Harry Potter And The Cursed Child (Spoilers)

[Pex]

OMG!

Cedric Diggory's death had hit me pretty hard. I literally threw the book across the room when I read it. I hadn't been so moved by a fictional character's death since . . . Pex in "Paradise Towers". Cedric was first mentioned in the third book as only a minor character. Given a little more prominence in the fourth book he was still a glorified NPC. I cannot explain why I was affected so much. Rowling managed to push the correct buttons for an invested emotional response. With The Cursed Child giving focus to trying to save Cedric made it hard for me to read. The emotions were coming back.

That said, the overall story I found meh. Accepting that it's in live performance play format, it still read more like a fanfic than a canonical sequel. Rowling only cowrote it, so I'm not quite convinced it's a true sequel. To me it's a preposterous story. I like time travel stories. Prisoner of Azkaban treated it fine. The movie's version was fun. This book made it out to be a cliched sci-fi story rather than a "Harry Potter" story. The first time change just altered things. The second time Voldemort wins. The third time fixes everything. The fourth gets the bad guy.

What I found lacking was a sense of mystery. The Angry DM said it well when criticizing bad adventure design. This story was an "and then" story. Things happened just because and then goes on to the next thing. There's no time to appreciate what's going on because the next event has to happen.

Getting back to the fanfic idea, the set-up is preposterous to me. There is no logical reason why Voldemort would have a child. It is not in his nature to even contemplate the idea. The time travel story that makes for teasing Scorpious as being the child is stupid. Hermione being the Minister of Magic is Mary Sueish. An Auror or better Head of the Department of Mysteries, fine. Minister, no. Should have been Shacklebolt. Ron running the joke shop should have been a matter of honor in a tribute to Fred, not an insult.

[Leewei]

House Hufflepuff is a bunch of everyman wizards. As a lot, they are not particularly brilliant, brave, conniving, or truly great in any singular way. What they are is honest and diligent. They get through the day by rolling up their sleeves and working. This makes them very sympathetic.

Cedric Diggory was nice. He was modest, talented, and good-natured.

He was the walking embodiment of high-minded fairness in a book where everyone else (as often as not, a good guy) was bending and breaking rules left and right.

And he absolutely did not deserve his fate.

[-D-]

Plus they are idiots. They have a working Time Turner and they go save Cedric? Seriously - just kill Voldemort. Find him as a child and annihilate him. Sure, you might stop existing, but it's a small price.

[Pex]

Plus they are idiots. They have a working Time Turner and they go save Cedric? Seriously - just kill Voldemort. Find him as a child and annihilate him. Sure, you might stop existing, but it's a small price.

An obvious but fitting allegory as the infamous kill Hitler as a child. Tom Marvolo Riddle would be the Cursed Child, and Harry then needing to save him would be the irony and reinforcement of Trelawney's Prophecy.

[-D-]

An obvious but fitting allegory as the infamous kill Hitler as a child. Tom Marvolo Riddle would be the Cursed Child, and Harry then needing to save him would be the irony and reinforcement of Trelawney's Prophecy.

Killing Hitler wouldn't work, there were others to take the mantle when Hitler was a thing (see Stalin). But what happens if they kill Voldemort, who is going to take the mantle - Lucius? Voldemort was unique, crazy, bloodthirsty and a powerful mage, with right heritage and a Parseltongue expert.

Trelawney's Prophecy says, "and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives...".

[Pex]

It would create a paradox because Albus Potter wouldn't have been born so there would be no one to go back to kill Tom Riddle who grows up to be Voldemort whom Harry defeats, marrying Ginny, Albus is born, etc.

Harry and Ron might not have met on the train with no Voldemort. Harry, son of the beloved Potters, would be in one of the filled cabins Ron passes by. Given how things work, he would probably be with Neville. The Longbottoms were also beloved as Aurors. There would be no Scabbers either. Harry and Ron would become friends when both get into Gryffindor just not as close. Harry doesn't join the Quidditch team until Second Year since First Years normally don't. Ginny doesn't become fascinated about him. With no curse on the Defense Against The Dark Arts Teacher position the post is held by someone who is not Quirrel, probably Snape since Dumbledor has no curse to worry about. Harry Potter's life is simply normal for a wizard. Harry, who's still a nice loving boy, would try to befriend Hermione who remains "an insufferable know-it-all" since there's no troll on Halloween to bond the Trio. They go to the Yule Ball together in Fourth Year, Krum takes a girl from Ravenclaw, Cedric wins the Tournament. It's their first date among many and they marry.

[Agrippa]

I seem to remember reading somewhere that the Black sisters, Narcissa Maloy, née Black, Andromeda Tonks, née Black and Bellatrix Lestrange, née Black, were inspired by the Mitford sisters. To be more precise they were inspired by Diana, Jessica and Unity Mitford, respectively.

[SaintRidley]

The only thing remotely of value in the play is the characterization of Scorpius. Too bad Hermione had to be derailed so much in order to achieve that, and Rose was left a nonentity in the process. Literally the worst thing I've ever read all the way to completion.

[Slayer Lord]

Getting back to the fanfic idea, the set-up is preposterous to me. There is no logical reason why Voldemort would have a child. It is not in his nature to even contemplate the idea. The time travel story that makes for teasing Scorpious as being the child is stupid. Hermione being the Minister of Magic is Mary Sueish. An Auror or better Head of the Department of Mysteries, fine. Minister, no. Should have been Shacklebolt. Ron running the joke shop should have been a matter of honor in a tribute to Fred, not an insult.

This. Just this. It felt like fan fiction the entire time, continuity fails and all. I felt like the only thing of value this book/play really contributes to the Harry Potter mythos is Scorpius' characterization and his friendship with Albus Potter. It might have been better if it was a novelization rather than a transcript of the script so they could fill in those first three years at Hogwarts they skimmed over, maybe give a real reason why Albus ended up resenting Harry. But the way they handled the time travel wasn't handled well. And don't get me started on Voldemort having kids. Just no.

[digiman619]

I literally got to scene 10 before I dropped it. Maybe the compressed nature of the set-up didn't do as thorough job as the rest of the Potter books, and that if it did then we would have had better context, but it just felt off. I get that the last time we saw Harry, he was 18 (this supersedes the last chapter, so it doesn't count) and the responsibilities that stem from having kids and getting a job changes a person, but the only thing Harry did that felt in-character was being accepting that Albus is a Slytherin.

Harry telling his son that Scorpius is bad news rings false as a) Harry met his lifelong friends on the train in his first year, and b) given all the characterization we're given of Scorpius, 10-year-old Harry would have befriended him, too. (The reason Harry didn't become friends with Draco was that he was a douchebag, not that he was a Slytherin)

Harry not helping Draco because "it wouldn't help stop the rumors" about Scorpius makes Harry seems vindictive, as it was clear Draco wasn't the "Screw the Rules and/or Morality, I Have Money!"kind of jerk that his father was. He was humble, concerned for his son, and at his wit's end on how to help him.

Harry not understanding Albus hating school due to his legacy makes no sense because he apparently forgot that a) the reason he loved Hogwarts so much was because it was the antithesis of his crappy life with the Dursleys and b) that his son's namesake caused his brother to feel the exact same way.

Harry just standing there and not telling Cedric's dad that bringing him back was a really bad idea makes no sense when he knows how they barely defeated Voldy in the first place and the horror that his regime caused; 18 year old Harry would have asked him what made Cedric so special as opposed to the countless deaths that Voldemort caused.

But the final nail in the coffin for me is this: In the archetypical "Argument Between Father and Son" scene, Albus was the calm and level-headed one. He didn't spout hatred, he didn't wish for his father's death, he didn't even say anything that would be out of place in a group therapy session. He stated that living in the huge shadow of his father's legacy was hard on him; every time he wasn't what his father was, every time he didn't do what his father would have done, every time he tried being his own person, he got judged for it and he hated it. It was Harry that was angry and short tempered, wishing that he'd never had him. And as soon as it was clear that Albus and Scorpius were going to Do Right What Once Went Wrong, it became clear that this wasn't a story I would enjoy.

Maybe it's rude of me to complain about a book I didn't finish, but seeing as I've pushed myself through books I didn't like many times (Looking at you, War and Peace!) but couldn't this time says something.

[AvatarVecna]

When I first heard about this, and the "not entirely Rowling's creation" origin story, I just assumed it was some level of officially canonized fanfiction and pretended it was just regular fanfiction. Reading through this thread, I'm glad I did that.

Hermione as the Minister of Magic? Not to say she couldn't fulfill the duties on paper, but I sincerely doubt that even a decade of character growth would change Hermione enough that she would gain the political insight necessary to get elected. Albus being in Slytherin? Not really a problem, beyond how often people seem to put Harry in Slytherin in fanfics. Harry not wanting his son to trust a Slytherin seems incredibly hypocritical given both of his son's namesakes, and Harry should fully well understand the daunting task of having to go through Hogwarts being compared to Harry Potter, since Harry's own school years were spent living in the shadow of his own built-up reputation. Harry Potter could probably get the rumors dismissed pretty easily; sure, when he was accused of being Slytherin's heir in second year, he couldn't fight the rumors, but that's because the evidence against him was hard to fake (him being a Parseltongue), whereas the very idea of Voldemort having a kid is about as valid as that "Snoke=Mace Windu" theory I found earlier today. Oh, and let's not forget the fanfiction staple of "use a Time Turner in a way it doesn't make sense for a Time Turner to work in order to change the past and make everything perfect".

Honestly, it sounds like a mess. I'm glad I avoided it.

[hamishspence]

According to Hermione in Prisoner of Azkaban, time travel is dangerous, and on occasion, wizards have ended up killing their past or future selves. So the idea that the past can be changed, isn't that out of line with the books.

Hermione being the Minister of Magic is Mary Sueish. An Auror or better Head of the Department of Mysteries, fine. Minister, no. Should have been Shacklebolt.

Kingsley was Minister immediately after Deathly Hallows. The story is 17 19 years later - no reason to have him still in power.

[AvatarVecna]

According to Hermione in Prisoner of Azkaban, time travel is dangerous, and on occasion, wizards have ended up killing their past or future selves. So the idea that the past can be changed, isn't that out of line with the books.


Kingsley was Minister immediately after Deathly Hallows. The story is 17 years later - no reason to have him still in power.

1) Wizards tend to live pretty long, and be capable of filling their duties for longer. It wouldn't be that weird for Kingsley to still be in office.

2) Even if Kingsley is too old, or is a bad peacetime Minister, Hermione being minister doesn't really fit. Her uncompromising morals would be wonderful to have in a government leader, but ultimately mean that she would never get elected due to being unwilling to compromise...making the idea of her taking office either just handing her a title she's not fit for, or drastically changing one of Hermione's core personality facets.

[hamishspence]

I was thinking more along the lines of term limitations.

Prior to Cursed Child, what did Pottermore say Hermione spent the first few years after Deathly Hallows doing?

[Keltest]

1) Wizards tend to live pretty long, and be capable of filling their duties for longer. It wouldn't be that weird for Kingsley to still be in office.

2) Even if Kingsley is too old, or is a bad peacetime Minister, Hermione being minister doesn't really fit. Her uncompromising morals would be wonderful to have in a government leader, but ultimately mean that she would never get elected due to being unwilling to compromise...making the idea of her taking office either just handing her a title she's not fit for, or drastically changing one of Hermione's core personality facets.

Well don't forget, the duties of a magical politician would be somewhat different than our normal politicians'. Theres only what, a few thousand wizards in Britain? They don't have to worry about making sure theres food available for everyone, because the muggles handily take care of most of that. Education is free, and at least generally self sustaining. They don't need transportation infrastructure because A: wizards can teleport AND fly, and B: Muggles handle that as well for the most part. It seems to me that the purpose of the wizard government is to manage relationships between different groups of wizards, and set/enforce limits on behavioral conduct. Uncompromising morals may well be seen as a positive, especially after Fudge went power crazy.

[Pex]

According to Hermione in Prisoner of Azkaban, time travel is dangerous, and on occasion, wizards have ended up killing their past or future selves. So the idea that the past can be changed, isn't that out of line with the books.

That doesn't mean a supposed Harry Potter tale should consist of it in its entirety.

Kingsley was Minister immediately after Deathly Hallows. The story is 17 19 years later - no reason to have him still in power.

Why not? McGonagall is still around as headmistress. Besides, the point is it's Mary Sueish that Hermione is Minister. The Minister doesn't have to be Shacklebolt specifically, just anyone who is not Hermione or any of the PCs. If anyone we know from the books, I'd be ok with and a bit happy for him if it was Percy Weasely.

[hamishspence]

The Minister doesn't have to be Shacklebolt specifically, just anyone who is not Hermione or any of the PCs.

19 years is plenty for any of the three to have built a political career. Hermione said she wanted to do some good in the world - Minister may be the most influential position there is - and, as one of the 3 that were key to destroying Voldemort - that can be parlayed.

Of the three - she's the hardest-working, and the most ambitious. If any of the three has to become Minister - it's least out of character, I'd say, for her.

[AvatarVecna]

19 years is plenty for any of the three to have built a political career. Hermione said she wanted to do some good in the world - Minister may be the most influential position there is - and, as one of the 3 that were key to destroying Voldemort - that can be parlayed.

Of the three - she's the hardest-working, and the most ambitious. If any of the three has to become Minister - it's least out of character, I'd say, for her.

Of the three members of the Golden Trio, Hermione is indeed the most likely to put forth serious effort towards becoming Minister. And she's also the least likely to succeed. The war in the books ended up continuing the status quo of "life sucks, but at least we're not slaves". They didn't overthrow the government, they just prevented some *******s from making it worse.

Harry has the perfect political combo of being both a conquering hero and a total doormat, so he'd probably get elected without even trying. Ron is stubborn, but is easily distracted and predicted by more experienced politicians. Two of Hermione's core character traits are her unwavering resolve and her uncompromising moral compass; both together means that it's believable that she'd try to run, but not that she'd win. No, not even with Harry's endorsement. They killed a number of extremist purebloods, but they didn't actually stage a revolution soaked in the blood of purebloods, which means that power base not only still exists, but now solely exists of the purebloods clever enough to not charge into battle waving the banner of an extremist terrorist. And those people would sooner allow Ronald Weasley as Minister than Hermione Granger, for the same reason they allowed Fudge to be elected: he's easy to manipulate.

EDIT: Also, not that it's super-relevant, but I found an article from some quick googling about the British political system: the IRL Prime Minister serves as PM until they resign, are dismissed, or die; the official line sets the term length to "at Her Majesty's pleasure, so long as general elections are held at least once every five years" (with "Her Majesty's pleasure" being shorthand for "at the pleasure of the House Of Commons" these days, it seems). Furthermore, these elections apparently are usually just an opportunity for the PM to reshuffle their cabinet. Resignation due to confidence issues (like a vote of No Confidence, which I think is the kind of thing that did Fudge in) are rare, with only 3 in the past century.

Interesting information, I think; it gave me a new appreciation for the politics side of things in the books. Of course, it's mostly irrelevant, because the primary issue with Hermione being Minister wasn't that Kingsley's term would end, but with Hermione ever actually winning the election.

Not that I think Hermione would attempt to become Minister; she'd probably go on to teach at Hogwarts. Were she to get involved with the Ministry, she'd probably actually get involved with whatever department deals with magical creatures, or perhaps the Department of Mysteries...but she'd never become Minister, not unless they actually went on to wipe out all of those old pureblood families in their entirety.

[Aeson]

I was thinking more along the lines of term limitations.

The Wizarding World's political system wasn't discussed in any detail (or really much at all) in the books, but I had the impression that the office of Minister of Magic was rather like the office of Prime Minister of England - as long as you have enough political support, you can remain in office.

Also, looking at the Pottermore website, it would appear as though there is officially/canonically/(whatever you want to call it) no term limit for the Minister for Magic, though there are elections which must be held at least once every seven years. I don't know if the elections are for the office of Minister of Magic specifically or for the legislative body of the British portion of the wizarding world of Harry Potter, but if the British Parliamentary system is anything to go by, it'd be for the legislative body, and the most powerful faction or coalition of factions within that body after the election would choose the Minister of Magic.

Theres only what, a few thousand wizards in Britain?

Difficult to say. There are roughly 40 students in Harry Potter's year at Hogwarts, so if you assume that this is a typical class size and that wizards have an average lifespan of about 100 years then the wizarding population of Britain should be around 4000, plus however many people attended schools other than Hogwarts or who were homeschooled. Supporting a relatively small class size at Hogwarts is the low number of teachers known to have been at Hogwarts in each of the years that Harry Potter attended, though some of the descriptions of the school itself would seem to indicate that it was built for a rather larger student body (it'd be rather odd, in my opinion, for a building built to hold ~300 students and perhaps a dozen teachers to have 142 staircases, for example), and Harry Potter's class is also composed of people born at the tail end of what may have been a rather bloody civil war in the British wizarding community so it would not be unreasonable for it to have been on the small side.

Another possible argument for a larger population is that the stadium for the Quidditch World Cup was stated to hold 100,000, and assuming that ratio of the known British population to the known world population is similar to the ratio of the British wizarding population to the world's wizarding population, a British wizarding population of around 4000 would mean that there's only about 400,000 wizards on the planet (noting, though, that there is room for significant error here, given that the populations are relatively small and the British wizarding world may have suffered a severe loss of population roughly 14 years before this particular world cup). Quidditch may be an incredibly popular sport, but I would find it hard to believe that it's popular enough for roughly a quarter of the entire planet's wizarding population to turn up for the world cup, and the idea that the wizarding population of Britain would build a stadium which can hold more than an order of magnitude more people than the entire wizarding population of Britain seems somewhat ludicrous. Still, magical transportation might be convenient enough to make this reasonable.

[Aedilred]

EDIT: Also, not that it's super-relevant, but I found an article from some quick googling about the British political system: the IRL Prime Minister serves as PM until they resign, are dismissed, or die; the official line sets the term length to "at Her Majesty's pleasure, so long as general elections are held at least once every five years" (with "Her Majesty's pleasure" being shorthand for "at the pleasure of the House Of Commons" these days, it seems). Furthermore, these elections apparently are usually just an opportunity for the PM to reshuffle their cabinet. Resignation due to confidence issues (like a vote of No Confidence, which I think is the kind of thing that did Fudge in) are rare, with only 3 in the past century.

Interesting information, I think; it gave me a new appreciation for the politics side of things in the books. Of course, it's mostly irrelevant, because the primary issue with Hermione being Minister wasn't that Kingsley's term would end, but with Hermione ever actually winning the election.

It's not clear whether the Minister for Magic actually is elected by a full vote of the wizarding franchise, whether they're appointed, or indeed whether they're elected by the wizengamot (the wizarding equivalent of the body which formerly acclaimed the monarch). What we do know is that they're not appointed by the same means as Muggle ministers, who are chosen by the PM (on the monarch's behalf) from among serving MPs. The book which featured the meeting between the Minister and the PM (Book 6?) indicates that the PM has no say in the selection of the Minister. (This does not rule out appointment by the monarch directly!) I can't remember the details of that scene but it might also contain a clue as to whether Minister changeover coincides with Muggle general elections or not. (edit: it would seem not, if wizarding elections happen every seven years.)

We don't really get a lot of background on the position or on Fudge personally. The way he is depicted suggests he is a classic inoffensive compromise candidate, presumably between the wizarding aristocracy and the more populist reformists who see Dumbledore as their natural leader: that he was put in place because the aristocrats thought he'd be malleable and the Dumbledoreans consider he can't do too much damage. But he's such a political nonentity it's hard to envisage him winning a popular election if there were anyone with any substance in the frame. But maybe he looked better during the campaign than he turned out to be, and I imagine that the first war against Voldemort had taken its toll of quality witches and wizards. To speculate wildly, it might have been that the post was vacant at Voldy's defeat (or occupied by a Death Eater patsy who was quickly ousted), Dumbledore was considered the natural choice but turned it down. Then eyes turned to Barty Crouch, who was positioning himself as the natural choice, but he was so damaged by the revelations about Barty Jr. that it killed his ministerial bid. With the field of talent so denuded by that point a clean, scandal-free Fudge might have looked like a safe pair of hands at least until things settled down. Then he was able to maintain his position by appealing to his bland but apparently successful record: probably one of the longest periods of peace without disruption from a practitioner of the dark arts that most wizards could remember.

IRL, and without wishing to get into too much detail regarding RL politics, while there is no official term limit on Prime Ministers, a tenure of over 10 years is exceptional. Only two Prime Ministers have served continuously for periods of ten years or more since the Great Reform Act of 1832 (curiously, both within the last 40 years). Dying in office is also rare: over the same period, it's only happened once (in 1865). Confidence issues are more common than you suggest, when combined with general election defeats, they've claimed the vast majority of PM scalps. The reason why it might appear rare is that when their support within their party wanes to the point that confidence has become a concern, most PMs either step down, or launch a fresh general election campaign to refresh the mandate and reunify the party. Votes of no confidence are a humiliation for the losing party, so people tend to take steps to pre-empt them. I imagine that JKR would be informed by political norms in this regard. The nudging aside of Fudge by Scrimgeour seems reminiscent of Chamberlain and Churchill: a peacetime minister being pushed out to be succeeded by a wartime one due to failure to command the loyalities of a sufficient interest base, but without the activation of any specific legal mechanism to remove him. Fudge likely realised (or was made to see behind the scenes) that he needed to make way for a more hawkish Minister, and that it would be better for the magical community for him to go quietly rather than destabilise things further by trying to defend his position.

So Fudge being Minister from the fall of Voldemort to his return would be a long stint by British political standards, but, under the circumstances, perhaps not an outlandish one. Following his second fall, it's likely that there would have been at least one changeover of Ministers by the time of Cursed Child.

As to the appointment of Hermione, I suspect that as with the first war the stocks of experienced, proven wizards would have been greatly depleted by the fight against Voldemort. It seems most senior Ministry officials - which means almost everyone with any government experience - was either killed or Imperius-cursed, if they weren't full-blooded Death Eaters, which would likely render them ineligible for future service as Minister. With McGonnagall's infamous banishing of Slytherin House during the battle, too, that likely tainted Slytherin by association for a while thereafter, and considering that was probably the provenance of many successful politicians, that will have cleared the field even more. Kingsley Shacklebolt is a fair Minister for the postwar period, but there don't seem to have been many other prominent wizards remaining who are likely to have had much credit and any experience. Percy Weasley might have been a candidate once Kingsley stepped down (Kingsley doesn't seem like the sort of character who would want to remain Minister for longer than necessary).

But Hermione's rise to that position doesn't look ridiculous to me. Unlikely, perhaps, but she is a war hero, and if a few Phoenix-aligned characters threw their weight behind her (including Harry himself, who must surely have some kind of near-kingmaker status by the time Hermione's election would be open for question) then it would probably be easier than we assume. The hardline traditionalists will likely not occupy anywhere near the same position of power in the late 90s-2000s that they did in the 80s and early 90s: even where they have surviving members, they won't be able to claim the same "Imperius curse" excuse second time around, as well as the more open nature of the conflict making their identities easier to expose and pursue for justice. Especially when you have actual war survivors like Kingsley in power (not to mention an adult Harry in the picture), families like the Notts and Malfoys who previously enjoyed nearly unfettered access to the corridors of power will find themselves shut out for years, which means there's more room for things to be done differently and without the sops to the aristocrats that we saw in the time of Fudge.

Moreover if the Minister is elected, I wonder if Hermione as a muggleborn could capture a popular demographic otherwise broadly untapped. The possibility of a muggleborn occupying a position traditionally dominated by purebloods and half-bloods might energise muggleborn wizards who have resented their own oppression, while still attracting votes from the moderate-traditionalists who ascribe less importance to blood status.

[SaintRidley]

All of that. Frankly, the idea that Hermione would have become Minister around this timeframe is the least ridiculous thing about the play.

[Pex]

All of that. Frankly, the idea that Hermione would have become Minister around this timeframe is the least ridiculous thing about the play.

Of that I can agree.

[Aedilred]

Further to the discussion of Ministers for Magic, I have discovered there is an article on Pottermore on the subject by JKR.

They are "democratically elected" (obviously this could mean a number of things, but presumably by general vote), and on a similar principle to Muggle British general elections pre-2010: i.e. they have to call an election at least once every seven years* but can call one sooner whenever they feel like it. Apparently it is not unheard of for Ministers to be instated without election (presumably by the Wizengamot) in case of emergency but it seems elections are the most common means of selection.

Rowling also provides a complete list of Ministers from 1707 (when the Ministry effectively started) to the 2000s. It doesn't include Hermione, but it seems Kingsley was Minister from the fall of Thicknesse until Hermione's election. Assuming seven-year intervals (which may not be accurate) and depending on when the first post-Thicknesse election was actually held, Hermione would likely have been elected in 2012 or 2013, making her in her early 30s at time of election.

That the list of Ministers seems to coincide with broad trends in Muggle politics, albeit often with a succession of Muggle PMs condensed into one Minister, may be a hint that Muggle politics have more of an effect on wizard politics than is sometimes thought (or vice versa), an attempt at satirical comment, or merely because Rowling came up with the history in a hurry and inflected it with more Muggle politics than intended.

*Although the maximum in Muggle elections has been five years for some time; it was seven years during the 19th century, however.