Private Message to Corax Mulciber

[alt_lucius]

Settling in, are you?

It appears you went ahead and selected the eldest Weasley.

Any observations so far? Was in the building earlier to meet Fudge but had no time to stop up and welcome you in person.

Perhaps next Thursday you'd care to go to lunch? Am sure you will have questions about certain of Dominic's policies and ongoing projects that affected other departments. Would be pleased to provide any insight, from a level your Weasley would have no way of knowing.

We could invite Stephen, as well, so he can tell you anything you need to know about your new - Senior Adjutant, is it? Creative title. Trust he understands it means whatever you need it to mean at any given moment?

Not sure how he'll do under that sort of ... variability in his scope of duties. The third brother has an altogether different temperament but then you must have seen something you liked about this one.

Comments

[alt_corax]

Lunch? I suppose I'd have time to have lunch with you, Lucius, and hear your insights. And sure. Invite Stephen. If his mysteriously fragile health permits him to join us, of course, and he's not off on a sailing trip.

I think my Weasley's worked out his duties are whatever I tell him to do. He's a quick study. I like that in 'Senior Adjutant.' Other things I like: he doesn't argue or complain (so far, anyway) and he has a large, somewhat disreputable family he clearly cares for a great deal. It's always nice when you have levers you can use on people, should you ever need them.

[alt_corax]

Not that I'd ever use YOUR Weasley as a lever -- don't worry. Let me know if you're attached to any of the others.

[alt_lucius]

Your generosity is a credit to you.

One has to say that 'my' Weasley has only once or twice - at the beginning - given rise to thoughts of that sort of leverage. Luckily for him he caught on quickly and responded satisfactorily to correction - seemed pathetically grateful for the chance to serve, in fact.

From what I've heard you may find that 'your' Weasley does have a stubborn side and simply has the sense to suppress it in view of your, shall we say, candid style.

Should that moment arrive, however, when he vexes you to that degree, it would be preferable not to destroy the whole family. Even with Weasley Sr's heroic death now somewhat tarnished in light of Selwyn's subsequent actions, the rest of the clan have maintained a notoriety which would lead to problems if not handled with sensitivity. That said, there are, of course, ways to justify any action you deemed necessary.

The mother, of course, is a lost cause and always has been. My god-daughter has formed an inexplicable attachment to the youngest brother but nothing she could not overcome should his services be required. Had worried some years ago that my son was attracted to the sister but that turned out to be an attempt at subterfuge, which did not bear fruit as planned. So, no, provided disposing of one or another does not adversely affect the mission of Protectorate Affairs, feel free.

Threats, of course, are entirely acceptable - only be careful, if you would do, of what you might have to carry through to its conclusion.

[alt_corax]

I can't imagine anyone of consequence will mind if anything happens to Molly Prewett. Especially with Dominic's remains scattered to the four winds.

It might not prove necessary, but it's nice to have options. Also entertainment!

Your god-daughter, that's Tony Parkinson's daughter, isn't it? How old is she now? I know I've met her but it's been years. Kids get big so much faster than it seems like they ought to.

[alt_lucius]

No one of consequence, no. However remember that what affects your Weasley will affect mine, as well (Mordred knows why, either of them. One shudders to imagine the sort of wife either might acquire, with that for a model).

And yes, Tony's daughter. She's fif - no, sixteen, same as Draco. Just finished O.W.L.s.

Which reminds me, she hasn't written to tell me her marks. Probably means she failed something or other.

Yours is ... four now? But then you never visit, do you. Can't blame you: They're not very interesting much before that age or thereabout. Draco started holding conversations by about ... five, I think; you ought to assess whether she's becoming worth getting to know.

[alt_corax]

Well, I'll try not to inconvenience you without reason.

I imagine you're right that your goddaughter -- Violet? no, Pansy, wasn't it? Some flower -- didn't get the marks she'd hoped for. OWLs aren't everything, fortunately. How were Draco's? Tell me he shamed all the Ravenclaws and came in first in his class.

About my little by-blow, she's four now. Out of nappies, at least. Frankly I don't find them particularly interesting until they're Sorted, sometimes not until they've passed OWLs.

[alt_lucius]

Appreciated.

Fortunately, you are correct: O.W.L.s are hardly a necessary hurdle for the likes of Pansy or my son. He was fourth, in fact, a standing which might have been more upsetting were it not that he has more important matters to attend than mere study of transfiguration or potions. Suspect he anticipated more chagrin on my part; as it is, the marks will do nicely. At least he was able to report that no halfblood came ahead of him, which is consolation enough.

One could argue they are singularly uninteresting from their Sorting to the completion of their O.W.L.s, but they can be amusing. You were mentioning entertainment earlier? Different sort, of course, but there is the potential. Six was a particularly droll age for Draco and Harry both.

But this is not getting you up to speed on Protectorate Affairs, nor getting me through the correspondence that awaits my attention. Thursday, then.

Oh, and if you have questions in the meantime, do let 'my' Weasley know.

[alt_corax]

Droll? Hm. Well.

Fourth's not too shabby. Where were you in the standings? Classes were bigger in those days, of course. Draco's class must be the smallest in many years, given how distracted most right-thinking purebloods were at the time.

Anyway, yes, I look forward to Thursday.

Did you know that no new mudbloods have turned up in the last five years? It might be more, I'm still going through the records. Not one.

Wait, I suppose that was a question, perhaps I should have directed it to your Weasley.

[alt_lucius]

Not at all, Corax. Any assistance you need; you are operating under Our Lord's express wishes, after all. We must all bend to His greater understanding of what will produce the results He desires.

In order, then: Bigger classes, yes. And the standards were entirely lower at the time, too. All manner of rabble competing alongside true wizards, that ridiculous blood-traitor Dumbledore at the helm and no small amount of tolerance for idiocy. Nonetheless, Holroyd and I placed first and second respectively - her ranking due, no doubt, to Dumbledore's favouritism for another Gryffindor.

And yes, we're aware. Further proof Our Lord's theories regarding magical inheritance have merit.