You seem to be confusing the Order of Merlin (organization) and the Order of Merlin (award).
The Order of Merlin(organization) was an organization founded by Merlin which established various rules against using magic on muggles.
The Order of Merlin(award) is an award given by the wizengamot named after the Order of Merlin(organization).
edit: hope my edit hit before anyone read my blatantly false info.

 

Quick question, is spell-chaining canon? Not the JBern version, like in the fight between Lord Voldemort and Dumbledore. Where Dumbledore banished and destroyed the serpent and made the prison with water with a fluid movement of his wand.

 

The only other people I think I remember doing something similar were Bellatrix and Sirius.

 

How? By saying "It's magic, I ain't have to explain shit"?

 

No, by being perfectly reasonable without needing to. This has been discussed, you can go earlier in the thread to see the discussion. The math of it says Olivander is making perfectly reasonable wages.

 

Except that we have no idea of what makes for a "perfectly reasonable wage."

Only canon sources are the fact that Weasleys have next to no money despite Arthur being relatively high on the ministry food-chain, and that Hitwizards supposedly have a starting wage of 700 galleons a month.

If you assume that Arthur gets paid about as much as Hitwizards (which isn't all that unreasonable, more likely on the low-end), you can claim that seven hundred a month is the absolute minimum income for a family to survive, even if you own your own land and are at least partially self-sustainable with food. Using Taure's calculation Ollivander makes 1/30 of that.

Or you can just say it's magic, I ain't have to explain shit.

 

Even if you can survive comfortable on basically zero money as a land-owning wizard doesn't mean that it's actually reasonable for a skilled craftsman to be making a fraction of minimum wage.

 

When it comes to JKR and Maths, that is always the most reasonable explanation. I mean, its painfully clear that JKR did not give much of the damn about the population and economical aspect of her worldbuiling, there is no reason to invent reasons and excuses. It was meant to be a kid series anyway, there was no real reason for JKR to pay attention to this stuff when she started writing the series.

 

Except 700 galleons a month was enough for the entire weasley family, plus enough to fund Arthur's random experimentation and flying car.

 

The ad for Hit-wizards also includes mention of hospital costs- I believe you're comparing the wage of a mid-level government administrator with poor political sense to the consulting fees for grey-black ops mercenaries. I doubt hit-wizards are paid by the month just for bookkeeping- that may be as long as they're expected to survive, which is why their monthly wage is the same as a small lottery win.

 

Harry's wand was probably a cheap one. Harry's wand was made out of good wood and a phoenix feather, probably granted to Ollivander for free. With one of the ingredients at that low price, Harry's wand itself was probably cheaper than unicorn and dragon wands.
One unicorn hair earns ten galleons to the seller, and Ollivander probably pays more than that per hair, since he doesn't get it straight from the producers (or collectors, in this case). Therefore, he probably sells Unicorn wands for 20 galleons, minimum.
His main revenue is probably from First-year Hogwarts students, and probably doesn't sell much outside of summer. There might be some revenue from people who break their wands, or find their wands becoming incompatible over the years, but it's mainly Hogwarts students, which probably used to be more profitable before Voldemort started killing everyone. Even if he is working at a loss due to reduced number of customers (which I doubt), 2000 years of ancestors making wands [1] probably means lots of inheritance.
[1] The sign says Ollivanders: Makers of Fine Wands since 382 BC. It doesn't mean the Diagon Alley shop was established in 382 BC, it means his ancestors made wands starting around that time.

 

Pottermore would seem to suggest that buying a new wand after childhood is not uncommon. I'm thinking specifically about the page on wand woods. He says of Hawthorn that he'd only consider putting a wand of that wood in the hands of a wizard of proven talent (suggesting that there may be a story behind how Draco Malfoy came to own one).

Of Sycamore he says that 'many witches and wizards, settling down into middle age, are disconcerted to find their trusty wand bursting into flame in their hand'.

Other wand woods were 'desired' as fashion statements or statements of power. He also says some of those people returned unhappy because the wand didn't work well for them as it wasn't properly matched to their personality.

To me this suggests it is not wholly uncommon for people to either lose/have their wand broken or to simply buy a new one because the wood looks pretty or is in vogue. Also, the personalities to which the wands match are often rather specific and it seems likely to me that many people need to get a new wand a few times. Hogwarts, after Hogwarts, middle age and retirement all seem like times when your personality might have changed significantly from what it was when you matched to your wand.

So potentially there's quite a bit more money to be made.

 

I've heard a theory that the name Aurors was inspired by muggle Coppers since aurum means gold in latin, how true is that?

 

It makes sense to me, but JKR has never said anything about it. Pure speculation.

 

Is there any explanation for how the group was able to floo to Grimmauld during book five while it was under the fidelus?

 

Because the Fidelius doesn't do anything after you already know the secret.

 

IIRC, it's because Aurora is "sunrise" in Latin, as well as the Roman goddess of dawn - i.e. end of darkness. Neat theory though.


EDIT: Is it ever mentioned that some goblins actually live in Gringotts? Getting a weird image of dudes sleeping in carts and stuff.

 

Apologies if it's been brought up before, but is Harry's patronus in the third year quidditch game a true one (ie corporeal)? It seems to have been from a couple of lines of description and Lupins reaction (he is rather shaken suggesting he recognised a stag).

Edit: I ask because I'm rereading it (rather slowly) to try and learn Italian and thought it jarred both with him making such a big deal with the successful casting at the climax of the book, and also the surprise shown by the DA when Susan Bones asks if he is capable of it.

 

Yes, it's corporeal. I think it's Dumbledore who says it took an unexpected form, when they're talking in Lupin's office at the end of the book.

He's going after the Snitch at this moment, so he doesn't really look at his Patronus, he doesn't know the form it takes, I think. At the end of the book, it's the first time he manages it with Dementors present, that may be why he's surprised.

As for the DA, they may have forgotten? Or they didn't recognize a Patronus in 3rd year because they didn't know what it was, they only thought it a silver thing to frighten Malfoy? I don't have a better explanation at the moment (except "JKR forgot what she had done in book 3")