Skip to main content

history - Does Harry Potter contradict any historical events?


Which historical events are different in Harry Potter, than they are in recorded history? I'm not looking for the major things that the books add in (i.e. magic), but for small things.



Answer



The generally accepted timeline is that Philosopher’s Stone is the school year 1991–2, and extrapolate outwards from there. This has been confirmed by multiple canon sources; see other sites and/or answers for details.



Given that timeline, here are some mistakes:




  • The days of the week are generally inconsistent.


    For example, we know that Philosopher’s Stone starts on the 1st November 1981 (the day after Harry’s parents were killed). And in the first chapter it says



    When Mr and Mrs Dursley woke up on the dull, grey Tuesday our story starts



    But that day was actually a Sunday.


    There are many similar mistakes like this in the book, where the stated day doesn’t match the actual date. A common example is the fact that 2nd September is always a Monday for each year that Harry attends Hogwarts. The days move each year, so that’s clearly impossible – in fact, it was only a Monday in 1991 and 1996 (so Stone and Prince).





  • The facts about the Prime Minister seem off.


    In the beginning of Half-Blood Prince (so around 1996), we meet the Muggle Prime Minister. When he recalls his first meeting with the Minister for Magic, Fudge says:



    “And I must say, you’re taking it a lot better than your predecessor. He tried to throw me out of the window, thought I was a hoax planned by the opposition.”



    We don’t know exactly when this first meeting took place, except that it occurred before 1993 – he was in office when Sirius Black escaped from Azkaban.


    The same Prime Minister was in office from 1993 to 1996, and a few years at either end – John Major – but his predecessor was Margaret Thatcher, for whom “he” would be inappropriate.


    It’s also worth noting that the fictional Prime Minister recalls a recent election campaign:




    Naturally, he had thought that the long campaign and the strain of the election had caused him to go mad.



    John Major became Prime Minister midway through a Parliament, when Michael Heseltine challenged Thatcher for leadership of the party. This was technically an election, but it would be hard to describe it as “long”. Heseltine’s challenge came in mid-November, and balloting was in December. It sounds more like this Prime Minister went through an election, and likely saw off an incumbent Government to boot.




  • Dudley has a PlayStation before it was ever released.


    From Harry’s letter to Sirius at the beginning of Goblet of Fire:



    They told him they’d have to cut his pocket money if he keeps doing it, so he got really angry and chucked his PlayStation out of the window. That’s a sort of computer thing you can play games on. Bit stupid really, now he hasn’t even got Mega-Mutilation Part Three to take his mind off things.




    That would take place in summer 1994. But the original PlayStation wasn’t introduced until December of the same year, so it must have been released earlier in the fictional universe.


    See also: How could Dudley have wrecked his PlayStation if the PlayStation didn't exist yet?


    And there has never been a real video game called Mega-Mutilation Part Three, released in 1994 or otherwise.




If we start clutching at straws and/or moving into lesser canon material:




  • Bonfire Night has moved to later in the year.



    In the UK, Bonfire Night is usually celebrated on 5th November. On the Tuesday when the story starts, the weather reporter says (of celebrations of Voldemort’s downfall):



    Perhaps people have been celebrating Bonfire Night early – it’s not until next week, folks!



    Voldemort was killed the previous day, which makes this 1st November, and a Tuesday (see above). I wouldn’t describe the following Saturday as “next week” – for me, that phrase means the following Monday or later.




  • In HP, King Arthur might have lived considerably later than he actually did.


    According to legend, King Arthur defended Britain from Saxon invaders in the 5th and 6th centuries AD. There are also chocolate frog cards written by Rowling that have Merlin as an advisor in King Arthur’s court.


    But the Slytherin welcome letter on Pottermore says:




    Here’s a little-known fact that the other three houses don’t bring up much: Merlin was a Slytherin. Yes, Merlin himself, the most famous wizard in history! He learned all he knew in this very house! Do you want to follow in the footsteps of Merlin?



    Since Hogwarts wasn’t founded until the 10th century AD, this seems to suggest that Arthur’s lived quite a lot later than contemporary legend.


    (Alternative explanations are that the Slytherin prefect has made this up, or Merlin lived for several centuries.)




  • The Dursleys have a car that’s about ten years too early.


    In the Order of the Phoenix film, we see their number plate quite clearly: MA06 HBH. Nominally this scene takes place in the summer of 1995.


    enter image description here



    But there are two things wrong here:



    1. The age identifier on that plate tells us it was issue in mid 2006. (See DVLA’s document on registration number formats, page 6)

    2. That’s a fifth-generation Vauxhall Astra, which wasn’t released until 2004.


    Likewise in Deathly Hallows: Part 1, they’re still driving the same, out-of-time car model, but the plate has changed:


    enter image description here


    The age identifier is now “07”, meaning a mid-2007 issue date. That is still far too new.





  • The Death Eaters attack a London that’s way out-of-place.


    In Half-Blood Prince scene with the Prime Minister, there’s a line about the destruction of the Brockdale Bridge, which must have occurred in early 1996.


    This scene is reproduced in the Half-Blood Prince, but the London it depicts doesn’t match up to the supposed timeline:




    • We see the Gherkin in a reflection, even though it wouldn’t start construction for another four years:


      enter image description here




    • They attack the Millennium Bridge, standing in for the Brockdale Bridge. But as the name implies, it wasn’t built until 2000, at the turn of the millennium.



      enter image description here






I’m sure I could go on, but I think this gets the general gist across – there are a few inconsistencies in the books, particularly when it comes to details like days of the week, but most major historical events are in line. The movies drift more significantly, as a result of them being shot significantly after the books are set.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why didn't The Doctor or Clara recognize Missy right away?

So after it was established that Missy is actually both the Master, and the "woman in the shop" who gave Clara the TARDIS number... ...why didn't The Doctor or Clara recognize her right away? I remember the Tenth Doctor in The Sound of Drums stating that Timelords had a way of recognizing other Timelords no matter if they had regenerated. And Clara should have recognized her as well... I'm hoping for a better explanation than "Moffat screwed up", and that I actually missed something after two watchthroughs of the episode. Answer There seems to be a lot of in-canon uncertainty as to the extent to which Time Lords can recognise one another which far pre-dates Moffat's tenure. From the Time Lords page on Wikipedia : Whether or not Time Lords can recognise each other across regenerations is not made entirely clear: In The War Games, the War Chief recognises the Second Doctor despite his regeneration and it is implied that the Doctor knows him when they fir

the lord of the rings - Why is Gimli allowed to travel to Valinor?

Gimli was allowed to go to Valinor despite not being a ring bearer. Is this explained in detail or just with the one line "for his love for Galadriel"? Answer There's not much detail about this aside from what's said in Appendix A to Return of the King: We have heard tell that Legolas took Gimli Glóin's son with him because of their great friendship, greater than any that has been between Elf and Dwarf. If this is true, then it is strange indeed: that a Dwarf should be willing to leave Middle-earth for any love, or that the Eldar should receive him, or that the Lords of the West should permit it. But it is said that Gimli went also out of desire to see again the beauty of Galadriel; and it may be that she, being mighty among the Eldar, obtained this grace for him. More cannot be said of this matter. And Appendix B: Then Legolas built a grey ship in Ithilien, and sailed down Anduin and so over Sea; and with him, it is said, went Gimli the Dwarf . And when that sh

Did the gatekeeper and the keymaster get intimate in Ghostbusters?

According to TVTropes ( usual warning, don't follow the link or you'll waste half your life in a twisty maze of content ): In Ghostbusters, it's strongly implied that Dana Barret, while possessed by Zuul the Gatekeeper, had sex with Louis Tully, who was possessed by Vinz Clortho the Keymaster (key, gate, get it?), in order to free Big Bad Gozer. In fact, a deleted scene from the movie has Venkman explicitly asking Dana if she and Louis "did it". I turned the quote into a spoiler since it contains really poor-taste joke, but the gist of it is that it's implied that as part of freeing Gozer , the two characters possessed by the Keymaster and the Gatekeeper had sex. Is there any canon confirmation or denial of this theory (canon meaning something from creators' interviews, DVD commentary, script, delete scenes etc...)? Answer The Richard Mueller novelisation and both versions of the script strongly suggest that they didn't have sex (or at the very l

What is the etymology of Doctor Who?

I recently decided to watch Doctor Who, and started viewing the 2005 version. I have the first two episodes from the first season, and I can't help but wonder what is the etymology of the name "Doctor Who"? And why does the protagonist call himself "the Doctor" (or is it "the doctor")? Answer In the very first episode of Doctor Who (way back in 1963), the Doctor has a granddaughter going by the name "Susan Foreman", and the junkyard where the TARDIS is has the sign "I.M. Foreman". Barbara, who becomes one of the Doctor's companions, calls him "Doctor Foreman" (probably assuming that is his name given his relationship to Susan), and Ian (another early companion) does the same in the second episode, to which the Doctor says: Eh? Doctor who? What's he talking about? "Foreman" is most likely selected as a convenient surname for Susan to use because it happened to be on display near where the TARDIS landed.