

Gonzalo, I'm afraid I must too bow out of this...well, I hesitate to call it a discussion, because you're not discussing anything. You're information dumping, and that's all. You're not addressing any of our points which makes me wonder if you're either afraid that we're right that your theory holds no water, or you're just not reading our comments properly.

In either event, until you begin to actually have a conversation with us about the points that we have made, I have nothing more to say on this subject.

I've been following this thread with mild interest and a more than a little frustration. I would like to echo Capricorn's call for some references. What authoritative references do you have to back up your claims. As far as I can tell; your "facts" and your suppositions are all based on key assumptions about history. Without a factual basis, what you have presented as indisputable fact is merely a confused mass of words based on these assumptions presented with a tone of authority that maybe has, even you, confused. . . It really is hard to tell. It seems that you seem to think that we'll be so impressed with your intellectual name-dropping and historical wisdom, that we'll swallow anything you have to tell just on that merit. I don't buy it.

Whilst I can actually see some purpose to analysing Shakespeare, and I can see the benefits of a quest to determine who he was . . . I don't see what that purpose has to do with JKR. With Shakespeare, at least we don't have the benefit of the details of meticulous documentation; but with JKR, we have many things - including her own words - that can help us decipher why she writes what she writes, who she is, and where she's from. I don't see the purpose, and you haven't given us a purpose, of even trying to comb through her unfinished works to find a conspiracy. Can you please tell us your point? Concisely?

As far as drawing comparisons from her text based on history . . . how can you not? There are four Hogwarts founders. There are several famous historical fours aside from the Beatles (and I really fail to see how any comparison of Beatlemania to the HP books has any significance to the plot); this doesn't automatically make her writings an allegory on them.

There are:
1. Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse
2. Four Directional Pulls of a compass
3. Four Seasons
4. ABBA
5. The Monkees
6. The Four Tops
7. Four Gospels
8. Muskateers, when you include D'Artagnan
9. Four Suits of cards in a standard poker deck.
10. The Four Elements

That's just a few. There are so many things we can find in today's life and in history that can be compared to almost anything in literature. That's the power of the reader. We, as readers, assign meaning to the symbols of text that the authors give us. Some of it is strictly subjective (though it seems that you may have given history a subjective reading here and there; and history is not, in its purist form, subjective), and sometimes the author has a specific meaning in mind while writing and good for us if we can figure it out! I think, though, that oftentimes when we're reading, we can definitely assign meaning to text that is only significant to us; something that the author had no intention of ever communicating to the reader. I'm all for reading texts in a critical manner, but I don't agree with trying to pass off your interpretation of a reading of a text as the definitive intention of the author.

Tie it all into a purpose for JKR, if you will. Give us some references. Make it authentic. And please tell us what you think JKR is accomplishing by writing such a conspiratorial text; and why you think she's writing it aside from the fact that she can.

EDIT: I've been (re)reading a book on the Anatomy of Criticism and I found this, which I thought you might enjoy with your use of the word allegory:

Anyone interested in Literary Criticism and Theory should pick up this collection of Frye's essays. Very essential to read as he is one of the major authorities on Literary Criticism.

EDIT 2: Also, I was wondering about the subheading to your topic. "As much a fairy princess as I am." When has JKR ever claimed to be a fairy princess? When has she ever presented us with that persona?

Well, it's actually a quote about Fleur from the 5th book, I believe. He quotes it in his first post. How that was supposed to extend back on Rowling, I don't believe he said. He seems to be attempting to indict Rowling in some way, though he does not ever actually get to his point.

Frye would be difficult to work on him, because Frye is a New Critic, and Mr. Yuhas seems to be working from a Reader Response interpretation of allegory (which is different entirely). Of course, I'm sure Stanley Fish would not be fond of this particular application.

Speaking of Stanley Fish, that reminds me of something. While serving as opening speaker at a Milton Conference (he's arguably the most important Milton Scholar writing in the past hundred years, at least), Fish spoke, reminding everyone why they were scholars. His answer was an adaptation of a Clinton ad campaign I also use (as some of the dueling club members might remember). Fish's statement was "It's the poetry, stupid." What Fish meant was that Milton's excellent poetry was why everyone was talking about Milton. He wanted everyone to not lose sight of that. I think that's what you're missing here. You gave me the Veritaserum, so now I guess I'll tell you the truth. It's the plot. Stupid.



Kyle Davis

I get the reference to the HP world, though I think it was the fourth movie. I don't remember it being in the books. I just didn't get why he seemed to be assigning it to JKR.

I'm sure Fish wouldn't agree at all, and he'd probably not like me either! I, though, in a very un-Fishlike way, would still argue Frye's point that whatever response Yuhas is working from: To be an allegory, the components of allegory must be there. I'm not trying to argue that interpretation isn't/can't be based on the readers experience and expectations. (I don't think, on some levels, that Frye would argue that, either.) I do think, however, that in order to classify a work of literature (or any writing) as a certain type; that work had best have the elements necessary to fit it into the genre. I'm not the follower of Fish, though. There's room for us both, maybe, in our skepticism in this interpretation?

Couldn't agree more.

JKR, from what I hear, is a keen student of the Spanish language...so I thought she might be interested in a revelation I had this morning on "Don Quixote". In Chapter 48, Part II, a woman named Dona Rodriguez is telling Quixote a story about her late husband, who was transporting his boss, a certain Duchess on the back of a mule, along with a small entourage, through the narrow entrance at the end of Santiago Street in Madrid. Now "Santiago", " St. James", is the patron saint of Spain, & namesake, I believe, of Harry's dad. The battle cry of the Spanish Armada, btw, being "Santiago y cierra Espana!".
("Lily" Harry's mother, is a reference of feudal France, the fleur-de-lys...JKR, it appears, is Old School)

Madrid, the capital of Spain, does, in fact, have a Calle Santiago, which is a broad street, not a narrow one...but at neither end of the street, as far as I know, is there a narrow gate that enters into anything.

In the contemporary English edition of Don Quixote, by one "Thomas Shelton" the pen name of one who I believe, was a co-author of the novel, Calle Santiago is called "St Jacques Street"..."Jacques", of course, being "James", but in French. Why not leave it "Calle Santiago" or in plain English, "St. James's Street"?

Unlike St. James's Street in the Spanish capital, the one in the English capital does in fact have a narrow gate at one end. This is the Gatehouse of St. James's Palace, built by Henry VIII.

What transpires in this story is that the late husband of Sra Rodriguez is transporting a Duchess, formerly his boss, now her boss, on the pillion seat of a mule along with a small entourage in the direction of this gate...while a certain magistrate accompanied by his wife is seen headed towards them rom the other side.

Now a big deal in those days...especially in narrow streets with the center of the street being an open sewer, is Who yields to whom?". Sr Rodriguez takes off his cap & yields to the Magistrate who, waiting for his wife to catch up, motions to Rodriguez to go through the gate first. Rodriguez is not inclined to do so, prompting his infuriated passenger in the back, being a Duchess after all, to pull out a stiletto from her purse & skewer Rodriguez in the kidney...an act that makes him & the mule jump & dump both riders.

Rodriguez gets the sack, then dies...& the Duchess now takes on widow Rodriguez as a Maid of Honor.

Dona R, up in Quixote's room after midnight where the Knight was recovering in bed from having his face torn up by a cat, then tells the Knight something remarkable...namely that she has a daughter who is "sixteen years, five months & three days old...one day more or less"...& that she is the beauty of the court, far outshining one Altisadora, who appears to be a favorite of the Duchess & her husband, the Duke. This daughter has given herself to the son of a wealthy farmer who promised he would marry her...but the Duke won't make any attempt to persuade the father to force the son to marry the daughter as he is dependent on the occasional loan from the landowner...& doesn't wish to ruin the relationship.

Let me tell you what this is about. The Duke & Duchess here are William & Mildred Cecil....& Altisadora is their daughter , Anne Cecil, who Edward de Vere the 17th Earl of Oxford was obliged to marry when he was 23 & she was 14. Her proposal of marriage to him...word- for-word in Chapter 44, Part II, in Shelton's English, is recorded along with Edward's dumbfounded reply.

On March 23, 1581 "one day more or less" Anne Vavasour, the daughter of Margaret Knyvett Vavasour, herself a Maid of Honor at he Court, gave birth to a son by Edward, to the absolute horror of Elizabeth I & the Cecil's, who on the day of the birth sent both Anne V, (sans newborn) & Edward to the Tower. The reason behind the violent reaction would take some pages to explain...but for Albus & my other critics on this thread...who are always wont to say "prove it" I have this proposal.

I, myself,can't prove it from here in Colorado...but some scholar in England might be able to...that is...find out the birth date of Anne Vavasour. If it's "October 20, 1564...one day more or less"...I'd say we can call that proof. This would be the literary bombshell of the past couple of hundred years

Finally, I think it was more likely Elizabeth I, rather than a "cat" that scratched the face of "Don Quixote" on that fateful day of March 23 before sending him to the Tower.


Philip II of Spain & the Pope as well, had just put out a hit on Elizabeth I, for the purpose of having her replaced by the Catholic, Mary Queen of Scots...& what Edward, unfortunately for him, had a mind to do was trade in his current in-laws, the Cecils...arguably the most prominent Protestant family in England, for the Vavasours, one of the oldest & most prominent, Catholic families.

To the Duke the Duchess & the Queen..this may well have looked like an attempted coup d' etat.
G

Can you please do us the honor to cite your references. . .

From where did you hear this? From where do you draw the conclusion that being a "keen student" of any language makes a person an expert in that culture and then writes a fictional work in order to secrety expose . . .something about that culture? What is it exactly she's exposing about England's shady history that we haven't heard before?

Seriously? I mean, seriously? Though I don't deny that proof (for what, I'm still unsure) would be nice; we're merely asking for some credible references. References to your claims. Where are you drawing your information? I'm sure, given your extensive research, that you can provide us with some of the works that you are using- and please do not cite the text of "Don Quixote" or any of Shakespeare's - we know those are the basis for your claims. I'm just not sure why you choose to ignore us when we ask for it. . .

And also; we can call that proof of what? That there was a woman name Anne Vavasour who was born "October 20, 1564...one day more or less," and that it coincides with dates in a fictional account? What exactly is this supposed to prove?

And what, please what, does this have to do with JK Rowling?? That she's out to expose a major coup in British history because she has four house founders each with their unique colors? Really? Somehow based on some expected statement of unlikely virginity of Elizabeth 1-whom, I think, we have no problem understanding that she wasn't a virgin?

Really?

I have been waiting for this for a few days now. I was hoping to get a response to my questions, as well as the numerous questions asked by other. I was expecting a complete reworked angle of discussion by you, Mr Yuhas, in light of the fact that Capricorn and Louise have stated that they have taken a bow out of this thread until something changed. I expected alot of things, and I got none of them... all I got was another heap of irrevelant text that, while not related to JKR in anyway, was random at best.




Yes, James is one of the patron saints of spain. I read someplace once that James namesake was from the "King James" of England because of the stability the king gave to England. Apparently James, harry's father, died while protecting his wife and son... who survived, and would one day give stability to England as he rid it of Voldemort. That is pushing the envelope, and yet is still more believable than your theory. As for Lily being connected to the Fleur de Lis.... yes, the Fleur de Lis is a lily, and the symbol of older France... but what does that have to do with Lily and James relation when symbolising them as France and Spain?


And what does narrow street, with variants of the name "James", have to do with anything in the Harry Potter books, and even more, how does this fit in with the accusation of JKR being radical?




ok, this eased my mind a little bit... I had thought you were completely ignoring all of our posts, but since you seemed to have picked up my name atleast, I assume you read a little. But why would I agree to this proposal? Your theory is based on a date of birth of Anne Vavasour that your not even sure on?

You know, after reading the title of your book, and seeing the way you jump around with your theories, I presume you are trying to mimic Dan Brown? Im sorry, but even though Dan Brown's evidence was dodgy at best, atleast it made a good story, and caused you to think a bit, do some research and read more on the topic. This "Shakespeare-Cervantes Code" and other related conspiracy theories need be plausible and interesting for them to work. No one cares that a cat didnt scratch Don Quixote or that JKR is trying to make Slytherin represent Ireland. Its not solid, even at face value, so why keep it up? Instead of spending so much time on finding ways to paint JKR with immensely complex (albeit foolish) theories of some underlying political method, why not research the text of Harry Potter and find internal themes of things that will help people, that will interest people. Things that are plausible.

Since you have made a proposal to myself, and others, which I have declined for myself, I have a proposal for you. You seem good at diggging random bits of history and plastering them onto the Harry Potter series, but I propose that you do some digging within the text, and stay there. My suggestion is that you find the underlying moral theme of Dumbledore's eating of Lemon Drops (sherbert lemons in the UK version) upon his arrival at Privet Drive the night after the Potter's were killed. Tell me what this says about him and I may have the heart to sit through another load of history as I have for your past few posts. If you cant dig up something on the topic I gave you, I am afraid I cant make time to critique your conspiracy theories no longer, and must too backout, like Louise and Capricorn. Thanks


~Albus

gonzalo, I have seen some good, intelligent, thought provoking posts being made in reply to your comments here over the past few days and you have consistently completely ignored them.

It seems as though you aren't interested in a discussion and are interested only in using the VTM forums as a soapbox from which to launch your highly questionable theories.

So I'm afraid you force me to make an ultimatum.

Either you begin to address the points people have made thus far and cease ignoring them - which is extremely rude - or I'm afraid I will be forced to lock this thread on the grounds that it is a self-promoting advertisement for your own work; which, incidentally, you still have failed to relate back to JKR in any meaningful way beyond the odd casual reference to names sounding similar.

These are forums - a place for conversation, so please let's have a little structure here. Instead of raising new points, why not try dealing with some of the old ones first?

Some time ago, Yours truly, Gonzalo, was a member of an internet discussion group called the "Shakespeare Fellowship". Even though I was a founding member, I was turfed off that site, because, I was told, I wouldn't shut up about JK Rowling, who I consider to be the premier writer on the planet...& entirely germain to any discussion of the "Shakespeare Authorship Question.

Modesty aside, I consider myself in Second Place, being not unlike a Marathon runner, one who occasionally catches site of the leader at the top of a rise. An indefatigable tracker in Africa back in my ranger days, however...I am simply waiting for JKR's Book Seven, when I plan to step up the pace.

If Passerby is unhappy with my postings, let me make a suggestion. Take a trip to Copmanthorpe, Yorkshire & visit the nearest Catholic church register for births listed in 1564 in October 19, 20, & 21, for any "Anne Vavasour". This would be doing us all a big favor.

Having had our third major snow storm in two weeks I have been pre-occupied of late, which accounts for the unfinished look of some of my postings.

Regards, G


P.S. One more thing...I hear that those hard-core Slytherins known as "Stratfordians" are now moving Burbury production from Wales to China. Hogwarts should cancel their contract for uniforms. Better yet, Minerva M. should start up her own line of Burbury gear using Dobby as labor.

No, passerby isn't unhappy with your postings. I am.

And check this out. That took all of two seconds to Google. My mum, who has been a genelogist for many years, is about to undertake to find this Anne's exact birthdate for you, even though that source I've linked lists it as c.1565. So this proves what, exactly?

And what has Burbury moving their manufacturing plant from Wales have to with anything? McGonagall doesn't wear Burbury - she's not a chav. She wears tartan, because she's Scottish.

EDIT : 1570 is about as accurate as the records get, according to the Mormon Geneology website. Her siblings were born roughly every two years, which would be about right for the time, considering that the only method of birth control they had was breastfeeding; not entirely reliable in itself.

The question remains, what "literary bombshell" does this deliver?

Also, why should passerby be looking up the evidence we'd all like to hear from you, gonzalo?

You're the one making claims, and I don't know if you've noticed, but every single post in this thread, except for your own, has questioned the validity of your theory. You came to us with this theory - it's up to you to prove it. None of us will feel as though we've been done a particular favour (herself in the least, I think) if passerby crossed the Atlantic in search of a birthdate, which Louise has managed to find for us anyway - and lo! It doesn't match up! To what I still don't know, but it's not as you predicted. If your theory could have been proven by the date being '20 October 1564 more or less', does it mean it has been proved false by the date not being that? I'd say that's reasonable.





Did I get this wrong or are you claiming to be the second most brilliant literary mind alive?

Well, I guess there's no disagreeing with you then, is there?

I don't buy it, sorry, but perhaps it's because I, together with the rest of the world, have missed the entire point of a children's series. And sorry, but I'm not going to believe that until you present vaguely plausible evidence. Your own evidence.

And unlike Albus Dumbledore, I would rather not you thought up a theory about Dumbledore's sherbet lemons. If your interpretation of children's literature is anywhere near the quality of your interpretation of history (the former being absent as of yet), forgive me for saying, but I would have extreme difficulty in believing much of it.

Wow... I am ashamed to say I didnt even catch the fact that he just called himself the second greatest literary mind in the world....


I am eagerly anticipating every post in this thread, I must admit I am intruiged by it.

As for the theory about Dumbledore, I admit was not well thought out. I just placed my favorite character in the line of fire for absurd accusations that most likely involve some crazy war conspiracy or somehow relates to Hitler... we would have had some evidence proposed to us that Adolf Hitler ate Sherbert Lemons. Although it may have been interesting to see the blapshemy take place

Visit the "I thought Id share and article" thread for my analysis of the Lemon Drops.

~Albus

You know, I've been following this with great interest over the past few days. I'm a big fan of a good conspiracy theory, actually any theory, so longs as it has some sort of credibility. I like to see evidence, so that i can say, OK this person may have a point, but in this case I can't see any thing that makes me believe this theory is anything other than your own inetrpretation of historical events, which in my mind is dodgy ground to walk on.

The thing is, when you scrtach the surface of something too often, in the end your going to dig a great big hole that's difficult to climb out of.

I don't think there's anything mind blowing that's going to come from JKR. Her love of Spanish probably comes from having a few nice holidays there and wanting to learn a bit more about the language and culture. I did myself, ther's nothing radical there.

JKR like any good author would have done her research, but I think digging to deep can lead to nowhere. I'm sure that if I dug deep enough I'd find that I'm related to someone called Harry Potter on my paternal granfathers side 3 times removed...or something like that. I mean she must have done research other wise why make Sirius's animagus a dog. She would have had to know that Sirius is the Dog Star, simple stuff like that I can accept, but if you want to push that a little further a dog always accompanied a Shaman on his journey to the Underworld and a Shaman was a Serpent worshipper. Why would JK have Sirius as a dog looking after a serpent worshipper? The truth is, Serpents where only demonised in the last thousand years, before that they were idolised, JK chose to have them seen on the side of evil rather than good. But then again she may not have given any of this a thought. Why should she. AS I remember when she first thought of Harry Potter she was on a train from/to Manchester and he popped into her head fully formed. I don't think that the British Rail Network had a reference library on board that day for her to research his name.

On the subject of names, Dursley...a small town slightly east of Chepstow where JKR grew up, nothing sinister there. Vernon and Petunia, 2 posh sounding names for two Upper class wannabes. Red Yellow Blue Green. The colours of the houses. I have said this before, the colours given to school houses in the UK at the time she was at school in the 70's.

I don't want to debunk anyones ideas, but when someone comes up with something so incredibly 'out there' I want to see where the information is coming from.

By the way, I don't have a clue if any of the above is true, and I'm not saying it is, it's all just circumstantial evidence but I can quote my sources!

*sigh* I too am bowing out of this debate until I see more sincere response to my critiques. Of course, I realize now that I should not be expecting textual application from you. Shakepearian authorship questions are wraught with the problem of never saying anything that matters. If Hamlet was written by William Shakespeare of Avon, or the Earl of Oxford, or Marlow, or Bacon, or any one of a number of Earls and Lords, the book has still been written, and should be dealt with. However, much of the scholarship about authorship fails to apply it to the text. I am not, of course, trying to make a universal statement I know myself to not be true. However, it is a trap many a scholar in your field (if I can, indeed, call you a scholar. you have failed to provide any sort of evidence of your prominence as such) has fallen into, and you seem to be falling into it with Rowling's work. You do her an injustice by not applying your theories to her work in any meaningful way, and I will not participate in a discussion that defames the quality of Rowling's work in that way.

-Kyle Davis

ET...Speaking of the Dursleys...My guess is that 4 Privet Drive is a real address that can be found on a north-south running road not far from Kew Gardens station from which 13 street lights can be seen. I used to live for a time in Chiswick off the Turnham Green stop...& if I wasn't paying attention I did once or twice find myself at Kew. Now...on the street where I lived in Chiswick, the houses were practically all brick & two or three storeys, with low-running brick walls in front on which one could usually find a contemplative cat.

A Privet...if memory serves, has berries or leaves that are poisonous...& again there's that Number 4. G

oh my... nearly five posts completely blown off!

Anyhow... Privet is a play on words... supposed to look like Private, as well as a variation of "private" in french which is "privé". The plant you speak of is commonly used as a shrubbery for Privacy, hence the name *Privet*. We know that the neighbours of the Dursleys are very reclusive people, including the Dursley's themselves. Also, the fact that Petunia is constantly *peeping over hedges* matches the description of "Privet Drive". I have seen nothing that says they are poisonous. As for the location of Privet Drive... its in Little Whinging. JKR said, through the book, thats its in Little Whinging. Why would she tell us anything if she wanted us to look elsewhere? This makes no sense.

~Albus

It's come to this. gonzalo-you have effectively ignored and bored off the majority of those who were even remotely interested in this thread. Those who have hung around have been very tolerant of your posts which ignore every question, every call for information, every plea for a reference. Our requests of you have been very simple and easy to comply: provide us with some citations for your claims. Your responses to us have been non-existent, except that you might latch onto one word or phrase from our posts and build another unrelated post. Also, your requests of us have been unreasonable: travel to Copmanthorpe, Yorkshire to do your research for you, all to find a date that Louise quickly found for you.

You have failed to give us any comprehensive, cohesive theory; yet you have strung together many historical events that may or may not have happened the way you'd like for us to believe. You've proven nothing; giving us facts from history that we already know. Yes, we know that Anne Vavasour had a son by Oxford. Yes, we know that England had trouble with Spain. Yes, we know that Ireland, Scotland, and England have had political trouble in the past. Yes, we too are able to decipher meaning from the words JKR has used. Your definition of "privet," for example, as Albus has pointed out, is nothing new.

Along with what savingharry was saying, perhaps we were foolish to think that you might be willing to step down off of your self-imposed pedestal to respond to our questions and critiques.

To borrow and rephrase from one of my favorite essays dealing with the authorship of Shakespeare: Nothing in our posts will persuade you, a committed Oxfordian who seems to think that even JKR has stooped to making her writing about the identity of Shakespeare, whose conspiracy mentality (the Powers That Be will always conceal the Truth from the People, but we, the Elect, have discovered that Truth, and its name is Oxford) is proof against any and all evidence that JKR has written a very enthralling and interesting piece of fictional literature that is just that- fiction. (We can certainly see this in your quote in your first post from Henry V- "We few, we happy few.")



If you have any defense or reason that we should keep this thread open after you have shown us that you have no intention of responding to our questions, please feel free to PM me.

Topic Locked.

passerby