Harry Potters Birthday?

5 views
Skip to first unread message

Dietrich Oberg

unread,
Nov 12, 2002, 12:23:51 PM11/12/02
to
Sorry, but for my daughter I am researching "What is
the year of birth of Harry Potter?"

Any hint, where I could find this 'essential' Information?
Thanx in advance.
D. Oberg - germany

Jeff Thomas

unread,
Nov 12, 2002, 1:19:45 PM11/12/02
to
"Dietrich Oberg" <dietric...@fonline.de> wrote in
news:aqrdfb$kra$06$1...@news.t-online.com:

From the books you must know that the day of birth is the 31st of July so
I assume you mean the year.

In book two Nearly Headless Nick invites Harry, Ron, and Hermione to his
500th Deathday celebration. He states that he died on the 31st of Oct
1492. Hence 500 years later is 31 Oct 1992. Since Harry turned twelve that
summer before second year started he must have been born in 1980.

The only real problem with that date is that in the first book Nick says
he hasn't tasted food for 400 years not 500.

You can also check out http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/ where thay
have all kinds of info.

Regards,

Jeff

zippy

unread,
Nov 12, 2002, 2:55:27 PM11/12/02
to
do your homework yourself and stop posing as someone's dad!


On Tue, 12 Nov 2002 12:19:45 -0600, Jeff Thomas <jth...@fyi.net>
wrote:

Ben Goudie

unread,
Nov 12, 2002, 3:47:14 PM11/12/02
to
> Sorry, but for my daughter I am researching "What is
> the year of birth of Harry Potter?"

For your daughter, eh? Really? Well, dating from the date of Nearly
Headless Nick's death, celebrated with his somethingty-hundredth deathday in
book 2, The second book was set in 1992. However, subsequent references to
popular culture have contradicted this a little. I'd say JK'd be foolish to
put in anything that ties it in to any definately specific year, as this
would mean it would clearly be set in the past for anyone who tries to read
the books in, say, 10 years time.


Sirius Kase

unread,
Nov 12, 2002, 7:08:58 PM11/12/02
to
In article <aqrdfb$kra$06$1...@news.t-online.com>, Dietrich Oberg
<dietric...@fonline.de> wrote:

If you want a real date, it will be different depending on whether it's
from the book or the movie.

IMO, Rowling intended the books to be set in the present which just
happened to be the 90's when she was writing, but other than that, the
exact year of Harry's birth isn't 'essential'. It distracts from the
story to mentally place the story in a time period other than the
present.

But, if you must know, the Deathday Party cake implies that the year of
CoS was 1992. Since Harry was 12, he would have been born in 1980 and
would now be 22.

Sirius Kase

--
Emma Watson: We get along very, very well.

Tom Felton: We're not really enemies. We love each other really.

Richard Eney

unread,
Nov 12, 2002, 7:29:45 PM11/12/02
to
In article <3dd16...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>,
Ben Goudie <b_...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

> from the date of Nearly Headless Nick's death, celebrated with his
> somethingty-hundredth deathday in book 2, The second book was set
> in 1992.

Five hundredth, he says, but we know Nick's a social climber.
I think he's lost track and is hoping nobody will notice as he
adjusts the date to whatever is convenient for him.

> However, subsequent references to popular culture have contradicted
> this a little. I'd say JK'd be foolish to put in anything that ties

> it in to any definitely specific year, as this would mean it would


> clearly be set in the past for anyone who tries to read the books
> in, say, 10 years time.

It's already set in the past, from that Deathday date. Harry starts
at Hogwarts in 1991, he'll start his seventh year in 1997 and leave
Hogwarts in 1998, end of series.

=Tamar

Tennant Stuart

unread,
Nov 13, 2002, 1:09:52 PM11/13/02
to
In article <aqs6dp$r8t$7...@news1.radix.net>,
dic...@radix.net (Richard Eney) wrote:

> In article <3dd16...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>,
> Ben Goudie <b_...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

>> from the date of Nearly Headless Nick's death, celebrated with his
>> somethingty-hundredth deathday in book 2, The second book was set
>> in 1992.

> Five hundredth, he says, but we know Nick's a social climber.
> I think he's lost track and is hoping nobody will notice as he
> adjusts the date to whatever is convenient for him.

Indeedy, it could well be that Nearly Headless Nick is lying, especially
since in PS-07 he tells Harry that he hasn't eaten for nearly 400 years;
but fortunately for us, that doesn't matter, since we don't care when he
actually lived & died, all we want is the current year for Book #2.

In CoS-08, NHN says "this Halloween will be my five hundredth deathday"
while the icing on his cake says "Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington died
31st October, 1492" which makes the current year 1992.

If NHN lied in CoS-08 and told the truth in PS-07, then what he should
have said (assuming he'd been dead for 398 years 10 months in Book #1)
is "this Halloween will be my four hundredth deathday" and the icing on
his cake should have said "Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington died 31st
October, 1592", which still makes the current year 1992.

The same argument applies (only more strongly) if NHN told the truth in
both books, and it was JKR who was inconsistent in her writing.


>> However, subsequent references to popular culture have contradicted
>> this a little. I'd say JK'd be foolish to put in anything that ties
>> it in to any definitely specific year, as this would mean it would
>> clearly be set in the past for anyone who tries to read the books
>> in, say, 10 years time.

> It's already set in the past, from that Deathday date. Harry starts
> at Hogwarts in 1991, he'll start his seventh year in 1997 and leave
> Hogwarts in 1998, end of series.

That's right, Tamar. JKR first thought of Harry Potter in 1990, and did
most of her plotting for all 7 books in the following few years, (click
on http://www.geocities.com/aberforths_goat/ and check out the absorbing
article "August_1997_Elisabeth_Dunn_The_Daily_Telegraph"), so 1992 could
easily have been when she first thought of NHN's 500th deathday party.


Tennant Stuart

--
____ ____ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ ____
(_ _)( ___)( \( )( \( ) /__\ ( \( )(_ _) Greetings to family
)( )__) ) ( ) ( /(__)\ ) ( )( friends & neighbours
(__) (____)(_)\_)(_)\_)(__)(__)(_)\_) (__) @argonet.co.uk & MCR

Yair Friedman

unread,
Nov 14, 2002, 7:04:02 AM11/14/02
to
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002 18:09:52 GMT,
Tennant Stuart <ten...@argonet.co.uk> writes:

> Indeedy, it could well be that Nearly Headless Nick is lying, especially
> since in PS-07 he tells Harry that he hasn't eaten for nearly 400 years;
> but fortunately for us, that doesn't matter, since we don't care when he
> actually lived & died, all we want is the current year for Book #2.
>
> In CoS-08, NHN says "this Halloween will be my five hundredth deathday"
> while the icing on his cake says "Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington died
> 31st October, 1492" which makes the current year 1992.
>
> If NHN lied in CoS-08 and told the truth in PS-07, then what he should
> have said (assuming he'd been dead for 398 years 10 months in Book #1)
> is "this Halloween will be my four hundredth deathday" and the icing on
> his cake should have said "Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington died 31st
> October, 1592", which still makes the current year 1992.

It also could be that NHN died on some other arbitrary year, and his
so-called 500th deathday was an excuse for him to arrange that party.

We have a stronger contradicting evidence: Harry 11th birthday was on
Tuesday July 1st. Because Grindelwald was defeated in 1945 it can't be
earlier than that.

This leaves up with 52,58,69,75,80,86 and 97 as possible candidates, and
if we look at the near future, also 03 and 08.

Dudley's Computer and VCR mentioned in PS rule out all dates past dates
except for the last two.

In GoF Dudley PlayStation is mentioned. This rule out 86 (Along with the
popular 91 theory). It possibly rule out future dates also.

So, my theory based upon fist-hand evidence in the book and not the
second-hand self-contradicting NHN is that Harry was born in 1996,
started Hogwarts in 1997, and will leave Hogwarts in 2004.

--
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a
hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build
a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate,
act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a
computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly.
Specialization is for insects. -- Robert A. Heinlein

Doug

unread,
Nov 14, 2002, 8:54:55 AM11/14/02
to

Harry wasn't born on the first of July.. he *was* born, however on the
31st(end of the month-which is stated).

blizzardme

unread,
Nov 14, 2002, 1:49:12 PM11/14/02
to
In GoF, Harry writes to Sirius that Dudley's diet isn't going well and
chucked his PlayStation out the window. Remember that Harry wrote the letter
to Sirius before Harry's fourteenth birthday and Mr. Dursley received the
invitation from Mrs. Weasly; in the paperback edition, page 25 and pages
28 - 29 respectively. We know that PlayStation One was release around
September 1995 and PS2 was released around October 16, 2000. Harry can not
be any older than thirteen when PSone was released. If we assume that Harry
was thirteen when the PSone was released, then the latest year that Harry
could have been born is 1982 (1995 - 13). If we go by PS2, than the latest
year that Harry could have been born is 1987 (2000 - 13).

In an earlier thread, Jeff Thomas wrote, "In book two Nearly Headless Nick


invites Harry, Ron, and Hermione to his 500th Deathday celebration. He
states that he died on the 31st of Oct 1492. Hence 500 years later is 31 Oct
1992. Since Harry turned twelve that summer before second year started he

must have been born in 1980".

So, I am going with 1982 or earlier

Thanks,

Blizzardme

Fish Eye no Miko

unread,
Nov 14, 2002, 3:07:33 PM11/14/02
to
"Yair Friedman" <ya...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
news:uvg30i...@amdocs.com...

> We have a stronger contradicting evidence: Harry 11th birthday was
> on Tuesday July 1st.

Harry's B-day is the 31st of July, not the 1st.

Catherine Johnson.
--
dis "able" to reply
"Oh, he makes me so mad! The horrible puny-brained meat child, with his
little glasses, and his... head! 'My name is Dib, with my pointy hair!'
Pointy hair! 'I eat food and have stuff!'."
-Zim, during one of his funnier rants, _Invader Zim_.


KEN TURNER

unread,
Nov 14, 2002, 6:25:16 PM11/14/02
to
IMO NHN died at the age of one hundred and there for had one hundred
death days before hand and four hundred after he died. So it could be
his 500th death day. I say this because people were saying happy death
day on hallowe'en in one of the books I'm not too sure
which one I'm looking over them now.

blizzardme

unread,
Nov 14, 2002, 8:19:13 PM11/14/02
to
Extending what I said previously. In PoA hardback edition on page 104,
Trelawney told Lavender the thing you are dreading will happen on Friday the
sixteenth of October. Friday the sixteenth of October happens on the
following years; 1987, 1992, 1998, 2009, and 2015 (It would take magic to
list all the years).

Since Harry was thirteen in PoA, we can calculate the most likely year Harry
was born and compare it to the PlayStations' release date :
1987 - 13 = 1974
1992 - 13 = 1979
1998 - 13 = 1985
2009 - 13 = 1996
2015 - 13 = 2002


PoA's copyright is 1999. There was no PS2 for Rowling to write about, so we
can just use the PSone's date of release. Based on that information, Dudley
could have received his PSone anytime after Harry was 10 (PSone's release
date: 1995 - Harry's birth date: 1985) and chucked it right before Harry's
14th birthday. It is very likely that Dudley would receive an expensive
PlayStation at the age of 11 and the PSone would be 3 years old (Harry is 13
in 1998 - PSone's release date: 1995).

Just for the fun of it lets use the PS2 date. Dudley could have received his
PS2 anytime after Harry was 4 (PS2 release date: 2000 - Harry's birth: 1996)
and chucked it right before Harry's 14th birthday. Which is highly unlikely.
I don't think Dudley would be receiving an expensive PlayStation at the age
of 5 and the PS2 would be 9 years old (Harry is 13 in 2009 - PS2 release
date: 2000). There will be a PS3 by that time.

Harry being born before or after 1985 does not make much sense. Thus, Harry
could only be born in The Year of our Lord Nineteen Hundred and Eight-Five.

Harry's date of Birth is July 31st, 1985.

Blizzardme


"blizzardme" <gosh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ar0s6g$sov$1...@reader.nmix.net...

Jed Wright

unread,
Nov 14, 2002, 8:36:34 PM11/14/02
to
What about the deathday party for nearly headless nick? it was nearly headless
nick's 500th deathday party
Jed Wright

blizzardme

unread,
Nov 14, 2002, 9:46:45 PM11/14/02
to
There can be three possibilities. Nearly Headless Nick is senile and forgot
his age, someone made a mistake and put the wrong date on the cake and
Nearly Headless Nick thinks that is his deathday date because he is senile,
or Rowling made mistake about Nick's deathday date or the number of years he
has been dead.

Rowling used Friday the sixteenth of October for a reason. It may be a
special day in here life or just the day it was when she was typing that
line. PoA was copyrighted in 1999.

Friday the sixteenth of October shows up a year earlier, 1998. Harry is 13
years old in PoA. 1998 - 1985 = 13 years old.

Rowling has been wrong before, but I really do not care. I have seen worse
mistakes in Sci-Fi books compared to the Harry Potter books.

blizzardme


Doug

unread,
Nov 14, 2002, 10:09:08 PM11/14/02
to

October the Sixteenth was when Lavendar Brown lost her bunny.. *that*
was all that was said for that date.. it has *nothing* to do with Nick...

blizzardme

unread,
Nov 14, 2002, 11:31:00 PM11/14/02
to
What? I didn't say it had anything to do with Nick.

People need to LEARN to read. You need to read the whole thread before you
reply, or it makes you look like a dumn ass.

Reread what I wrote.


(PERSONAL LIFE)


Rowling used Friday the sixteenth of October for a reason. It may be a

special day in here life, or just the day it was when she was typing that


line. PoA was copyrighted in 1999.

Dietrich Oberg, I found the date for you. Its 1985.


blizzardme


Richard Eney

unread,
Nov 15, 2002, 2:22:22 AM11/15/02
to
In article <ar1o5b$191b$1...@reader.nmix.net>,
blizzardme <gosh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>

>
>Rowling used Friday the sixteenth of October for a reason. It may be a
>special day in here life or just the day it was when she was typing that
>line. PoA was copyrighted in 1999.
>
>Friday the sixteenth of October shows up a year earlier, 1998. Harry is 13
>years old in PoA. 1998 - 1985 = 13 years old.
>
>Rowling has been wrong before, but I really do not care. I have seen worse
>mistakes in Sci-Fi books compared to the Harry Potter books.

If you google for previous discussions here on this general topic, you
should find posts discussing the various dates and days of the week that
JKR used. They contradict each other. There are Tuesdays in the same
year that can't happen. There is some evidence that JKR used the same
calendar for two or three years, since Halloween is on a Saturday at least
two years in a row. And apparently some very special early-release
special-circumstances examples of the first PlayStation were just barely
available at the right time for Dudley to get one from his rich parents,
at the right time for Harry to be born in 1980. In fact, until the
Deathday party in HP#2, the Tuesdays made it more likely that Harry was
born in 1979, according to those posts.

There is _no_ way to make all the dates and days of the week JKR gives
work for any given sequence of years. The only specific year date given
clearly is the 1492 deathday date for Nick, and because of the almost
400-years comment in HP#1, even that is in doubt.

=Tamar

Sirius Kase

unread,
Nov 15, 2002, 2:00:38 PM11/15/02
to
In article <na.71b2f34b94...@argonet.co.uk>, Tennant Stuart
<ten...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:

> hat's right, Tamar. JKR first thought of Harry Potter in 1990, and did
> most of her plotting for all 7 books in the following few years, (click
> on http://www.geocities.com/aberforths_goat/ and check out the absorbing
> article "August_1997_Elisabeth_Dunn_The_Daily_Telegraph"), so 1992 could
> easily have been when she first thought of NHN's 500th deathday party.

Especially since she was looking at a 1992/93 school calendar most of
the time when she needed a date. Not quite all the time, she put
Valentine's day on a schoolday when Feb 14, 1993 was on a Sunday, but
most of the dates work for the 92/93 school year.

I got them all written down somewhere, but I will leave it as an
exercise.

sirius kase

Sirius Kase

unread,
Nov 15, 2002, 2:03:14 PM11/15/02
to
In article <6808-3DD...@storefull-1903.public.rogers.webtv.net>,
KEN TURNER <K_DO...@interactive.rogers.com> wrote:

It's odd that they weren't celebrating Voldamort's or the Potters'
death day.

sirius Kase

Tennant Stuart

unread,
Nov 15, 2002, 8:09:41 AM11/15/02
to
In article <uvg30i...@amdocs.com>,
Yair Friedman <ya...@MailAndNews.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Nov 2002 18:09:52 GMT,
> Tennant Stuart <ten...@argonet.co.uk> writes:

>> It could well be that Nearly Headless Nick is lying, especially since


>> in PS-07 he tells Harry that he hasn't eaten for nearly 400 years; but
>> fortunately for us, that doesn't matter, since we don't care when he
>> actually lived & died, all we want is the current year for Book #2.

>> In CoS-08, NHN says "this Halloween will be my five hundredth deathday"
>> while the icing on his cake says "Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington died
>> 31st October, 1492" which makes the current year 1992.

>> If NHN lied in CoS-08 and told the truth in PS-07, then what he should
>> have said (assuming he'd been dead for 398 years 10 months in Book #1)
>> is "this Halloween will be my four hundredth deathday" and the icing on
>> his cake should have said "Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington died 31st
>> October, 1592", which still makes the current year 1992.

> It also could be that NHN died on some other arbitrary year, and his
> so-called 500th deathday was an excuse for him to arrange that party.

It doesn't matter. Whatever length of time he pretends it has been, that
was taken away from the current year, and iced onto the cake. If you add
the stated length of time to the stated date, you get the current year.

For example, if I tell you that I left school 19 years ago in 1983, you
don't know whether that's true or not, but you do know I said it in 2002.


Tennant

Fish Eye no Miko

unread,
Nov 15, 2002, 7:40:42 PM11/15/02
to
"Sirius Kase" <Siriu...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:151120021404082994%Siriu...@earthlink.net...

> It's odd that they weren't celebrating Voldamort's or the Potters'
> death day.

I think most people know at that point that Voldie's not dead. And it
seems rather crass to celebrate someone's DEATH day unless they want to.

Tennant Stuart

unread,
Nov 15, 2002, 7:20:35 PM11/15/02
to
In article <ar1j1b$16vh$1...@reader.nmix.net>,
"blizzardme" <gosh...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Extending what I said previously. In PoA hardback edition on page 104,
> Trelawney told Lavender the thing you are dreading will happen on Friday
> the sixteenth of October. Friday the sixteenth of October happens on the

> following years; <SNIP>

Fans have analysed all the cases where a weekday is given with a date,
and found that they do not fit together. This means that JKR did not
bother to use a set of calendars to get those details right, and so
weekdays are *worthless* for establishing the years.

On the other hand, JKR is quite capable of subtracting 500 from 1992
to get 1492, so Harry turned twelve in 1992.


> PSone's release date: 1995

It's also been established in earlier discussions that Playstations
were available in 1991. Though that was the year Harry turned eleven,
during Dudley's birthday he was still ten.

And in any case, we don't hear about the Playstation until GoF-02,
when Harry was 15. If he was born in 1980, that would be in 1995.

When Dudley turned 11, he was given a computer, which might easily
have been some other gaming device than a Playstation.

It's unlikely that the Playstation in 1995 was four years old - Dudley
does not look after his possessions, so they don't last very long.


Tennant Stuart

Tennant Stuart

unread,
Nov 15, 2002, 7:21:59 PM11/15/02
to
In article <151120021401243126%Siriu...@earthlink.net>,
Sirius Kase <Siriu...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> In article <na.71b2f34b94...@argonet.co.uk>,
> Tennant Stuart <ten...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:

>> hat's right, Tamar. JKR first thought of Harry Potter in 1990, and did
>> most of her plotting for all 7 books in the following few years, (click
>> on http://www.geocities.com/aberforths_goat/ and check out the absorbing
>> article "August_1997_Elisabeth_Dunn_The_Daily_Telegraph"), so 1992 could
>> easily have been when she first thought of NHN's 500th deathday party.

> Especially since she was looking at a 1992/93 school calendar most of
> the time when she needed a date. Not quite all the time, she put
> Valentine's day on a schoolday when Feb 14, 1993 was on a Sunday, but
> most of the dates work for the 92/93 school year.

Lol


> I got them all written down somewhere, but I will leave it as an
> exercise.

Actually Sirius, it's just the sort of thing that I'm deliberately
avoiding doing as an exercise, so if you have a list of *all* the
weekday/date references, please post them. :)


Tennant

blizzardme

unread,
Nov 16, 2002, 12:19:03 AM11/16/02
to
I forgot about the original Play Station. That's the one with the cartridge
port, right? I remember Nintendo and Sony got into a licensing
disagreement. I think Sony only made less than 300 or so.

All I really remember is the PSX. I was going to buy one, but decided I had
better upgrade my computer so I didn't have to wait all day on MicroStation
5.

blizzardme

Jonathan Buzzard

unread,
Nov 16, 2002, 7:10:19 AM11/16/02
to
In article <na.7d0e084b96...@argonet.co.uk>,
Tennant Stuart <ten...@argonet.co.uk> writes:

[SNIP]


>
> Actually Sirius, it's just the sort of thing that I'm deliberately
> avoiding doing as an exercise, so if you have a list of *all* the
> weekday/date references, please post them. :)
>

The very first one occurs in the fourth paragraph on the very first page
of the very first book. Though you need further evidence to tie the
dull grey Tuesday to 1st November.

JAB.

--
Jonathan A. Buzzard Email: jona...@buzzard.org.uk
Northumberland, United Kingdom. Tel: +44(0)1661-832195

Jonathan Buzzard

unread,
Nov 16, 2002, 7:14:06 AM11/16/02
to
In article <na.a10be44b96...@argonet.co.uk>,

Tennant Stuart <ten...@argonet.co.uk> writes:
> In article <ar1j1b$16vh$1...@reader.nmix.net>,
> "blizzardme" <gosh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Extending what I said previously. In PoA hardback edition on page 104,
>> Trelawney told Lavender the thing you are dreading will happen on Friday
>> the sixteenth of October. Friday the sixteenth of October happens on the
>> following years; <SNIP>
>
> Fans have analysed all the cases where a weekday is given with a date,
> and found that they do not fit together. This means that JKR did not
> bother to use a set of calendars to get those details right, and so
> weekdays are *worthless* for establishing the years.
>
> On the other hand, JKR is quite capable of subtracting 500 from 1992
> to get 1492, so Harry turned twelve in 1992.

Or perhaps she wrote 1491, but then slipped when she typed it into
the computer and it never got picked up in the editing process. On
the other hand there are whole paragraphs that hing around Harry's
11th birthday being on a Tuesday.

I think it is asking a lot to hing everything around one digit,
especially give the remarks NHN makes in PS about not eating for
nearly 400 years.

Kent

unread,
Nov 19, 2002, 5:51:05 PM11/19/02
to
Yair Friedman wrote:
>
> So, my theory based upon fist-hand evidence in the book and not the
> second-hand self-contradicting NHN is that Harry was born in 1996,
> started Hogwarts in 1997, and will leave Hogwarts in 2004.

If he started Hogwarts in 1997, wouldn't that make his birthyear 1986?
Surely the evidence doesn't suggest Harry was only 1 year old when he
started Hogwarts.

Kent

Tennant Stuart

unread,
Nov 19, 2002, 1:49:45 PM11/19/02
to
In article <eqc5ra...@192.168.42.254>,
jona...@buzzard.org.uk (Jonathan Buzzard) wrote:

> In article <na.a10be44b96...@argonet.co.uk>,
> Tennant Stuart <ten...@argonet.co.uk> writes:

>> In article <ar1j1b$16vh$1...@reader.nmix.net>,
>> "blizzardme" <gosh...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>> Extending what I said previously. In PoA hardback edition on page 104,
>>> Trelawney told Lavender the thing you are dreading will happen on
>>> Friday the sixteenth of October. Friday the sixteenth of October
>>> happens on the following years; <SNIP>

>> Fans have analysed all the cases where a weekday is given with a date,
>> and found that they do not fit together. This means that JKR did not
>> bother to use a set of calendars to get those details right, and so
>> weekdays are *worthless* for establishing the years.

>> On the other hand, JKR is quite capable of subtracting 500 from 1992
>> to get 1492, so Harry turned twelve in 1992.

> Or perhaps she wrote 1491, but then slipped when she typed it into
> the computer and it never got picked up in the editing process. On
> the other hand there are whole paragraphs that hing around Harry's
> 11th birthday being on a Tuesday.

Maybe she slipped when typing the day, and it was meant to be Thursday.

My point is that anything can be proved if you posit a typo, so we must
not do that. I would love to use the weekdays to establish a chronology,
but the fact is that they're internally inconsistent, so we cannot.

The deathday reference is the only date in canon, so we're stuck with
it, and in any case, 1992 *was* the present when the plot was created.


> I think it is asking a lot to hing everything around one digit,
> especially give the remarks NHN makes in PS about not eating for
> nearly 400 years.

As I keep trying to explain to people, NHN probably did lie about the 500
years, but for our purposes that simply doesn't matter.

For example, if I tell you that I left school 19 years ago in 1983, you
don't know whether that's true or not, but you do know I said it in 2002.

Tennant Stuart

unread,
Nov 19, 2002, 1:51:12 PM11/19/02
to
In article <bjc5ra...@192.168.42.254>,
jona...@buzzard.org.uk (Jonathan Buzzard) wrote:

> In article <na.7d0e084b96...@argonet.co.uk>,
> Tennant Stuart <ten...@argonet.co.uk> writes:

> [SNIP]

>> Actually Sirius, it's just the sort of thing that I'm deliberately
>> avoiding doing as an exercise, so if you have a list of *all* the
>> weekday/date references, please post them. :)

> The very first one occurs in the fourth paragraph on the very first page
> of the very first book. Though you need further evidence to tie the
> dull grey Tuesday to 1st November.

If that was the only weekday/date reference, then I would use it.

But there are many such references, and they contradict each other.


Tennant Stuart

Jonathan Buzzard

unread,
Nov 20, 2002, 4:45:09 AM11/20/02
to
In article <na.6de4a04b97...@argonet.co.uk>,

Tennant Stuart <ten...@argonet.co.uk> writes:
> In article <bjc5ra...@192.168.42.254>,
> jona...@buzzard.org.uk (Jonathan Buzzard) wrote:
>
>> In article <na.7d0e084b96...@argonet.co.uk>,
>> Tennant Stuart <ten...@argonet.co.uk> writes:
>
>> [SNIP]
>
>>> Actually Sirius, it's just the sort of thing that I'm deliberately
>>> avoiding doing as an exercise, so if you have a list of *all* the
>>> weekday/date references, please post them. :)
>
>> The very first one occurs in the fourth paragraph on the very first page
>> of the very first book. Though you need further evidence to tie the
>> dull grey Tuesday to 1st November.
>
> If that was the only weekday/date reference, then I would use it.
>
> But there are many such references, and they contradict each other.
>

Oh I know, just pointing it out, as most people seem to miss it as
another source of complete contradiction. The biggest problem is
that the 1979/1980 dates put the opening day of the book on a
weekend.

Jonathan Buzzard

unread,
Nov 20, 2002, 4:52:16 AM11/20/02
to
In article <na.26e4814b97...@argonet.co.uk>,

Tennant Stuart <ten...@argonet.co.uk> writes:
> In article <eqc5ra...@192.168.42.254>,
> jona...@buzzard.org.uk (Jonathan Buzzard) wrote:
>
>> In article <na.a10be44b96...@argonet.co.uk>,
>> Tennant Stuart <ten...@argonet.co.uk> writes:
>
>>> In article <ar1j1b$16vh$1...@reader.nmix.net>,
>>> "blizzardme" <gosh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Extending what I said previously. In PoA hardback edition on page 104,
>>>> Trelawney told Lavender the thing you are dreading will happen on
>>>> Friday the sixteenth of October. Friday the sixteenth of October
>>>> happens on the following years; <SNIP>
>
>>> Fans have analysed all the cases where a weekday is given with a date,
>>> and found that they do not fit together. This means that JKR did not
>>> bother to use a set of calendars to get those details right, and so
>>> weekdays are *worthless* for establishing the years.
>
>>> On the other hand, JKR is quite capable of subtracting 500 from 1992
>>> to get 1492, so Harry turned twelve in 1992.
>
>> Or perhaps she wrote 1491, but then slipped when she typed it into
>> the computer and it never got picked up in the editing process. On
>> the other hand there are whole paragraphs that hing around Harry's
>> 11th birthday being on a Tuesday.
>
> Maybe she slipped when typing the day, and it was meant to be Thursday.

Not really, because then she slipped and forgot to write what
happened on the intervening days, and the bit about the TV
show and it being Harrys birthday is also wrong.

The point is that Harrys 11th birthday being on a Tuesday is woven
much more deeply into the storyline than a single digit of a date.

> My point is that anything can be proved if you posit a typo, so we must
> not do that. I would love to use the weekdays to establish a chronology,
> but the fact is that they're internally inconsistent, so we cannot.
>
> The deathday reference is the only date in canon, so we're stuck with
> it, and in any case, 1992 *was* the present when the plot was created.

Like I said you are hanging everything on a single digit. I am not
going to say either is right or wrong because you simply cannot,
and I will rail against anyone who trys to claim one is right and
one is wrong.

My *preference* is for the date that can be used to bring all the dates
into a consistent framework with the minimum amount of editing.
This makes changing the 11th birthday on a Tuesday much more difficult,
where as I can change the deathday with a single digit. Hence my
preference.

However I will never claim it is the only choice. Unless JKR edits
the books for internal consistency in a Tolkien like fashion we can
never fix the date.

Tennant Stuart

unread,
Nov 21, 2002, 1:11:03 PM11/21/02
to
In article <g0mfra...@192.168.42.254>,
jona...@buzzard.org.uk (Jonathan Buzzard) wrote:

>> jona...@buzzard.org.uk (Jonathan Buzzard) wrote:

It doesn't matter. The weekdays in the books contradict each other.

You can't just pick those that suit your argument, and ignore the rest.


>> My point is that anything can be proved if you posit a typo, so we must
>> not do that. I would love to use the weekdays to establish a chronology,
>> but the fact is that they're internally inconsistent, so we cannot.

>> The deathday reference is the only date in canon, so we're stuck with
>> it, and in any case, 1992 *was* the present when the plot was created.

> Like I said you are hanging everything on a single digit. I am not
> going to say either is right or wrong because you simply cannot,
> and I will rail against anyone who trys to claim one is right and
> one is wrong.

I'm not insisting that the 1992 has to be correct, it's just the
only decent evidence that we currently have.


> My *preference* is for the date that can be used to bring all the dates
> into a consistent framework with the minimum amount of editing.
> This makes changing the 11th birthday on a Tuesday much more difficult,
> where as I can change the deathday with a single digit. Hence my
> preference.

Well, you're preferring a set of evidence that is internally inconsistent.


> However I will never claim it is the only choice. Unless JKR edits
> the books for internal consistency in a Tolkien like fashion we can
> never fix the date.

Let's hope someone asks her in an online chat, or JKR puts something
into a later book, (like the pronunciation of "Hermione" in GoF).


Tennant

Tennant Stuart

unread,
Nov 21, 2002, 1:12:41 PM11/21/02
to
In article <5jlfra...@192.168.42.254>,
jona...@buzzard.org.uk (Jonathan Buzzard) wrote:

> In article <na.6de4a04b97...@argonet.co.uk>,
> Tennant Stuart <ten...@argonet.co.uk> writes:

>> In article <bjc5ra...@192.168.42.254>,
>> jona...@buzzard.org.uk (Jonathan Buzzard) wrote:

>>> In article <na.7d0e084b96...@argonet.co.uk>,
>>> Tennant Stuart <ten...@argonet.co.uk> writes:

>>> [SNIP]

>>>> Actually Sirius, it's just the sort of thing that I'm deliberately
>>>> avoiding doing as an exercise, so if you have a list of *all* the
>>>> weekday/date references, please post them. :)

>>> The very first one occurs in the fourth paragraph on the very first
>>> page of the very first book. Though you need further evidence to tie
>>> the dull grey Tuesday to 1st November.

>> If that was the only weekday/date reference, then I would use it.

>> But there are many such references, and they contradict each other.

> Oh I know, just pointing it out, as most people seem to miss it as
> another source of complete contradiction. The biggest problem is
> that the 1979/1980 dates put the opening day of the book on a
> weekend.

You'll just have to ignore that Jonathan. JKR did not bother to use
a set of calendars to get her weekdays correct. She probably never
thought than anyone would ever care about such minute details.

Jonathan Buzzard

unread,
Nov 22, 2002, 4:11:56 AM11/22/02
to
In article <na.e8a3514b98...@argonet.co.uk>,
Tennant Stuart <ten...@argonet.co.uk> writes:

[SNIP]


>
> It doesn't matter. The weekdays in the books contradict each other.
>
> You can't just pick those that suit your argument, and ignore the rest.

All the dating evidence conradicts itself. Even the deathday is
clouded by the remarks of NHN in the first book.

What I said is I prefer the date which requires the minimum of changes
to the text in the rest of the date references in the otherbooks. I
also have a preference for earlier date references, so a reference in
book one I regard as more important than one in book two etc.

Bearing all this in mind my preference is for Harry's birthday 11th
birthday to be on a Tuesday. I am not ignoring all the other evidence
at all. I have taken it into account carefully.

>
> I'm not insisting that the 1992 has to be correct, it's just the
> only decent evidence that we currently have.
>

Sorry but I don't agree.

>
> Well, you're preferring a set of evidence that is internally inconsistent.

All the dates are internally inconsistent.

Ursula Pfeiffer

unread,
Nov 22, 2002, 1:26:05 PM11/22/02
to
"Tennant Stuart" <ten...@argonet.co.uk>
> JKR did not bother to use a set of calendars to get her weekdays correct.
> She probably never thought than anyone would ever care about such minute
> details.
>
I think she didn't think Harry Potter becoming that world-famous. Now she
has to handle it... I sometimes wonder if it could be possible for the
"Harry-Potter-World" to become as successful as the Star-Trek-Universe...
but I doubt, because I hope, that she won't overstretch the story like
Rick Berman & Co. did with Star Trek.

Greets,
Ursula

--
"Mr. Roddenberry, how does your Heisenberg-compensator work?"
"Very well, thanks!"

Tennant Stuart

unread,
Nov 22, 2002, 7:59:35 PM11/22/02
to
In article <3dde8128$0$29822$9b62...@news.freenet.de>,
"Ursula Pfeiffer" <Ursula....@gmx.net> wrote:

> "Tennant Stuart" <ten...@argonet.co.uk>

>> JKR did not bother to use a set of calendars to get her weekdays
>> correct. She probably never thought than anyone would ever care about
>> such minute

>> details.

> I think she didn't think Harry Potter becoming that world-famous. Now she
> has to handle it... I sometimes wonder if it could be possible for the
> "Harry-Potter-World" to become as successful as the Star-Trek-Universe...
> but I doubt, because I hope, that she won't overstretch the story like
> Rick Berman & Co. did with Star Trek.

Well Ursula, a HP movie is about as long as 4 Star Trek episodes, so
their product so far (640 episodes) is equivalent to 160 HP books...

Tennant Stuart

unread,
Nov 22, 2002, 7:58:21 PM11/22/02
to
In article <scskra...@192.168.42.254>, jona...@buzzard.org.uk (Jonathan
Buzzard) wrote:

> In article <na.e8a3514b98...@argonet.co.uk>,
> Tennant Stuart <ten...@argonet.co.uk> writes:

> [SNIP]

>> It doesn't matter. The weekdays in the books contradict each other.

>> You can't just pick those that suit your argument, and ignore the rest.

> All the dating evidence conradicts itself. Even the deathday is
> clouded by the remarks of NHN in the first book.

No it isn't. Like I keep telling you, that doesn't matter.

If you add together the claimed date and the time ago you get the
date that it was said. It doesn't matter if it's a lie and the two
numbers are different, when you add them together you get the same.


> What I said is I prefer the date which requires the minimum of changes

> to the text in the rest of the date references in the other books. I


> also have a preference for earlier date references, so a reference in
> book one I regard as more important than one in book two etc.

> Bearing all this in mind my preference is for Harry's birthday 11th
> birthday to be on a Tuesday. I am not ignoring all the other evidence
> at all. I have taken it into account carefully.

We already know that JKR just used weekdays willy-nilly, she didn't
check them against a calendar to see that they fitted an actual date.


>> I'm not insisting that the 1992 has to be correct, it's just the
>> only decent evidence that we currently have.

> Sorry but I don't agree.

That's your privilege, but it's not cutting any mustard.


>> Well, you're preferring a set of evidence that is internally
>> inconsistent.

> All the dates are internally inconsistent.

No, the 1992 date is unconflicted.

Jonathan Buzzard

unread,
Nov 23, 2002, 6:31:33 PM11/23/02
to
In article <na.95b1cd4b99...@argonet.co.uk>,

Tennant Stuart <ten...@argonet.co.uk> writes:
> In article <scskra...@192.168.42.254>, jona...@buzzard.org.uk (Jonathan
> Buzzard) wrote:
>
>> In article <na.e8a3514b98...@argonet.co.uk>,
>> Tennant Stuart <ten...@argonet.co.uk> writes:
>
>> [SNIP]
>
>>> It doesn't matter. The weekdays in the books contradict each other.
>
>>> You can't just pick those that suit your argument, and ignore the rest.
>
>> All the dating evidence conradicts itself. Even the deathday is
>> clouded by the remarks of NHN in the first book.
>
> No it isn't. Like I keep telling you, that doesn't matter.

Sorry but it does matter, it clouds the fact, the deathday party
evidence is not internally consitent in the books.

> If you add together the claimed date and the time ago you get the
> date that it was said. It doesn't matter if it's a lie and the two
> numbers are different, when you add them together you get the same.

But earlier he said ...



>
>> What I said is I prefer the date which requires the minimum of changes
>> to the text in the rest of the date references in the other books. I
>> also have a preference for earlier date references, so a reference in
>> book one I regard as more important than one in book two etc.
>
>> Bearing all this in mind my preference is for Harry's birthday 11th
>> birthday to be on a Tuesday. I am not ignoring all the other evidence
>> at all. I have taken it into account carefully.
>
> We already know that JKR just used weekdays willy-nilly, she didn't
> check them against a calendar to see that they fitted an actual date.

Sorry but they are not used willy-nilly.

>
>>> I'm not insisting that the 1992 has to be correct, it's just the
>>> only decent evidence that we currently have.
>
>> Sorry but I don't agree.
>
> That's your privilege, but it's not cutting any mustard.
>
>
>>> Well, you're preferring a set of evidence that is internally
>>> inconsistent.
>
>> All the dates are internally inconsistent.
>
> No, the 1992 date is unconflicted.

It is, because to be unconflicted then NHN would have said five
hundred and not four hundred in PS.

Like I have said many times you are placing everything on a single
character. We know there have been much bigger mistakes than this,
including in CoS. If 1492 becomes 1491, notice 1 - 2 not much
difference, easy to mistake when typing in, easy to make a mistake
when doing some arithmetic and get one out writing it down you name
it, then all of a sudden we are more internally consitent than before,
with the *smallest* possible change.

Now if you could provide some evidence that shows that 1492, has
some historical relevance in the HP universe that would be a
different matter. However 1491, 1492, 1591 and 1592 all turn up
dud in this respect. Nothing much going on in the British Isles
at all in any of these years to the best of my knowledge.

Ursula Pfeiffer

unread,
Nov 26, 2002, 7:35:12 AM11/26/02
to
"Jonathan Buzzard" <jona...@buzzard.org.uk> wrote
> Tennant Stuart <ten...@argonet.co.uk> writes:
> > No, the 1992 date is unconflicted.
>
> It is, because to be unconflicted then NHN would have said five
> hundred and not four hundred in PS.
>
He *did* say five hundred.

Let's have a look at the book "Harry Potter and the chamber of secrets",
chapter eight: "The Deathday Party", especially pages 142 and 146.

At page 142 NHN is inviting Harry to his party, explaining "Well, this
Halloween is my five hundreth deathday."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^

At page 146 we can read about "an enormous grey cake in the shape of a
tombstone, with tar-like icing forming the words,

Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington
died 31st October, 1492"

^^^^

That means, the present is 1992. We know that Harry is 12 then, so the
correct date of his birthday's been the 31. of July in 1980.

I don't care if JKR had used the wrong weekdays - I stick to the dates.

Greets,
Ursula

--
Take care by the way - multiple exclamation marks are a sign of
mental instability. ;-)
- Aris Katarsis in de.alt.fan.harry-potter

Ursula Pfeiffer

unread,
Nov 26, 2002, 7:26:28 AM11/26/02
to
"Tennant Stuart" <ten...@argonet.co.uk> wrote

> Well Ursula, a HP movie is about as long as 4 Star Trek episodes, so
> their product so far (640 episodes) is equivalent to 160 HP books...
>
Oh my God... haven't thought of that yet. But: You forgot the Star Trek-Films,
there are already 10 of them. ;o)

Sorry, couldn't resist it,

Tennant Stuart

unread,
Nov 26, 2002, 5:05:27 PM11/26/02
to
In article <3de3ce9d$0$8304$9b62...@news.freenet.de>,
"Ursula Pfeiffer" <Ursula....@gmx.net> wrote:

> "Jonathan Buzzard" <jona...@buzzard.org.uk> wrote

>> Tennant Stuart <ten...@argonet.co.uk> writes:

>>> No, the 1992 date is unconflicted.

>> It is, because to be unconflicted then NHN would have said five
>> hundred and not four hundred in PS.

> He *did* say five hundred.

> Let's have a look at the book "Harry Potter and the chamber of secrets",
> chapter eight: "The Deathday Party", especially pages 142 and 146.

> At page 142 NHN is inviting Harry to his party, explaining "Well, this
> Halloween is my five hundreth deathday."
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> At page 146 we can read about "an enormous grey cake in the shape of a
> tombstone, with tar-like icing forming the words,

> Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington
> died 31st October, 1492"
> ^^^^

> That means, the present is 1992. We know that Harry is 12 then, so the
> correct date of his birthday's been the 31. of July in 1980.

> I don't care if JKR had used the wrong weekdays - I stick to the dates.

Absolutely, Ursula. You are very wise. :)

Tennant Stuart

unread,
Nov 26, 2002, 5:06:36 PM11/26/02
to
In article <3de3ce9c$1$8304$9b62...@news.freenet.de>,
"Ursula Pfeiffer" <Ursula....@gmx.net> wrote:

> "Tennant Stuart" <ten...@argonet.co.uk> wrote

>> Well Ursula, a HP movie is about as long as 4 Star Trek episodes, so
>> their product so far (640 episodes) is equivalent to 160 HP books...

> Oh my God... haven't thought of that yet. But: You forgot the Star
> Trek-Films, there are already 10 of them. ;o)

> Sorry, couldn't resist it,

Not at all Ursula, thankyou for correcting me.

That makes 170 HP books.

Jonathan Buzzard

unread,
Nov 27, 2002, 4:49:08 AM11/27/02
to
In article <3de3ce9d$0$8304$9b62...@news.freenet.de>,

"Ursula Pfeiffer" <Ursula....@gmx.net> writes:
> "Jonathan Buzzard" <jona...@buzzard.org.uk> wrote
>> Tennant Stuart <ten...@argonet.co.uk> writes:
>> > No, the 1992 date is unconflicted.
>>
>> It is, because to be unconflicted then NHN would have said five
>> hundred and not four hundred in PS.
>>
> He *did* say five hundred.

No he didn't

> Let's have a look at the book "Harry Potter and the chamber of secrets",
> chapter eight: "The Deathday Party", especially pages 142 and 146.

An that is Philosophers Stone? Clearly it is not, so when you know
what you are talking about get back.

> At page 142 NHN is inviting Harry to his party, explaining "Well, this
> Halloween is my five hundreth deathday."
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Curious because somehow he was able to eat food for the first 100 years
of being dead then.

> At page 146 we can read about "an enormous grey cake in the shape of a
> tombstone, with tar-like icing forming the words,
>
> Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington
> died 31st October, 1492"
> ^^^^
>
> That means, the present is 1992. We know that Harry is 12 then, so the
> correct date of his birthday's been the 31. of July in 1980.

It is one piece of evidence, but like I said just change that 2 to a
1 and all of a sudden it ties in with the Harry's 11th birthday
being on a Tuesday.

> I don't care if JKR had used the wrong weekdays - I stick to the dates.

Your presumption is very clearly then that the date might not be a
mistake however. Given that their have been bigger mistakes than
a single character in the books, including in CoS this is a faulty
assumption. Given that the issue of when NHN died is inconsitent in
the books, then this doubly casts doubts to the absolute accuracy
of the given date.

Doug

unread,
Nov 27, 2002, 11:29:43 AM11/27/02
to

Uh.. John.. you misspoken. The book of **Chamber of
Secrets**--where Ursula had quoted here.. **does** say that Nick
is 500 years old in death.

--
And he piled upon the whale's white hump, the sum of all the rage and
hate felt by his whole race. If his chest had been a cannon, he would
have shot his heart upon it. From Moby Dick as quoted by Patrick
Stewart.

Borg: We are the Borg. Lower your shields and surrender your
ships. We
will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our
own.
Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile

Jonathan Buzzard

unread,
Nov 27, 2002, 1:27:45 PM11/27/02
to
In article <3DE4F297...@netscape.net>,
Doug <dnpho...@netscape.net> writes:

[SNIP]


>
> Uh.. John.. you misspoken. The book of **Chamber of
> Secrets**--where Ursula had quoted here.. **does** say that Nick
> is 500 years old in death.
>

Indeed, but that is not what I am talking about and is therefore
irrelevant to that fact that in PS he said he had not eaten for
nearly four hundred years. This simple fact makes the evidence of
NHN's death and the deathday party inconsistent in the Harry Potter
series, and therefore not definative dating evidence.

That CoS is internally consistent is besides the point, the problem
is that the series as a whole is not consistent.

Michelle Smith

unread,
Nov 27, 2002, 4:26:52 PM11/27/02
to
>"Harry Potter and the chamber of secrets",
>> chapter eight: "The Deathday Party", especially pages 142 and 146.
>
>An that is Philosophers Stone? Clearly it is not, so when you know
>what you are talking about get back.
>

Is this idiot back? Okay, I'll play.

Let's play MATH!!!

1992 would be Harry's (say it with me, kiddies) SECOND year, that right, in
school.

The year before that would be his (come on) FIRST, good....so if 1992 is his
second year, what is his first? That would be - do the math, kids - 1991.

Thank you for playing.


Michelle Smith
"Look at your TAIL!" ~Ron Weasley, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

Ursula Pfeiffer

unread,
Nov 27, 2002, 5:29:12 PM11/27/02
to
"Jonathan Buzzard" <jona...@buzzard.org.uk> wrote
> Doug <dnpho...@netscape.net> writes:
>
> [SNIP]
> >
> > Uh.. John.. you misspoken. The book of **Chamber of
> > Secrets**--where Ursula had quoted here.. **does** say that Nick
> > is 500 years old in death.
> >
>
> Indeed, but that is not what I am talking about and is therefore
> irrelevant to that fact that in PS he said he had not eaten for
> nearly four hundred years. This simple fact makes the evidence of
> NHN's death and the deathday party inconsistent in the Harry Potter
> series, and therefore not definative dating evidence.
>
> That CoS is internally consistent is besides the point, the problem
> is that the series as a whole is not consistent.
>
Hum. Hm. The thing I thought when I'd read it for the first time, was:
He says, he doesn't need to eat. He didn't say, he can't, and he also didn't
say that he did not eat. (Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, page 136)

Perhapse he ate sometimes during his first 100
years of being dead, and after that lost the interest for it.

Greets,
Ursula

--
"So light a fire!" Harry choked.
"Yes - of course - but there's no wood!" Hermione cried, wringing her hands.
"HAVE YOU GONE MAD?" Ron bellowed. "ARE YOU A WITCH OR NOT?"
(Harry Potter and the Philosopher Stone, Chapter Fifteen)

Jonathan Buzzard

unread,
Nov 28, 2002, 6:36:37 AM11/28/02
to
In article <3de5479b$0$10578$9b62...@news.freenet.de>,

"Ursula Pfeiffer" <Ursula....@gmx.net> writes:
> "Jonathan Buzzard" <jona...@buzzard.org.uk> wrote
>> Doug <dnpho...@netscape.net> writes:
>>
>> [SNIP]
>> >
>> > Uh.. John.. you misspoken. The book of **Chamber of
>> > Secrets**--where Ursula had quoted here.. **does** say that Nick
>> > is 500 years old in death.
>> >
>>
>> Indeed, but that is not what I am talking about and is therefore
>> irrelevant to that fact that in PS he said he had not eaten for
>> nearly four hundred years. This simple fact makes the evidence of
>> NHN's death and the deathday party inconsistent in the Harry Potter
>> series, and therefore not definative dating evidence.
>>
>> That CoS is internally consistent is besides the point, the problem
>> is that the series as a whole is not consistent.
>>
> Hum. Hm. The thing I thought when I'd read it for the first time, was:
> He says, he doesn't need to eat. He didn't say, he can't, and he also didn't
> say that he did not eat. (Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, page 136)
>
> Perhapse he ate sometimes during his first 100
> years of being dead, and after that lost the interest for it.
>

Not really because apparently ghost cannot eat at all according to
what is said in CoS.

Jonathan Buzzard

unread,
Nov 28, 2002, 6:37:49 AM11/28/02
to
In article <20021127162652...@mb-mu.aol.com>,

dscve...@aol.complex (Michelle Smith) writes:
>>"Harry Potter and the chamber of secrets",
>>> chapter eight: "The Deathday Party", especially pages 142 and 146.
>>
>>An that is Philosophers Stone? Clearly it is not, so when you know
>>what you are talking about get back.
>>
>
> Is this idiot back? Okay, I'll play.
>
> Let's play MATH!!!
>
> 1992 would be Harry's (say it with me, kiddies) SECOND year, that right, in
> school.

Says who.

>
> The year before that would be his (come on) FIRST, good....so if 1992 is his
> second year, what is his first? That would be - do the math, kids - 1991.
>
> Thank you for playing.
>

What relevance is this?

Doug

unread,
Nov 28, 2002, 8:53:14 PM11/28/02
to
Jonathan Buzzard wrote:
> In article <20021127162652...@mb-mu.aol.com>,
> dscve...@aol.complex (Michelle Smith) writes:
>
>>>"Harry Potter and the chamber of secrets",
>>>
>>>>chapter eight: "The Deathday Party", especially pages 142 and 146.
>>>
>>>An that is Philosophers Stone? Clearly it is not, so when you know
>>>what you are talking about get back.
>>>
>>
>>Is this idiot back? Okay, I'll play.
>>
>>Let's play MATH!!!
>>
>>1992 would be Harry's (say it with me, kiddies) SECOND year, that right, in
>>school.
>
>
> Says who.
>
>
>>The year before that would be his (come on) FIRST, good....so if 1992 is his
>>second year, what is his first? That would be - do the math, kids - 1991.
>>
>>Thank you for playing.
>>
>
>
> What relevance is this?
>
> JAB.
>
Question One(Says who.)'s answer: JKR herself...


Thank you for shopping at K-Mart. Good Bye.

Michelle Smith

unread,
Nov 28, 2002, 10:55:26 PM11/28/02
to
>> 1992 would be Harry's (say it with me, kiddies) SECOND year, that right, in
>> school.
>
>Says who.

Says JKR in the second book. NHN's birthday cake.

Maybe you should read the books.

>What relevance is this?
>
>JAB.

That 1992 minus one year equals 1991.

Jonathan Buzzard

unread,
Nov 29, 2002, 4:22:46 AM11/29/02
to
In article <20021128225526...@mb-fp.aol.com>,

dscve...@aol.complex (Michelle Smith) writes:
>>> 1992 would be Harry's (say it with me, kiddies) SECOND year, that right, in
>>> school.
>>
>>Says who.
>
> Says JKR in the second book. NHN's birthday cake.
>
> Maybe you should read the books.

Show me the date 1992 in the CoS please. I will pay you a hansom prize
if you can.

All you can point to is a 1492 date and the business of five hundred
years, from which you *calculate* 1992. However this is clouded by
the fact in the previous book NHN said four hundred years. Further
as JKR has been known to make mistakes before, including much more
than getting a single digit wrong in a date, and the 1992 does not
tie in with other dating evidence in the books we cannot know for
sure that 1992 is correct.

What we can say is that the most likely date for Harry's birth is
1979/1980, but that we don't know for sure. You can say you have
a preference for either (or even some other one) but you cannot
say that either is right and the other is wrong.

Troels Forchhammer

unread,
Nov 29, 2002, 10:53:24 AM11/29/02
to
Jonathan Buzzard wrote:
>
> All you can point to is a 1492 date and the business of five hundred
> years, from which you *calculate* 1992. However this is clouded by
> the fact in the previous book NHN said four hundred years. Further
> as JKR has been known to make mistakes before, including much more
> than getting a single digit wrong in a date, and the 1992 does not
> tie in with other dating evidence in the books we cannot know for
> sure that 1992 is correct.
>
> What we can say is that the most likely date for Harry's birth is
> 1979/1980, but that we don't know for sure. You can say you have
> a preference for either (or even some other one) but you cannot
> say that either is right and the other is wrong.

Just to get my facts straight.
IIRC from the books, NHN's deathday cake for his five hundredth
deathday (and who's to say that ghosts don't count the actual
day of their death as the first - making this 499 years since his
death - is the period explicitly stated in the book, I can't find
it right now) is the only year that is explicitly mentioned to
tie the action of the books to any period in real life.
The remainder of the 'evidence' is the combination of specific
week days to specific dates.
Is that correct?

One point that may help us is that the Comic Relief book
'Quidditch through the Ages' in ch. 9 'The Development fo the
Racing Broom' mentions the Nimbus broom models 1000, 1001,
1500 and 1700 but _not_ the 2000! It does, however, mention
the "Twigger 90, first produced in 1990"!
(This may have been brought up previously, but I haven't
seen it so far. I will, however, admit that I have this
time been too lazy to google for it.)

If we assume that the book is published in that year as well
(even though the Twigger 90 has already gained a reputation')
- at the earliest at least, then that same year (after editing
on the book had finished) is the earliest the Nimbus 2000 can
have been released.
It'll require a bit of stretching (the Twigger 90 being
released early in the year and quickly gaining a reputation as
told; the book published in late spring and the Nimbus 2000
released in the summer) but it is feasible to imagine events
so that Harry's first year at Hogwarts was the 1990 / 1991
school year.

This of course requires that the omission of the Nimbus 2000
from this paragraph (p. 51 of the chapter mentioned above):
"The Nimbus immediately became the broom preferred by
professional Quidditch teams across the Europe, and
the subsequent models (1001, 1500, and 1700) have kept
the Nimbus Racing Broom Company at the top of the field."

NHN's comment in PS about not having eaten for nearly four
hundred years, doesn't confuse _this_ issue further, as we
know when he died, and we have (if you accept my analysis of
the QttA information above) an absolute lower bound for the
start of the Harry's first year. (His comment _does_ however
confuse the issue about ghostly abilities, but that's not
relevant here.)

I think that the deathday being the five hundredth can mean
that the party takes place in either 1991 or 1992 - both of
which are possible according to the QttA evidence (though the
latter would seem the more probable in both cases, _if_ we
exclude errors). Thus secondary information must be considered
to make a decision. Does one of these years fit with more
date/week day pairs than the other?

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is t.forch(a)mail.dk

For animals, the entire universe has been neatly divided
into things to (a) mate with, (b) eat, (c) run away from,
and (d) rocks.
-- (Terry Pratchett, Equal Rites)

Markku Uttula

unread,
Nov 29, 2002, 10:52:53 AM11/29/02
to
Jonathan Buzzard wrote:
> All you can point to is a 1492 date and the business of five hundred
> years, from which you *calculate* 1992. However this is clouded by
> the fact in the previous book NHN said four hundred years.

Well... Harry wasn't born on 18xx, was he?

--
Markku Uttula

URL: http://www.disconova.com/utu/ "Are you hot? Or at least cute?"
MAIL: markku...@disconova.com "If not, are you at least easy?"

Doug

unread,
Nov 29, 2002, 11:23:35 AM11/29/02
to
Markku Uttula wrote:
> Jonathan Buzzard wrote:
>
>>All you can point to is a 1492 date and the business of five hundred
>>years, from which you *calculate* 1992. However this is clouded by
>>the fact in the previous book NHN said four hundred years.
>
>
> Well... Harry wasn't born on 18xx, was he?
>

He was actually born 1863 B.C. :-P

Michelle Smith

unread,
Nov 29, 2002, 6:01:49 PM11/29/02
to
>Show me the date 1992 in the CoS please. I will pay you a hansom prize
>if you can.

Really? Hansom as in cab? I didn't think they still had those!

>All you can point to is a 1492 date and the business of five hundred
>years, from which you *calculate* 1992.

Righty-o! 1492, plus 500 years, equals 1992.

>However this is clouded by
>the fact in the previous book NHN said four hundred years.

I don't think he would have said "four-hundred-and-ninety-nine-years", do you?
Unless NHN is an anal-retentive. It wasn't five hundred years, yet, so the
guy was probably generalizing. Get a grip.

>Further
>as JKR has been known to make mistakes before, including much more
>than getting a single digit wrong in a date, and the 1992 does not
>tie in with other dating evidence in the books we cannot know for
>sure that 1992 is correct.

There's a difference between someone saying "four hundred years" vs. "four
hundred ninety eight years, three weeks and two days" and having a
five-hundredth deathday party with a cake with the date written on it.

>What we can say is that the most likely date for Harry's birth is
>1979/1980, but that we don't know for sure. You can say you have
>a preference for either (or even some other one) but you cannot
>say that either is right and the other is wrong.
>
>JAB.

Yes, Jon the Buzzard is the only one who can make such proclamations.

Get me a nice horse with that hansom cab, will you?

Anthony J (Tony) Hagen

unread,
Dec 1, 2002, 6:09:43 PM12/1/02
to
In article <3DE78D74...@ThisIsFake.dk>, Troels Forchhammer

Don't overlook the corrections made with the introduction of
the Gregorian calender.

Regards, Tony H.
--
Anthony J (Tony) Hagen ton...@netlink.com.au

Troels Forchhammer

unread,
Dec 1, 2002, 7:39:57 PM12/1/02
to
"Anthony J (Tony) Hagen" wrote:
>
> Don't overlook the corrections made with the introduction of
> the Gregorian calender.

Great ;-)

Unfortunately it can't account for more than some 10 - 12 days
(depending on when the British went Gregorian).

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is t.forch(a)mail.dk

A Thaum is the basic unit of magical strength. It has been
universally established as the amount of magic needed to
create one small white pigeon or three normal sized billiard
balls.
-- (Terry Pratchett, The Light Fantastic)

Jonathan Buzzard

unread,
Dec 2, 2002, 11:49:46 AM12/2/02