Little Questions Answered v14

Hello! This is a very good question that has a sad answer :(

I agree with Harry that Voldemort killed the two children. The reason why Lily's protection was so unique was that she was given the choice to live. To walk out of the house unscathed and she choose to stand in Voldemorts way and die protecting her son.

The mother in the passage above did choose to die shielding her children, but she was not offered the choice (as Lily was) to live. So sadly there wasn't a blood protection on the children as there was on Harry :sigh:
This is right I believe, although there is probably no doubt the mother wouldn't have died for her children like SHE DID do by shielding them, she wasn't given the choice to live or die, thus tieing her love into them.
No problem. :D



:agree: So many innocent lives were killed just because of his anger sometimes. They didn't need to die, he was just angry that he hadn't found Gregorovitch there.

My question is about Gringotts. After the Trio escapes with the Cup, Voldemort goes around murduring all the goblins in his anger. Was Griphook one of those goblins? I don't remember him being named but I don't know if someone asked Jo that in an interview.
I am quite certain Griphook wasn't mentioned as one of the goblins killed, and as far as I know, there has never been confirmation. But I don't think he was, for Griphook knew what they were doing, and Goblins are a lot wiser than they let off, he would have gotten out of there after turning on the trio...it doesn't take an organized mind to foresee Voldemort's rage.

I am quite certain Griphook wasn't mentioned as one of the goblins killed, and as far as I know, there has never been confirmation. But I don't think he was, for Griphook knew what they were doing, and Goblins are a lot wiser than they let off, he would have gotten out of there after turning on the trio...it doesn't take an organized mind to foresee Voldemort's rage.

Good point about him being smart. He did after all forsee the Trio's betrayal with the sword, so I'm sure he would've noticed that as well. I don't believe him to be dead either. Another clue is the sword itself. If he had died, surely Voldemort or the Death eaters there would have noticed the sword lying with his body and taken it. He must have made his escape before they came. :)

Jo has revealed more information about how the Potters defied Voldemort that sheds light on this issue though. Voldemort wanted the Potters to join him - both of them - and one of those defiances was when they refused to join him.

So Snape asking Voldemort to spare Lily really is irrelevant in the end. Voldemort gave her that choice because he wanted her to join him. He gave her one last chance to do so - standing aside to let him kill Harry would have a show of loyalty in his mind. That goes towards Voldemort's lack of understanding about love and people in general. He killed James immediately and was trying to kill Harry. He thought James' death would be enough to cause Lily to be "sensible" and save her own life. He simply could not fathom why anyone would sacrifice themselves like that because he feared death. He underestimated a mothers' love - to his own cost.

The only problem I have with that is that he didn't even give James a chance to join him, he just killed him instantly. Realistically, if he needed to kill one in order to scare the other into joining, he would kill Lily to get James, cause if Lily joined him, it would likely cause a split amongst the death eaters.

The only problem I have with that is that he didn't even give James a chance to join him, he just killed him instantly. Realistically, if he needed to kill one in order to scare the other into joining, he would kill Lily to get James, cause if Lily joined him, it would likely cause a split amongst the death eaters.

True, but think, it's all situational. Voldemort went in, and coincidently James was there, ready to defend his family. Had it been Lily, she would have died first. It was just chance and fate that James the pure blood was closest to the door.

I don't think if Lord Voldemort had knocked, and asked for a sit down with tea that they would have obliged. Remember that they WERE in protection, and both James and Lily had to of been on their toes, ready to die, and ready to kill. Voldemort might be more powerful than both of them combined, but if he had gone in armed with words and cups of tea, he would surely fall.

True, but think, it's all situational. Voldemort went in, and coincidently James was there, ready to defend his family. Had it been Lily, she would have died first. It was just chance and fate that James the pure blood was closest to the door.

I don't think if Lord Voldemort had knocked, and asked for a sit down with tea that they would have obliged. Remember that they WERE in protection, and both James and Lily had to of been on their toes, ready to die, and ready to kill. Voldemort might be more powerful than both of them combined, but if he had gone in armed with words and cups of tea, he would surely fall.That doesn't work either. If that had been the case, Lily would have received the same protection that Harry received. Plus, if that had actually been the case, he would have put a body-bind curse on him, killed her, and offered him a place.

That doesn't work either. If that had been the case, Lily would have received the same protection that Harry received. Plus, if that had actually been the case, he would have put a body-bind curse on him, killed her, and offered him a place.
What? I'm trying to understand what you're saying so I'll work with what I see.

Lily was given a choice to live or die, her fate was not sealed, although, ironically enough, I guess it had to of been for Harry to receive the love protection he had been given...besides this situation, I don't see how either of them would have been given a choice to live or die.

You know, before I continue on, something that's always hit a note with me was a really in depth analysis of Voldemort. The simple question that I cannot answer, is whether or not he offered Lily her life by an odd respect of Snape's request, whether he was so determined to kill Harry that he thought she wasn't worth the time, or whether it was because he wanted Lily's dirty blood on his side.

Anyways...if what you're trying to suggest is that given the choice Voldemort would have body binded James and killed Lily + Harry, then we can not know this, but we can input our opinion, and I'll say it wasn't likely.

I just woke up so if you didn't understand what I said, sorry :x. :relax:

What? I'm trying to understand what you're saying so I'll work with what I see.

Lily was given a choice to live or die, her fate was not sealed, although, ironically enough, I guess it had to of been for Harry to receive the love protection he had been given...besides this situation, I don't see how either of them would have been given a choice to live or die.

You know, before I continue on, something that's always hit a note with me was a really in depth analysis of Voldemort. The simple question that I cannot answer, is whether or not he offered Lily her life by an odd respect of Snape's request, whether he was so determined to kill Harry that he thought she wasn't worth the time, or whether it was because he wanted Lily's dirty blood on his side.

Anyways...if what you're trying to suggest is that given the choice Voldemort would have body binded James and killed Lily + Harry, then we can not know this, but we can input our opinion, and I'll say it wasn't likely.

I just woke up so if you didn't understand what I said, sorry :x. :relax:

What I'm saying is given the choice between killing James and Harry, and recruiting Lily, or killing Lily and Harry, and recruiting James, it would be far more likely for him to choose the latter, due to James's blood status. However, the events don't seem to add up to this result. It just seems very odd, almost forced, like she couldn't think of a way to rationalise the events.

What I'm saying is given the choice between killing James and Harry, and recruiting Lily, or killing Lily and Harry, and recruiting James, it would be far more likely for him to choose the latter, due to James's blood status. However, the events don't seem to add up to this result. It just seems very odd, almost forced, like she couldn't think of a way to rationalise the events.

I do not disagree, the only part I am lost on is

Lily would have received the same protection that Harry received

What did you mean by that? lol

What did you mean by that? lolJames threw down his life to protect his wife, hoping to keep Voldemort from her, knowing there was no way he could survive, but only give her a chance to escape. He need not have died, and yet did, for her (and Harry, but its been established it will work on more than one person at once).

Why did Mr. Weasley still have a job at the (Death Eater - controlled) Ministry during Deathly Hallows?

Yes, I know Voldemort & Co. wanted to maintain the illusion of normalcy at the Ministry. Yes, I know they preferred not to stir up the masses any further, which is what might happen if they assaulted or incarcerated such a prominent pure-blood (even if he was a 'blood-traitor').

But... Arthur was untrustworthy (Harry saw his file), being a known associate of Undesireable #1. He was also known to be a member of the Order of the Phoenix.

How was it he still had a job at the Ministry, especially one that allowed him some freedom of movement about the premises? It probably wasn't either of his previous jobs. They wouldn't want him free to move about the country, correcting fraudulent protective charms or interrupting muggle-baiting. Most importantly, they wouldn't want him able to talk with people.

I can't see them trusting him with anything more than being chained (literally or figuratively) to a countertop in the Ministry gift shop, selling post cards.

Why did Mr. Weasley still have a job at the (Death Eater - controlled) Ministry during Deathly Hallows?

Yes, I know Voldemort & Co. wanted to maintain the illusion of normalcy at the Ministry. Yes, I know they preferred not to stir up the masses any further, which is what might happen if they assaulted or incarcerated such a prominent pure-blood (even if he was a 'blood-traitor').

But... Arthur was untrustworthy (Harry saw his file), being a known associate of Undesireable #1. He was also known to be a member of the Order of the Phoenix.

How was it he still had a job at the Ministry, especially one that allowed him some freedom of movement about the premises? It probably wasn't either of his previous jobs. They wouldn't want him free to move about the country, correcting fraudulent protective charms or interrupting muggle-baiting. Most importantly, they wouldn't want him able to talk with people.

I can't see them trusting him with anything more than being chained (literally or figuratively) to a countertop in the Ministry gift shop, selling post cards.
"Keep your friends close and enemies closer" :eyebrows:

This way they were able to keep an eye on Arthur and a member of the Order. Perhaps also Voldemort was hoping or thinking he would switch sides or slip on information about Harry's whereabouts.

I thought it was very believable that Arthur still had his job even though it was only a matter of time.

What I'm saying is given the choice between killing James and Harry, and recruiting Lily, or killing Lily and Harry, and recruiting James, it would be far more likely for him to choose the latter, due to James's blood status. However, the events don't seem to add up to this result. It just seems very odd, almost forced, like she couldn't think of a way to rationalise the events.

James and Lily had already thrice defied Voldemort and they would never be recruited as death eaters. He wanted to kill both of them just on general principles, never mind the prophecy. The prophecy made him want to kill Harry, as well. Snape (up to that point) had been a loyal death eater, and asked Voldemort to spare Lily. Voldemort wasn't above granting a favor to a loyal death eater (especially since having Lily alive would be a good hold to have over Snape - "you mess up, I kill her anyway"). Voldemort's intention in going to Godric's Hollow was to kill James and Harry, and most likely deliver Lily to Snape. His intention wasn't to recruit Lily as a death eater.

How were Harry and Ron able to find the tent again, if it was protected by all those spells, it was the middle of the night, and both were battling hypothermia?

Perhaps Harry left the tent flap open when he left?

meesha, I think that had to do with goblins not wanting to involve themselves in wizard wars, and being content to bank for all wizards without choosing sides-- the Ministry truly couldn't combat that, because, as Hagrid said, "Never mess with goblins"-- to seize someone's vault, a member of the Ministry would have to break past a goblin, and it is nearly impossible, if not completely impossible to do that, and goblins won't empty vaults of "bad" or "convicted" wizards because they don't choose sides, and they refuse to submit to wizards whenever they can, IMO.

If the Ministry had that opportunity, it is my guess that they would have seized it (They raided Lucius Malfoy's Manor, after all), in which case, Sirius wouldn't have been able to give Harry such a lovely gift! :love:

The certainly don't have a problem seizing the contents of wills. It seems that the Ministry regularly inspects bequests (if doing so would be to their advantage), and, while nothing in Dumbledore's will was in Gringotts, I think it is very likely that the Ministry would feel within its rights to inspect items that are stored in Gringotts before allowing them to be passed to the deceased person's heirs.

In the fifth book, when Dumbledore leaves Hogwarts after the discovery of the DA, where does he go? He tells Harry that he's not going to Grimauld place, he has other things to do. But we don't find out where he goes. Does anyone know? Thanks!

I think he went to the Hog's Head, mostly because of Hermione's line when Umbridge was about to torture Harry "We even tried the Hog's Head!" It would be very Jo to give us the information by putting it under our noses in a context that would make it seem unlikely. The fact that we later learn (though the goat clue meant the information was findable in OotP) that Dumbledore's brother owned the Hog's Head makes it an even likelier destination, in my mind. Of course, it's not anything near canon; that's just what I've always thought. ;)

The only problem I have with that is that he didn't even give James a chance to join him, he just killed him instantly. Realistically, if he needed to kill one in order to scare the other into joining, he would kill Lily to get James, cause if Lily joined him, it would likely cause a split amongst the death eaters.

James was a very stubborn person, IMO, and Voldemort would have known that he would be of the "ask no mercy, die fighting" type. He wouldn't have wasted his time on James, who would certainly have preferred anything over surrender. Lily, however, did not wear her heart on her sleeve to the extent James did. Voldemort might have thought he had a better chance with her than with James. Severus might have mentioned her potions talent, or other valuable abilities. Voldemort would probably interpret "intelligent" to mean "having a strong sense of self-preservation and likely to see that doing as I say would be the most sensible choice."

Whether Voldemort wanted any of them to join the DEs or not is a matter of pure speculation and has no place in this thread, which is for answering questions we know the answer to.
Lash Dresden already pointed out that there is nothing to support this speculation.

So let's move on to other questions.

I think the portraits were painted then magically enchanted so they could move around.

I'm not sure if someone's already done a thread on this so here.

Harry saw his parents deaths when he was One right and the rule for seeing thestrals is that you can only see them if you've seen death so why is it that Harry only starting seeing them after he saw Cedric die when he had already seen his parents deaths?

Why did it take so long for Dumbledore to find the ring? I assume he found out about Tom Riddle modifying Morfins memory way before he found the ring. So what caused the long wait?

Also, what would have happened if Dumbledore destroyed all of Voldemorts horcruxes while he was in exile? I almost think that he would have died because he had no body. What do you all think?

Harry saw his parents deaths when he was One right and the rule for seeing thestrals is that you can only see them if you've seen death so why is it that Harry only starting seeing them after he saw Cedric die when he had already seen his parents deaths?
I'll let JKR answer your Q :)
LINK for interview (http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2004/0804-ebf.htm)
Everyone has said to me that Harry saw people die before could see the Thestrals. Just to clear this up once and for all, this was not a mistake. I would be the first to say that I have made mistakes in the books, but this was not a mistake. I really thought this one through. Harry did not see his parents die. He was one year old and in a cot at the time. Although you never see that scene, I wrote it and then cut it. He didn’t see it; he was too young to appreciate it. When you find out about the Thestrals, you find that you can see them only when you really understand death in a broader sense, when you really know what it means.

Why did it take so long for Dumbledore to find the ring? I assume he found out about Tom Riddle modifying Morfins memory way before he found the ring. So what caused the long wait? I don't have my book to give you a quote, but I know that Morfin confessed to the murder and though Dumbledore suspected Tom he had no evidence. He got Morfin's memory just before he died in prison, years later. He figured out what had happened with the false memory, and found the location of the ring later and destroyed it. In fact, Voldy wore the ring for years before he hid it (he's shown wearing it in the Slughorn scene) so Dumbledore couldn't very well walk up and snatch it from him. It might have taken awhile but it was very complicated, so I don't think it's all that strange that it took Dumbledore several years to puzzle it all out and find a way to destroy it. :shrug:


Also, what would have happened if Dumbledore destroyed all of Voldemorts horcruxes while he was in exile? I almost think that he would have died because he had no body. What do you all think? No he still would have lived, because Harry was a horcrux as well, so unless Dumbledore killed Harry, Voldemort would have stuck around. The horcruxes were what was keeping him partially alive though so I guess if DD had killed Harry then Voldy would have been dead for good...but yeah, I don't know if that's worth speculating about :lol:

I don't have my book to give you a quote, but I know that Morfin confessed to the murder and though Dumbledore suspected Tom he had no evidence. He got Morfin's memory just before he died in prison, years later. He figured out what had happened with the false memory, and found the location of the ring later and destroyed it. It might have taken awhile but it was very complicated, so I don't think it's all that strange that it took Dumbledore several years to puzzle it all out and find a way to destroy it. :shrug:

No he still would have lived, because Harry was a horcrux as well, so unless Dumbledore killed Harry Voldemort would have stuck around. The horcruxes were what was keeping him partially alive though so I guess if DD had killed Harry then Voldy would have been dead for good...but yeah, I don't know if that's worth speculating about :lol:

I got the feeling that Dumbledore only went to the Gaunts house once, the time when he found the ring. I assume Dumbledore was smart enough to find the location of the ring on his first visit to the Gaunt house. Do you agree?

Yeah... the second question was something I thought about before the last book and I never asked anyone their opinion. I bet you can tell. :lol:

About the thestrals thing, JK kinda contradicted herself when she wrote the scene in DH. It seemed that Harry actually saw Lily die because he was described as waiting for Lily to jump up after (who he thought was) James made the pretty colors.

I got the feeling that Dumbledore only went to the Gaunts house once, the time when he found the ring. I assume Dumbledore was smart enough to find the location of the ring on his first visit to the Gaunt house. Do you agree?I changed my original post a bit, sorry--Voldy actually wore the ring for quite a while before he hid it. We see him wearing it in the Slughorn scene. So it's hard to say when he actually hid it, but I assume that Dumbledore retrieved the ring somewhere during the summer after Harry's 5th year. I suppose he could have gotten it before and hid it somewhere until he figured out how to destroy it, but knowing that it was the resurrection stone I don't think he would have just kept it around and not used it. Whether he went to the Gaunt house multiple times I don't really know. Probably not, but the details are a bit hazy and we don't know what he had to do to get it (traps similar to the cave? etc.)

Yeah... the second question was something I thought about before the last book and I never asked anyone their opinion. I bet you can tell. :lol:
:lol: no worries

I don't have my book to give you a quote, but I know that Morfin confessed to the murder and though Dumbledore suspected Tom he had no evidence. He got Morfin's memory just before he died in prison, years later. He figured out what had happened with the false memory, and found the location of the ring later and destroyed it. In fact, Voldy wore the ring for years before he hid it (he's shown wearing it in the Slughorn scene) so Dumbledore couldn't very well walk up and snatch it from him. It might have taken awhile but it was very complicated, so I don't think it's all that strange that it took Dumbledore several years to puzzle it all out and find a way to destroy it. :shrug:


There was probably a substantial gap in time (years or more likely decades) between Dumbledore learning of the ring's existence and Dumbledore having any reason to suspect the ring was of more than symbolic importance to Voldemort.

The books would tend to suggest that he found the ring in the ruins of the Gaunt house in early July of 1996. I find it hard to believe that Dumbledore had never been to the house previously (he had learned of Tom's origins over the years). He had probably been there before - he just hadn't been searching for a specifically hidden artifact at the time.

I changed my original post a bit, sorry--Voldy actually wore the ring for quite a while before he hid it. We see him wearing it in the Slughorn scene. So it's hard to say when he actually hid it, but I assume that Dumbledore retrieved the ring somewhere during the summer after Harry's 5th year. I suppose he could have gotten it before and hid it somewhere until he figured out how to destroy it, but knowing that it was the resurrection stone I don't think he would have just kept it around and not used it. Whether he went to the Gaunt house multiple times I don't really know. Probably not, but the details are a bit hazy and we don't know what he had to do to get it (traps similar to the cave? etc.)
:lol: no worries

Sorry, I don't have my books to find the quote, but the Slughorn scene happened before the ring became a horcrux, and Dumbledore tells Harry that after Voldemort encased a piece of his soul in it, he no longer wore the ring. I think we can gather that Tom hid the ring fairly soon after making it a horcrux, though whether the Gaunt house was its original hiding place remains unknown.

There was probably a substantial gap in time (years or more likely decades) between Dumbledore learning of the ring's existence and Dumbledore having any reason to suspect the ring was of more than symbolic importance to Voldemort.

The books would tend to suggest that he found the ring in the ruins of the Gaunt house in early July of 1996. I find it hard to believe that Dumbledore had never been to the house previously (he had learned of Tom's origins over the years). He had probably been there before - he just hadn't been searching for a specifically hidden artifact at the time. I would agree that he probably did indeed find the ring in the summer after Harry's 5th year like you say. But it's hard to tell when he acquired the specific information that he did about the murder, the ring, that the ring was a horcrux, and that the ring was the resurrection stone. I don't think it matters a whole lot when he acquired each piece of information, as it doesn't effect the plot. However, I don't believe Dumbledore dawdled or didn't put substantial effort into finding all those details out. It all sounds very simple from the other side but puzzling it all must have taken quite a while, even from Dumbledore.

Sorry, I don't have my books to find the quote, but the Slughorn scene happened before the ring became a horcrux, and Dumbledore tells Harry that after Voldemort encased a piece of his soul in it, he no longer wore the ring. I think we can gather that Tom hid the ring fairly soon after making it a horcrux, though whether the Gaunt house was its original hiding place remains unknown.
you're right!
And there were the half a dozen teenage boys sitting around Slughorn with Tom Riddle in the midst of them, Marvolo's gold and black ring gleaming on his finger...(about 9 pages later) I stumbled across the ring hidden in the ruin of the Gaunts' house. It seems that once Voldemort had succeeded in sealing a piece of his soul inside it, he did not want to wear it any more. He hid it, protected by many powerful enchantments, in the shack where his ancestors had once lived. I was thinking that he'd made it into a horcrux at the same time as he'd killed Gaunt and taken the ring, but I guess he didn't have enough info at the time. So he must have used another murder to create the horcrux.

I have a Question. When harry comes across Tonks in HPB by the ROR, i got the feeling that it really wasn't her. she acted pretty clueless (about sirius etc...) and i've always thought that it was Draco using the polyjuice potion. did anybody else think the same?

About the thestrals thing, JK kinda contradicted herself when she wrote the scene in DH. It seemed that Harry actually saw Lily die because he was described as waiting for Lily to jump up after (who he thought was) James made the pretty colors.

Ahh but in Jos quote she states that you can only see a death and APPRECIATE what it is that you have seen. Afterall if it was just a case of seeing death everyone would be able to see thestrals as, let face it, in the course of our daily lives how many of us may have accidentally stepped on a bug or even killed one on purpose. Technically thats seeing a death but you dont really appreciate that you've just witnessed something die do you?

Furthermore in Harrys story (as you mention) he pats Lily on the head thinking shes mucking aroung. ergo, he is not aware that she has died. We also cant be sure that he truly saw what happened. He's a baby, he may not have been looking at her or as Jo mentions was unable to see clearly because of the cot.

I changed my original post a bit, sorry--Voldy actually wore the ring for quite a while before he hid it. We see him wearing it in the Slughorn scene. So it's hard to say when he actually hid it, but I assume that Dumbledore retrieved the ring somewhere during the summer after Harry's 5th year. I suppose he could have gotten it before and hid it somewhere until he figured out how to destroy it, but knowing that it was the resurrection stone I don't think he would have just kept it around and not used it. Whether he went to the Gaunt house multiple times I don't really know. Probably not, but the details are a bit hazy and we don't know what he had to do to get it (traps similar to the cave? etc.)


We know for certain that Dumbledore didnt find the ring until that Summer as he states himself that as soon as he saw that ring he knew what the stone was and tried to use it, completely forgetting that it was likely heavily enchanted for protection and thats how he got his burnt hand. Once the curse took affect (From the moment Dumbledore took it in his excitement i believe) he rushed back to hogwarts to break it , before calling snape for an emergency fix it.

One thing that this has always made me wonder is: Just how powerful a wizard was Severus Snape? Afterall if Dumbledore goes running to him to break a curse he must have been pretty extrordinary.

One thing that this has always made me wonder is: Just how powerful a wizard was Severus Snape? Afterall if Dumbledore goes running to him to break a curse he must have been pretty extrordinary.
Extraordinary in the Dark Arts and how to deal with the consequences. Snape seemed to work hard to gain skill & knowledge at Hogwarts, I'm sure he applied the same diligence to learn about the Dark Arts. If you want to counter a dark curse, Snape's your guy. Otherwise I think he was a reasonably powerful, and highly skilled wizard.

Why weren't Crabbe and Goyle arrested at the end of HBP as accessories to a murder?

Why weren't Crabbe and Goyle arrested at the end of HBP as accessories to a murder?
Who did they help to murder? :hmm:

Why weren't Crabbe and Goyle arrested at the end of HBP as accessories to a murder?
Didn't Crabbe die in the ROR?

I have a Question. When harry comes across Tonks in HPB by the ROR, i got the feeling that it really wasn't her. she acted pretty clueless (about Sirius etc...) and I've always thought that it was Draco using the polyjuice potion. did anybody else think the same?I think that Tonks was written that way as a Red Herring. We were supposed to suspect that Tonks was up to no good and then be surprised later on when we learn that she's only acting the way she was because of her rejected love from Remus.

Didn't Crabbe die in the ROR?Yes.

I think the question implies that Crabbe and Goyle who were helping Draco out as guards of the ROR could be considered accessories to murder because they were 'in it' with Draco.

I would say that Crabbe and Goyle never really knew Draco's whole plan. I don't think Draco ever told anyone but the Death Eaters that he was planning to kill Dumbledore. I mean, he's working for Voldemort now - he's not going to go bragging about his task for fear of spoiling the plan and feeling the retribution from LV.

I also don't recall the pair even fighting in the Order/DE battle. Also, Snape and Draco were never charged with any crime regarding the death of Dd, so I don't see why Crabbe or Goyle would have been involved criminally. They weren't even up on the tower when the murder happened.
The ministry fell within weeks of the incident - I'd say between 3 and 4 weeks? So there was never a proper investigation. The Daily Prophet had also started implying that Harry was to blame for the death - which was the excuse to hunt Harry down so to speak.

Why weren't Crabbe and Goyle arrested at the end of HBP as accessories to a murder?
Like the others, I am unsure who they supposedly helped to murder. Draco did not murder anyone, he merely brought Death Eaters into the school (and the Death Eaters did not murder anyone). Only Dumbledore died, and that was because of Snape (whose appearance is unrelated to Draco's efforts in the RoR).
Thus, they could not be counted as accessories to murder.
I would say that Crabbe and Goyle never really knew Draco's whole plan.
We know this because of the first Apparition lesson. Draco was telling Crabbe that it would only take a little longer and that it was none of Crabbe's business what Draco was doing in the RoR (which is why Harry says something like, "I tell my friends what I'm doing if I want them to help me.").
Also, Snape and Draco were never charged with any crime regarding the death of Dd, so I don't see why Crabbe or Goyle would have been involved criminally.
Actually, Snape was charged with Dumbledore's murder, and I am certain Draco could have been tried for attempted murder. However, they were never seen by the Ministry or the Order after Dumbledore's death until the Battle at Hogwarts in DH (Snape and Draco Disapparated).

From the time of Dumbledore's death through at least Bill and Fleur's wedding day, Snape must have been a fugitive from both the Ministry and the Order of the Phoenix.

I don't have my copy of Deathly Hallows handy, so I can't check. If he wasn't actually charged with the murder of Dumbledore, he would at least be wanted for questioning related to the events of that day.

He assaulted Flitwick.
He penetrated barriers Death Eaters set up in the castle
He was known to be at the scene of the crime (the tower top) near the time of death.
He was observed leaving the school and grounds in the company of a student without permission.
He was observed leaving the school in the company of known Death Eaters.
In the course of his departure, he set fire to Hagrid's cabin.
Couldn't his actions against Harry and Hagrid be considered assault?

Much of that behavior was suspicious but could be explained away, as Hagrid said. Infiltrating the Death Eaters, making sure of Draco's safety, etc...

After the Death Eater takeover of the Ministry announced by Kingsley's Patronus at the wedding - two things changed.

The Death Eaters controlled enough of the legal machinery of society to make the official problems go away (and arrange for him to be the new Headmaster).
Harry - the only witness to the murder, the one whose testimony could carry enough weight to sway the court of public opinion - is a fugitive, virtually incommunicado, from that point. Not only is he unavailable to testify against Snape, he's unavailable to defend his own reputation.

From the time of Dumbledore's death through at least Bill and Fleur's wedding day, Snape must have been a fugitive from both the Ministry and the Order of the Phoenix.

I don't have my copy of Deathly Hallows handy, so I can't check. If he wasn't actually charged with the murder of Dumbledore, he would at least be wanted for questioning related to the events of that day.

He assaulted Flitwick.
He penetrated barriers Death Eaters set up in the castle
He was known to be at the scene of the crime (the tower top) near the time of death.
He was observed leaving the school and grounds in the company of a student without permission.
He was observed leaving the school in the company of known Death Eaters.
In the course of his departure, he set fire to Hagrid's cabin.
Couldn't his actions against Harry and Hagrid be considered assault?

Much of that behavior was suspicious but could be explained away, as Hagrid said. Infiltrating the Death Eaters, making sure of Draco's safety, etc...

After the Death Eater takeover of the Ministry announced by Kingsley's Patronus at the wedding - two things changed.

The Death Eaters controlled enough of the legal machinery of society to make the official problems go away (and arrange for him to be the new Headmaster).
Harry - the only witness to the murder, the one whose testimony could carry enough weight to sway the court of public opinion - is a fugitive, virtually incommunicado, from that point. Not only is he unavailable to testify against Snape, he's unavailable to defend his own reputation.


Well, the primary problem will all of those things was the fact that only the assault on Flitwick could actually be proven because Flitwick was still alive to testify to what Snape did to him. The rest of them were things only witnessed by Harry and/or misconstrued due to the confusion.

He penetrated barriers Death Eaters set up in the castle

This wouldn't really be all that suspicious because it appeared that Snape was trying to help at the time. The fact that he had been a Death Eater was well known at that point so it would be expected that he would know how to accomplish such things. Indeed that would have been considered an advantage to them under the belief that Snape was actually on their side.

He was known to be at the scene of the crime (the tower top) near the time of death.

If I'm not mistaken, Lupin was the only one who actually saw Snape go through the barrier so he would have been the only one who could actually confirm Harry's testimony that Snape was there. Everyone else was going by what Harry told them for the most part. And Lupin's testimony would not have had any weight with the Ministry because he was a werewolf.

He was observed leaving the school and grounds in the company of a student without permission.

He was observed leaving the school in the company of known Death Eaters.

This was also only seen by Harry. Everyone who saw Snape running thought either that he and Draco being chased by Death Eaters or that Snape was chasing Death Eaters. Harry was the only one who knew what he was doing - as well as the only one who heard him tell the other Death Eaters it was time to go.

In the course of his departure, he set fire to Hagrid's cabin.

Actually, that was done by one of the other Death Eaters - not Snape.

Couldn't his actions against Harry and Hagrid be considered assault?

Attacking Harry could be - but Snape could also play that off that he was defending himself because Harry chased after him and cast the first spell. He didn't actually do anything to Hagrid and Hagrid was sure that Snape was chasing after the Death Eaters at the time.

So the problem with all of that was the fact that Harry was really the only witness to Snape's crimes. The only exception is the assault against Flitwick - and we still don't know exactly what happened there.

Harry did testify against Snape - that was mentioned in one of the newspaper articles Harry was reading while cleaning out his room - I believe the one about Rita's book. There's no mention of Snape actually being charged with anything.

As for Crabbe and Goyle - they didn't know about the plan or what Draco was doing. They could still have been charged as accessories because they did help Draco, but not to murder because Draco never actually killed anyone. The only thing they actually helped Draco do was get Death Eaters into the castle.

Meesha1971:

Yes, the points against Snape might easily be argued away without the testimony of an eyewitness to his actions at the time of Dumbledore's death. I believe I said so in my post.

His actions demand explanation, however, and would lead to him being summoned for questioning.

I'm pretty sure he was a fugitive until at least August 1st. The Order didn't tell Harry, "Oh, the Ministry questioned him and released him, but we don't trust him because you saw him murder Dumbledore, so we told him to stay away from the Order and HQ." They told him that with the death of the Secret-Keeper, they couldn't assume HQ was safe and they laid some traps for Snape in case he ever came looking around. If Snape's whereabouts were known, they would have had somebody watching him.

Are you sure the article said Harry testified?

It's not likely Harry did testify. Harry told the teachers and the Order what happened, and they probably passed the word along. If he gave actual testimony, he would have had to say that he was on the tower roof at the time of the murder (let's presume he manages to come up with a way to avoid explaining what he and Dumbledore had been doing). I believe it was the meeting with Scrimgeour which established that Harry's presence on the tower that night was still unknown.

Meesha1971:

Yes, the points against Snape might easily be argued away without the testimony of an eyewitness to his actions at the time of Dumbledore's death. I believe I said so in my post.

His actions demand explanation, however, and would lead to him being summoned for questioning.

I'm pretty sure he was a fugitive until at least August 1st. The Order didn't tell Harry, "Oh, the Ministry questioned him and released him, but we don't trust him because you saw him murder Dumbledore, so we told him to stay away from the Order and HQ." They told him that with the death of the Secret-Keeper, they couldn't assume HQ was safe and they laid some traps for Snape in case he ever came looking around. If Snape's whereabouts were known, they would have had somebody watching him.

Are you sure the article said Harry testified?

It's not likely Harry did testify. Harry told the teachers and the Order what happened, and they probably passed the word along. If he gave actual testimony, he would have had to say that he was on the tower roof at the time of the murder (let's presume he manages to come up with a way to avoid explaining what he and Dumbledore had been doing). I believe it was the meeting with Scrimgeour which established that Harry's presence on the tower that night was still unknown.

It says he gave evidence - which is basically testifying.

“Well, I don’t want to say too much — it’s all in the book — but the eyewitnesses inside Hogwarts castle saw Potter running away from the scene moments after Dumbledore fell, jumped, or was pushed. Potter later gave evidence against Severus Snape, a man against whom he has a notorious grudge. Is everything as it seems? that is for the Wizarding community to decide — once they’ve read my book.”

We have to look at that from the perspective of the Ministry and the general public. Anyone in the Order would believe Harry. The Ministry and the general public would be more skeptical because Harry had a grudge against Snape. In addition, Voldemort already had people on the inside at the Ministry who could influence events even before he took over completely.

We don't know if Snape was actually brought in for questioning or not. He may have been after Harry gave evidence against him. However, it is clear in DH that Snape is not a fugitive during that time. He was able to come and go freely without concern. That is primarily shown in the memories that Harry sees later - Snape was able to go to Hogwarts to talk to Dumbledore's portrait, he was able to go into a public tavern to confund Mundungus, etc...

The fact that it was well known that Harry had a grudge against Snape worked to Snape's advantage there. Even if he had been brought in for questioning, he could counter any claims that Harry made because nobody else saw anything that would prove his guilt. It was basically Harry's word against Snape's - and Dumbledore had already personally vouched for Snape to the Ministry. From their perspective, it would have looked as though Harry was trying to lay all the blame on Snape because of his grudge. The Death Eaters already on the inside at the Ministry could influence that and make sure Snape was never charged with anything.

In addition, there was also hostility between Scrimgeour and Harry because Harry refused to cooperate with him. Harry was not a popular person with the Ministry overall and, with all the corruption within, I don't find it surprising that Snape was able to get out of that in spite of Harry giving testimony against him. The Order members were the only ones who believed Harry about Snape from what is shown.

It says he gave evidence - which is basically testifying. Do you honestly trust Rita Skeeter? I don't !
IMO it was known that Harry had accused Snape, but as Harry didn't want to tell anyone where he had been that night, I think it possible that it wasn't publicly known that Harry was (or pretended to have been) present at the killing. Both the Prophet and the Ministry were infiltrated enough to delay investigation so IMO Snape was never officially charged, he just kept a low profile. And Harry avoided talking about the details of that night and he certainly avoided Scrimgoure. When you look at 'The will of Albus Dumbledore', it seems obvious to me that Scrimgoure had not spoken to Harry between HBP and DH, had Harry been called into the Ministry for official questioning Scrimgoure would surely have used the opportunity.

If Voldemort hated his birth name, why did he make his new name an anagram of his old one? Why did he not get a name unrelated to his old name, such as Infernious, or Donald Trump?



I think the question implies that Crabbe and Goyle who were helping Draco out as guards of the ROR could be considered accessories to murder because they were 'in it' with Draco.

I would say that Crabbe and Goyle never really knew Draco's whole plan. I don't think Draco ever told anyone but the Death Eaters that he was planning to kill Dumbledore. I mean, he's working for Voldemort now - he's not going to go bragging about his task for fear of spoiling the plan and feeling the retribution from LV.

I also don't recall the pair even fighting in the Order/DE battle. Also, Snape and Draco were never charged with any crime regarding the death of Dd, so I don't see why Crabbe or Goyle would have been involved criminally. They weren't even up on the tower when the murder happened.
The ministry fell within weeks of the incident - I'd say between 3 and 4 weeks? So there was never a proper investigation. The Daily Prophet had also started implying that Harry was to blame for the death - which was the excuse to hunt Harry down so to speak.Yeah, but they knew the work was for Voldemort. They did not come forward with this knowledge. To me, this sounds like a form of treason, at the very least. And notice I said Half Blood Prince, not Deathly Hallows. The two of them were sitting there at the end-of-term feast. And thats probably what they mean by his Giving evidence, him telling McGonnogal.

Also, a few more questions

If Snape was a fugitive from the law, how did he manage to get into the Hogs Head to confund Mundungus? Aberforth would have no doubt heard his voice, and killed Snape cause he killed the only family Aberforth had left.

Why did Snape knock Flitwick out? I never got this bit.

If Voldemort hated his birth name, why did he make his new name an anagram of his old one? Why did he not get a name unrelated to his old name, such as Infernious, or Donald Trump?
I think Voldemort was conflicted about his name. Yes, he hated the muggle part of the name, but he was also given his grandfather's name, Marvolo, which was connected to Salazar Slytherin's bloodline. And he was a half-blood, yet he believed himself to be very powerful, moreso than some purebloods, eventually thinking he was the most powerful wizard ever. Which is also why he saw Harry as potentially more powerful than the pureblood Neville. So, in my opinion, lots of confliction going on inside Riddle. The anagram was the better choice for him, I think, because he could keep the elements of both names, while transforming it to what he considered a true representation of himself.

Also, a few more questions

If Snape was a fugitive from the law, how did he manage to get into the Hogs Head to confund Mundungus? Aberforth would have no doubt heard his voice, and killed Snape cause he killed the only family Aberforth had left.
Meesha answered this question very completely in her recent posts, about why Snape was not regarded as a fugitive from the law as far as the Ministry was concerned. Also, Aberforth is a pretty shrewd cookie, and vengence didn't fit who he was.

Why did Snape knock Flitwick out? I never got this bit.
A couple reasons, I think. So that Flitwick wouldn't get in the way of his plan, and to get Hermione & company out of his/harm's way by making up the story about Flitwick's needing help, knowing they would indeed go to help Flitwick.

Seeing as there are some questions at the moment about the law, here are a couple I've been wondering about.

In The Other Minister, we hear there's to be an inquiry into the events at the Ministry at the end of Order. I have to wonder why Harry, as the leader of one of the groups to break in wasn't called to testify/give evidence at the Inquiry. Seems like a lot for Dumbledore to get him out of.

Also stemming from the Ministry event, we hear that the captured Death Eaters were serving sentences for trespass/attempted theft. Seeing as they were known and proven, to be Death Eaters, my question is why weren't they also serving sentences for membership of an illegal organisation?

In The Other Minister, we hear there's to be an inquiry into the events at the Ministry at the end of Order. I have to wonder why Harry, as the leader of one of the groups to break in wasn't called to testify/give evidence at the Inquiry. Seems like a lot for Dumbledore to get him out of.
Hmm. Well, the evidence was pretty strong against the Death Eaters. IMO it would have been pretty clear what had happened just from seeing things. After all, Fudge didn't like Harry but he never suspected him of being evil and working with Death Eaters. Deep down he knew he was right, and that scene was just a wake-up call to him. It wouldn't have been fair to Harry to make him go through all that, especially right after he had lost his godfather. :)

Also stemming from the Ministry event, we hear that the captured Death Eaters were serving sentences for trespass/attempted theft. Seeing as they were known and proven, to be Death Eaters, my question is why weren't they also serving sentences for membership of an illegal organisation?I don't think it was ever specifically stated what their charges were; maybe being Death Eaters was part of their sentence. I don't really know a specific answer to this one, though.

He penetrated barriers Death Eaters set up in the castle

This wouldn't really be all that suspicious because it appeared that Snape was trying to help at the time. The fact that he had been a Death Eater was well known at that point so it would be expected that he would know how to accomplish such things. Indeed that would have been considered an advantage to them under the belief that Snape was actually on their side.
Exactly, McGonagall says that she merely thought "he must have known a spell we didn't. After all - he was the Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher."
He was known to be at the scene of the crime (the tower top) near the time of death.

If I'm not mistaken, Lupin was the only one who actually saw Snape go through the barrier so he would have been the only one who could actually confirm Harry's testimony that Snape was there. Everyone else was going by what Harry told them for the most part. And Lupin's testimony would not have had any weight with the Ministry because he was a werewolf.
Actually, McGonagall saw this too.
"I just assumed that he was in a hurry to chase after the Death Eaters who'd escaped up the tower."
It says he gave evidence - which is basically testifying...
"Potter later gave evidence against Severus Snape, a man against whom he has a notorious grudge."
This is a very broad statement by Rita. Harry's giving of evidence could have just been telling all those in the hospital wing during the Phoenix Lament. However, it seems as if an admonition was issued about Snape:
"No," [Hermione] said reprovingly, folding up the newspaper. "They're still looking for Snape but no sign..."
"They" most likely means the Ministry, so Snape was being hunted, at the least, to be questioned.
If Snape was a fugitive from the law, how did he manage to get into the Hogs Head to confund Mundungus? Aberforth would have no doubt heard his voice, and killed Snape cause he killed the only family Aberforth had left.
Since Snape was on the run (and being searched for), I would say he pulled a Mundungus in order to talk to Mundungus: he disguised himself. Aberforth never found out it was Mundungus who was the witch in the veil, so I doubt he would have recognized Snape if he came in disguised (or Disillusioned, perhaps). Snape was a powerful wizard, so he could easily find a way around Aberforth.

This is a very broad statement by Rita. Harry's giving of evidence could have just been telling all those in the hospital wing during the Phoenix Lament. However, it seems as if an admonition was issued about Snape:
"No," [Hermione] said reprovingly, folding up the newspaper. "They're still looking for Snape but no sign..."
"They" most likely means the Ministry, so Snape was being hunted, at the least, to be questioned.
Actually, that statement of Rita's seems like one of her more accurate ones!

Anyway, "looking" for Snape is different that "being hunted" or "fugitive of the law". I think it more likely that the Order was hunting him down. Everything became a moot point, though, once the Ministry fell.

Since Snape was on the run (and being searched for), I would say he pulled a Mundungus in order to talk to Mundungus: he disguised himself. Aberforth never found out it was Mundungus who was the witch in the veil, so I doubt he would have recognized Snape if he came in disguised (or Disillusioned, perhaps). Snape was a powerful wizard, so he could easily find a way around Aberforth.
It makes more sense to me that Snape spent the entire time (before the Ministry fell) with Voldemort, wherever he was.

question

we know about the Gamp´s law about food...
so we know food cant appear out of thin air...so where do wizards get their groceries?

i just cant see them going to the average grocery store and buyin it using muggle money?

so they summon it?

do they buy it a wizarding groceries store?

e know about the Gamp´s law about food...
so we know food cant appear out of thin air...so where do wizards get their groceries?

i just cant see them going to the average grocery store and buyin it using muggle money?

so they summon it?

do they buy it a wizarding groceries store?
Probably from places like diagon alley or there could be owl services that deliver food to everyone

If Voldemort hated his birth name, why did he make his new name an anagram of his old one? Why did he not get a name unrelated to his old name, such as Infernious, or Donald Trump?
To make the translators' task more challenging! :grumble: ;)

Seriously, I think HedwigOwl gave a very good answer. Voldemort both hated this father's family and was proud of his lineage from his mother's side - so he took the middle way. I note that in English, it allows him to add "Lord" to his name, whereas that is not true in either French or Spanish - but that belongs in the Translation thread. :)

To make the translators' task more challenging! :grumble: ;)

Seriously, I think HedwigOwl gave a very good answer. Voldemort both hated this father's family and was proud of his lineage from his mother's side - so he took the middle way. I note that in English, it allows him to add "Lord" to his name, whereas that is not true in either French or Spanish - but that belongs in the Translation thread. :)Okay, he could have easily kept the Marvollo portion and fashion a new name with that as a part of it, and drop the Tom Riddle portion?

Okay, he could have easily kept the Marvollo portion and fashion a new name with that as a part of it, and drop the Tom Riddle portion?Yes, he could. But that is not for this thread as it is not a question we can answer. :)

First off im sorry if this has been mentioned before.

Something ive been thinking of lately is outback scabbers. Was it ever explained how Peter arrived at the weasleys or how come he didnt tranform to bring LV back sooner.

Sorry if this has been brought up before leading me to look very stupid. Im just curious.

If you can help pls do.

I think Peter only went back to Voldemort for protection and to renew his loyalty. The question of when he came to the Weasley is a constant nibble. He may have been captured by a witch or wizard and then sold to get some easy money finally ending up at the Weasley house.

It's not likely Harry did testify. Harry told the teachers and the Order what happened, and they probably passed the word along. If he gave actual testimony, he would have had to say that he was on the tower roof at the time of the murder (let's presume he manages to come up with a way to avoid explaining what he and Dumbledore had been doing). I believe it was the meeting with Scrimgeour which established that Harry's presence on the tower that night was still unknown.I know this topic seems to be discussed to death - but I liked this point - that Scrimgeour didn't have proof that Harry was on the tower the night of Dumbledore's death so it is unlikely that he gave official testimony. I also want to reiterate what a short amount of time passed between Dumbledore's death and when the Ministry began to become infiltrated. I know it doesn't say anywhere, but I always assumed that Harry went to Privet Drive and never left the house until 'The Seven Potters'. Wasn't he only home a 'fortnight' (14 days)? I will have to go and look up that fact. :)

I know it doesn't say anywhere, but I always assumed that Harry went to Privet Drive and never left the house until The Seven Potters. Wasn't he only home a 'fortnight' (14 days)? I will have to go and look up that fact. :)

I'd say he went home to Privet Drive and stayed there or very close by in the neighborhood (he certainly didn't overnight anywhere) until The Seven Potters. He probably went home before June 30th - McGonagall's discussion (in HBP) with the Heads of House about the funeral and ordering the train make it sound like they were sending the kids home before the originally scheduled end of term. The Seven Potters takes place a few days before his birthday, so I'd say he was home about a month.

I think the fortnight stay at Privet Drive was the beginning of HBP.

The exact run of days and dates is, well,... let's see.

Severus tells Voldemort that his source said the Order would be escorting Harry on the Saturday night. On that day, Harry thinks about having four days left of being unable to perform magic... So depending on whether four days included that day or not, his birthday (the 31st) would be coming up on the Wednesday or Thursday, meaning Saturday was July 26th or 27th.

In The Ghoul in Pajamas, Harry and Ron's breakfast conversation sounds like the morning after The Seven Potters, which would make it Sunday morning. However, Arthur and Bill had just left for work, which sounds more like Monday.
Harry is talking about "The Trace'll break on the thirty-first. That means I only need to stay here four days." He's still saying four days, so this time it must mean including the present day.
The wedding is set for the day after Harry's birthday.
After Harry and Ron's breakfast leading up to Molly's interrogation, Molly keeps the trio busy for two days of nonstop etc... That leads up to the third night of his stay.
The Delacours arrive the next morning, which would be Tuesday?
The workmen come the next day to set up the Marquee, that would be Wednesday.
That must have been the day before Harry's birthday, because when he looks out Ginny's window on his birthday morning, the marquee is all set. So Harry's birthday was Thursday.

Yeah - if Saturday was the 26th, it works out to a Friday wedding.

I have a question that just occurred to me about St. Mungo's hospital. (I hope this is the right place to ask this)

In OOTP we see people in the waiting room with a variety of ailments, and considering everything that can go wrong with spells and potions, Do you think St. Mungo's has any type of ambulance like service? How did they get Arthur there after he was attacked? Do you think its similar to holding out your wand to summon the night bus? Hopefully you don't have to write 911 on a piece of parchment and hope your owl gets there fast? Or do you have to get yourself there? If there was emergency services would Luna's mother have died?

I have a question that just occurred to me about St. Mungo's hospital. (I hope this is the right place to ask this)

In OOTP we see people in the waiting room with a variety of ailments, and considering everything that can go wrong with spells and potions, Do you think St. Mungo's has any type of ambulance like service? How did they get Arthur there after he was attacked? Do you think its similar to holding out your wand to summon the night bus? Hopefully you don't have to write 911 on a piece of parchment and hope your owl gets there fast? Or do you have to get yourself there? If there was emergency services would Luna's mother have died?

In GoF, Arthur tells Harry about some particular squad from the Ministry - Accidental Magic Reversal Squad, perhaps that was the name? They're the response team for people who have splinched themselves. That sounds like part of what you're looking for.

I have a question that just occurred to me about St. Mungo's hospital. (I hope this is the right place to ask this)

In OOTP we see people in the waiting room with a variety of ailments, and considering everything that can go wrong with spells and potions, Do you think St. Mungo's has any type of ambulance like service? How did they get Arthur there after he was attacked?
Side-by-side Apparition? Maybe two people holding a third can Apparate them to St. Mungo's? Possibly that's how they got Arthur there. Either that or Floo from the Ministry in Arthur's case?

In GoF, Arthur tells Harry about some particular squad from the Ministry - Accidental Magic Reversal Squad, perhaps that was the name? They're the response team for people who have splinched themselves. That sounds like part of what you're looking for.
Doesn't the Accidental Magic Reversal Squad goes to the field to reverse the effects of the accident, rather than bring the injured person to St. Mungo's? I'm wondering too. Or, like I suggested above, they Apparate the Splinched parts so as to reconstruct the accidentee? :hmm:

The Seven Potters takes place a few days before his birthday, so I'd say he was home about a month.

I think the fortnight stay at Privet Drive was the beginning of HBP.

The exact run of days and dates is, well,... let's see.

Severus tells Voldemort that his source said the Order would be escorting Harry on the Saturday night. On that day, Harry thinks about having four days left of being unable to perform magic... So depending on whether four days included that day or not, his birthday (the 31st) would be coming up on the Wednesday or Thursday, meaning Saturday was July 26th or 27th.

In The Ghoul in Pajamas, Harry and Ron's breakfast conversation sounds like the morning after The Seven Potters, which would make it Sunday morning. However, Arthur and Bill had just left for work, which sounds more like Monday.
Harry is talking about "The Trace'll break on the thirty-first. That means I only need to stay here four days." He's still saying four days, so this time it must mean including the present day.
Thank you for the detailed timeline!!!
I also looked it up because I was curious just how long Harry was home and when the ministry became infiltrated. So here's what I have...

June 28th - Dumbledore Dies
June 31st - Dumbledore's funeral, kids go home on Hogwarts Express
Week of July 14-20 - Death Eater meeting at the Malfoy Manor. They discuss that the Ministry has been infiltrated - Imperious curse is on Pius Thicknesse. Also that Snape has met with Mundungus before this meeting to learn of the plan to move HP.
July 27th - Harry is moved to the Burrow
July 31st - Harry's birthday
August 1st - Bill and Fleur's wedding. The ministry has fallen.

So back to the idea of a trial regarding Snape's murder - there was only about 2-3 weeks between Dumbledore's death and when the Ministry is infiltrated. And then only 1 month (all of July) before the Ministry falls completely. Given, a lot can happen in that time, but as far as moving Harry safely back and forth to the MoM in those 1st two weeks after Dd's death seems unlikely.

PLUS there is the whole idea that Scrimgeour still wants Harry to be seen going in and out of the Ministry to show his support of what they're doing. If Harry had been to the MoM for a trial date, wouldn't that have calmed Scrimgeour down a bit? Plus when they meet up on July 31st it seems as if they hadn't spoke since the day of Dd's funeral.

If Snape was a fugitive from the law, how did he manage to get into the Hogs Head to confund Mundungus? Aberforth would have no doubt heard his voice, and killed Snape cause he killed the only family Aberforth had left.


Since Snape was on the run (and being searched for), I would say he pulled a Mundungus in order to talk to Mundungus: he disguised himself. Aberforth never found out it was Mundungus who was the witch in the veil, so I doubt he would have recognized Snape if he came in disguised (or Disillusioned, perhaps). Snape was a powerful wizard, so he could easily find a way around Aberforth.

I agree that Snape would have some ability to disguise himself. The Confunding of Mundungus didn't take place at the Hog's Head, though. It's just referred to as some unfamiliar tavern.

My mind has pulled a blank for me. Can someone please tell me if we know what Ginny's Patronus is? and what is it ?

Thanks

twins:p

My mind has pulled a blank for me. Can someone please tell me if we know what Ginny's Patronus is? and what is it ?

It was never mentioned in the books, but in the movie it was shown as a horse, and apparently JKR confirmed that was correct.

It was never mentioned in the books, but in the movie it was shown as a horse, and apparently JKR confirmed that was correct.

Cool Thanks Col.F.

In POA when Malfoy and co dress up as dementors. There are 5 people and three dementors. This wouldn't have worked that well as one would have been really short compared to the others

In POA when Malfoy and co dress up as dementors. There are 5 people and three dementors. This wouldn't have worked that well as one would have been really short compared to the others

Actually it was four boys in three suits. Crabbe, Goyle, Flint and Malfoy. As is explained in the book Malfoy is standing on Crabbes shoulders as they were the smallest ones in the group (Crabbe being short but large), whereas Goyle we know is really large for his age and Flint was in his seventh year so was also quite tall. I doubt Malfoy was actually standing but was probably sitting on Crabbes shoulders to make the required height.

Secondly Harry and all the others were in the middle of a Quidditch game, zooming around on extremely fast broomsticks. As is said during the book Harry didnt catch more then a blurring glimpse of what he thought were demontors staring up at him, he was too focused on catching the snitch. He also probably was going to fast to see them clearly even if he had of had the time to look properly, he would have had to slow down. Malfoy and the others were more intent on scaring Harry and distracting him from winning the game then actually making him believe without a doubt that they were dementors. After all if you looked down during Quidditch you would make the natural assumption they were dementors, especially after the dementors invaded the last game, you wouldnt be double checking to make sure they werent some idiotic Slytherins.

Voldemorts old wand, what did he do with it before he took the elder wand? Any ideas?

Voldemorts old wand, what did he do with it before he took the elder wand? Any ideas?

Well, after he took Lucius' wand, he still seemed to have his own, as he scoffed at the idea of giving it to him in exchange. For this reason, I'd imagine he kept it somewhere safe, after all, he has been known to have a sense of his own importance, and that wand would have been the one he used to achieve the position he has now, so to him it would be an artifact worthy of keeping, even if not on a par with the Elder Wand. I don't think he just decided "Well this wand won't kill Potter, so I'm gonna break it". For all his lack of interest in human/creature welfare, he had some major respect for magical artifacts and wouldn't destroy them (or consider making Horcruxes with them destroying them)

After the 'Seven Potters' chase, he went back to using his own yew-phoenix wand until he uses it to break open Dumbledore's tomb and take the Elder wand. I presume he put the yew wand someplace for safekeeping after that point.

A little thing from Book Five:

"Okay, stop!" Harry Shouted. "Stop! STOP!"
I need a whistle, he thought, and immediately spotted one lying on top of the nearesy row of books.
Was the whistle always there, or did it just appear when he thought about it? I've been wondering where the objects in the RoR come from and whether they are "called" from other places in the castle, or whether they get duplicated. Anyone know?

I hope this hasn't been asked yet (I suck at searching), but here's my question...now that the Harry horcrux has been destroyed, do you think Harry can still speak Parseltongue?

I hope this hasn't been asked yet (I suck at searching), but here's my question...now that the Harry horcrux has been destroyed, do you think Harry can still speak Parseltongue?

Jo answered it in an interview (I forget which one so I can't provide a link)- the part of soul inside him gave Harry the ability to speak Parseltongue, so when that piece was removed, he could no longer speak it. :)

I dont know if this is the correct place to ask this ,but i will ask it anyway..

What is the difference between a zombie and an infieri?

I have looked for the definitions and they sound like pretty much the same...

any ideas of what marks the diference....

I dont know if this is the correct place to ask this ,but i will ask it anyway..

What is the difference between a zombie and an infieri?

I have looked for the definitions and they sound like pretty much the same...

any ideas of what marks the diference....
I don't believe that zombies were mentioned in the HP books, but I think the difference would be that, while both involve dead bodies being raised, zombies to an extent control their own actions. Inferi are raised by a dark spell to do the bidding of a human.

I don't believe that zombies were mentioned in the HP books, but I think the difference would be that, while both involve dead bodies being raised, zombies to an extent control their own actions. Inferi are raised by a dark spell to do the bidding of a human.

Actually Zombies were mentioned in SS:

The class everyone had really been looking forward to was Defense Against the Dark Arts, but Quirrell’s lessons turned out to be a bit of a joke. His classroom smelled strongly of garlic, which everyone said was to ward off a vampire he’d met in Romania and was afraid would be coming back to get him one of these days. His turban, he told them, had been given to him by an African prince as a thank-you for getting rid of a troublesome zombie, but they weren’t sure they believed this story. For one thing, when Seamus Finnigan asked eagerly to hear how Quirrell had fought off the zombie, Quirrell went pink and started talking about the weather; for another, they had noticed that a funny smell hung around the turban, and the Weasley twins insisted that it was stuffed full of garlic as well, so that Quirrell was protected wherever he went.

And here are the Definitions, they seem to be the EXACT same thing:

INFERI-

Severus Snape-"The Inferius is a corpse that has been reanimated by a Dark wizard's spells. It is not alive, it is merely used like a puppet to do the wizard's bidding. A Ghost, as I trust you are all aware by now, is the imprint of a departed soul left upon the earth..."

Albus Dumbledore-"They are corpses, dead bodies that have been bewitched to do a Dark wizard's bidding. Inferi have not been seen for a long time, however, not since Voldemort was last powerful... He killed enough people to make an army of them, of course."
ZOMBIE-

How Stuff Works-Many movies and video games have used Romero's concept of zombies. For the most part, zombies are:

Newly dead corpses reanimated by radiation, chemicals, viruses, sorcery or acts of God
Wikipedia-A zombie is a reanimated corpse. Stories of zombies originated in the Afro-Caribbean spiritual belief system of Vodou, which told of the dead being raised as workers by a powerful sorcerer.


HOWEVER, I think you may be partly right, your definition seems to fit with the "Modern Movie Flesh Eating Zombie"

Popular culture
Zombies in popular culture

Modern zombies, as portrayed in books, films, games, and haunted attractions, are quite different from both voodoo zombies and those of folklore. Modern zombies are typically depicted in popular culture as mindless, unfeeling monsters with a hunger for human flesh, a prototype established in the seminal 1968 film Night of the Living Dead. Typically, these creatures can sustain damage far beyond that of a normal, living human and can pass whatever syndrome that causes their condition onto others.



We discussed this a bit on the HBP thread and seemed to come to the conclusion that the ORIGINAL term Zombie (from VOODOO) and Inferi are the SAME, and JKR simply had INVENTED the term INFERI yet and didn't want to call them ZOMBIES in HBP

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lisa_Turpin
I don't believe that zombies were mentioned in the HP books, but I think the difference would be that, while both involve dead bodies being raised, zombies to an extent control their own actions. Inferi are raised by a dark spell to do the bidding of a human.

Actually Zombies were mentioned in SS:


Quote:
The class everyone had really been looking forward to was Defense Against the Dark Arts, but Quirrell’s lessons turned out to be a bit of a joke. His classroom smelled strongly of garlic, which everyone said was to ward off a vampire he’d met in Romania and was afraid would be coming back to get him one of these days. His turban, he told them, had been given to him by an African prince as a thank-you for getting rid of a troublesome zombie, but they weren’t sure they believed this story. For one thing, when Seamus Finnigan asked eagerly to hear how Quirrell had fought off the zombie, Quirrell went pink and started talking about the weather; for another, they had noticed that a funny smell hung around the turban, and the Weasley twins insisted that it was stuffed full of garlic as well, so that Quirrell was protected wherever he went.



The garlic was for protection against a troublesome vamp Quirrel said he met in Romania. His whole room smelt of it and they believed the turban was stuffed with it and that there was no zombie. Inferus are different to zombies. Inferus are dead bodies, reanimated by a spell, and cant seem to do anything really except kill. Zombies could be brought back using necromancy (and some say by eating a certain concoction you can make a zombie but I digress). they have a lot more control of themselves, dont need wand magic to take orders and seem to enjoy fresh brains a la carte. Its hard to explain it correctly but inferi sesem to need triggers to set them off (like when HP tried to summon the locket), where as zombies are always walking around doing their own mindless thing. I also believe that zombies can talk, after a fashion, if not sensibly. I think there is a definite difference between the inferi and zombies. If there wasnt then JK would have just called inferi zombies to begin with.


Heres a question for you though. In GOF we hear that Wormtail has to milk Nagini to feed LV (and as we all know when you milk a snake you drain its venom). But in OOP Arthur is bitten by Nagini,resulting in his wounds staying open and constantly bleeding because of Nagini's venom. SO my question is why didnt something terrible like that happen to LV, I mean he was drinking the damn stuff. Did they mix the venom into a potion or something? Only thats not implied in the book at all, LV just tells Wormtail to milk Nagini before they retire as he will need feeding again during the night.

A little thing from Book Five:
OotP, Chapter 18, Dumbledore's Army
"Okay, stop!" Harry Shouted. "Stop! STOP!"
I need a whistle, he thought, and immediately spotted one lying on top of the nearesy row of books.

Was the whistle always there, or did it just appear when he thought about it? I've been wondering where the objects in the RoR come from and whether they are "called" from other places in the castle, or whether they get duplicated. Anyone know?

No the whistle wasnt there. As is explained by Neville the room of requirement supplies things as they are needed. HArry needed a whistle, so one appeared. The only thing the room could never provide on demand was food bacause of Someone-arathers fifth or sixth law of something. Eh, it cant be done. The room didnt bring them from elsewhere or duplicate them, it was all conjured into being. Im pretty sure that if its made by the room it has to stay in the room because of that, which means they woudlnt have been able to take anything out of there with them (like the defense books, lol, hermione must have been so frustrated)

Inferus are dead bodies, reanimated by a spell, and cant seem to do anything really except kill. Zombies could be brought back using necromancy (and some say by eating a certain concoction you can make a zombie but I digress). they have a lot more control of themselves, don't need wand magic to take orders and seem to enjoy fresh brains a la carte. Its hard to explain it correctly but infieri seem to need triggers to set them off (like when HP tried to summon the locket), where as zombies are always walking around doing their own mindless thing. I also believe that zombies can talk, after a fashion, if not sensibly. I think there is a definite difference between the infieri and zombies. If there wasn't then JK would have just called infieri zombies to begin with.

thankyou...that makes it a bit clearerHeres a question for you though. In GOF we hear that Wormtail has to milk Nagini to feed LV (and as we all know when you milk a snake you drain its venom). But in OOP Arthur is bitten by Nagini,resulting in his wounds staying open and constantly bleeding because of Nagini's venom. SO my question is why didn't something terrible like that happen to LV, I mean he was drinking the damn stuff. Did they mix the venom into a potion or something? Only thats not implied in the book at all, LV just tells Wormtail to milk Nagini before they retire as he will need feeding again during the night.

as for your question ,i understand the venom is used as an ingredient to a potion to keep Voldy in a good condition until he gets his body back...Petigrew would know the potion instructed by Voldy...I dont think Voldy would drink the venom in a pure state...Thats what i understand at least..

Ahh, good. that makes alot more sense. cheers

Heres a question for you though. In GOF we hear that Wormtail has to milk Nagini to feed LV (and as we all know when you milk a snake you drain its venom). But in OOP Arthur is bitten by Nagini,resulting in his wounds staying open and constantly bleeding because of Nagini's venom. SO my question is why didnt something terrible like that happen to LV, I mean he was drinking the damn stuff. Did they mix the venom into a potion or something? Only thats not implied in the book at all, LV just tells Wormtail to milk Nagini before they retire as he will need feeding again during the night.

It wasn't just straight venom. Voldemort came up with a potion containing unicorn blood and Nagini's venom that helped him maintain strength in that weak body they had created for him to use until they could regenerate his actual body.

“Wormtail’s body, of course, was ill adapted for possession, as all assumed him dead, and would attract far too much attention if noticed. However, he was the able-bodied servant I needed, and, poor wizard though he is, Wormtail was able to follow the instructions I gave him, which would return me to a rudimentary, weak body of my own, a body I would be able to inhabit while awaiting the essential ingredients for true rebirth … a spell or two of my own invention … a little help from my dear Nagini,” Voldemorts red eyes fell upon the continually circling snake, “a potion concocted from unicorn blood, and the snake venom Nagini provided … I was soon returned to an almost human form, and strong enough to travel.

It was never said what other ingredients were in that potion beyond unicorn blood and Nagini's venom though. And there were spells involved. It was apparently a complicated process to give him that ugly baby body.

A little thing from Book Five:

"Okay, stop!" Harry Shouted. "Stop! STOP!"
I need a whistle, he thought, and immediately spotted one lying on top of the nearesy row of books.
Was the whistle always there, or did it just appear when he thought about it? I've been wondering where the objects in the RoR come from and whether they are "called" from other places in the castle, or whether they get duplicated. Anyone know?

Well, the book seems to infer that it's created by the RoR. Whatever the user/s need. I don't think the room is "calling" objects from other places in the castle -- I doubt there was a room-full of chamber pots somewhere that were "called" when Dumbledore came by thinking about needing a bathroom. Remember that the RoR, in DH, changed as more people came to stay in it -- change of decor to represent houses of the occupants, separate bathrooms & showers when girls showed up, etc.

Well, the book seems to infer that it's created by the RoR. Whatever the user/s need. I don't think the room is "calling" objects from other places in the castle -- I doubt there was a room-full of chamber pots somewhere that were "called" when Dumbledore came by thinking about needing a bathroom. Remember that the RoR, in DH, changed as more people came to stay in it -- change of decor to represent houses of the occupants, separate bathrooms & showers when girls showed up, etc.
I know there's been discussion about this before. Whether perhaps things were 'called' from the arsenal of years worth of stuff being left in the various forms of the room. I don't know if that makes much more sense than it all appearing out of thin air, but it's a theory. Perhaps it a transfiguration spell that changes something tossed out in the room into whatever is needed.

I've wondered if you can take out things that are created by the room. If they aren't really real to begin with can they leave the room or is it like the holodeck on Star Trek?

I know there's been discussion about this before. Whether perhaps things were 'called' from the arsenal of years worth of stuff being left in the various forms of the room. I don't know if that makes much more sense than it all appearing out of thin air, but it's a theory. Perhaps it a transfiguration spell that changes something tossed out in the room into whatever is needed.
A transfiguration method would work nicely. The RoR couldn't provide food, so it provided a pathway to the Hogshead. And as food can't be made out of thin air (Gamp's law), it must be a transfiguration spell. Otherwise it would have "called" food from the school kitchens.

I've wondered if you can take out things that are created by the room. If they aren't really real to begin with can they leave the room or is it like the holodeck on Star Trek?
Good question. We know if it existed already, it can be taken out (like the tiara & the brooms in DH). I'm not sure if we've seen anyone take something out of the RoR, but if it's transfigured out of thin air, it might not be long-lasting, but probably could remove it. Did Harry ever take any of the DADA books out of the RoR to plan classes?

Good question. We know if it existed already, it can be taken out (like the tiara & the brooms in DH). I'm not sure if we've seen anyone take something out of the RoR, but if it's transfigured out of thin air, it might not be long-lasting, but probably could remove it. Did Harry ever take any of the DADA books out of the RoR to plan classes?Yea, that's what I was thinking as well. I know Hermione was eyeing up all the books wanting to take them, but I don't think it said she ever did. But if it is a transfiguration spell then they would be able to, though how they transfigured a book I don't know--where would the information come from? That's what made me think the "called" theory had credence. Even a smart room can't write a library full of useful books in a moment can it? And didn't Hermione say something about recognizing some of the books? I don't quite remember.

Yea, that's what I was thinking as well. I know Hermione was eyeing up all the books wanting to take them, but I don't think it said she ever did. But if it is a transfiguration spell then they would be able to, though how they transfigured a book I don't know--where would the information come from? That's what made me think the "called" theory had credence. Even a smart room can't write a library full of useful books in a moment can it? And didn't Hermione say something about recognizing some of the books? I don't quite remember.

Well, a book that already existed wouldn't be the room writing it - it would just be providing a copy of something written by someone else. Certainly that is complex magic, but it makes sense that the room could conjure something that had already been written.

I agree with HedwigOwl - we are really on a roll this week! :D - the fact that the room could not provide food due to Gamp's law is more consistent with transfiguration rather than summoning.

o answered it in an interview (I forget which one so I can't provide a link)- the part of soul inside him gave Harry the ability to speak Parseltongue, so when that piece was removed, he could no longer speak it.
Thanks a bunch...I should read more interviews!

o answered it in an interview (I forget which one so I can't provide a link)- the part of soul inside him gave Harry the ability to speak Parseltongue, so when that piece was removed, he could no longer speak it.

Thanks a bunch...I should read more interviews!

Here's the interview quote:

Nigel: Can harry speak parseltongue when he is no longer a horcrux?

J.K. Rowling: No, he loses the ability, and is very glad to do so.

Well, a book that already existed wouldn't be the room writing it - it would just be providing a copy of something written by someone else. Certainly that is complex magic, but it makes sense that the room could conjure something that had already been written.

I agree with HedwigOwl - we are really on a roll this week! :D - the fact that the room could not provide food due to Gamp's law is more consistent with transfiguration rather than summoning.
But when it does call that book, does it create a copy or does the object simply vanish from its other location within the castle? So say Flitwick's class had been practicing stunning, and using the cushions. However, Harry "creates" the Room of Requirement then. Would the pillows simply vanish from Flitwick and reappear in the room, or would some exactly similar ones just reappear? That's what I'm wondering about.

I would imagine that it creates a copy of an already existing object. I doubt that Madam Pince (or another owner, if they were summoned from outside the castle), for example, would fail to notice hundreds of books disappearing every time the Room of Requirement was in use as the DA Headquarters.

But when it does call that book, does it create a copy or does the object simply vanish from its other location within the castle? So say Flitwick's class had been practicing stunning, and using the cushions. However, Harry "creates" the Room of Requirement then. Would the pillows simply vanish from Flitwick and reappear in the room, or would some exactly similar ones just reappear? That's what I'm wondering about.

I would say it's creating those things. According to Hermione, there are five exceptions to Gamp's Law - one of which is food. So, except for those five exceptions, the room could conjure pretty much anything. When it came to the five exceptions, it could not conjure those things - as we see in DH when Neville says the room can't provide them food - but it can provide a way for you to get it yourself - like creating a tunnel to the Hogs Head. If the room was simply summoning things from somethere else, it could have also summoned food from the kitchens. So I would say the room is conjuring the items or - in the case of the five exceptions - conjuring a way to get the item yourself.

I would imagine that it creates a copy of an already existing object. I doubt that Madam Pince (or another owner, if they were summoned from outside the castle), for example, would fail to notice hundreds of books disappearing every time the Room of Requirement was in use as the DA Headquarters.
:lol: Yeah, she definitely would notice that.
I would say it's creating those things. According to Hermione, there are five exceptions to Gamp's Law - one of which is food. So, except for those five exceptions, the room could conjure pretty much anything. When it came to the five exceptions, it could not conjure those things - as we see in DH when Neville says the room can't provide them food - but it can provide a way for you to get it yourself - like creating a tunnel to the Hogs Head. If the room was simply summoning things from somethere else, it could have also summoned food from the kitchens. So I would say the room is conjuring the items or - in the case of the five exceptions - conjuring a way to get the item yourself.
I have a problem with this, though. There are some objects that are very unique within Hogwarts. The Mirror of Erised, all of Dumbledore's silver instruments, which Srimgeour calls unique, Gryffindor's sword, etc. I doubt all of those are exceptions to Gamp's Law of Elemental Transfiguration, so would they show up in the RoR if someone specifically asked for them? I don't see that as being really right, that all those unique and valuable objects can just get duplicated that easily.

Another thing- how were Moody's Dark Detectors and such called to the Room if Moody was no longer at Hogwarts? Wouldn't he have taken them with him? I'm fairly sure they weren't in Umbridge's office, left over. ;)

I have a problem with this, though. There are some objects that are very unique within Hogwarts. The Mirror of Erised, all of Dumbledore's silver instruments, which Srimgeour calls unique, Gryffindor's sword, etc. I doubt all of those are exceptions to Gamp's Law of Elemental Transfiguration, so would they show up in the RoR if someone specifically asked for them? I don't see that as being really right, that all those unique and valuable objects can just get duplicated that easily.

Well, the Room of Requirement gives you what you need - not what you desire. There is a difference. That's why Harry couldn't get into the room to find out what Malfoy was doing - he wanted it, he didn't need it.

The question is whether or not those objects are truly unique. The sword of Gryffindor is the one that I think probably could not be reproduced because it was goblin made and goblins refused to share their knowledge on how to work metal with wizards. Goblin made items could very well be one of the exceptions - we don't know. ;) However, the sword will present itself to any try Gryffindor who needs it - as we see with both Harry and Neville. The Room of Requirement is not necessary for that.

Dumbledore's silver instruments may or may not be unique - that wasn't actually addressed. The Deluminator was something he designed and made himself, but we don't know about those other instruments. However, they could be reproduced. Being unique only means that they are the only ones in existence at that time - not that more cannot be made. I think the room could conjure similar instruments. The trick there would be that the person would have to know what they were and need them.

The Mirror of Erised would fall along the same lines, IMO. It may be the only one in existence, but that doesn't mean it cannot be reproduced. It's simply an enchanted mirror. But, again, the person would have to need it and what would you need the Mirror of Erised for? I'd say Harry could walk back and forth in front of that wall saying he wanted to see his parents again all he wanted and it wouldn't have done any good because it wasn't something he needed.

Another thing- how were Moody's Dark Detectors and such called to the Room if Moody was no longer at Hogwarts? Wouldn't he have taken them with him? I'm fairly sure they weren't in Umbridge's office, left over. ;)

That one is easy. Those weren't Moody's dark detectors. Those were simply dark detectors that the room conjured. Foe glass, sneakoscope, etc... Those are things Harry could have purchased at a store - Ron actually did buy Harry a sneakoscope for his 13th birthday and Hermione got him a replacement for it when it wore out for his 17th birthday. Dark detectors are not unique items and not Moody's invention. There are many in existence and available to buy. :)

As far as I remember the foe glass didn't work, I don't remember it showing Umbridge coming. Of course that doesn't mean that it didn't work at all, but IMO it was just a copy with no or less magical power, IMO the room doesn't reproduce the magical ability of things. And as far as I remember they never (try to) take anything the room conjured outside.
Of course it's also possible that the Foe Glas belonged to Hogwarts and was stored in the Room of Hidden Things after Mad Eye left and that Flitwick stored his pillows there when he didn't need them and the Room uses his stores, but I don't like it!

As far as I remember the foe glass didn't work, I don't remember it showing Umbridge coming. Of course that doesn't mean that it didn't work at all, but IMO it was just a copy with no or less magical power, IMO the room doesn't reproduce the magical ability of things.
We don't really know if the room can reproduce the magical quality of the objects it conjures. It's possible, though, because the room itself is a very powerful magical thing. And the foe glass might have worked -- if no one was looking at it, the warning would have gone unheeded. And they can be fooled, as they were with fake Moody in GoF.

As far as I remember the foe glass didn't work, I don't remember it showing Umbridge coming. Of course that doesn't mean that it didn't work at all, but IMO it was just a copy with no or less magical power, IMO the room doesn't reproduce the magical ability of things. And as far as I remember they never (try to) take anything the room conjured outside.
Of course it's also possible that the Foe Glas belonged to Hogwarts and was stored in the Room of Hidden Things after Mad Eye left and that Flitwick stored his pillows there when he didn't need them and the Room uses his stores, but I don't like it!

I think the Room would create functioning magical duplicates. Harry thought the Foe Glass looked just like the one that had been hanging in Moody's (Crouch's) office the year before. Those items from 4th year belonged to the real Moody, who would have taken them with him. While the RoR might have the ability to appropriate objects from within the castle, I'm sure that ability would not extend to wherever Mad-Eye was.

Dobby warned the DA of Umbridge's actions early enough that they had time for most of the group to escape before Umbridge and the IS got into position.

In 4th year, Dumbledore, Snape and McGonagall did not appear in the Foe Glass in the fake Moody's office until shortly before they blasted through the door. So, Umbridge may not have been visible in the Glass before Dobby appeared.

One of the key limitations of the Foe Glass was illustrated 4th year. It did Crouch no good at the end because he wasn't watching it. That may have been what tripped up the DA in 5th year, as well.

Ironically, they didn't need to try to escape that time. All they needed was for the Room to be secure against Umbridge and any of her followers. The Room would have supplied that. They made themselves vulnerable by leaving.

I've always wondered if that was Hermione's original list Umbridge confiscated, or whether the Room provided her with a duplicate. Clearly, she didn't understand the full power of the Room. She does say, however, that she had needed evidence, and they found it in the Room. She remained in the hallway, sent Pansy in to search, Pansy found the list.

Just re-reading OOTP and I came to the scene where Dumbledore and Voldemort duel in the ministry. Voldemort realizes that Dumbledore isn't trying to kill him. Why is this? Even if Voldemort had horcruxes wouldn't it be a lot better to send him into his vapor form and search for the horcruxes without him around? Second, what exactly is the one spell that Dumbledore uses against Voldemort that is shielded?

Thanks, if these questions are answered somewhere I'd appreciate a link!

Just re-reading OOTP and I came to the scene where Dumbledore and Voldemort duel in the ministry. Voldemort realizes that Dumbledore isn't trying to kill him. Why is this? Even if Voldemort had horcruxes wouldn't it be a lot better to send him into his vapor form and search for the horcruxes without him around? Second, what exactly is the one spell that Dumbledore uses against Voldemort that is shielded?

Thanks, if these questions are answered somewhere I'd appreciate a link!

Yeah, you'd think so, I don't know why Dumbledore didn't at least try to injure him and make him less of a threat :whistle:

About the spell, Jo has yet to answer, nobody's asked her this question yet.

I'm not sure why, you're certainly not the 1st person I've heard ask this :cool:

Didn't Dumbledore tell Tom Riddle repeatedly that there were things worse than death? Maybe he wanted to make that point again? Just a thought...

Also, Dumbledore doesn't like to kill. He didn't kill Grindelwald either, just took the Elder Wand from him and left him to rot in Nurmengard.

Sorry, I was mistaken, these were mentioned in interviews actually:

"The other question that I am surprised no one has asked me since Phoenix came out—I thought that people would—is why Dumbledore did not kill or try to kill Voldemort in the scene in the ministry. I know that I am giving a lot away to people who have not read the book. Although Dumbledore gives a kind of reason to Voldemort, it is not the real reason. ... Dumbledore knows something slightly more profound than that."

There was also this:

MA: Now that Dumbledore is gone, will we ever know the spell that he was trying to cast on Voldemort in the Ministry?

JKR: Uuuummmm...[makes clucking noise with tongue ]

ES: Let the record show she made a funny sound with her mouth.

[All laugh, Jo maniacally.]

JKR: It’s possible, it's possible that you will know that. You will — [pause] — you will know more about Dumbledore. I have to be sooo careful on this


So, did we find out in Deathly Hallows what spell he used and why he didn't at least try to kill the portion of soul in Voldemort?

I can't really remember this ever being answered

Interesting.... I don't think we DID find out.

Perhaps I can hazard a guess..... Dumbledore presumably knew that yo can't kill Voldemort. And remember that gleam of triumphg when Dumbledore heard how Voldemort used Lily's blood to restore his body?

Dumbledore knew that by this Voldemort had made his body into a kind of horcrux for Harry (a special one, though - if I understand Dumbledore correctly, it would only protect Harry against murder by Voldemort himself).

Anyway - what's the point in killing Voldemort when

1) that piece of soul in his body will survive as long as there are horcruxes around.

2) the body Voldemort had was a protection for Harry, and there was little chance that this could be repeated if Voldemort had to find another body.

I think these would be the main reasons.

there could also be the following considerations:

3) a Voldemort oin vapor form would be rather hard to find all over again. You might get more chance to find and destroy the horcruxes, but then you'd have to go in search of the remaining piece of soul.

4) That's just purely a conjecture of mine: I think Dumbledore had a pretty good idea of how the story would play out time-wise. He made sure that the confrontation would come to a head not too long after his death: that allowed him to maniuplate events effectively. Things would become much more unpredictable if Voldemort were forced into hiding again.

Just wondering why Dumbledore (or anyone else who knew Moody well) didn't notice the fake Moody's voice. We know from earlier in the series that Polyjuice potion doesn't change one's voice. I suppose Barty Crouch Jr. could've done an excellent vocal impersonation, given the job he does with everything else, but wouldn't an old friend like Dumbledore have noticed that Moody's voice was not the same?

Just wondering why Dumbledore (or anyone else who knew Moody well) didn't notice the fake Moody's voice. We know from earlier in the series that Polyjuice potion doesn't change one's voice. I suppose Barty Crouch Jr. could've done an excellent vocal impersonation, given the job he does with everything else, but wouldn't an old friend like Dumbledore have noticed that Moody's voice was not the same?
Only in the movies does the Polyjuice Potion not change a person's voice. In the books, if you look at CoS when the trio uses Polyjuice, it says that Harry answered back in Goyle's voice. The movie makers probably wanted to make sure people didn't get confused when they saw Crabbe and Goyle running around so they used Harry's and Ron's voices to distinguish them.

Only in the movies does the Polyjuice Potion not change a person's voice. In the books, if you look at CoS when the trio uses Polyjuice, it says that Harry answered back in Goyle's voice. The movie makers probably wanted to make sure people didn't get confused when they saw Crabbe and Goyle running around so they used Harry's and Ron's voices to distinguish them.

Ah, you're so right! I can't believe I let the movie work on my brain like that, especially since I've only seen it 2 or 3 times. I'm so ashamed...but thank you!

Does anybody know where Hogwarts kids get their hair cut?

The only mention of it is when Molly is trying to get Bill to get his cut.

So, did we find out in Deathly Hallows what spell he used and why he didn't at least try to kill the portion of soul in Voldemort?

I can't really remember this ever being answered

We haven't yet been told details on the water spell Dumbledore used.

As far as why Dumbledore didn't try to kill Voldemort in OotP, it was because of the horcrux situation, which we find out about in HBP. If he had killed Voldemort, the same thing would have happened as in Godric's Hollow with Lily/Harry. Voldemort would become Vapormort with remaining horcruxes still intact, but this time he would be able to regain a body much more quickly than the first time and the DE's would all be available to help him. He and the DE's would have learned from the first Vapormort experience what needed to be done.

Does anybody know where Hogwarts kids get their hair cut?

The only mention of it is when Molly is trying to get Bill to get his cut.

That is quite the odd question, but nevertheless, I think from the first book it can be distinguished that magic has a rather important role in the hair factor of a wizard.

Harry's gets cut near bald, and it regrows the exact same. In all 7 books, nobody has had a change in hairstyle. This may be for convenience, but also covered up by the idea that your hair stays how you want it, magically, but also is limited by the genetics in which have befallen you.

So, Arthur Weasley could not have a full head of hair (Unless he magicked it on somehow), and Harry couldn't have a crew cut. But yeah. I think more or less it's one of those "less important" background aspects of the wizarding world she had no time to touch on.

Does anybody know where Hogwarts kids get their hair cut?

The only mention of it is when Molly is trying to get Bill to get his cut.
That's been asked before actually, it's a good question. Along with things like dentist appointments, religious ceremonies, and other things like that. I think we eventually agreed that it's probably handled the same way kids in boarding school in real life handle it--they either do it during the holidays and breaks, they deal with it on their own (budding hairstylists in your dorm :lol:), they have trips to town to take care of it on weekends and such, or their parents make arrangements with the administration.

I assume there are probably hair cutting spells and such as well, but it is a rather sideline sort of issue so it's never discussed.

I was just wondering if anyone found it weird that someone on the run could be hard to find considering how well Hedwig was able to find Sirius and anyone else she was supposed too. I could understand it would be hard to find Harry while they were on the run since they never stayed in place for longer then a day or two, but if it was so hard to find some of the other people, why not just send an owl to find the person, and just follow the owl yourself. Surely if the ministry really wanted to find Sirius when he was on the run they could have using this tactic, and I'm guessing Hedwig isn't the only owl in the world that has an unnatural ability to find whoever she is delivering a note too. Anyone else find this weird?

I was just wondering if anyone found it weird that someone on the run could be hard to find considering how well Hedwig was able to find Sirius and anyone else she was supposed too. I could understand it would be hard to find Harry while they were on the run since they never stayed in place for longer then a day or two, but if it was so hard to find some of the other people, why not just send an owl to find the person, and just follow the owl yourself. Surely if the ministry really wanted to find Sirius when he was on the run they could have using this tactic, and I'm guessing Hedwig isn't the only owl in the world that has an unnatural ability to find whoever she is delivering a note too. Anyone else find this weird?
JKR's answered this question on her websites FAQ section (http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=18)

In 'Prisoner of Azkaban', why couldn't the Ministry of Magic have sent Sirius an owl, and then followed it, to find him?

Just as wizards can make buildings unplottable, they can also make themselves untraceable. Voldemort would have been found long ago if it had been as simple as sending him an owl!

I was just wondering if anyone found it weird that someone on the run could be hard to find considering how well Hedwig was able to find Sirius and anyone else she was supposed too. I could understand it would be hard to find Harry while they were on the run since they never stayed in place for longer then a day or two, but if it was so hard to find some of the other people, why not just send an owl to find the person, and just follow the owl yourself. Surely if the ministry really wanted to find Sirius when he was on the run they could have using this tactic, and I'm guessing Hedwig isn't the only owl in the world that has an unnatural ability to find whoever she is delivering a note too. Anyone else find this weird?
Considering how fast the owls cover extremely long distances at times (depending on what is convenient for the story), I always figured they were doing some sort of apparition which could notbe traced readily. Clearly the messenger owls are magical versions of ordinary owls, just as the magical rats are magical versions of ordinary rats.

Was the information on the Chocolate Frog cards written by Jo, or was that just an invention of Warner Brothers?

Was the information on the Chocolate Frog cards written by Jo, or was that just an invention of Warner Brothers?
That is a mixture. Clearly she wrote the material Harry read from the first one, for Dumbledore. If I recall correctly, she reviewed the later ones to make sure they would not later be shown to be inaccurate according to planned developments in the series.

That is a mixture. Clearly she wrote the material Harry read from the first one, for Dumbledore. If I recall correctly, she reviewed the later ones to make sure they would not later be shown to be inaccurate according to planned developments in the series.
Thanks. :) I don't think any of the information on the other cards ever gave much away, but clearly Dumbledore's was significant, because it was the only time before DH where we hear about Grindelwald. :)

When the trio were attempting to get away from Griphook without giving him the sword straight away, why didn't Harry come clean and say they needed the sword to destroy Voldemort, and they'd give it to him when the were done? Why did he have to sugarcoat a mutual aim?

Why didn't Fred and George notice in PS that on the Marauders Map, the blot marked Professor Quirrel was being followed everywhere by a spot labeled Lord Voldemort?

When the trio were attempting to get away from Griphook without giving him the sword straight away, why didn't Harry come clean and say they needed the sword to destroy Voldemort, and they'd give it to him when the were done? Why did he have to sugarcoat a mutual aim?

Because it wasn't a mutual aim. Griphook had already told them that he had no interest in the affairs of wizards and that Gryffindor had "stolen" the sword. He did not trust wizards. At the time they made that deal with him, they had no reason to think he would agree to let them use the sword before returning it and it wasn't until after they had made the deal that Bill explained the goblins' view of ownership - which showed that Gryffindor hadn't actually stolen the sword.

Why didn't Fred and George notice in PS that on the Marauders Map, the blot marked Professor Quirrel was being followed everywhere by a spot labeled Lord Voldemort?

Lord Voldemort was not his given name - that was a name he created for himself. The Marauder's Map would have shown Tom Riddle and the twins would not have had any idea who Tom Riddle was. For all they knew, that could have been a student in another house that they had never met. In addition, the map showed the whole of Hogwarts - which is a huge place with a lot of people. They wouldn't have noticed that two names were always together unless they were specifically watching out for Quirrell all the time. Jo talked about that a bit when she was asked why they never noticed Peter Pettigrew on the map.

Lord Voldemort was not his given name - that was a name he created for himself. The Marauder's Map would have shown Tom Riddle and the twins would not have had any idea who Tom Riddle was. For all they knew, that could have been a student in another house that they had never met. In addition, the map showed the whole of Hogwarts - which is a huge place with a lot of people. They wouldn't have noticed that two names were always together unless they were specifically watching out for Quirrell all the time. Jo talked about that a bit when she was asked why they never noticed Peter Pettigrew on the map.I was sorta asking two questions here. The first was why they did not notice about Lord Voldemort on the map (Its not clear whether the map works on recognised name, the name you identify yourself by or given name). The second was why, when they looked at Quirrels dot (as they no doubt would have, what softer target could there be for their mischief) did they not think it odd when they noticed that there was another person completely on Quirell, perhaps even saying "Tom Riddle & Professor Quirell" in the same bubble?


And they had made it clear by their argument that Voldemorts rule would bring only worse lives for Goblins, so why was he not in sympathy to their aims?

And it just occured to me - why did the twins not notice that a student called Peter Pettigrew was sleeping next to their brother (Once again, Ron is a likely target)

And it just occured to me - why did the twins not notice that a student called Peter Pettigrew was sleeping next to their brother (Once again, Ron is a likely target)

I don't think the Twins were very interested in what their brother was doing. They probably only used the Map when they were up for some mischief. In that case the looked at the location of Filch and the teachers and not at their brother.

I don't think the Twins were very interested in what their brother was doing. They probably only used the Map when they were up for some mischief. In that case the looked at the location of Filch and the teachers and not at their brother.

Plus as Jo mentioned there would be thousands of dots on the map so spotting one strange one is unlikely.

Also, the whole purpose of the map was fun and mischief. We see it purposely assisting people who are up to having fun and rule breaking and purposely hindering people who are trying to be party poopers. It wasn't meant to be a sort of busy body tracking tool--even when Harry tries to use it this way he's always frustrated and rarely very successful. So I think the magic of the map might have even had a hand in, not necessarily concealing, but not drawing attention to random, unamusing things :)

My question would be, why doesn't the school itself have something similar to keep track of students and such? Obviously it would have screwed up the plot, but it would certainly be a useful thing to be able to check where students/teachers/ghosts/visitors/anybody in the castle was.

My question would be, why doesn't the school itself have something similar to keep track of students and such? Obviously it would have screwed up the plot, but it would certainly be a useful thing to be able to check where students/teachers/ghosts/visitors/anybody in the castle was.While we don't know for sure I guess not. All persons we met have been really impressed about the map, so it does not look like it was a usual thing to use. Then Dumbledore himself seemed to have a clock which was giving him information about at least a couple of persons (eg Hagrid in first chapter of PS/SS), but I don't think there was a system keeping track on every single student.

I agree actually it's a close thought that one wizarding teacher would try to invent such a thing by time.

I'm not sure Vapomort would qualify as a human being and be shown on the map, he wasn't alive strictly speaking, having no body.

I'm not sure Vapomort would qualify as a human being and be shown on the map, he wasn't alive strictly speaking, having no body.

That's what I've been wondering, whilst reading this. As Quirrell was the body and Voldemort was just like a parasite, and non-human, I'm really not sure whether Voldemort's name would be on there. Does the Marauders Map recognise the ghosts at all? That would be some indication as to whether Voldemort would be shown.

That's what I've been wondering, whilst reading this. As Quirrell was the body and Voldemort was just like a parasite, and non-human, I'm really not sure whether Voldemort's name would be on there. Does the Marauders Map recognise the ghosts at all? That would be some indication as to whether Voldemort would be shown.
It recognizes Peeves, but we have never heard a word either way about other ghosts. :shrug: Somehow, I'm not really sure if Vapermort would really be the same as them. I mean, he has the potential to return to his body, ghosts don't. Ghosts have definite shape, he doesn't. I think there's a thread about this, though...

It recognizes Peeves, but we have never heard a word either way about other ghosts. :shrug: Somehow, I'm not really sure if Vapermort would really be the same as them. I mean, he has the potential to return to his body, ghosts don't. Ghosts have definite shape, he doesn't. I think there's a thread about this, though...

Oh yeah, I know. I was just thinking that if the ghosts didn't show up on the map then the likelihood that Vapermort would show up on the map would be zero. :hmm: Vapermort didn't actually have a body, so I don't think he would have shown up...but there really is no canon to support this. :shrug:

It recognizes Peeves, but we have never heard a word either way about other ghosts. :shrug: Somehow, I'm not really sure if Vapermort would really be the same as them. I mean, he has the potential to return to his body, ghosts don't. Ghosts have definite shape, he doesn't. I think there's a thread about this, though...I think it mentions the Baron once or twice

I think it mentions the Baron once or twiceAre you sure? I don't remember that. What book and page numbers did you see that on? :hmm:

I think it mentions the Baron once or twice

I remember that as well although I can't remember where though

Also do you think the map would show Voldemort as Tom Riddle or as Voldemort?

It recognizes Peeves, but we have never heard a word either way about other ghosts. :shrug: Somehow, I'm not really sure if Vapermort would really be the same as them. I mean, he has the potential to return to his body, ghosts don't. Ghosts have definite shape, he doesn't. I think there's a thread about this, though...

Oh yeah, I know. I was just thinking that if the ghosts didn't show up on the map then the likelihood that Vapermort would show up on the map would be zero. :hmm: Vapermort didn't actually have a body, so I don't think he would have shown up...but there really is no canon to support this. :shrug:

My thinking is that ghosts and poltergeists show up on the map because the Marauders were able to charm it to show living people and ghosts. I don't think we have any mention of it showing animals (actual animals, not Animagi). Voldemort, in his Vapourmort form was neither living nor ghost, he was an unknown quantity, the Marauders would not have known that such a thing could exist and so would not/could not have charmed the Map to show disembodied fragmented souls.

Also do you think the map would show Voldemort as Tom Riddle or as Voldemort? Tom Riddle. It showed Peter's name even when he was "Scabbers" so I don't think it goes by what you choose to name yourself.

Tom Riddle. It showed Peter's name even when he was "Scabbers" so I don't think it goes by what you choose to name yourself.Yeah, but Peter didn't think of himself as Scabbers then did he? The real question is what principle it works on.

Yeah, but Peter didn't think of himself as Scabbers then did he? The real question is what principle it works on.Ron was holding him in his Scabbers guise when Lupin saw him on the map. Of course, if your theory is correct, it would explain why Fred and George never looked on the map and said "Hey, who is this Peter git in Ron's dorm?"

I don't think we have any mention of it showing animals (actual animals, not Animagi).


Actually it shows Mrs. Norris at least once, so it does show animals.

I was sorta asking two questions here. The first was why they did not notice about Lord Voldemort on the map (Its not clear whether the map works on recognised name, the name you identify yourself by or given name). The second was why, when they looked at Quirrels dot (as they no doubt would have, what softer target could there be for their mischief) did they not think it odd when they noticed that there was another person completely on Quirell, perhaps even saying "Tom Riddle & Professor Quirell" in the same bubble?

The map revealed your given name - legal name - your true identity. However you want to phrase it. That was addressed in GOF when Harry saw Bartemius Crouch in Snape's office - as well as in POA when Lupin talked about the map. The map never lies and it cannot be fooled by disguise. It will reveal who the person really is - their real name as opposed to nicknames or whatever they were pretending. So it would have shown Tom Riddle rather than Voldemort because Voldemort was not his real name.

As others pointed out, the map may not have picked up that Tom Riddle was there because he didn't have his own body at that time. He wasn't a ghost or anything that would have recognizable form. He was in possession of Quirrell, but the map may not have had the ability to pick that up. What Voldemort had done was unique and unheard of - particularly at the time the map was invented. The marauders charmed it to recognize everything they knew - people, animals, ghosts, and the locations they had discovered. There were things that never appeared on the map simply because the Marauders had not known about them - like the Room of Requirement and the Chamber of Secrets.

However, if it did recognize him as being there, then it would have said Tom Riddle. His name would have been shown next to Quirrell's - like Pettigrew's was shown next to Ron's whenever he was carrying him around. The twins would not have had any reason to be suspicious about that because they didn't know who Tom Riddle was and they wouldn't have been watching Quirrell all the time - they had no reason to.

And they had made it clear by their argument that Voldemorts rule would bring only worse lives for Goblins, so why was he not in sympathy to their aims?

The goblins didn't consider themselves part of all that. They objected to the interference at Gringotts, but that was all they cared about. They weren't looking to join up with wizards to get rid of Voldemort - Voldemort was just another wizard as far as the goblins were concerned and they didn't like wizards. Griphook made it clear to Harry that he did not consider that his fight and he was not willing to help without payment.

And it just occured to me - why did the twins not notice that a student called Peter Pettigrew was sleeping next to their brother (Once again, Ron is a likely target)

Because they were never using the map to check on Ron. They used the map to break rules without getting caught. They were making sure whatever area of the castle they were going to was clear - checking where Filch and the teachers were, etc... That was the same reason that Harry never noticed Pettigrew on the map. He wasn't looking at his own dorm or using it to check on Ron. The map covered all of Hogwarts. It is not feasible for the twins to have noticed anything unless they were specifically looking for it. Hogwarts is simply too big and has too many people for that.

Yeah, but Peter didn't think of himself as Scabbers then did he? The real question is what principle it works on.

It worked on the principle of the person's true identity. Crouch Jr. never thought of himself as Bartemius Crouch - the map showed that because that was his true name - his true identity. Voldemort's true identity was Tom Riddle - that's what the map would have shown.

How can the Mirror of Erised show Harry his parents and his family, if he has never ever seen a photo of them or an idea of what they look like. Is it just part of the Mirror's magic? It seems strange.

How can the Mirror of Erised show Harry his parents and his family, if he has never ever seen a photo of them or an idea of what they look like. Is it just part of the Mirror's magic? It seems strange.

I would think that is simply part of the magic of the mirror. It's similar to the Marauder's Map if you think about it. How is the map able to correctly label everyone present on Hogwarts ground with their true names? The Marauders weren't seers and they couldn't know who was going to marry who - what they would name their kids - who would be professors in the future - and so on. Whatever enchantments were used on those objects, they are able to "know" those things.

I would think that is simply part of the magic of the mirror. It's similar to the Marauder's Map if you think about it. How is the map able to correctly label everyone present on Hogwarts ground with their true names? The Marauders weren't seers and they couldn't know who was going to marry who - what they would name their kids - who would be professors in the future - and so on. Whatever enchantments were used on those objects, they are able to "know" those things.

It makes sense to me. It's so hard for me to actually grasp this concept. Well, that's magic I guess :D

I just wondered: don't you think Hagrid may have seen Sirius-even if he didn't know it-while he was temporarily in Azkaban in CoS? But then again, he may not have recognized him at all-as he was so far changed from the healthy man in that photo twelve years on. :sad: But Sirius might've recognized Hagrid...?

Unfortunately that is a question never touched in the books. We don't have an answer.:)

I just wondered: don't you think Hagrid may have seen Sirius-even if he didn't know it-while he was temporarily in Azkaban in CoS? But then again, he may not have recognized him at all-as he was so far changed from the healthy man in that photo twelve years on. :sad: But Sirius might've recognized Hagrid...?
I don't think that's impossible, but from what we know Azkaban is huge and not the sort of place where the inmates roam around and chat with each other. Also, Hagrid was just a temporary prisoner so I'd imagine he was in a different area of the building, and if he did see and recognize Sirius he'd have just thought that was right--Sirius was supposed to be there as far as Hagrid knew.

On a different topic, why do the staircases move? What was the purpose of sending people to other places than where they were heading? Did JKR ever tell us?

FGM

They don't necessarily "move" - just some of them lead to somewhere different on Friday. I assume because one of the founders had a sense of humor. :lol:

On a different topic, why do the staircases move? What was the purpose of sending people to other places than where they were heading? Did JKR ever tell us?

FGM

Hmm, I have no idea! :lol:


My only thought it that it was her way of having the Trio accidently end up on the 3rd Floor Corridor in SS

This question must have been asked before, but i haven't been able to find it so here goes:

When Voldemort attacked Harry in GH and his spell backfired on him, was there then a body? I remenber Voldemort talking about it in, i think, GoF saying that he was "less than a ghost" and something about being thrown out of his body (not too sure about that last one) so doesn't that indicate that he left a body behind when he fled? Or did the Horcruxes keep his body somewhat intact? any thoughts?

When Voldemort attacked Harry in GH and his spell backfired on him, was there then a body? I remenber Voldemort talking about it in, i think, GoF saying that he was "less than a ghost" and something about being thrown out of his body (not too sure about that last one) so doesn't that indicate that he left a body behind when he fled? Or did the Horcruxes keep his body somewhat intact? any thoughts?After he gave Harry his scar he was just a spirit, stuck to earth because of his horcruxes but not really 'alive'. He fed off of animals, used hosts (Quirrel, the baby), and unicorns, but he didn't have his own body until it was reformed in GoF. They found no body at the Potter's so his body wasn't intact anywhere, no.

Hmm, I have no idea! :lol:


My only thought it that it was her way of having the Trio accidently end up on the 3rd Floor Corridor in SS

And show how clumsy and forgetful Neville is

They don't necessarily "move" - just some of them lead to somewhere different on Friday. I assume because one of the founders had a sense of humor.
According to JKR, they do move: "I haven't drawn [a floorplan of Hogwarts] because it would be difficult for the most skilled architect to draw, owing to the fact that the staircases and the rooms keep moving." While the books do not concentrate on the staircases actually moving (you usually just read about the vanishing step, etc.), the movie (especially SS) placed great importance on the staircases changing.
My only thought it that it was her way of having the Trio accidently end up on the 3rd Floor Corridor in SS
This was only in the film. In the book, the trio and Neville go into the third floor corridor because they are being chased by Filch. They leave the trophy room, run into Peeves around the Charms corridor, duck around Peeves, and hide in Fluffy's chamber to escape Filch.

Sorry if there is already a thread on this, but I didn't come up with anything. Also, I didn't really know where to put this, so I decided to put it here.

Sirius in OOTP spoke of a weapon that Voldemort might have been seeking. Prior to DH, did you have any suspicions after reading OOTP to what this weapon was?

I believe this weapon really was Harry aka the Prophecy - the knowledge of how to defend Harry. Actually like suggested during OotP, just in a situation nobody would seriously consider it as true. Lovely JK style. :love:

Sorry if there is already a thread on this, but I didn't come up with anything. Also, I didn't really know where to put this, so I decided to put it here.

Sirius in OOTP spoke of a weapon that Voldemort might have been seeking. Prior to DH, did you have any suspicions after reading OOTP to what this weapon was?

I believe this weapon really was Harry aka the Prophecy - the knowledge of how to defend Harry. Actually like suggested during OotP, just in a situation nobody would seriously consider it as true. Lovely JK style. :love:

I think you mean defeat Harry, lol.

By the end of the fifth book it's pretty clear cut the weapon is knowledge of how to kill Harry, incorporated of course with why their wands acted the way they did in the fourth book. Maybe Voldemort misconstrued the importance of the prophecy (Again, showing ignorance and dismissal toward the VERY little amount of magic he does not understand) and sought that as a weapon.

I don't know why you said before DH, though? If you think the Elder wand was the weapon you think Voldemort was seeking, I think that is very wrong. I do not believe Voldemort knew of the Hallows ever. Perhaps, he heard of them, disregarded them as rubbish, but was desperate and sook the wand that was so well publicized.

It could have been pure desperation, even though his control on the Wizarding World was peaked beyond that of his first reign, he could not kill Harry Potter.

For this reason, it may have not been desperation at all, but self indulgence. Voldemort did not know Harry knew about the Horcrux's 'till later, he didn't know ANYONE knew (Until he told Bellatrix and Lucius about the cup). Therefore, he had no reason to fear Harry, (unless he was still hanging about on the prophecy he had not yet heard...) but felt insufficient, because for the first time in his entire life, there was something of magic he could not work out with sheer brain power, because it was so unprecedented. Even Lily's protection he understood, what I would assume, was near immediately after his disembodiment, as ancient magic.

I think you mean defeat Harry, lol.Just to make sure you guys read proper...

Cough. Thanks! :lol:

Has anyone ever asked Joe what happened to the muggle borns that were smuggled out of the MoM? I'm wondering if they were able to get away or if they ended up getting caught and being punished by the dementor's kiss. I would guess that some of them were able to get away but the majority of them were caught and killed off.

Why is it that Hermione has trouble with producing a Patronus?
pg263 of the deathly hollows while they are trying to escape the ministry Harry tells Mrs. Cattermole that its the only spell she has trouble with.

Has anyone ever asked Joe what happened to the muggle borns that were smuggled out of the MoM? I'm wondering if they were able to get away or if they ended up getting caught and being punished by the dementor's kiss. I would guess that some of them were able to get away but the majority of them were caught and killed off.

Why is it that Hermione has trouble with producing a Patronus?
pg263 of the deathly hollows while they are trying to escape the ministry Harry tells Mrs. Cattermole that its the only spell she has trouble with.

I can't answer about the muggleborns, but as for Hermione, she gets rattled more easily than Harry, so it's hard for her to concentrate on a good memory to make a patronus.

FGM

Another question I would ask is why exactly couldn't the trio just set up another safe house with the Fidelius Charm? We know that Hermione can do just about any spell she sets her mind to, and surely with her research in what kind of enchantments she puts around the tent throughout the book she would of come across on how to use the Fidelius Charm. Since all the Weasleys were put under the protection of the Fidelius Charm we know it isn't regulated through the ministry or anything, so why after losing Number 12, Grimmauld Place did they not just find another safe house and cast the charm upon it.

More then likely its because it's easier to set up all the other adventures they go through while living in various wooded areas, which is understandable because no one can make a book as good as Harry Potter without there going with what would make the most sense because it wouldn't deliver the same amount of excitement. Can anyone think of any other reason they didn't do this?

Another question I would ask is why exactly couldn't the trio just set up another safe house with the Fidelius Charm? We know that Hermione can do just about any spell she sets her mind to, and surely with her research in what kind of enchantments she puts around the tent throughout the book she would of come across on how to use the Fidelius Charm. Since all the Weasleys were put under the protection of the Fidelius Charm we know it isn't regulated through the ministry or anything, so why after losing Number 12, Grimmauld Place did they not just find another safe house and cast the charm upon it. That may be so, but where would they get a house? They're like 17, they can't just go buy one. And they wouldn't steal one. Also, the whole point of the camping was that they were going 'out' to search for the horcruxes. Not really all that sensible, but you can't search for something when you're locked in a house somewhere.

Why is it that Hermione has trouble with producing a Patronus?
pg263 of the deathly hollows while they are trying to escape the ministry Harry tells Mrs. Cattermole that its the only spell she has trouble with.

Hermione is good at spells because she is good at reading and learning techniques, which for spells like transfiguration is the most important part. The patronus (although naturally involving skill) is more about the power within the caster aswell as their strength of emotion. You need to be able to really focus your happy emotion into a powerful force, something that comes easier for someone like Harry or Ginny who have very strong, powerful emotions. As a more contained person Hermione would naturally find it more difficult. I hope that helps.

I don't know why you said before DH, though? If you think the Elder wand was the weapon you think Voldemort was seeking, I think that is very wrong. I do not believe Voldemort knew of the Hallows ever. Perhaps, he heard of them, disregarded them as rubbish, but was desperate and sook the wand that was so well publicized.

This is right on the money Territomauvis. Just a quick addition to what you said. Voldermort only heard of the elder wand from Olivander and not as a deathly hollow. if you remember voldermort tortured olivander to find out why he and harrys wand connected. olivander told him about the shared core so voldermort borrowed lucius wand. this also didnt work, voldie tortured olivander some more and, although he couldnt answer how harry was able to destroy lucius wand, he did reveal the existence of the elder wand. an all powerful wand that was last reputated to be owned by gregovorich.

According to JKR, they do move: "I haven't drawn [a floorplan of Hogwarts] because it would be difficult for the most skilled architect to draw, owing to the fact that the staircases and the rooms keep moving." While the books do not concentrate on the staircases actually moving (you usually just read about the vanishing step, etc.), the movie (especially SS) placed great importance on the staircases changing.

the moving stairs are mentioned in PP, as well as doors that pretend to be walls etc. I guess moving stairs arent quite as big a pain as stairs that eat your leg or a wall that pretends to be a door so you run smack into it :P And as to why do the staircases move.. well why are there trick steps, rooms that appear and disappear, secret passageways, doors that can only be entered if you trick them etc? its all just a part of the quirky fun that occurs in a castle filled to brim with magick. the whole place is almost alive.

More then likely its because it's easier to set up all the other adventures they go through while living in various wooded areas, which is understandable because no one can make a book as good as Harry Potter without there going with what would make the most sense because it wouldn't deliver the same amount of excitement. Can anyone think of any other reason they didn't do this?


If anything, camping in the woods adds a certain adventurous appeal to the stories that a house couldn't do :P

My question is about the prophecy.Why did OOTP try so hard to protect it against Voldemort?Is it much of a difference if he learned the whole contents of the prophecy.He is determined to kill Harry anyway.What use will it be to him to learn all about it?Also on an irrelevant topic,why do they usually run towards the barrier between platform nine and ten?Wouldn't be it easier just to walk through it?It would also attract less attantion that way

My question is about the prophecy.Why did OOTP try so hard to protect it against Voldemort?Is it much of a difference if he learned the whole contents of the prophecy.He is determined to kill Harry anyway.What use will it be to him to learn all about it?Also on an irrelevant topic,why do they usually run towards the barrier between platform nine and ten?Wouldn't be it easier just to walk through it?It would also attract less attantion that wayIf he had known the prophecy he would have been far more careful in trying to kill him, always trying to find out what the "power he knew not" was and trying to get around it. That "power" is what saved Harry in the end, so even if Voldemort was unable to figure it out it was still a sort of Ace up their sleeves.

As for the second question, I think it's just a question of confidence. Like a broomstick, some magic responds to your tone and manner. So if you just walked up to the barrier and were a bit unsure it might not work at all or might work only partially. They don't want anybody getting stuck :lol:

[QUOTE=Abraham;5017545]Also on an irrelevant topic,why do they usually run towards the barrier between platform nine and ten?Wouldn't be it easier just to walk through it?It would also attract less attantion that way


As for the second question, I think it's just a question of confidence. Like a broomstick, some magic responds to your tone and manner. So if you just walked up to the barrier and were a bit unsure it might not work at all or might work only partially. They don't want anybody getting stuck :lol:

To add to what Kala said, I think it responds to your attitude in that a Muggle who stood leaning against the platform or bumped into it, not looking where they were going wouldn't get through, because they're not expecting to. So if a young wizard is not used to passing through the barrier, like Harry, or others raised by Muggles, if they're running, there's less time to have second thoughts, or they'll have less of an effect. I think Harry was convinced he would hit the barrier the first time he ran at it in PS and closed his eyes before finding himself on the other side.

Also they don't always run, we've heard of Harry and Mr Weasley simply leaning on it before. So I imagine it is more about belief, or maybe it has some sort of magical detection, I don't think we've ever seen Hermione's parents on platform 9 3/4, just on the other side of the barrier

That may be so, but where would they get a house? They're like 17, they can't just go buy one. And they wouldn't steal one. Also, the whole point of the camping was that they were going 'out' to search for the horcruxes. Not really all that sensible, but you can't search for something when you're locked in a house somewhere.

Sure you can, thats exactly how they were able to get their first horcux (the locket) back, by planning out how they would break into the ministry. And how exactly would it of stopped them from doing anything else they did, the only thing i could see that would of been a problem is getting the sword. Even in that case, im pretty sure that snape would of been able to get back in number 12 to just drop off the sword without seeing the trio. It's not like they would have known it was snape either, because why would he help them (although im not sure why it had to be taken under an act of valor or whatever dumbledore had told snape to give it to them because its not like snape or dumbledore got the sword in that way.)

They could have opperated from a house, apparating to the places they wanted to search. Though it seems that long distance Apparition is a problem.
But none of the trio had the means to get a new house: Hermione had some muggle money but I doubt it was enough to buy a house from a muggle and to make a rented house disappear (if it is possible to put the Fidelius Charm on a place you don't own) would cause a lot of unwanted attention.
Harry's fortune was stored at Gringotts and IMO it was to risky to take out money to buy a house. And he would have had to buy from a witch or wizard or change the Gallons to muggle money, that would have been a trace Voldemort could easily follow.
Anyway magic leaves it's traces, so they would either need to stay at a place known to be inhabited by magical folk (and thus monitored) or risk that someone picked up traces of magic in their new place. And staying in one place for a long time increases the risk of being discovert, evidently other people (and Goblins) were on the run too, they cept moving.
IMO it was partly Snapes achivement that the trio wasn't caught entering of leaving Grimmauld place and the Weasley's weren't wanted as much as Harry, so they were safe enough under the Fidelius Charm.

And of course the hole Ron couldn't find them anymore storyline wouldn't have worked for a safe house.

Reminder.

This thread is for questions and answers. Not for lenghty speculations about the hows and whys. :)

In POA Harry is awakened by Peevish at an early hour in the morning of Gryffindor-Hufflepuf quiditch match.Do u think that Slytherins,probably Malfoy,asked Peevish for this?Because waking up early is surely not what you want in your such performance days,exams or matches.Also in that very match Harry fails to catch Snitch for the first time in his life,as far as I remember also for the last.The point is that Harry's only failure in Quiditch ends up with disposal of his beloved broom.I mean in a way Harry had always thought his broom unbeatable and he had always been convinced him succeeding in quiditch anyway.When his success chain was broken,the broom also was broken beyond repear.It's nice of J.K to indicate it in such a way right?

In POA Harry is awakened by Peevish at an early hour in the morning of Gryffindor-Hufflepuf quiditch match.Do u think that Slytherins,probably Malfoy,asked Peevish for this?Because waking up early is surely not what you want in your such performance days,exams or matches.Also in that very match Harry fails to catch Snitch for the first time in his life,as far as I remember also for the last.The point is that Harry's only failure in Quiditch ends up with disposal of his beloved broom.I mean in a way Harry had always thought his broom unbeatable and he had always been convinced him succeeding in quiditch anyway.When his success chain was broken,the broom also was broken beyond repear.It's nice of J.K to indicate it in such a way right?

I guess it's possible that the slytherins asked Peeves to do it, but seeing as Peeves doesn't take orders off anyone then I think it's more likely he was bored and decided to bug someone

Could it be possible that Dementors sense the fragment of Voldemort in Harry so that they affect Harry so much?They get much excited by that fragment and possibly exert so hard to purify this such evil fragment that it affects Harry worse than others.Lupin says its about the bad memories of Harry's life but I think Voldemort's fragment has also a role in it

Could it be possible that Dementors sense the fragment of Voldemort in Harry so that they affect Harry so much?They get much excited by that fragment and possibly exert so hard to purify this such evil fragment that it affects Harry worse than others.Lupin says its about the bad memories of Harry's life but I think Voldemort's fragment has also a role in it

Personally I don't think so, the dementors are actually dark creatures, it didn't take much for them to go over to Voldemort's side so it doesn't seem they want to eradicate that particular evil. Really they are in a better position this way, they are allowed as many souls as they want, when guarding azkaban they only got to feed on souls of those who had been sentanced to be kissed. Harry, with all his bad memories was probably an easy, and 'tasty' target

Could it be possible that Dementors sense the fragment of Voldemort in Harry so that they affect Harry so much?They get much excited by that fragment and possibly exert so hard to purify this such evil fragment that it affects Harry worse than others.Lupin says its about the bad memories of Harry's life but I think Voldemort's fragment has also a role in it

Well, I don't really see it that way. We've been told dementors feed off people's emotions, sucking the joy out of them. It seems to me that if dementors derive their nourishment from consuming happy emotions, they would have no use for a person who was already empty of them. I think Harry's emotions would seem much more appetizing to a dementor than would Voldemort's, and seeing as they are creatures of darkness themselves I don't understand why they would want to "purify" anything evil.

For a good general dementor discussion that takes a look at what effect if any dementors have on Voldemort, you might want to check out this thread (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=109917). It began with the following questions:

1. Can Dementors be imperiorised?

2. When the dementors are fighting alongside Death Eaters, the Death Eaters don't fill anything?? If so, than why didn't the Captured prisoners at Azkaban try to escape beforehand??

3. So, the dementors can defeat the Dark Lord since he does not know how to conjure a patronus?

4. Do, uh, dementors, uh, have gender?? How do they reproduce

In DH when Harry is being chased by Voldemort on the way to the Tonks's house, I was wondering if when Voldemort cast the killing curse at Harry. If it had hit Harry would Harry have wound up in the Train station with Dumbledore right then or would he have just died ?

In DH when Harry is being chased by Voldemort on the way to the Tonks's house, I was wondering if when Voldemort cast the killing curse at Harry. If it had hit Harry would Harry have wound up in the Train station with Dumbledore right then or would he have just died ?

An interesting question. Since Lily's blood protection was still alive in Voldy's veins after GOF, Harry should have had the same protection against a fatal AK as he did in the forest. Providing Harry didn't fall from what was left of the motorcycle, he would have been physically damaged by the AK but not killed because he was protected, but the "horcrux" in his scar would have been destroyed. Same so far. One question is whether or not Voldy would have still been rendered unconscious when the horcrux was destroyed -- if he would have been, his body would have plummeted to earth and he would become Vapormort again. I think Harry would have still had a choice to go on or go back.

Since Lily's blood protection was still alive in Voldy's veins after GOF, Harry should have had the same protection against a fatal AK as he did in the forest.
That is sorta what I thought would be the case I just wasn't sure . Thanks .:D

twins:p

In OotP, after Harry and Hermione finally get rid of Umbridge and they are thinking of a way to get to the Ministry, why is Harry so reluctant to let Luna, Neville and Ginny come along? At first he says, "You're too young," but Neville is two days older than him. We see that Ginny is an excellent witch, and Neville has been progressing incredibly at DA meetings. Doesn't he realize that some extra help in the Department of Mysteries would have come in handy?

In OotP, after Harry and Hermione finally get rid of Umbridge and they are thinking of a way to get to the Ministry, why is Harry so reluctant to let Luna, Neville and Ginny come along? At first he says, "You're too young," but Neville is two days older than him. We see that Ginny is an excellent witch, and Neville has been progressing incredibly at DA meetings. Doesn't he realize that some extra help in the Department of Mysteries would have come in handy?
There are other things to worry about than if your "friends" are worthy to fight, in such a situation. Ron and Hermione were his companions for many years and fought with him, the other three not. And then am I sure that he didn't want to take them with him to protect them.

And Neville is one day older. ;)

In OotP, after Harry and Hermione finally get rid of Umbridge and they are thinking of a way to get to the Ministry, why is Harry so reluctant to let Luna, Neville and Ginny come along? At first he says, "You're too young," but Neville is two days older than him. We see that Ginny is an excellent witch, and Neville has been progressing incredibly at DA meetings. Doesn't he realize that some extra help in the Department of Mysteries would have come in handy?

I agree with Tenshi on that. Harry's primary concern there was to protect them. He knew he would need help, but he didn't want to drag a bunch of his friends into danger. In the end, he attempted to just take Ron and leave Hermione behind as well - giving the excuse that she should stay behind with the others to wait for more thestrals - he was overruled on all of that. But I think his primary motivation was to protect them. Ron was his "second" (PS/SS - Midnight Duel) practically from the moment they met and Harry was more comfortable with taking Ron. Ron had faced such danger with him before and had a better idea of what to expect.

Hermione had also helped Harry before, but she had not done so well in situations like this in the past. She had a tendency to panic and freeze up under such circumstances - she was completely frozen with the troll, panicked and forgot she could start a fire with magic to fight the Devil's Snare, had been unable to produce a patronus in the face of dementors, and so on. Hermione was good in controlled situations where she could stop and do more research if necessary - that was her strength - she was the planner. That's how Harry saw Hermione at this point so he still saw her as needing protection.

Ginny and Luna were both a year younger and neither of them had helped Harry in such a dangerous situation. Ginny did have the experience with the diary - but she did not fare very well there. Harry respected their abilities, but he didn't want to put them in danger. And Ginny points out the irony in Harry and Ron's thinking there - the trio had been facing such situations since they were 11. Ginny and Luna were 14. The "you're too young" argument really was an excuse for them, but the motivation was to protect them.

Neville is one day older than Harry so it wasn't his age that caused concern. With Neville, it was his abilities. He had made a great deal of improvement with the DA - particularly after he had learned about Bellatrix escaping from Azkaban. But this was something that still caused surprise for Harry. He was proud of Neville for those achievments, but he had not yet reached the point where he would be comfortable in depending on Neville because he still saw Neville as clumsy and forgetful to some extent. It was Neville's help in this situation that helped turn that around - all of them really. Harry saw all three of them differently when that was all over. But - at this point - he saw them as friends to protect overall and that was his motivation in wanting to take Ron with him and leave the others behind.

I agree with Tenshi on that. Harry's primary concern there was to protect them. He knew he would need help, but he didn't want to drag a bunch of his friends into danger. In the end, he attempted to just take Ron and leave Hermione behind as well - giving the excuse that she should stay behind with the others to wait for more thestrals - he was overruled on all of that. But I think his primary motivation was to protect them. Ron was his "second" (PS/SS - Midnight Duel) practically from the moment they met and Harry was more comfortable with taking Ron. Ron had faced such danger with him before and had a better idea of what to expect.I agree that he trusted Ron with him, but I still wonder why he objected to more people coming and helping.Ginny and Luna were both a year younger and neither of them had helped Harry in such a dangerous situation. Ginny did have the experience with the diary - but she did not fare very well there. Harry respected their abilities, but he didn't want to put them in danger. And Ginny points out the irony in Harry and Ron's thinking there - the trio had been facing such situations since they were 11. Ginny and Luna were 14. The "you're too young" argument really was an excuse for them, but the motivation was to protect them.It's funny that you should say that, actually. Throughout this book, we really see our first clues that Ginny will not be in her brothers' shadow at all, but her own powerful, strong witch. The scene we are discusing comes directly after Ginny manages to escape from the clutches of a person much bigger and stronger than her by using a Bat Bogey Hex. If I were Harry, I would want someone like that with me when going into an unknown and potentially dangerous situation. Does Harry really think that three teenagers alone will be able to beat Voldemort in a duel (a fully-grown Voldemort, keep in mind). Voldemort is much wiser about the twin cores now, and I doubt he would give in so easily. He was taken by surprise in the graveyard. I would think that Harry should accept all the help that was given to him, as long as he trusts those people.

About the wanting to protect them- that doesn't really seem to fit how Harry was talking in this scene. From the very start, he was angry about them wanting to come. It's like a kid who has to go somewhere but his little brother has to come along too. That's how Harry was reacting, and it doesn't make sense to him. The whole abgry person thing just doesn't fit the explanation that he wanted to protect Ginny, Luna and NEville by leaving them there. It sounds more like he just wanted to get rid of them. IMO. :)

I agree that he trusted Ron with him, but I still wonder why he objected to more people coming and helping.It's funny that you should say that, actually. Throughout this book, we really see our first clues that Ginny will not be in her brothers' shadow at all, but her own powerful, strong witch. The scene we are discusing comes directly after Ginny manages to escape from the clutches of a person much bigger and stronger than her by using a Bat Bogey Hex. If I were Harry, I would want someone like that with me when going into an unknown and potentially dangerous situation. Does Harry really think that three teenagers alone will be able to beat Voldemort in a duel (a fully-grown Voldemort, keep in mind). Voldemort is much wiser about the twin cores now, and I doubt he would give in so easily. He was taken by surprise in the graveyard. I would think that Harry should accept all the help that was given to him, as long as he trusts those people.

About the wanting to protect them- that doesn't really seem to fit how Harry was talking in this scene. From the very start, he was angry about them wanting to come. It's like a kid who has to go somewhere but his little brother has to come along too. That's how Harry was reacting, and it doesn't make sense to him. The whole abgry person thing just doesn't fit the explanation that he wanted to protect Ginny, Luna and NEville by leaving them there. It sounds more like he just wanted to get rid of them. IMO. :)

The fundamental aspect of Harry's character that we have to remember is that he did not want to put anyone in danger - ever. If he could have, he would never have accepted help from any of them and done all of those things completely on his own. Remember, this is the same boy who decided he was going to search for the Horcruxes completely alone in order to protect his friends - Ron and Hermione overruled him and said they were going no matter what he said. That was a mirror to PS/SS when Harry decided to go down to the dungeon to protect the stone - he intended to do that on his own, but Ron and Hermione overruled him. That was also something pointed out in GOF by Crough Jr. - he had given Neville the book about water plants because he believed Harry would ask all of his friends for help. He didn't understand that went against Harry's nature - Harry only asked for help when he felt there was no other choice. It's not about wanting to get rid of them - he wants to protect them - that is his nature.

Harry is not a logical person - he is more emotional. His decisions are primarily based on his emotional response rather than thinking through logically - that's why Hermione was such an integral part of the trio. Harry needed someone to point out the logistics to him. Logically, the more people that went to the Ministry, the better prepared they would be - but that's not how Harry saw it. From his perspective, the more people who went - the more people would be in danger because of him. And that did make him angry - he didn't want that responsibility. If he could have figured out a way to go on his own without help, he wouldn't have even looked for Ron and Hermione. That was the significance of Umbridge banning Harry from Quidditch and locking his broom away - that forced him to seek out his friends for help in this situation. If he still had his broom, I'd say he would likely have run straight to his dormitory, grabbed his broom, and took off completely on his own.

Harry was not thinking about their abilities or how they could help - he was thinking of how much danger they would be in. In his "vision", he only saw Voldemort - none of the Death Eaters were present as far as he knew. He knew that he had an advantage over Voldemort with the "brother wand" thing - he had gotten away from the graveyard without help. I think Harry did feel that he could pull that off on his own and rescue Sirius because of that advantage. He sought help for a means to get to the Ministry and do that - he wasn't thinking about anyone helping him face Voldemort. He was willing to take Ron along, but it's more likely that he envisioned Ron's role as getting Sirius to safety while he faced Voldemort. He intended all along to face Voldemort alone.

Gah- Harry's emotions are so confusing sometimes! :lol: He certainly was not thinking right during OtP, with all that was going on in the world. It seems illogical to me to do, but he is the hero of the book then. :D

Gah- Harry's emotions are so confusing sometimes! :lol: He certainly was not thinking right during OtP, with all that was going on in the world. It seems illogical to me to do, but he is the hero of the book then. :D

It was illogical - I think that was the point. ;) A lot of Harry's thoughts and actions were illogical. As I said before, that's why Hermione was such an integral part of the trio. Harry needed that "voice of reason" to point out when he was being illogical. And OOTP is really a turning point in that because that's where Ron really starts to see and agree with Hermione's point of view more often - we see them team up to talk to Harry about such things. That was significant because Harry was more likely to listen to Hermione when Ron agreed with her.

ooo, i just realized something.

In ootp when harry and the dursleys are in the kitchen and are discussing dementors. Petunia says that "they guard the wizard prison azkaban." She says that she heard that awful boy telling lily. Harry automatically assumes that she means his father. I was just rereading DH for like the fifth time and it hit me. Petunia didnt mean james...she meant snape. I was at the prince's tale part and petunia was in the bushes and snape tells lily that the dementors "guard the wizard prison azkaban." Harry didnt see this either. That makes me feel a little less dumb.:lol:

ooo, i just realized something.

In ootp when harry and the dursleys are in the kitchen and are discussing dementors. Petunia says that "they guard the wizard prison azkaban." She says that she heard that awful boy telling lily. Harry automatically assumes that she means his father. I was just rereading DH for like the fifth time and it hit me. Petunia didnt mean james...she meant snape. I was at the prince's tale part and petunia was in the bushes and snape tells lily that the dementors "guard the wizard prison azkaban." Harry didnt see this either. That makes me feel a little less dumb.:lol:
You might be interested in the Things You Didn't Catch at First (http://cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=109188&highlight=things) thread. People have posted many little revelations like yours there. :)

This has been bugging me for a while and I am sure I must be the only person who didn't get it but I will ask anyway.

DH
When Harry is seeing Snape's memories, the part where Snape and DD are talking and DD asks Snape if he has come to care for the boy, Snape produces his patronus and says Always. I am a bit confused. My thoughts were that Snape was saying he always would care about Lily but that doesn't answer the question about caring about Harry.
I do hope this makes sense.

Thanks!

I took it to mean he produced the patronus to show it was never Harry he cared for, but always Lily, everything was done for Lily.

I took it to mean he produced the patronus to show it was never Harry he cared for, but always Lily, everything was done for Lily.
I agree. And because Harry was Lily's son, he was the only bit of Lily that was left on earth and he would protect him, for her.

didn't DD say, after all this time?
(which I assumed meant you sstill love Lily) and he answered Always. Meaning yes I always will.....
Am I correct? or is this something that has like multple meanings taht you have to figure out for yourself depending on you view on this?

didn't DD say, after all this time?
(which I assumed meant you sstill love Lily) and he answered Always. Meaning yes I always will.....
Am I correct? or is this something that has like multple meanings taht you have to figure out for yourself depending on you view on this?
Here's the conversation:
"But this is touching, Severus," said Dumbledore seriously. "Have you grown to care for the boy after all?"

"For him?" shouted Snape. "Expecto Patronum!"

From the tip of his burst the silver doe: She landed on the office floor, bounded once across the office, and soared out of the window. Dumbledore watched her fly away, and as her silvery flow faded he turned back to Snape, and his eyes were full of tears.

"After all this time?"

"Always," said Snape.
Yes, I believe you are correct in interpreting the conversation as Snape always having loved and continuing to love Lily. Snape is trying to prove how much he cared for her by showing his Patronus, which has taken on what we assume is Lily's form.

Snape answers the question of caring for Harry in his own way; he doesn't care for Harry but loves his mother enough to continue the cause she died for, which was to save Harry.

Yeah that's a good way to put it. Instead of saying I don't care for *** boy AT ALL (he came close) he said he's Lily's boy I care for her I will look after him.
:lol: but he's smart to have to answer like that, me, I'd have blushed an denied and never brought up lily :p

And I don' actually think he dodged the question though I mean he says for him? and brings up lily...

didn't DD say, after all this time?
(which I assumed meant you sstill love Lily) and he answered Always. Meaning yes I always will.....
Am I correct? or is this something that has like multple meanings taht you have to figure out for yourself depending on you view on this?

I agree that this is the primary meaning; it was Lily for whom Snape cared, and for her he protected Harry. Also, responding thus means that Snape did not actually say "I don't care about Harry." I think what this means is that Lily was always Snape's motivation, but that he did not despise Harry to the point he truly cared nothing about him. I'm not saying he liked Harry, just that he conveniently avoided stating that he did not care at all.

I get it, thanks for helping me out. I just wanted to make sure I understood the meaning.

Thanks again!

When Harry is seeing Snape's memories, the part where Snape and DD are talking and DD asks Snape if he has come to care for the boy, Snape produces his patronus and says Always. I am a bit confused. My thoughts were that Snape was saying he always would care about Lily but that doesn't answer the question about caring about Harry.
I do hope this makes sense.
It does. :)

The previous responders are right. Snape cared first and foremost for Lily. But I think that, though he would hate to admit it, he came to feel something for Harry too.

I like to think that at the end, when he says "look at me", it's not only Lily's eyes he wants to see, he wants to see Harry too. The boy he spent his life trying to protect despite the mortal danger he was putting himself in.

It does. :)
The previous responders are right. Snape cared first and foremost for Lily. But I think that, though he would hate to admit it, he came to feel something for Harry too.

I think that Snape came to respect Harry a little by the end, but I doubt he ever even liked Harry. I think Snape agreed to protect Harry/defeat Voldemort in an attempt to feel that Lily's death was not in vain.

I think that Snape came to respect Harry a little by the end, but I doubt he ever even liked Harry. I think Snape agreed to protect Harry/defeat Voldemort in an attempt to feel that Lily's death was not in vain.I agree. Just from seeing the way that Snape treats Harry throughout all of the books is an indicator that he is not protecting the kid because he loved him a ton. :lol: On the contrary it seems he couldn't stand him. :)

I agree. Just from seeing the way that Snape treats Harry throughout all of the books is an indicator that he is not protecting the kid because he loved him a ton. :lol: On the contrary it seems he couldn't stand him. :)

It had to just kill Snape, seeing James' face with Lily's eyes. Being reminded of the love of your life and the guy who won her away from you at the same time would be difficult, don't you think?

It had to just kill Snape, seeing James' face with Lily's eyes. Being reminded of the love of your life and the guy who won her away from you at the same time would be difficult, don't you think?

agreed! But I guess taht's how much Lily meant, he put up with James face just for oe look at Lily's eyes. I guess it's not SO MUCHHH jelaousy AS IT IS love after all that time.

This thread seems to be turning into the Snape thread :nc:

Guys, please let's try to get this back on topic; if you want to discuss Snape, you can do it here: Severus Snape: Character Analysis v. 8 (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=116258)

And now, let's get back to answering little questions :)

Hello everyone, i'm new to these forums however I am a HUGE HP fan!

This thread is to discuss Petunia Dursley and the many maysteries that happened during her life.

Main questions to discuss:

What did Petunia ask Dumbeldore in her letter when she was young?
What did Dumbledore reply?
What did Petunia (if it was her) do to Dudley to make him see what he saw when he was attacked by dementors?

Something I also noticed, in the 5th book Petunia says: "I overheard himtelling heryears ago. The her is Lily and the him is SNAPE! :D

Main questions to discuss:

What did Petunia ask Dumbeldore in her letter when she was young?
What did Dumbledore reply?
What did Petunia (if it was her) do to Dudley to make him see what he saw when he was attacked by dementors?

Something I also noticed, in the 5th book Petunia says: "I overheard himtelling heryears ago. The her is Lily and the him is SNAPE! :D
Hi and :welcome:
Good spot on Petunia's comment about Snape, that took a lot of people by surprise!

In her letter to Dumbledore Petunia asked if she could go to Hogwarts as well. Of course, she couldn't since she wasn't a witch, so Dumbledore told her no.

I can't find the quote at the moment but I believe JKR has said that Dudley saw himself as he really was--selfish, spoiled, mean--when the dementors attacked.

I have a question ,Do we fans happen to know what kind of snake Nagini was,she was very poisonous.

Perhaps she had a bit of basilisk in her - not enough to kill those who looked in her eyes but the poisonous fang bit - those who were bitten by her would die if they didn't receive medical/magical help soon enough.

I have a question ,Do we fans happen to know what kind of snake Nagini was,she was very poisonous.

According to HPL (http://www.hp-lexicon.org/essays/essay-nagini.html):
In Hindu and Buddhist tradition, Nagas are a race of semi-divine snakes with great powers, and a female Naga is called a Nagini. Although we have never been told what kind of snake Nagini is, Nagas are traditionally depicted as large cobra-like snakes, and Nagini in GF1 was described as having an “ugly triangular head.” Nagas have an affinity for water, carry the Elixir of Life, and symbolize both fertility and immortality. In Malaysian tradition, the natural enemy of the Naga is a phoenix.
Also, "naga" is Sanskrit for "snake"
So perhaps a sort of cobra-like magical creature.

Perhaps she had a bit of basilisk in her - not enough to kill those who looked in her eyes but the poisonous fang bit - those who were bitten by her would die if they didn't receive medical/magical help soon enough.

I had thought that before. If my memory is correct, she is decribed to be a very big snake, at the beginning of GoF when Frank Bryce sees her, and my first impression was that she was part Basilisk. She killed Snape very quickly, but that was because she bit his neck - we don't have any other examples of her poison acting quickly.

A cobra-like snake also seems plausible because of the source of her name.

I think she might be a naga then,it is fitting.

There isn't a definate answer to this, I don't think. But I been wondering for a while, what Hogwarts founder do you think created the room of requirment? Like Slytherin made the chamber. Do you think all four did it together, or it was just one?
If it was just one I thought Ravenclaw.

There isn't a definate answer to this, I don't think. But I been wondering for a while, what Hogwarts founder do you think created the room of requirment? Like Slytherin made the chamber. Do you think all four did it together, or it was just one?
If it was just one I thought Ravenclaw.
I believe it's her Chocolate Frog card that said Ravenclaw was responsible for the changing floorplan of Hogwarts. The RoR seems to be the ultimate of that idea so if it is just one it would probably be Ravenclaw. But there's a lot of magic built up in that room so it might have required them to work together. Since it's such a secret though, I could see it being Rowena's version of the CoS.
I wonder if there are similar rooms for Gryffindor and Hufflepuff :)? Though I always imagined the secret tunnels had something to do with Gryffindor.

Nagas have an affinity for water, carry the Elixir of Life, and symbolize both fertility and immortality.
Which would explain why Voldemort was able to mix her poison with unicorn blood to support his life. It also supports the Slytherin connection and Voldemort's quest for immortality.
I believe it's her Chocolate Frog card that said Ravenclaw was responsible for the changing floorplan of Hogwarts. The RoR seems to be the ultimate of that idea so if it is just one it would probably be Ravenclaw. But there's a lot of magic built up in that room so it might have required them to work together. Since it's such a secret though, I could see it being Rowena's version of the CoS.
I agree. While Rowena could easily have been responsible for the changing staircases, the enchanted suits of armor, etc., the Room of Requirement is an aspect of the "ever-changing floor plan" of Hogwarts worthy of her incredible intelligence.

I do not think the Room of Requirement was created by all of the founders because it seems as if more students would know about it, despite the ambiguity of the room.
I wonder if there are similar rooms for Gryffindor and Hufflepuff :)? Though I always imagined the secret tunnels had something to do with Gryffindor.
I always thought the tunnels were more the result of Helga Hufflepuff, due to her connection with the badger and the earth (remember the Hufflepuff common room). Since Helga was Rowena's closest friend, I would not be surprised if she had a hand in creating the Room of Requirement, considering the passageway to the Hog's Head and the house-elves overwhelming knowledge of the "Come and Go Room."

However, I believe further discussion of the creator of the Room of Requirement should go in Unanswered Questions (http://cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=108324&page=46) or in a new thread.

I believe it's her Chocolate Frog card that said Ravenclaw was responsible for the changing floorplan of Hogwarts. The RoR seems to be the ultimate of that idea so if it is just one it would probably be Ravenclaw. But there's a lot of magic built up in that room so it might have required them to work together. Since it's such a secret though, I could see it being Rowena's version of the CoS.
I wonder if there are similar rooms for Gryffindor and Hufflepuff ? Though I always imagined the secret tunnels had something to do with GryffindorThat sounds reasonable. Ravenclaw must have known a lot of complex magic given what Ravenclaw House stands for (though that's not to say that the others don't). Actually, I think all of the Founders contributed something vital and permanent to Hogwarts. We know that Gryffindor contributed the Sorting Hat andSlytherin the Chamber of Secrets. Perhaps Hufflepuff contributed the Forbidden Forest (though I also like the tunnel idea) and Ravenclaw contributed the Room of Requirement.