Actually, I think that just referring to them as "half Giant" or "half Veela" would be more politically correct than anything else. I don't see how referring to them as what they are can be offensive, especially if they are proud of it (like Fleur). And I know that this will sound strange, but it's one of the first things that I would have thought of: how would producing a giant/human baby happen? It just seems... really strange and, frankly, almost undoable. I know it's been done but...
What place do you think Changelings have in the Potterverse? Would it be overreaching to assume that fairies may take a wizarding baby they really liked and leave a Changeling in its place? Maybe there's a special office in the Ministry to deal with Changeling related kidnappings (the cases would be prosumably cold because according to legend, parents wouldn't know they had a Changeling for sure until it was too late).I've always been slightly fascinated with the concept of changelings whenever it was brought up after reading A Midsummer Night's Dream. I think from what we've seen in Potterverse, some creatures take great offense to things that humans say or call them (such as Hippogriffs or Centaurs), so maybe fairies or imps could have been offended by something a human said to them and then stole their baby for revenge? I know it doesn't completely fit with the tales, but it's a start.
Originally Posted by OliveOil_Med
A changeling child would probably be viewed as a victim, I think, and any traits or mannerisms that it picked up while it was being brought up by the fairies would just be things that were not the child's fault and lengths would be taken to correct them. I'd expect a reasonable amount of press coverage, then it would just die down without much ado (read: a huge deal then - nothing).
I have a problem with the vampire. I guess it comes from the whole being dead thing. Aren't vampires actually dead then brought back by blood? If so, how could they have a baby? Okay, I am not going to delete what I just wrote, but I did find an entry on Lexicon under named beings for a vampire who was listed as "part vampire". Though it doesn't explain how he was only part vampire.I'm assuming that someone can become a vampire the same way that Bill Weasley was turned into an almost werewolf - by not being bitten, or the initial transformation being interruped. I don't think that they are a *true* vampire; I shouldn't expect them to be able to "infect" other people, nor would they be burned to death in the sun. I don't think that they would be genetically bred that way, just a transformation gone wrong.
Originally Posted by mudbloodproud
On that same line, I don't think that someone who is a half-werewolf or a half-vampire should be considered a "halfbreed" simply because the creatures themselves are not breeds (they cannot be bred, only created, I believe people in this thread have come up with and I agree with them). They would probably be called a "halfbreed" as a derogatory name, but they wouldn't be a true half-breed. Any thoughts?