(Dumbledore takes care to note that the Weasleys are "pure-bloods." Why? The sentence makes just as much sense without it.) (Reply to this)
IMO, it is an important point that the Weasleys are a prominent "pure-blood" family. Had Riddle's scheme succeeded, Ginny (and the entire Weasley family) would have been implicated in a "Pure-blood vs. Muggle" murder scheme. Arthur Weasley champions Muggle causes. Being able to 'taint' the Weasleys with the same sort of anti-Muggle hatred would further Malfoy's DE agenda.
Arthur is regarded as being a bit "odd" in his love for Muggles. This oddness is probably excentuated by the fact that he is a Pure-blood. It would be nature for Muggleborns to retain a fondness for their Muggle roots, but not for a Pure-blood. Arthur and Lucius seem to have it in for each other. This would have been a terrific way to destroy Arthur's credibility in the wizard society. Poor Ginny was just a pawn.
no subject
(Reply to this)
IMO, it is an important point that the Weasleys are a prominent "pure-blood" family. Had Riddle's scheme succeeded, Ginny (and the entire Weasley family) would have been implicated in a "Pure-blood vs. Muggle" murder scheme. Arthur Weasley champions Muggle causes. Being able to 'taint' the Weasleys with the same sort of anti-Muggle hatred would further Malfoy's DE agenda.
Arthur is regarded as being a bit "odd" in his love for Muggles. This oddness is probably excentuated by the fact that he is a Pure-blood. It would be nature for Muggleborns to retain a fondness for their Muggle roots, but not for a Pure-blood. Arthur and Lucius seem to have it in for each other. This would have been a terrific way to destroy Arthur's credibility in the wizard society. Poor Ginny was just a pawn.