Little Questions Answered v14

Version 13 (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=113319).


The thread for all the quick questions coming to our minds. Happy posting!

Does anybody know if a portrait has to have been of an actual person for it to be able to move and interact with people?

Does anybody know if a portrait has to have been of an actual person for it to be able to move and interact with people?
Well, that's the only kind we have seen.

Well, that's the only kind we have seen.
Do we actually know whether all the pictures are of genuine people - was Sir Cadogan or the fat lady an actual person for example. It makes sense that they should be because the portraits are a sort of 'echo' of the person but I don't think it's canon.

This reminds me of purchasing a plane ticket. You don't (usually) buy a ticket for the plane to take off whenever you want. You buy a ticket for a specific time and if you're not there the plane will still leave (I'm talking about commercial flights like Delta, US Air...). I think it could work that the person needing the portkey pays money to the Ministry and they set up the portkey to leave at a certain time. If ten people need to travel from one side of England to the other by next Monday, the Ministry will set up a portkey to leave on a certain date at a certain time and these ten people will meet up and leave together.


This kind of portkey would be more expensive and, in my opinion, be the equivalent of a private jet that would wait til you arrived to leave. If you don't come, the jet doesn't go anywhere.

That's a pretty good analogy. However, I don't think they actually had to pay for a portkey the way we muggles would pay for plane tickets or using a private plane. As we see in OOTP and DH, they can make their own portkeys. But, other than that, it's a pretty good analogy.

I think the Portkey set for a prearranged time would be more common - particularly for groups of people using them to travel.

Do we actually know whether all the pictures are of genuine people - was Sir Cadogan or the fat lady an actual person for example. It makes sense that they should be because the portraits are a sort of 'echo' of the person but I don't think it's canon.

According to Jo, all the portraits at Hogwarts are of dead people. She talked about this at the Edinburgh Book Festival.

All the paintings we have seen at Hogwarts are of dead people. They seem to be living through their portraits. How is this so? If there was a painting of Harry’s parents, would he be able to obtain advice from them?

That is a very good question. They are all of dead people; they are not as fully realised as ghosts, as you have probably noticed. The place where you see them really talk is in Dumbledore’s office, primarily; the idea is that the previous headmasters and headmistresses leave behind a faint imprint of themselves. They leave their aura, almost, in the office and they can give some counsel to the present occupant, but it is not like being a ghost. They repeat catchphrases, almost. The portrait of Sirius’ mother is not a very 3D personality; she is not very fully realised. She repeats catchphrases that she had when she was alive. If Harry had a portrait of his parents it would not help him a great deal. If he could meet them as ghosts, that would be a much more meaningful interaction, but as Nick explained at the end of Phoenix—I am straying into dangerous territory, but I think you probably know what he explained—there are some people who would not come back as ghosts because they are unafraid, or less afraid, of death.

That's a pretty good analogy. However, I don't think they actually had to pay for a portkey the way we muggles would pay for plane tickets or using a private plane. As we see in OOTP and DH, they can make their own portkeys. But, other than that, it's a pretty good analogy.
But aren't portkeys regulated in some way by the Ministry?

But aren't portkeys regulated in some way by the Ministry?


They are regulated by the MOM. I am sure someone will come along and elaborate on this.

They are regulated by the MOM. I am sure someone will come along and elaborate on this.

They are regulated, but that doesn't mean the employees at the MoM are the only ones who are able to make portkeys, just that they are the only ones who can make legal portkeys.

They are regulated, but that doesn't mean the employees at the MoM are the only ones who are able to make portkeys, just that they are the only ones who can make legal portkeys.

But the MoM employees aren't the only ones wh ocan make Portkeys, are they? They're the only ones who can authorize the making of a Portkey, but if it's been approved by the Ministry, like all the ones used for the Quidditch World Cup, then someone else can make them. What you can't do is make one whenever you want, like Dumbledore did in the MoM in OotP. Fudge even said to him that it was unauthorized.

But the MoM employees aren't the only ones wh ocan make Portkeys, are they? They're the only ones who can authorize the making of a Portkey, but if it's been approved by the Ministry, like all the ones used for the Quidditch World Cup, then someone else can make them. What you can't do is make one whenever you want, like Dumbledore did in the MoM in OotP. Fudge even said to him that it was unauthorized.

I would think as Headmaster, Dumbledore could make any/how ever many he wanted while at Hogwarts. In OOP, he was activating a portkey on Ministry property and hadn't officially regained his title as Headmaster, even though that's where he told Fudge he could contact him and was using said portkey to return Harry to Hogwarts.

To me, that would draw the distinction for Fudge, even though he wasn't too fussy about who he choose to do favors for *cough"Malfoy"cough* or how many rules he changed/bent (think Hearing). :rolleyes: I guess it depends on who the offender is. :D

Fudge even said to him that it was unauthorized.

This may have only been because all methods of communication and travelling had been watched all that year...perhaps it was simply instinctive to Fudge to say it wasn't authorised.

I have a feeling (although it is not canon) that in normal life any wizard/witch can make a portkey but it became an offence in "Order" simply because of Fudge's attitude.

Maybe it is a complex spell that few people know about as no-one seems to make any during the series, they do the Floo Network (which does cost because they have to buy the powder), apparate (they need a licence) and broomsticks - which anyone seems to be able to do - with or without lessons. Moody/Crouch Jnr were very able wizards who would probably know complex spells, and of course so too would be the Order in Order of the Phoenix when they say they won't be allowed to do it.

Okay, so you know how Tom Riddle wanted the DADA position but was turned down by Dumbledore... and he put a curse on it so no one could have the job for more than one year... so why does the curse only take affect after the trios first year at Hogwarts? Because in the first book it says Quirrell was always nervous about his students and about teaching his subject DADA... so that would mean he was there for more than a year... am i missing something or is that whats happening... am i the only one thinking this?

.:. Call Me Luna.:.

I have a feeling (although it is not canon) that in normal life any wizard/witch can make a portkey but it became an offence in "Order" simply because of Fudge's attitude.
I dunno - I got the impression that the Ministry has always taken charge of Portkeys, perhaps because they are tricky to make and can go wrong. But we know that both Dumbledore and Crouch Junior can make them, so I suspect there are more "illegal" Portkeys around than the Ministry likes to think!

When you think about it, the Dept of Magical Transportation is in charge of the Floo Network and insists on testing people before they are allowed to Apparate, so it makes sense for Portkeys to fall under their jurisdiction too.

Does Malfoy die?

Does Malfoy die?
None of the Malfoys died. Draco married and has a son in the end. No idea what happened to his parents in the end though.

Okay, so you know how Tom Riddle wanted the DADA position but was turned down by Dumbledore... and he put a curse on it so no one could have the job for more than one year... so why does the curse only take affect after the trios first year at Hogwarts? Because in the first book it says Quirrell was always nervous about his students and about teaching his subject DADA... so that would mean he was there for more than a year... am i missing something or is that whats happening... am i the only one thinking this?

.:. Call Me Luna.:.Quirrell had the year off the year before Harry's first year and before that he did not teach DADA. So, yes, he was DADA professor for only one year.

:agree: Jo confirmed in an interview that Quirrell taught Muggle Studies before DADA.

OOOH...OKAY I GOTCHA...SEE I NEVER KNEW THAT...THANKS EVERYONE FOR ANSWERING ME!!

I dunno - I got the impression that the Ministry has always taken charge of Portkeys, perhaps because they are tricky to make and can go wrong. But we know that both Dumbledore and Crouch Junior can make them, so I suspect there are more "illegal" Portkeys around than the Ministry likes to think!

When you think about it, the Dept of Magical Transportation is in charge of the Floo Network and insists on testing people before they are allowed to Apparate, so it makes sense for Portkeys to fall under their jurisdiction too.

So how do we think they kept track of the portkeys then? Was it just that it was illegal to make one unauthorized (unless we're going by a previous theory that Fudge was just being difficult), or is it that they can track when the Portus spell is used? Or is it that when a portkey activates and takes you somewhere they can sense it with some sort of portkey-detector? In that case, they would only be able to punish you / reprimand you / do nothing :) after the fact and not prevent it at all.

Also, I didn't really get the feeling the Portus spell was hard to do, it just almost seemed like even though it might be easy it just wasn't the common way. It's like it's used for groups because everyone apparating to the same place at the same time could get messy, and we just don't see that happen a lot. Because the Ministry needed to regulate everyone coming to the World Cup so as not to alert the Muggles / cause confusion with everyone coming at once...those were Ministry regulated. But maybe other than that it's just monitored to make sure someone's nt misusin them? And then the reason we havn't seen casual use is because group transportation that we have seen is either by the train, Dumbledore, floo (it's just easier), or Harry Ron and Hermione on their own and they don't know how to make potkeys.

Just some thoughts. :)

I dunno - I got the impression that the Ministry has always taken charge of Portkeys, perhaps because they are tricky to make and can go wrong. But we know that both Dumbledore and Crouch Junior can make them, so I suspect there are more "illegal" Portkeys around than the Ministry likes to think!

When you think about it, the Dept of Magical Transportation is in charge of the Floo Network and insists on testing people before they are allowed to Apparate, so it makes sense for Portkeys to fall under their jurisdiction too.

I think they're all very similar overall. And that makes sense to some extent. Traveling by such obvious magical methods would need to be regulated as much as possible to minimize exposure. A wizard apparating or using a portkey that caused them to just appear in the middle of a grocery store would cause quite a stir. Same thing for a fire really - it would be noticeable in a public place if the fire suddenly turned green and people jumped out or heads appeared. So it makes sense to regulate that as much as possible to make sure the destination is secure to minimize exposure.

And there are risks - primarily with apparation. Splinching turned out to be a lot more serious than it was first made to appear so that was more than a concern with exposure - it could be life threatening as well. But it was also a risk for exposure - as Mr. Weasley pointed out in GOF with the people splinching themselves and muggles seeing it.

I think the floo network was the easiest to regulate because the fireplaces had to be put on the network to begin with. And - as we saw in OOTP - they could monitor that very closely if they chose to. But apparition and portkeys would be more difficult. Essentially, all they could really do there is put laws in place - like having to have a license to apparate or getting authorization to make a portkey. But that would really only set forth the consequences for getting caught doing those things illegally. I'd say there would likely be a lot of things like that going on illegally where people were not caught.

I have one. If, according to Hermione, machines that work on electricity are screwed by all the magic around Hogwarts, how were the band at the Yule ball able to use an electric guitar?They probably don't use an electric guitar. They're described as band using several guitars, a lute, a drumset and some bagpipes, playing a waltz at first. Sounds for me like they go 'unplugged'. :)

They probably don't use an electric guitar. They're described as band using several guitars, a lute, a drumset and some bagpipes, playing a waltz at first. Sounds for me like they go 'unplugged'. :)I also meant the movie.

I also meant the movie.Yes, the movies unfortunately do a bunch of mistakes in magical consistency as also in plot. A good place to discuss them would be Questions about the Harry Potter Movies (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=86173). In The Stone we discuss the Harry Potter books only. :)

The guitars in the movies only looked like electric guitars just as the Hogwarts Express looked like a steam train. They are of course magically powered.

The guitars in the movies only looked like electric guitars just as the Hogwarts Express looked like a steam train. They are of course magically powered.Or we just take this explanation, yes! :lol:

Hi,

May I know who gave harry gillyweeds in CoS?

Thanks

May I know who gave harry gillyweeds in CoS?
Dobby stole Gillyweed for Harry during the Tri-Wizard Tournament from Snape's storage in Goblet of Fire.

:welcome: By the way, welcome to CoS! We're glad to have you here!

Hi,

May I know who gave harry gillyweeds in CoS?

Thanks
It was Dobby and it was GoF. :)

Hi,

May I know who gave harry gillyweeds in CoS?

Thanks

Well, no one gave him gillyweed in CoS, but I bet you're thinking of GoF. It was Dobby who gave it to him then.

EDIT: Tenshi and Lisa Turpin type too fast.

Dobby stole Gillyweed for Harry during the Tri-Wizard Tournament from Snape's storage in Goblet of Fire.

:welcome: By the way, welcome to CoS! We're glad to have you here!

ok, thanks....yeah i was just confused, the movie seems different though....

ok, thanks....yeah i was just confused, the movie seems different though....

Yeah, Neville gave it to him in the GoF movie, but that's okay because he was a plant expert. I guess the CGI for Dobby wasn't worth it for just that one scene.

Yeah, Neville gave it to him in the GoF movie, but that's okay because he was a plant expert. I guess the CGI for Dobby wasn't worth it for just that one scene.

yeah, lol...thanks by the way ;)

Yeah, Neville gave it to him in the GoF movie, but that's okay because he was a plant expert. I guess the CGI for Dobby wasn't worth it for just that one scene.

Yeah and they actually worked with what was included in the book for that. Crouch Jr.'s original plan had been for Neville to tell Harry about Gillyweed. That's why he had taken Neville into his office after the class where he showed them the Unforgivable curses and gave Neville the book about magical water plants. He figured Harry would ask all of his friends for help. He resorted to Dobby because Harry didn't ask anyone but Ron and Hermione for help. In the movie, they just tweaked that idea a bit and had him give Neville the book and then ask Neville to help Harry put books away in the library after Ron and Hermione were sent off to become hostages.

The guitars in the movies only looked like electric guitars just as the Hogwarts Express looked like a steam train. They are of course magically powered.O.k., I'll buy that. However, why is it that the only bit of relatively modern culture to seep in to wizarding culture is Rock?

If you were to drink the Elixer of Life, and then be poisoned, stabbed, AK'ed, or thrown down a flight of stairs, what would happen to you? You can't die, but can you also not be gravely injured or sick?

If you were to drink the Elixer of Life, and then be poisoned, stabbed, AK'ed, or thrown down a flight of stairs, what would happen to you? You can't die, but can you also not be gravely injured or sick?I would assume the elixer bestows upon its drinker a certain amount of regenerative ability. That would be why Nicolas Flamel didn't deteriorate in the many centuries of his life

If you were to drink the Elixer of Life, and then be poisoned, stabbed, AK'ed, or thrown down a flight of stairs, what would happen to you? You can't die, but can you also not be gravely injured or sick?

I don't believe it is a case of you can't be killed. Rather that you won't die of old age, you body wouldn't break down as you got older or perhaps it kept you from aging further at all.

I don't believe it is a case of you can't be killed. Rather that you won't die of old age, you body wouldn't break down as you got older or perhaps it kept you from aging further at all. But according to Hermione's quote, it renders the drinker immortal. Doesn't that mean you won't ever die?

I've always taken it to mean that you won't die of 'old age', and have some speedy healing powers, but if you were fatally injured (pushed off a cliff) then the Elixir will be of no use.

But according to Hermione's quote, it renders the drinker immortal. Doesn't that mean you won't ever die?
I know this is not exactly the same, but in Lord of the Rings, the elves are immortal but can still be killed in battle. Essentially they are immortal under normal circumstances, but they can still be killed by things that normally kill other people (being stabbed, falling off cliffs, etc). I don't think the Elixir of Life would act as a safeguard against all of those things.

I don't believe it is a case of you can't be killed. Rather that you won't die of old age, you body wouldn't break down as you got older or perhaps it kept you from aging further at all.
That's how I understand it as well. It doesn't make you invincible to death, just extends your normal life span as long as you keep drinking it.

That's how I understand it as well. It doesn't make you invincible to death, just extends your normal life span as long as you keep drinking it.That doesn't seem right. When Harry asked why Voldemort didn't take the Philosophers Stone instead of making Horocrux's, Dumbleore just said that the stone makes the user reliant upon itself. But if it only extended life, it wouldn't be any use at all to him. He would have realised someone would try to assassinate him long before his natural life ran out, as would Dumbldore.

That doesn't seem right. When Harry asked why Voldemort didn't take the Philosophers Stone instead of making Horocrux's, Dumbleore just said that the stone makes the user reliant upon itself. But if it only extended life, it wouldn't be any use at all to him. He would have realised someone would try to assassinate him long before his natural life ran out, as would Dumbldore.

That is a very good point...he would still be mortal because he could still be killed. And he didn't want to be mortal. He didn't want to depend on anything. :no: Anyways, I have a question. What happened to Dawlish?

That is a very good point...he would still be mortal because he could still be killed. And he didn't want to be mortal. He didn't want to depend on anything.
That's why the Elixir wasn't Voldemort's first choice. He resorted to trying to steal the Sorcerer's Stone because it would be an easy way to get a body back. After he had gotten a body again, I doubt he would have continued to depend on the Elixir and would have gone back to his original plan of Horcruxes.
What happened to Dawlish?
We don't have much information on Dawlish. The only real time he has been discussed was on PotterCast here (http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2007/1217-pottercast-anelli.html).
JKR: You know what, I find it so incredibly endearing that you like Dawlish, and that's why his name is now John Dawlish, as we know. In tribute to you. And that will indeed be a note in the Encyclopedia, or "The Scottish Book", as we are now calling it. Dawlish had to be good. He had to be good because he became an Auror. There's no denying that. But he has his weaknesses and Dumbledore knew how to exploit them. Let's face it. Anyone, anyone going up to Dumbledore pre-trying on the Horcrux, pre-maiming his hand, anyone is gonna be in trouble going up against Dumbledore. Even Voldemort didn't want to do it. So there's no dishonor to Dawlish.

JN: Well, certainly though, was Dumbledore involved in--

JKR: In weakening him?

JN: You said it was Mrs. Longbottom?

JKR: By the time Augusta Longbottom got to him, he had been-- several people had attacked Dawlish. I mean, I think he was a bit punch-drunk by that point, you know. He had become a favorite punch-bag of the Order of the Phoenix by then. So I don't think he was firing on all cylinders. But I really saw Mrs. Longbottom as a powerful witch. So, um, sorry.

That's why the Elixir wasn't Voldemort's first choice. He resorted to trying to steal the Sorcerer's Stone because it would be an easy way to get a body back. After he had gotten a body again, I doubt he would have continued to depend on the Elixir and would have gone back to his original plan of Horcruxes.Actually, the reason he didn't want the elixer was that it had to be continually drunk. The way I saw it, it was more a vaccine against death. Taken regularly, it can stop it in all forms (even cells dying, hence no aging). but if you stop, you're just as susceptible as everyone else. That was why he didn't want it, because all someone had to do was destroy the stone and he's finished.

Actually, the reason he didn't want the elixer was that it had to be continually drunk. The way I saw it, it was more a vaccine against death. Taken regularly, it can stop it in all forms (even cells dying, hence no aging). but if you stop, you're just as susceptible as everyone else. That was why he didn't want it, because all someone had to do was destroy the stone and he's finished.

That's the point though. The Elixir of Life didn't actually make a person immortal. It extended their life and apparently had regenerative properties. Voldemort didn't want to use the Elixir as a means to cheat death for all those reasons. He would have to drink it regularly - which means he would be dependent upon the potion. If the stone was stolen and/or destroyed he would have to find another way. And it's not really clear if the Elixir of Life would prevent unnatural death - such as the Avada Kedavra curse. It sounds more like it only prevented natural death from aging.

The Horcruxes presented a much less complicated solution for him in the sense that he didn't have to do anything to maintain that. Once he made them, they just had to exist to work. What he wanted the stone for in PS/SS was simply to regenerate his body - which is why it appears the Elixir of Life had regenerative properties. Once his body had been regenerated, he wouldn't need to depend on the Elixir because he already had Horcruxes.

That's the point though. The Elixir of Life didn't actually make a person immortal. It extended their life and apparently had regenerative properties. Voldemort didn't want to use the Elixir as a means to cheat death for all those reasons. He would have to drink it regularly - which means he would be dependent upon the potion. If the stone was stolen and/or destroyed he would have to find another way. And it's not really clear if the Elixir of Life would prevent unnatural death - such as the Avada Kedavra curse. It sounds more like it only prevented natural death from aging. I doubt that. The Aveda Kedavra curse does not kill instantaneously. Remember, both Sirius and Bellatrix laughed just after they'd been hit. It more simply stops the heart. No damage or anything, but the heart stops. However, with the elixer, you wouldn't really have any need for a heart, as both the brain and all muscles wouldn't need the fresh oxygen to survive.

I doubt that. The Aveda Kedavra curse does not kill instantaneously. Remember, both Sirius and Bellatrix laughed just after they'd been hit. It more simply stops the heart. No damage or anything, but the heart stops. However, with the elixer, you wouldn't really have any need for a heart, as both the brain and all muscles wouldn't need the fresh oxygen to survive.

The AK does kill instantly. They were laughing as they were killed and the smile stayed on their faces as they fell. The AK kills the moment the curse hits the body.

Also it doesn't kill by stopping the heart because otherwise the muggle police investigating mysterious deaths would put that as the cause of death.

I doubt that. The Aveda Kedavra curse does not kill instantaneously. Remember, both Sirius and Bellatrix laughed just after they'd been hit. It more simply stops the heart. No damage or anything, but the heart stops. However, with the elixer, you wouldn't really have any need for a heart, as both the brain and all muscles wouldn't need the fresh oxygen to survive.

Actually, Bellatrix laughed just before she was hit. I'll have to dig up my copy of OOTP to check Sirius. However, as far as I know, the curse used on Sirius has not been revealed. He died because he fell through the veil. Nor was the curse Molly used on Bellatrix stated on page and I don't recall that being mentioned by Jo in any of the post-DH interviews. She may have and I missed it, but as far as I know, neither of those deaths have been officially attributed to Avada Kedavra.

The other examples of Avada Kedavra demonstrate pretty much instant death. Frank Bryce toppled over and was dead before he hit the floor. Cedric's death was pretty much the same. Dumbledore's death was debated a lot because of Harry feeling like it was all happening in slow motion, but his death was pretty much instantaneous too - it's very common for someone witnessing a traumatic event like that to feel time has stopped or slowed down.

Something interesting about Bellatrix - it is described on page that her eyes bulged just before she died. That doesn't sound like Avada Kedavra, which leaves no mark or damage to the body. However, Bellatrix was also dead by the time she toppled over so there really wasn't a significant delay there.

As for the Elixir, I think your body would still function the same way. As I said above, my impression was that the Elixir merely extended life in regards to natural death from old age and apparently had some regenerative properties. It does not appear that the Elixir would prevent someone from dying an unnatural death - such as the Avada Kedavra curse, being deprived of oxygen, or suffering injury severe enough to cause death immediately or very quickly. But that is just my impression of it. As far as I know, Jo has not answered this question.

Why did Voldemort have Nagini inhabit the body of Bathilda Bagshot? He knew that Harry would return there eventually, but he had no way of knowing that they would trust Bathilda when they saw her. As far as he new, she was just some exceedingly ancient, half-mad old woman to them.

Why did Voldemort have Nagini inhabit the body of Bathilda Bagshot? He knew that Harry would return there eventually, but he had no way of knowing that they would trust Bathilda when they saw her. As far as he new, she was just some exceedingly ancient, half-mad old woman to them.

It's possible that Voldemort knew of Dumbledore's past, or just the fact that he had lived in Godric's Hollow. If so, he would have known Harry would return to find out whether or not the rumors were true about Dumbledore. Since Bathilda was the only one still there, they would try to find her.

It also could just be that Voldemort stationed Nagini in her body randomly and had her make Harry and Hermione come with her.

It's possible that Voldemort knew of Dumbledore's past, or just the fact that he had lived in Godric's Hollow. If so, he would have known Harry would return to find out whether or not the rumors were true about Dumbledore. Since Bathilda was the only one still there, they would try to find her.As far as he knew, Harry would be out rallying support, building an army to take him on. That would have left no time to go to Gordics Hollow, except just after the ministry fell, while Nagini was still Nagini, and far too large from eating the Muggle stdies Teacher to fit into a tiny old woman.

If we go with the "Voldemort thought Harry was a coward like him" theory, Harry would not have cared enough to go. And even if he did, first sign of another person, he would have apparated out.




If a magical roster detected Tom Riddle and put his name down, why didn't it put down Ariana's?

If a magical roster detected Tom Riddle and put his name down, why didn't it put down Ariana's?
Do we know for sure that it didn't? We know she didn't go to Hogwarts, and the speculation was that it was because she was a Squib, but I think that was just rumor and innuendo.

Do we know for sure that it didn't? We know she didn't go to Hogwarts, and the speculation was that it was because she was a Squib, but I think that was just rumor and innuendo.If she was a Squib, would she have shown up on the roster? I doubt it. That would have been the definitive proof that she wasn't a squib.

Also, how did the ministry not detect Ariana doing magic in front of muggles, when they did the same thing for Morfin?

As far as he knew, Harry would be out rallying support, building an army to take him on. That would have left no time to go to Gordics Hollow, except just after the ministry fell, while Nagini was still Nagini, and far too large from eating the Muggle stdies Teacher to fit into a tiny old woman.

No, as far as Voldemort knew, Harry was hiding from the many people looking for him. One obvious place for Harry to hide would be at Godric's Hollow, and Voldemort knew Harry would want to go back to where his parents lived.

Also, how did the ministry not detect Ariana doing magic in front of muggles, when they did the same thing for Morfin?

Ariana was supposed to be under the supervision of her parents, and she did not, in all likelihood, perform an AK curse.

Do we know for sure that it didn't? We know she didn't go to Hogwarts, and the speculation was that it was because she was a Squib, but I think that was just rumor and innuendo.

Even if she was a witch she may have died before the age of 11 so she wouldn't have gone to Hogwarts anyway. Do we know her age when she died?

If a magical roster detected Tom Riddle and put his name down, why didn't it put down Ariana's?
She could have been detected. However, when she did not show up at Hogwarts (or her mother denied the acceptance), no further inquiry would be made. Remember, parents have the option of home schooling their children or sending them away.
Also, how did the ministry not detect Ariana doing magic in front of muggles, when they did the same thing for Morfin?
The Ministry cannot detect underage magic - just magic:
"They can detect magic, but not the perpetrator...."
"So if you're underage and you do magic inside an adult witch or wizard's house, the Ministry won't know?"
"They will certainly be unable to tell who performed the magic. They rely on witch and wizard parents to enforce their offspring's obedience while within their walls."
The reason Morfin was convicted was because he was a known Muggle-hater, he had once before attacked Tom Riddle Sr., and he was the only wizard in the area. Also, Voldemort had implanted a false memory in him to confess to the crime.

Meanwhile, Ariana was only around seven (around the age that a witch/wizard will show signs of magic), and her magic went unnoticed because the Ministry does not protect against underage magic before the child enters school. Also, since she would be around her parents, the Ministry would not know if it was her magic or her parents'.
Do we know her age when she died?
Ariana died in August of 1899 (Aberforth was almost ready to go back to school). She died when she was fourteen (in the same summer of Kendra's death).

If she was a Squib, would she have shown up on the roster? I doubt it. That would have been the definitive proof that she wasn't a squib.

Also, how did the ministry not detect Ariana doing magic in front of muggles, when they did the same thing for Morfin?
The fact that magic was "exploding out of her" is reason enough to believe she was not a squib.

Who has access to the roster? I'm sure it's not a publicly displayed document, so I could not be used to squelch the rumors. Besides, rumors of her being a squib were probably preferrable to people knowing the reality of what actually happened to her. I wouldn't be surprised if the Dumbledores encouraged people to believe it.

Who has access to the roster? I'm sure it's not a publicly displayed document, so I could not be used to squelch the rumors.

I always thought that Prof. McGonagall had it, because of this interview: http://www.mugglenet.com/books/scholchat1.shtml

Of course, Prof. McGonagall did not work at Hogwarts when the Dumbledores were kids, so it was most likely kept by whoever was duputy Headmaster/mistress at the time.

Since Dumbledore was a very bright student and everyone there loved him, I'm sure he could convince whoever had the roster to not tell anyone about Ariana if he had to. :)

The Ministry tracking Underage Magic vs Just Magic is quite controversial territory. I have interpreted this as the Ministry can only detect magic performed around an underage wizard but then have no idea which underage wizard set off the "trace." So in the case of an underage Riddle killing in Little Hangleton, the underage "trace" would have gone off but the Ministry would have no idea which underage wizard set it off which at least accounts fromwhy they didn't go looking for Riddle. So, as you say the only wizard in the area was Morfin so they over looked the "trace" and limited their inquiries to Morfin - found him confessing and figured the case was closed.

The quote you used from Sluggish Memory is missing the first thing said by Harry which Dumbedore agrees with - I don't have my books with me but it was words to the effect of "The ministry can detect Underage magic" and Dumbledore then agrees with Harry before saying "they can detect magic". If they can detect all magic then it makes the description of the "trace" being able to track Harry and magic performed around him inexplicable... but then the "trace" as described in Deathly Hallows seems very specific to the underage wizard which makes one wonder how the Ministry could have missed the Riddle during the Riddle murders!

I personally like to explain this by suggesting that in Deathly Hallows the meaning of Hermione and Ron's concerns of the trace being still on Harry and (if it was) the risk he posed was not because they track Harry's trace specifically (even if he was not the one to cast a spell) but because the Ministry and Death Eaters were going to follow-up immediately on any and all (underage) magic traces assuming it was Harry.

is there an interview or anything where J k Rowling explains how the trace works?

Also, how did the ministry not detect Ariana doing magic in front of muggles, when they did the same thing for Morfin?
Firstly, the Ministry can only detect when someone does magic but not who the perpetrator is, as MrSleepyHead pointed out. Anyone could have been performing magic in the same general area as Ariana, and it would have still shown up the same to the Ministry.

Secondly, I don't think the Trace is placed on a child until they have entered Hogwarts. Young children cannot usually control their magic so they cannot be punished for the acts. How else would Hermione have been able to practice spells before entering Hogwarts without getting in trouble?

I doubt, even if the Ministry had been able to pin Ariana for doing magic in front of Muggles, that she would have been punished because she was still very young at the time, unable to control her magic, and unaware that she was being watched by Muggles.
is there an interview or anything where J k Rowling explains how the trace works?
I thought Jo talked about this at some point, but I could not find any references to it on Accio-Quote so I guess we are basing information solely off what is found in the books.

This has to be the case, because magical children born to Muggles would not know the rules -- nor would their families -- before being accepted into Hogwarts and introduced into the Wizarding community. Any magic that was performed prior to this would have been done in complete ignorance and neither parent nor child would have even known it was actual magic.

Why did Voldemort have Nagini inhabit the body of Bathilda Bagshot? He knew that Harry would return there eventually, but he had no way of knowing that they would trust Bathilda when they saw her. As far as he new, she was just some exceedingly ancient, half-mad old woman to them.

I think Voldemort knew somehow that Harry would return to Godric's Hollow. He made the horcrux that was in Nagini possess Bathilda, I think and waited paitently for Harry to arrive. The moment he did, snake and Voldemort inside Nagini would somehow woo Harry into her house and then attack.

It was lucky Harry had read the letter and knew about Bagshot being pretty close to his parents. He folowed her without suspicion.

What I would like to know is had Naginig succeeded in attacking Harry and killing him; which would be destroyed. The horcrux inside Harry, or the horcrux and Harry?

This has to be the case, because magical children born to Muggles would not know the rules -- nor would their families -- before being accepted into Hogwarts and introduced into the Wizarding community. Any magic that was performed prior to this would have been done in complete ignorance and neither parent nor child would have even known it was actual magic. Hogwarts students get a letter every year telling them they are not allowed to do magic over the summer holidays. I wonder if Home Schooled wizard children get the same letter.

Hogwarts students get a letter every year telling them they are not allowed to do magic over the summer holidays. I wonder if Home Schooled wizard children get the same letter.
I don't think they would. Who is to say that a home schooled witch or wizard follows the same schedule as Hogwarts? There are many home schoolers who have shortened summer breaks but are able to take vacations throughout the year. Hogwarts is sort of the public education of the wizarding world so they can set certain regulations for their students while they are at home, but there is really no way to set up such a system for children outside of the public education realm.

Anyway, I guess this would not be the proper place for this discussion as there is no canon to back it up either way. Still couldn't resist throwing out my two cents worth though. :)

Firstly, the Ministry can only detect when someone does magic but not who the perpetrator is, as MrSleepyHead pointed out. Anyone could have been performing magic in the same general area as Ariana, and it would have still shown up the same to the Ministry.Big whoop. The fact that anyone had done any sort of magic around a Muggle would have broken the international statute of secrecy, and definitely required investigation. The ministry have ways of knowing if magic is performed around a Muggle (See OoP, the charges put to Harry), and would have had to swoop down quickly to investigate.

Big whoop. The fact that anyone had done any sort of magic around a Muggle would have broken the international statute of secrecy, and definitely required investigation. The ministry have ways of knowing if magic is performed around a Muggle (See OoP, the charges put to Harry), and would have had to swoop down quickly to investigate.
Not if Ariana had no Trace on her yet, which is a debatable topic as we do not know when the Trace is placed on an underage witch or wizard. If Ariana lacked the Trace, then the Ministry would have no way of knowing whether or not she was performing magic anywhere, let alone in front of a Muggle.

However, this thread is not for debating so we cannot really continue this discussion here. Also, there is no need to antagonize.

I think Voldemort knew somehow that Harry would return to Godric's Hollow. He made the horcrux that was in Nagini possess Bathilda, I think and waited paitently for Harry to arrive. The moment he did, snake and Voldemort inside Nagini would somehow woo Harry into her house and then attack.First off, no. Nagini was not possessing her, she was coiled inside her, sorta like the Alien foetus. Bathilda became an Inferi, and Nagini just worked the controls. Also, lets look at this. An incredibly ancient woman who has had doubts publicly heaped upon her sanity and who smells of old meat comes up to you, telling you to go to their house. Unless you had followed Harry's line of thinking (which involved several steps that Voldemort couldn't know about, including the sword being able to destroy Horocrux's, and the letter Harry had found) you start getting the heck out of there.

Big whoop. The fact that anyone had done any sort of magic around a Muggle would have broken the international statute of secrecy, and definitely required investigation. The ministry have ways of knowing if magic is performed around a Muggle (See OoP, the charges put to Harry), and would have had to swoop down quickly to investigate.

Not necessarily. Dumbledore explained to the young Riddle in the orphanage (HBP, Secret Riddle) that by accepting his place at Hogwarts he was also accepting to be bound by the rule of the Ministry and their laws. Up to that point the underage witches and wizards do not have a trace - at least that is how I have interpreted the trace...

Not necessarily. Dumbledore explained to the young Riddle in the orphanage (HBP, Secret Riddle) that by accepting his place at Hogwarts he was also accepting to be bound by the rule of the Ministry and their laws. Up to that point the underage witches and wizards do not have a trace - at least that is how I have interpreted the trace...This has nothing to do with the trace. After all, Morfin was over 17 (I assume) but the ministry still detected that he had done magic in front of (and to) a Muggle. There must be some system in place that detects potential breaches to the international statute of secrecy.

This has nothing to do with the trace. After all, Morfin was over 17 (I assume) but the ministry still detected that he had done magic in front of (and to) a Muggle. There must be some system in place that detects potential breaches to the international statute of secrecy.
1. As was pointed out, Ariana's magic was done at a young age, which is ignored by the ministry (if Hermione, Harry, and Neville's various stories are remembered).
2. It was done in the direct vicinity of a magical home, thus the specific caster couldn't be identified. (Additionally, Harry was more closely monitored, lived in a completely muggle area, and cast a complex and highly noticeable spell!). If you remember Fred and George performed "card tricks" in front of a muggle near their home and were never punished, thus it seems that certain people, spells, etc. are largely ignored by the ministry.
3. And was not purposely meant to injure anyone (as Morfin's was)
4. It was also done almost 150 years before Harry's Hogwarts years. I think it's reasonable to assume that some laws, trace spells, or responses on the part of the ministry might be different.
5. In general, it's an extremely trivial issue.

The ministry would have a job controlling all under aged all the time. As I understand it the trace-alarmbells only go off when an under aged does magic and no adult which or wizard is present, otherwise the ministry relies on the parents to control their kids, as Dumbledore said.
In CoS magic was done in Privet Drive and no adult was there (muggles don’t register). In OotP and DH Harry was under close observation by the Ministry and they were only waiting for a reason, any sign of magic in Privet Drive, to do him or his helpers in.
Ariana did that magic before she reached wand age and I’m not sure that being spied on constitutes a breech of the International Statute of Secrecy. It wasn’t her fault the boys saw it and as they thought it was a trick, like with Fred and George’s card ‘tricks’, it did not reveal the existence of magic. So if the Ministry registered it at all, they probably send a reprimand by owl and modified the boys memories. When Ariana did her later magic – Aberforth said it sometimes broke out, like when she killed her mother – she was in the presents of an adult who was supposed to take care of it. It makes sense, that home educated children can do magic in the presents of their ‘teachers’ inside their homes.

Voldemort was of age when he murdered his parents, so there was no underaged magic at Little Hangleton, and the person who broke the Statute of Secrecy had to be identified another way - they used logic and got the wrong wizard with the right wand who confessed.

In the Socceror's Stone, when Harry and Hagrid went to Gringotts, why didn't they pass through any magical obstacles, such as the magical water that revealed the trio true identities when they stole Hufflepuff's cup from Bellatrix's vault in DH, when they went to Vault 713? This vault was under maximum security, so why was there no mention of any security measures other than the door itself? Did JK Rowling not think of these obstacles at the time, or were they just not mentioned in the journey from Harry's vault to vault 713?

In the Socceror's Stone, when Harry and Hagrid went to Gringotts, why didn't they pass through any magical obstacles, such as the magical water that revealed the trio true identities when they stole Hufflepuff's cup from Bellatrix's vault in DH, when they went to Vault 713? This vault was under maximum security, so why was there no mention of any security measures other than the door itself? Did JK Rowling not think of these obstacles at the time, or were they just not mentioned in the journey from Harry's vault to vault 713? Griphook mentioned the security measures were activated because Gringotts was aware they were imposters. I agree, it would make sense to have the security measures always on, because otherwise, a breech of security could happen at any time without anyone knowing it had happened.

The MoM can indeed detect magic performed by or around an underage wizard if an adult is present:


'So if you're under age and you do magic inside an adult witch or wizard's house, the Ministry won't know?'
'They will certainly be unable to tell who performed the magic,' said Dumbledore'


The same rules of tracking if the 7 Potters used magic would have applied in the escape from Privet Drive in Deathly Hallows...

Also, Riddle was still underage when he killed his Father:


"In the summer of his sixteenth year, he left the orphanage to which he returned annually and set off to find his Gaunt relatives... "

BurrowGhoul:
Griphook mentioned the security measures were activated because Gringotts was aware they were imposters. I agree, it would make sense to have the security measures always on, because otherwise, a breech of security could happen at any time without anyone knowing it had happened.

Gringotts knew they were imposters? Did they figure this out before or after they entered the vault. *thinks about the scene*. Were they discovered as they were getting into the cart on the track? I also think they should constantly have security measures on. They won't always be able to spot imposters or theives.

If Sirius could wreck a painting (slashing the Fat Lady) why didn't he do the same to the portrait of his mother?

Gringotts knew they were imposters? Did they figure this out before or after they entered the vault. *thinks about the scene*. Were they discovered as they were getting into the cart on the track? I also think they should constantly have security measures on. They won't always be able to spot imposters or theives.

The problem came from the fact that it was known that Bellatrix had lost her wand by then, if I'm not mistaken. The Goblins at Gringott's had been given special instructions regarding the Lestrange vault. The implication is that Bellatrix did this after the trio escaped - which makes sense because they got her wand and she had been going on about them getting into her vault before because they had the sword that was supposed to be locked in her vault.

The hitch in their plan came when they asked to go to the vault and the Goblin asked Hermione/Bellatrix for identification and said her wand would do. Harry used the Imperio curse and that prevented immediate alert. But Griphook was not aware of special instructions for the LeStrange vault and, when the Goblin Harry had Imperiused dismissed the special instructions, that caused suspicion with the other Goblins and they suspected them of being imposters and activated further defenses.

The problem came from the fact that it was known that Bellatrix had lost her wand by then, if I'm not mistaken. The Goblins at Gringott's had been given special instructions regarding the Lestrange vault. The implication is that Bellatrix did this after the trio escaped - which makes sense because they got her wand and she had been going on about them getting into her vault before because they had the sword that was supposed to be locked in her vault.

The hitch in their plan came when they asked to go to the vault and the Goblin asked Hermione/Bellatrix for identification and said her wand would do. Harry used the Imperio curse and that prevented immediate alert. But Griphook was not aware of special instructions for the LeStrange vault and, when the Goblin Harry had Imperiused dismissed the special instructions, that caused suspicion with the other Goblins and they suspected them of being imposters and activated further defenses.As it was, Harry managed to slip through before anyone could tell what was going on. As far as they could tell, there were no invisible people in the main foyer, and no-one had their wand pointed at the Goblin attending Hermione/Bellatrix, so they couldn't figure out why he was acting weird. It was only after they had called the cart and left did anyone figure out what must have happened, and raised the alarm.

As it was, Harry managed to slip through before anyone could tell what was going on. As far as they could tell, there were no invisible people in the main foyer, and no-one had their wand pointed at the Goblin attending Hermione/Bellatrix, so they couldn't figure out why he was acting weird. It was only after they had called the cart and left did anyone figure out what must have happened, and raised the alarm.

Exactly. And Harry realized that they were suspicious - which is why he made Travers come through with them and used the Imperius curse to make him hide.

Okay, thanks meesha1971 and thewbacca! :)

thewbacca:
If Sirius could wreck a painting (slashing the Fat Lady) why didn't he do the same to the portrait of his mother?

I believe it has to do with the special enchantments placed onto Sirius' mother's portrait. They are must stronger than the ones on the Fat Lady, because her portrait can be removed, whilest Mrs. Black's can't. Also, Mrs. Black probably put some kind of charm on her portrait, perhaps Dark, perhaps not, that prevented any harm from coming upon it. She must have known that there was a danger of her being removed from her home, and so took the necessary precautions in order to assure her position in the household. The Fat Lady's portrait probably didn't have these sort of enchantments because, up until the Sirius Black event, I don't think anyone suspected someone of attacking a portrait.

In the Socceror's Stone, when Harry and Hagrid went to Gringotts, why didn't they pass through any magical obstacles, such as the magical water that revealed the trio true identities when they stole Hufflepuff's cup from Bellatrix's vault in DH, when they went to Vault 713?
Besides the security measures being activated when they realised their were imposters the Lestrange vault was also much deeper into Gringots than Vault 713. I am pretty sure it is also mentioned that the higher secruity vaults were located lower and under more protection.

Also, Riddle was still underage when he killed his Father:


"In the summer of his sixteenth year, he left the orphanage to which he returned annually and set off to find his Gaunt relatives... "


JKR freely admits to some difficulties with math, especially with calculating years/ages/dates/flashbacks, but most of them fit pretty well. Placing the murder of the Riddles and the framing of Morfin is one of the roughest fits.

We know:

Tom Marvolo Riddle was born December 31st.

He was 11 when he entered Hogwarts and turned 12 in December of his first year. He turned 16 during his 5th year, 17 during his 6th year, and 18 during his 7th.

He killed Myrtle (via basilisk) during his 5th year. He was a prefect, so that meant 5th or 6th year. Professor Dippet spoke with him about being obliged to return to the Muggle orphanage for the summer holiday, so he was not yet of age. Therefore, it was his 5th year.

The gardener's story in the opening chapter of Goblet of Fire put the murder of the Riddles in summer, I believe.

In commonly accepted usage, 'summer of his 16th year' refers to the summer he was 16. More accurately, it would refer to the summer he was 15 (that would be his 16th year of life). In either event, he couldn't have set out after the Gaunts then. He was underage, obligated to live at the Muggle orphanage during the holidays. He had no money to travel. He could not use magic to travel.

By the time of Slughorn's memory, Tom had already killed his father and grandparents and framed his Uncle. We see Tom wearing Slytherin's ring. This could have taken place in Tom's 6th or 7th year. I believe Slughorn refers to Tom as a prefect, which would mean 6th year (we know he was Head Boy for his 7th year). Tom's questions about Professor Merrythought's retirement plans make more sense for a last year student, but aren't completely out of left field for 6th year.

So, I don't think Voldemort was still underage when he killed his father. The way I make it fit together?

I think JKR was writing the passage to have Dumbledore say to Harry something like, "When Voldemort was about the age you are now..., in the second half of his 6th year..." Tom turned 17 during Christmas break of his 6th year. He would have had the remainder of Christmas break and Easter break during that school year to travel freely and use magic freely as an of-age adult. He could have killed the Riddles and framed Morfin during one of those holidays (probably Easter, so as to be closer to summer). Then he would be back at school with the ring, as shown in Slughorn's memory.

Okay, thanks meesha1971 and thewbacca! :)



I believe it has to do with the special enchantments placed onto Sirius' mother's portrait. They are must stronger than the ones on the Fat Lady, because her portrait can be removed, whilest Mrs. Black's can't. Also, Mrs. Black probably put some kind of charm on her portrait, perhaps Dark, perhaps not, that prevented any harm from coming upon it. She must have known that there was a danger of her being removed from her home, and so took the necessary precautions in order to assure her position in the household. The Fat Lady's portrait probably didn't have these sort of enchantments because, up until the Sirius Black event, I don't think anyone suspected someone of attacking a portrait.As far as she knew, her eldest son was in Azkaban, unlikely to ever get out, as no-one ever does, and her youngest was dead. Who did she need to protect it from? Also, is it possible to protect the portrait posthumously?

A question which is possibly to have already been asked but anyway :cool:

In Voldemort's veins runs Harry's Lily-sacrificed blood since the resurrection in GOF.That's why he failed to kill Harry hm?So does it mean Harry is unkillable as long as Voldemort is alive.Even if someone but Voldemort himself tried to kill Harry, Harry wouldn't die 'cause of Voldemort acting as a Horcrux am I right?

A question which is possibly to have already been asked but anyway :cool:

In Voldemort's veins runs Harry's Lily-sacrificed blood since the resurrection in GOF.That's why he failed to kill Harry hm?So does it mean Harry is unkillable as long as Voldemort is alive.Even if someone but Voldemort himself tried to kill Harry, Harry wouldn't die 'cause of Voldemort acting as a Horcrux am I right?

Yes. The blood that runs in Harry's veins had Lily's sacrifice in it, so when Voldemort took Harry's blood, he put the protection in himself. While the bond was still in Voldemort, Harry could not die. :)

If Sirius could wreck a painting (slashing the Fat Lady) why didn't he do the same to the portrait of his mother? The painting was wrecked, but it didn't do anything to the Fat Lady. What I remember comes from the PoA movie, so excuse me if it doesn't quite follow the book. The Fat Lady left the painting and would not return because she was scared. I guess she could return to the painting and did after they fixed it, so wrecking the painting wouldn't do anything to Mrs. Black.

I messed up with Tom being of age when he murdered the Riddles. I used to know it, but someone confunded me the other day. Thanks for the quote InfereFood.
So the Ministry arrested Morfin for something that was under age magic because Jo messed it up The ban on under aged magic was reinforced since and the Ministry refined there methods of detecting it (they still can’t distinguish between elf- and human- magic, even though 'the situation in Little Winging has been closely watched, given past events'(OotP)) Tom knew how to hide his magic being traced The crime (threefold murder) and the breech of the International Statute of Secrecy was so sever, that a little thing like the breech of the ban on underaged magic was simply overlooked.

I prefer the last reason. Tom presented them the readymade scapegoat, so they did not look too closely.

In Voldemort's veins runs Harry's Lily-sacrificed blood since the resurrection in GOF.That's why he failed to kill Harry hm?So does it mean Harry is unkillable as long as Voldemort is alive.Even if someone but Voldemort himself tried to kill Harry, Harry wouldn't die 'cause of Voldemort acting as a Horcrux am I right?
Harry asks Dumbledore about that while he is in limbo, but he doesn't get an answer.
The case is unique so no one knows for sure what would happen. Dumbledore wasn't sure Harry would survive, he guessed ! And he told Snape it was very important that Voldemort would kill Harry himself, so Dumbledore probably thought it mattered. In PS he says the protection makes, that Voldemort, who shed Lily's blood, can't harm Harry, I don't think by running in Voldemort's veins too, it was extended to protect Harry from being killed by others as well.

Another thing: The blood in Voldemort does not really work like a Horcrux for Harry. A Horcrux would only tie Harry's soul to life, he would have become Vapoarry. The sacrifice in the blood protects Harry's body too, and it leaves Harry with a choice, he could have 'gone on' had he wanted.



If Sirius could wreck a painting (slashing the Fat Lady) why didn't he do the same to the portrait of his mother? She was still his mother! Getting rid of her or insultin her is one thing, but attacking her with a knife ?? I don't think it occured to him.

She was still his mother! Getting rid of her or insultin her is one thing, but attacking her with a knife ?? I don't think it occured to him.

I don't think he would have resorted to that either. Attacking her with a knife wouldn't have worked, for a few reasons. I doubt he would have been able to. He told Harry that all sorts of charms had been put up around so they couldn't take it down or anything. That doesn't necassarily mean they couldn't slash it, but the subject of the portrait wouldn't be dead. The Fat Lady just moved to a new portrait. I assume Mrs. Black would do the same and scream from there.

In commonly accepted usage, 'summer of his 16th year' refers to the summer he was 16. More accurately, it would refer to the summer he was 15 (that would be his 16th year of life). In either event, he couldn't have set out after the Gaunts then. He was underage, obligated to live at the Muggle orphanage during the holidays. He had no money to travel. He could not use magic to travel.


Thank you for taking the time to track down and summarize Riddle's age at these various events. This is all very fascinating!

I actually disagree with your comment that Riddle couldn't go to the Gaunts when he was 15 or 16. He had proven at age 11 a willingness to travel around London on his own. I am sure he was adept at rustling up monies from some where, including some level of allowance for jobs performed at the orphanage or illegal means. In 1940's England it would have been relatively easy to get around without using magic (hitchhike, trains, even broom stick). Muggles come of age at 18 and he would probably pass for 18 as their was no photo ID back then, moreover, most people finish school at age 16 and go into the work force.

I actually disagree with your comment that Riddle couldn't go to the Gaunts when he was 15 or 16. He had proven at age 11 a willingness to travel around London on his own. I am sure he was adept at rustling up monies from some where, including some level of allowance for jobs performed at the orphanage or illegal means. In 1940's England it would have been relatively easy to get around without using magic (hitchhike, trains, even broom stick). Muggles come of age at 18 and he would probably pass for 18 as their was no photo ID back then, moreover, most people finish school at age 16 and go into the work force.:agree:
And Tom could use magic to a certain extend. Flying a broom, or using the floo network or the knight bus is allowed in Harry's time. Tom may even have been allowed to Apperate under the age of seventeen in his time.

I don't think he would have resorted to that either. Attacking her with a knife wouldn't have worked, for a few reasons. I doubt he would have been able to. He told Harry that all sorts of charms had been put up around so they couldn't take it down or anything. That doesn't necassarily mean they couldn't slash it, but the subject of the portrait wouldn't be dead. The Fat Lady just moved to a new portrait. I assume Mrs. Black would do the same and scream from there.Mrs. Black apparently couldn't move, or there would be non way to shut her up. It seems to me that she was in that portrait alone. And if the painting was wrecked, she would just lurk in the corners, and hence not scream at people all the time.

And as for the she-was-still-his-mother argument, the way he treated the heirlooms says all that needs to be said on his attitude to his family.

And as for the she-was-still-his-mother argument, the way he treated the heirlooms says all that needs to be said on his attitude to his family. As I said: There's a difference between attacking verbally and attacking physically. Sirius isn’t aggressive. He was desperate and frustrated when he attacked the Fat Lady, and she was actually doing something, refusing him entry. His mother is only talking.
Sirius hates Kreacher, i.e. he doesn't want to have to deal with him, but he does not hurt him or make him punish himself, or even make him work intolerably hard.

As for Mrs.Black leaving her picture: I guess Sirius removed all other paintings. Only the one of Phineas is left and he has IMO instructions not to let her in.

A question which is possibly to have already been asked but anyway :cool:

In Voldemort's veins runs Harry's Lily-sacrificed blood since the resurrection in GOF.That's why he failed to kill Harry hm?So does it mean Harry is unkillable as long as Voldemort is alive.Even if someone but Voldemort himself tried to kill Harry, Harry wouldn't die 'cause of Voldemort acting as a Horcrux am I right?

I don't believe it was a soul-fragment-anchor thing. Voldemort was unwittingly keeping alive Lily's sacrifice. I believe Harry was vulnerable to being killed by anyone else the entire time.

Thank you for taking the time to track down and summarize Riddle's age at these various events. This is all very fascinating!

I actually disagree with your comment that Riddle couldn't go to the Gaunts when he was 15 or 16. He had proven at age 11 a willingness to travel around London on his own. I am sure he was adept at rustling up monies from some where, including some level of allowance for jobs performed at the orphanage or illegal means. In 1940's England it would have been relatively easy to get around without using magic (hitchhike, trains, even broom stick). Muggles come of age at 18 and he would probably pass for 18 as their was no photo ID back then, moreover, most people finish school at age 16 and go into the work force.

:agree:
And Tom could use magic to a certain extend. Flying a broom, or using the floo network or the knight bus is allowed in Harry's time. Tom may even have been allowed to Apperate under the age of seventeen in his time.

I've no doubt he was capable. I simply believe he waited until he was free to do so, in order to avoid attracting attention.

Thank you for taking the time to track down and summarize Riddle's age at these various events. This is all very fascinating!

I actually disagree with your comment that Riddle couldn't go to the Gaunts when he was 15 or 16. He had proven at age 11 a willingness to travel around London on his own. I am sure he was adept at rustling up monies from some where, including some level of allowance for jobs performed at the orphanage or illegal means. In 1940's England it would have been relatively easy to get around without using magic (hitchhike, trains, even broom stick). Muggles come of age at 18 and he would probably pass for 18 as their was no photo ID back then, moreover, most people finish school at age 16 and go into the work force.

I agree. Riddle was born on Dec. 31 so he would have turned 16 in the middle of his fifth year. It's stated on page twice that Riddle killed his father and grandparents that year - the summer before his fifth year at Hogwarts. He brags to Harry about that in COS - he committed those murders before he opened the chamber and created the diary. There are other clues to that with the Chamber having been opened 50 years before - the Riddle family being murdered half a century before - and Frank Bryce reporting that he had seen a teenaged boy there that night. And we actually see that in HBP when Dumbledore shows Harry Morfin's memory - and Dumbledore and Harry discuss the fact that Riddle was underage when that happened. Riddle went to see Morfin and murdered his father and grandparents when he was 15 years old.

My son (age 4) asked me who owns the Riddle house. I always figured it was Tom, but really, why would he bother? And who would have maintained the finances of it during his Vapormort stage? He wouldn't have inherited it, would he?

I messed up with Tom being of age when he murdered the Riddles. I used to know it, but someone confunded me the other day. Thanks for the quote InfereFood.
So the Ministry arrested Morfin for something that was under age magic because

Jo messed it up
The ban on under aged magic was reinforced since and the Ministry refined there methods of detecting it (they still can’t distinguish between elf- and human- magic, even though 'the situation in Little Winging has been closely watched, given past events'(OotP))
Tom knew how to hide his magic being traced
The crime (threefold murder) and the breech of the International Statute of Secrecy was so sever, that a little thing like the breech of the ban on underaged magic was simply overlooked.I prefer the last reason. Tom presented them the readymade scapegoat, so they did not look too closely.

Do they normally keep that close of an eye on underage magic? I was under the impression that Harry's case was a bit different as he was the only wizard living in that area and because of his situation. As Dumbledore stated the ministry relied on the parents to keep children from performing magic.

Also, Riddle used Morfins wand didn't he? I guess I thought maybe that had something to do with it not being detected as underage magic but I could be mistaken. :shrug:

My son (age 4) asked me who owns the Riddle house. I always figured it was Tom, but really, why would he bother? And who would have maintained the finances of it during his Vapormort stage? He wouldn't have inherited it, would he?

I'm sure Tom never claimed it openly. He would have had to establish his relationship to the family, and that might have lead to suspicion of his involvement with the mysterious deaths of his father and grandparents. Especially if someone realized he had the same middle name as the father of the confessed murderer (Morfin).

The opening chapter of Goblet of Fire referred to a succession of people having owned or rented it. I can't remember for sure, but I think none of them stayed very long. The chapter goes on to say that the current (1994) owner was believed to be keeping it for "tax purposes".

I've harbored the suspicion that the 'absentee' owner was actually Dumbledore. No reason, really. We know he found out Tom's Muggle history. I wouldn't be surprised if Dumbledore took control of Tom's ancestral estate, possibly through an intermidiary.

One argument against Dumbledore being the owner would be that he only heard of the gardener's death because he alertly read the Muggle newspapers (and the Ministry not at all). If he were the owner of record and the man's employer, he probably would have been contacted after the dead body was found.

I suppose Voldemort might (secretly) have been the absentee owner (or in control of the owner), as well.

My son (age 4) asked me who owns the Riddle house. I always figured it was Tom, but really, why would he bother? And who would have maintained the finances of it during his Vapormort stage? He wouldn't have inherited it, would he?

I thought the caretaker Frank was taking care of it as well as he could. He probably had the interest from the money left by the Riddles, which may not have been much, but it was enough apparently to get him by and keep the house standing.

I'm sure Tom never claimed it openly. He would have had to establish his relationship to the family, and that might have lead to suspicion of his involvement with the mysterious deaths of his father and grandparents. Especially if someone realized he had the same middle name as the father of the confessed murderer (Morfin).

The opening chapter of Goblet of Fire referred to a succession of people having owned or rented it. I can't remember for sure, but I think none of them stayed very long. The chapter goes on to say that the current (1994) owner was believed to be keeping it for "tax purposes".

I've harbored the suspicion that the 'absentee' owner was actually Dumbledore. No reason, really. We know he found out Tom's Muggle history. I wouldn't be surprised if Dumbledore took control of Tom's ancestral estate, possibly through an intermidiary.

One argument against Dumbledore being the owner would be that he only heard of the gardener's death because he alertly read the Muggle newspapers (and the Ministry not at all). If he were the owner of record and the man's employer, he probably would have been contacted after the dead body was found.

I suppose Voldemort might (secretly) have been the absentee owner (or in control of the owner), as well.Dumbledore would be a logical owner as well, but why? Why would he bother? You're right, somehow he makes more sense than Tom, although Tom DID return there. Maybe Dumbledore knoew he would, someday.

If it was really Dumbledore, then I don't believe Voldemort would actually stay there, killing Frank, and planning with Barty Crouch Jr. Dumbledore would surely have some protective enchantments in place to know if anyone would come there and if that anyone would be magical, Dumbledore would have known.

I think it was owned by a few muggles one after the other who were probably driven out by Riddle himself.

If it was really Dumbledore, then I don't believe Voldemort would actually stay there, killing Frank, and planning with Barty Crouch Jr. Dumbledore would surely have some protective enchantments in place to know if anyone would come there and if that anyone would be magical, Dumbledore would have known.

I agree. It seems very unlikely that Dumbledore would have been the owner since Voldemort used it as a hide out.

I think it was owned by a few muggles one after the other who were probably driven out by Riddle himself.

It's stated on page that nobody had lived in the house for years. Two families lived there after the murders, but neither for very long and they said the place had a nasty feeling about it. The third owner was the wealthy man who neither lived there nor put it to any use and was believed to keep the house for tax reasons.

That might have been Voldemort. It is within his character to view the house as his possession and it's possible that he cast some kind of spell that would make muggles feel uncomfortable there - kind of a muggle repelling charm maybe. However, the fact that he was Vapormort for all those years makes that unlikely. Even if you don't live in a house, there are still taxes and insurance, etc... and someone was paying Frank Bryce for all those years. Voldemort didn't have a vault at Gringott's where any such arrangements could have been made.

But some of the Death Eaters did - like Lucius or even Bellatrix. It's possible that Voldemort took possession of the house himself using magic and then had Lucius or one of the other Death Eaters take care of the business end of it for him. It also appears that he owned the Gaunt house as well since he felt safe enough to hide the ring there and I could see Lucius taking care of the business end of things with those properties - or maybe one of the other wealthy Death Eaters. The Gaunt house proved useful as a hiding place for the ring and the Riddle house would have been useful for meetings or hiding - as Voldemort used it in GOF. We really don't have enough facts to know anything for sure though.

Thank u all lot for your satisfactory replies.Yet I don't also understand all those Deathly Hallows thing.Do Deathly Hallows prevent the one having all three from dying or is this just a myth?

No, they don't prevent you from dying. What they do is to make you lose your fear of death I think. Am not too sure though, becuse your question has made me ask a question of my own.

How would they do that, even if they are all owned by Harry. Harry realized he needed to die and then only he could opene the third Hallow.

Is it something like that? Unless you are ok with death or dying, you cannot use them?

Do Deathly Hallows prevent the one having all three from dying or is this just a myth?
For a quick answer and from what I understand, Yes they could make someone "Master of Death", but one had to be fit or worthy to unite all of them. Dumbledore was after them to become Master of Death, so I assume that he had the knowledge that at least that much of the story was true. However, Dumbledore also said that they may not be Death's own and that the legend of the story could have been that the brothers met Death on the road when in reality they were just very powerful wizards and were capable of creating the objects. However, I could be way off (:lol:) and then the debate would fit better here:
Discussion: The Deathly Hallows (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=107974&highlight=Hallows) :)

I agree. Riddle was born on Dec. 31 so he would have turned 16 in the middle of his fifth year. It's stated on page twice that Riddle killed his father and grandparents that year - the summer before his fifth year at Hogwarts. He brags to Harry about that in COS - he committed those murders before he opened the chamber and created the diary. There are other clues to that with the Chamber having been opened 50 years before - the Riddle family being murdered half a century before - and Frank Bryce reporting that he had seen a teenaged boy there that night. And we actually see that in HBP when Dumbledore shows Harry Morfin's memory - and Dumbledore and Harry discuss the fact that Riddle was underage when that happened. Riddle went to see Morfin and murdered his father and grandparents when he was 15 years old.

Hmmm... I had forgotten the details of what Diarymort said in Chamber. I'll have to go back and read that over.

I hadn't put as much stock in that at the time because it wasn't clear when Voldemort left the memories of his 16 year old self in the diary, especially when we thought it was just memories. It could have been years later that he charmed it with aspects of his younger self in order to fool present-day students. In the end, JKR tells us that it was a horcrux, and he did create it at that time (spring/early summer 1943) with the murder of Myrtle.

Chamber tells us the murder of Myrtle happened 50 years before the second half of the 1992-1993 school year, meaning January - June, 1943. Goblet tells us the murder of the Riddles happened 50 years before the summer of 1994, meaning the summer of 1944. That would be that summer after TMR's 6th year, and he would have been of age and free to travel.

Not all the canonical material agrees when tracking dates. I just try to sort them into something that seems reasonable (to me).


Thinking about Diarymort saying he had already killed his father (and paternal grandparents)... Do you remember if JKR said those murders were a horcrux event? If so, why would he have asked Slughorn about creating two or more horcruxes if he had already created two?

Thinking about Diarymort saying he had already killed his father (and paternal grandparents)... Do you remember if JKR said those murders were a horcrux event? If so, why would he have asked Slughorn about creating two or more horcruxes if he had already created two?
Riddle was definately asking Slughorn about the possibilty of making more than one horcrux, because it is believed that at that point he already had the diarycrux. He had also already killed his grandparents however he had not made anymore because at that point because he didn't know he could. I do believe that Jo said that at least one of those deaths was used to create a horcrux (I am trying to find the quote), so it seems then that there is some time leg from when someone is killed to when the horcrux can be made. :)

EDIT:
I found this old thread where this topic is being discussed. The answer your question should be there...somewhere The Horcrux Murders - When and who. v2 (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=89259&highlight=Horcrux)

EDIT #2:
I found it! :D

Horcrux murders:
The diary - Moaning Myrtle;
The cup - Hepzibah Smith, the previous owner;
The locket - a Muggle tramp;
Nagini - Bertha Jorkins;
The diadem - an Albanian peasant;
The ring - Tom Riddle Sr.

Thank u all lot for your satisfactory replies.Yet I don't also understand all those Deathly Hallows thing.Do Deathly Hallows prevent the one having all three from dying or is this just a myth?Actually, what i thought it mewant was that it gave the person with it great perspective, allowing them to see death for what it really was - the begginning of something new. SO that would mean that Blue Oyster Cult managed to collect all three before they recorded Don't Fear The Reaper.

Riddle was definately asking Slughorn about the possibilty of making more than one horcrux, because it is believed that at that point he already had the diarycrux. He had also already killed his grandparents however he had not made anymore because at that point because he didn't know he could. I do believe that Jo said that at least one of those deaths was used to create a horcrux (I am trying to find the quote), so it seems then that there is some time leg from when someone is killed to when the horcrux can be made. :)

EDIT:
I found this old thread where this topic is being discussed. The answer your question should be there...somewhere The Horcrux Murders - When and who. v2 (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=89259&highlight=Horcrux)

EDIT #2:
I found it! :D

Horcrux murders:
The diary - Moaning Myrtle;
The cup - Hepzibah Smith, the previous owner;
The locket - a Muggle tramp;
Nagini - Bertha Jorkins;
The diadem - an Albanian peasant;
The ring - Tom Riddle Sr.
1. But the Horocruxs grossly disfigured him, and yet he was still supposedly handsome when he worked at Borgin and Burkes. Besides, who would want to kill him at that point?
2. Didn't the Horocrux murders have to be important people? None of them seem really signifigant.

2. Didn't the Horocrux murders have to be important people? None of them seem really signifigant.
Surely one of the morals of the Potterverse if that all people are important. No doubt the Albanian peasant's family thought he was.

Let's shuffle this discussion over to one of the following threads, please:

The Horcrux Murders - When and who. v2 (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=89259&highlight=Horcrux)
Destruction of a horcrux (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=109393&highlight=horcrux%2A)
Discussion: The Horcruxes (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=106979&highlight=horcrux%2A)
Riddle, the diary Horcrux and the present day Voldemort (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=112857&highlight=horcrux%2A)


Thanks! :)

But some of the Death Eaters did - like Lucius or even Bellatrix. It's possible that Voldemort took possession of the house himself using magic and then had Lucius or one of the other Death Eaters take care of the business end of it for him. It also appears that he owned the Gaunt house as well since he felt safe enough to hide the ring there and I could see Lucius taking care of the business end of things with those properties - or maybe one of the other wealthy Death Eaters. The Gaunt house proved useful as a hiding place for the ring and the Riddle house would have been useful for meetings or hiding - as Voldemort used it in GOF. We really don't have enough facts to know anything for sure though.

I doubt that's likely because of Voldemort's secretive nature. I don't think he would allow an open chance for anyone to discover his half-blood heritage or to be that close to another of his Horcruxes, especially since both Bella and Lucius had already been entrusted with the other two Horcruxes. I think it's most logical, and follows a strict reading of canon, to assume that the house was owned by someone who probably has nothing further to do with the story, probably a Muggle using it for tax purposes...

Magic leaves it's traces and the powerful Dark Magic Tom used to murder his family may have left enough to be sensed by muggles and give the house a 'creepy feeling', and so scare them enough not to live there or take it down.

Do Deathly Hallows prevent the one having all three from dying or is this just a myth?The Hallows don’t make the owner immortal, as I read it they are human attempts to get control over the aspects of death the makers feared, that is to master death’s control over their lives.
Having the wand and the cloak would mean no one can kill you and rounded up with the stone no one can take others from you by killing them either.
There is however no mention of the Hallows stopping you aging or acquiring (mortal) diseases so wand and cloak don’t really protect you from death and the stone doesn’t really revive people.
As I understand Dumbledore, Harry became Master of Death not by owning the Hallows, but by embracing his mortality. The Hallows helped Harry to find the strength for it and Harry’s strength allowed him to unite the Hallows. It’s sort of circular: Only a person who doesn’t fear death is worthy to unite the Hallows, and that person would not want to evade death, so he is master of the fear that death inspires and that can control and destroy our life.



Did Jo tell how Dumbledore managed to win the duel against the Grindelwald, when Grindelwald had the unbeatable wand?
She must have been asked, but I didn’t keep up with post DH interviews.

This is an odd question, but I'm still going to ask it. In Chapter 7: The Ministry of Magic in Order of the Phoenix, Arthur takes Harry to his hearing at the Ministry. On their way, they stop by the Auror Department to have a word with Kingsley Shacklebolt. I'm curious if we ever get the names of the two Aurors described on, I believe it's page 121 of the British edition. "A scarlet-robed man with a ponytail longer than Bill's was sitting with his boots up on his desk, dictating a report to his quill" and "[...] a witch with a patch over her eye was talking over the top of her cubicle wall to Kingsley Shacklebolt."

This is an odd question, but I'm still going to ask it. In Chapter 7: The Ministry of Magic in Order of the Phoenix, Arthur takes Harry to his hearing at the Ministry. On their way, they stop by the Auror Department to have a word with Kingsley Shacklebolt. I'm curious if we ever get the names of the two Aurors described on, I believe it's page 121 of the British edition. "A scarlet-robed man with a ponytail longer than Bill's was sitting with his boots up on his desk, dictating a report to his quill" and "[...] a witch with a patch over her eye was talking over the top of her cubicle wall to Kingsley Shacklebolt."

I don't think so. :no:

Did Jo tell how Dumbledore managed to win the duel against the Grindelwald, when Grindelwald had the unbeatable wand?
She must have been asked, but I didn’t keep up with post DH interviews.I don't know if Jo gave an answer to this in her interviews. But here is a thread to discuss the topic:

How did Dumbledore beat Grindelwald (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=108930)

thewbacca:
As far as she knew, her eldest son was in Azkaban, unlikely to ever get out, as no-one ever does, and her youngest was dead. Who did she need to protect it from?

This is what Sirius says regarding his mother's portrait:

OOTP, US version, pg. 79:
"We've been trying ot get her down for a month but we think she put a Permanent Sticking Charm on the back of the canvas."

So I assume Mrs. Black put the charm on because she knew her least favorite son would legally inherit the house one day and may try to remove her portrait. Do we know when she died? Because if it was before Sirius went to Azkaban, then that would explain how she had the foresight to put the charm on.

Also, is it possible to protect the portrait posthumously?

Who's protecting it? The occupant of the portrait or someone who's still alive?

Hmmm... I had forgotten the details of what Diarymort said in Chamber. I'll have to go back and read that over.

I hadn't put as much stock in that at the time because it wasn't clear when Voldemort left the memories of his 16 year old self in the diary, especially when we thought it was just memories. It could have been years later that he charmed it with aspects of his younger self in order to fool present-day students. In the end, JKR tells us that it was a horcrux, and he did create it at that time (spring/early summer 1943) with the murder of Myrtle.

Chamber tells us the murder of Myrtle happened 50 years before the second half of the 1992-1993 school year, meaning January - June, 1943. Goblet tells us the murder of the Riddles happened 50 years before the summer of 1994, meaning the summer of 1944. That would be that summer after TMR's 6th year, and he would have been of age and free to travel.

Not all the canonical material agrees when tracking dates. I just try to sort them into something that seems reasonable (to me).


Thinking about Diarymort saying he had already killed his father (and paternal grandparents)... Do you remember if JKR said those murders were a horcrux event? If so, why would he have asked Slughorn about creating two or more horcruxes if he had already created two?

I didn't think about it at all until after HBP actually. But, afterwards, I did think about it and it was discussed here quite a bit in regards to the Horcruxes.

The timing is not presented exactly - 50 years ago, half a century, etc... That's actually pretty typical for conversation though. Most people are going to round up or down rather than stop to figure out the exact number of years. In the 90's, saying 50 years ago would be more common. By 2000, that would change to 60. Plus, Jo is really bad at math by her own admission so I'd say she kept that simple for herself as well.

But we have other details given to help pin it down. The diary did not contain memories - it contained a piece of Voldemort's soul. His 16 year old self. My impression was that each piece of soul would be an accurate representation of Voldemort at the age it was removed - with complete memories up to the point of removal. The piece of soul in the diary had no knowledge of anything that happened to Voldemort after it was removed. Its memories ended with Riddle being 16. And Riddle described it as preserving his 16 year old self.

I decided to leave behind a diary, preserving my sixteen-year-old self in its pages, so that one day, with luck, I would be able to lead an-other in my footsteps, and finish Salazar Slytherin’s noble work.

GOF tells us that those murders occurred during the summer.

Every version of the tale, however, started in the same place: Fifty years before, at daybreak on a fine summer's morning when the Riddle House had still been well kept and impressive, a maid had entered the drawing room to find all three Riddles dead.

However, what gives us the more precise timing is Slughorn's memory in HBP. In that memory, he is wearing Marvolo's ring - the ring he stole from Morfin the night he murdered his father and grandparents. Dumbledore confirms Riddle's age after he and Harry view the full memory.

“Well, Harry,” said Dumbledore, “I am sure you understood the significance of what we just heard. At the same age as you are now, give or take a few months, Tom Riddle was doing all he could to find out how to make himself immortal.”

Harry was 16 at that time so we know that Riddle is about 16 in that memory - give or take a few months. He may have still been 15 depending on the timing. If that memory occurred before Dec. 31, he would still have been 15 - after Dec. 31, he would have been 16. Dumbledore's statement of "give or take a few months" implies that Riddle was still 15 in this memory, but almost 16. He is wearing Marvolo's ring so we know this memory occurs after the night he visited Morfin, killed the Riddle family, and stole the ring. We know that occurred during the summer. That tells us that he committed those murders in the summer before his fifth year while he was 15 years old.

I doubt that's likely because of Voldemort's secretive nature. I don't think he would allow an open chance for anyone to discover his half-blood heritage or to be that close to another of his Horcruxes, especially since both Bella and Lucius had already been entrusted with the other two Horcruxes. I think it's most logical, and follows a strict reading of canon, to assume that the house was owned by someone who probably has nothing further to do with the story, probably a Muggle using it for tax purposes...

Actually, I never had the impression that Voldemort hid the fact that he was half-blood. In Slughorn's memory that I discussed above, Riddle makes a joke about his background that his "friends" got and laughed at. Those were the first Death Eaters so I don't think it was a secret that he was a half-blood. And he was quite open in talking about that in front of Pettigrew - as well as using the Riddle house as his hiding spot. But that is just an overall impression.

It is most likely that the house was owned by someone with no connection - and easier in regards to the actual story. But I can see where Voldemort would see the house as his rightful possession and take steps to claim it.

I've got a question (though it may just be a mistake, in which case I should put it in the Book Mistakes thread). In the trials Harry witnesses in DUmbledore's Pensieve in GoF, Rookwood's full name is given as Augustus Rookwood, but in OotP, when the DEs escape Azkaban, his name is given as Algernon - which should it be?

I've got a question (though it may just be a mistake, in which case I should put it in the Book Mistakes thread). In the trials Harry witnesses in DUmbledore's Pensieve in GoF, Rookwood's full name is given as Augustus Rookwood, but in OotP, when the DEs escape Azkaban, his name is given as Algernon - which should it be?

I'm pretty sure it's a mistake. JKR must have gotten confused when writing the article in OotP. Either that, or the Daily Prophet got his name wrong. I don't think we were ever told his first name again in the series, so I'm not sure which one is the right name :)

I've got a question (though it may just be a mistake, in which case I should put it in the Book Mistakes thread). In the trials Harry witnesses in DUmbledore's Pensieve in GoF, Rookwood's full name is given as Augustus Rookwood, but in OotP, when the DEs escape Azkaban, his name is given as Algernon - which should it be?
The Lexicon has this to say: In first British editions of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Rookwood's name is erroneously given as Algernon.

I've got a question (though it may just be a mistake, in which case I should put it in the Book Mistakes thread). In the trials Harry witnesses in DUmbledore's Pensieve in GoF, Rookwood's full name is given as Augustus Rookwood, but in OotP, when the DEs escape Azkaban, his name is given as Algernon - which should it be? Algernon was a mistake in the BE, it was corrected it later editions

Do u know if there's someone but Voldemort to make any horcrux(es)?

Do u know if there's someone but Voldemort to make any horcrux(es)?
There were people who made Horcruxes, but we don't know names. Voldemort is the first who made so many.

And also is it possible to make multiple horcruxes murdering only one person?I mean could murdering once split the soul into many fragments depending on the situation?I know horcrux stuff has been discussed a lot but I can't remember replies to my questions

Do u know if there's someone but Voldemort to make any horcrux(es)?
Jo said this in a pottercast interview:


SU: Oh, Jo, but those "horcruxes", though, I tell you, they're so much to ask still about those, you know?... I mean, who, okay, we have to know. Who created the first Horcrux? Was it Grindelwald? Salazar? Who did that?

JKR: D'you know what, I've got a feeling it was Herpo, which is H-E-R-P-O.

SU: Herpo the Foul?

JKR: ... Herpo the Foul, exactly, yeah. Yeah. But you know wizards would've been looking for ways to do exactly what Voldemort did for years, and some of the ways they would've tried would've killed them, so I imagine it... well, there's huge parallels. Splitting the atom would be a very good parallel in our world. Something that people imagined might be able to be done, but couldn't quite bring it off, and then... and then people started doing it with sometimes catastrophic effects. So that's how I see the Horcrux.

SU: Right, because you said that Tom Riddle said there would've been, or Dumbledore did, somebody said that there was only one person--

MA: Slughorn.

(overtalk)

JKR: Yeah, but I would imagine that other people, you know, other people are going to have tried. I think it would be naive not to think that people have been trying for a long time, and thought they succeeded and hadn't, or else, or else



And also is it possible to make multiple horcruxes murdering only one person?I
One murder = one split/tear of the soul

I've got a question (though it may just be a mistake, in which case I should put it in the Book Mistakes thread). In the trials Harry witnesses in DUmbledore's Pensieve in GoF, Rookwood's full name is given as Augustus Rookwood, but in OotP, when the DEs escape Azkaban, his name is given as Algernon - which should it be?

It could be another Lastrange thing, where there are two brothers that are both Death Eaters. If not, I guess it's just a mistake.

EDIT: I just checked my book, and it says Augustus when the DEs escape as well. I have the U.S. Hardback First Edition. Do you have the British one?

No, I don't think Rookwood had any brothers who were also with Voldemort and his name was Auguatus as far as I can remember.

It could be another Lastrange thing, where there are two brothers that are both Death Eaters. If not, I guess it's just a mistake.

EDIT: I just checked my book, and it says Augustus when the DEs escape as well. I have the U.S. Hardback First Edition. Do you have the British one?

I just checked my copy of OotP, and it says Algernon. I have the British Hardback First Edition. It must just be a British book mistake :)

Algernon was a mistake in the British original. It was replaced by Augustus in the paperback edition.

So we can safely include that the intention had not been to introduce a Rookwood brother. Nor that Crouch got it wrong in GoF.

I have a question that's been bothering me -

Bellatrix Lestrange and her husband Rudolphus were both in the mass breakout of Azkaban, where they had been imprisoned for torturing Neville's parents.

Then he kind of drops off the face of the earth and Bella dearest is simpering after Voldemort.

What happened to Rudolphus?

What happened to Rudolphus?
He was still around we just don't hear much about him. He did fight in the battle at the Department of Ministries. I think his over zealous wife out shined him a bit. :)

I'm not sure but I remember that Rodolphus was mentioned in some part of HBP or DH.I also wonder what happened to Junior Crouch after he was kissed by the Dementor.What happens to those given Dementor kiss anyway?In the case of Crouch, was he brought back to Azkaban to serve years till dying or may be transfered somewhere else like St. Mungos? What do u think?

I think he was injured somehow in the 7 Potters chapter, too.
I forget if he was mentioned in the Forest Again.

I've got a question:

Does the making of a horcrux require one or two spells? Because Slughorn makes it sound like it requires one, buti'm not totally sure...

Does the making of a horcrux require one or two spells? Because Slughorn makes it sound like it requires one, buti'm not totally sure...
In short: Slughorn says, "There is a spell..."

and Jo said that the making of one is too horrible to explain, more details about that can be found in this interview:
Anelli, Melissa, John Noe and Sue Upton. "PotterCast Interviews J.K. Rowling, part one." PotterCast #130, 17 December 2007. (http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2007/1217-pottercast-anelli.html)

and for more discussion this thread may help Discussion: The Horcruxes (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=106979&highlight=Horcruxes):)

I'm not sure but I remember that Rodolphus was mentioned in some part of HBP or DH.I also wonder what happened to Junior Crouch after he was kissed by the Dementor. What happens to those given Dementor kiss anyway?In the case of Crouch, was he brought back to Azkaban to serve years till dying or may be transferred somewhere else like St. Mungos? What do u think?
There used to be a thread on this topic, but it is closed now. However you may still find the answer there. If not, you could try starting a new thread for more discussion :)

The Dementor's Kiss (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=104284&highlight=Dementor%27s+Kiss)

I'm not sure but I remember that Rodolphus was mentioned in some part of HBP or DH.

I thought he was mentioned in OotP in the MoM fight, but then he seemed to drop off the face of the earth. It seems odd to me that a married woman would be fawning all over Voldemort while her husband was right there, so I assumed he 'disappeared' somewhere along the line and I just missed it.

I think he was injured somehow in the 7 Potters chapter, too.
I forget if he was mentioned in the Forest Again.

He was part of the attack on Harry in the Seven Potters - but it wasn't actually mentioned until The Fallen Warrior when Ron and Tonks got to the Burrow. I think Rodolphus was the Death Eater that Ron stunned straight to the head. He wasn't mentioned again after that.

Heh, well, I suppose a stunner straight to the head, followed by a rather abrupt stop when he fell from his broom to the ground would certainly explain his disappearance ;) Our lovely Bella didn't seem too terribly disturbed by the loss, but one might argue that it would be difficult for her to be more disturbed than she already is.

I don't think he died falling off his broom.Jo would certanly reveal that knowledge in the book if it was like that

If, as meesha said, the last time we hear anything about him is in chapter 5 when Tonks says: "But we definitely injured Rodolphus..." then we can't claim to know if he is dead or alive.

And as this thread is for answers, not for speculation, I ask you to move on to the next question. :)

How DID the twins know to bet on an Irish victory, but Krum catches the snitch?

How DID the twins know to bet on an Irish victory, but Krum catches the snitch? They know their Quidditch. They knew the Bulgarians couldn't touch Ireland for pure Quidditch skills, but they also knew Krum was an amazing Seeker and fierce competitor.

They know their Quidditch. They knew the Bulgarians couldn't touch Ireland for pure Quidditch skills, but they also knew Krum was an amazing Seeker and fierce competitor.
Yeah, but the goal is to win the game. Bulgaria was capable of injuring the Irish, and then starting to score. Hey, it's a rough game. It was quite the narcissistic thing for Krum to cost his team the chance of winning by catching the snitch too early.

How DID the twins know to bet on an Irish victory, but Krum catches the snitch?

ES: How on earth did Fred and George know that Ireland would win and Bulgaria would get the Snitch?

JKR: Well, I think that if you were really into Quidditch, you could have predicted that. What they had -

ES: But how can you predict that, because you don't know when the Snitch is going to show up.

JKR: It was a risk. They risked everything on it. That is Fred and George, isn't it? They are the risk-takers in the family. You've got Percy at one end of the family - conform, do everything correctly - and you've got Fred and George, who just take a totally different life path and were prepared to risk everything. They risked all they had, which is as much as anyone can do.

Well, Jo is the boss... Before she said this, I was convinced that they had time-traveled or something, but I guess not. Fred and George really were taking a big risk on that, weren't they? But that's why I think they were so successful. They weren't afraid to take risks in their business and it was a huge success. :)

Well, Jo is the boss... Before she said this, I was convinced that they had time-traveled or something, but I guess not. Fred and George really were taking a big risk on that, weren't they? But that's why I think they were so successful. They weren't afraid to take risks in their business and it was a huge success. :) yea, I'd heard people mention the time-travelling thing before as well. It never bothered me because I just assumed it was like any sporting event. That is, that if you were a big enough fan you could make an informed guess about such thing. Like knowing that Krum was a fantastic seeker yet a bit full of himself and young so he might not check (or care) if his team was close enough in score to win before snatching the snitch, and also knowing how excellent the Irish chasers were in comparison to the Bulgarian keeper and beaters. Of course it was a risk but I don't think it was completely out of the blue based on the other info we knew.

Yeah, but the goal is to win the game. Bulgaria was capable of injuring the Irish, and then starting to score. Hey, it's a rough game. It was quite the narcissistic thing for Krum to cost his team the chance of winning by catching the snitch too early.

This was always something that really bothered me - I think this was JK Rowling's self-admitted dislike of sport shining through here because NO sportsperson would ever cost their team the win by finishing the game early. This was one of the only bits of the book that really troubled me - if Krum had been so good at quidditch, he would've known the score, and protected the snitch from the irish seeker until the bulgarians had scored enough quaffles to get the win.

As it is, it is unrealistic and unrepresentative of the cut-and-thrust of real sport.

This was always something that really bothered me - I think this was JK Rowling's self-admitted dislike of sport shining through here because NO sportsperson would ever cost their team the win by finishing the game early. This was one of the only bits of the book that really troubled me - if Krum had been so good at quidditch, he would've known the score, and protected the snitch from the irish seeker until the bulgarians had scored enough quaffles to get the win.

As it is, it is unrealistic and unrepresentative of the cut-and-thrust of real sport.

I'm not sure I agree. In (American) Football when a team is so far behind that they can not catch up they will run out the clock, not take time outs etc. or they will attempt to score via a hail-Mary just to save face and close the gap. And then there is nothing as cut-and-thrust as boxing (just ask Vernon Dursley) where the end of a match can be brought about by throwing-in-the-towel and conceding defeat. There are dozens of other examples from Cricket to marathons - and with the potential for Quidditch to go on for hours it is certainly a way for the losing team to end the misery.

That said, there really is no sport like Quidditch where a game can end with an event that renders 150 points - and with it the ability to both concede defeat and save face. I think that based on the rules of the game it is entirely possible and plausible for such an outcome. Krum knew the score but didn't want to be embarrassed further and thanks to the (admittedly strange) rules that delivers a disproportionate score to catching the snitch the record books do not show such a trauncing.

ES: How on earth did Fred and George know that Ireland would win and Bulgaria would get the Snitch?
...
JKR: It was a risk. They risked everything on it. That is Fred and George, isn't it? They are the risk-takers in the family. You've got Percy at one end of the family - conform, do everything correctly - and you've got Fred and George, who just take a totally different life path and were prepared to risk everything. They risked all they had, which is as much as anyone can do.

Well, Jo is the boss... Before she said this, I was convinced that they had time-traveled or something, but I guess not. Fred and George really were taking a big risk on that, weren't they? But that's why I think they were so successful. They weren't afraid to take risks in their business and it was a huge success. :)

yea, I'd heard people mention the time-travelling thing before as well. It never bothered me because I just assumed it was like any sporting event. That is, that if you were a big enough fan you could make an informed guess about such thing. Like knowing that Krum was a fantastic seeker yet a bit full of himself and young so he might not check (or care) if his team was close enough in score to win before snatching the snitch, and also knowing how excellent the Irish chasers were in comparison to the Bulgarian keeper and beaters. Of course it was a risk but I don't think it was completely out of the blue based on the other info we knew.

I think it comes down to risk and (potential) reward, as well. Fred & George wanted to make money.

It sounded like Ireland was heavily favored. So, there might have been very short odds there. If they bet their 19 galleons (or however much it was), they might only have netted a few galleons. They would get better odds betting the underdog, a chance at doubling or tripling their money, in exchange for it being a very small chance. They may have bet on something that was even more of a longshot (the favorite winning and the underdog getting the snitch) in exchange for a larger payoff.

Besides, I don't think they were necessarily betting on Krum catching the Snitch to end the game with his team 1 score short. They were betting on:

the likelihood of Ireland opening up a substantial lead (more than 160 pts - which would have happened if they kept going) and
the Snitch not being caught before then (the field is probably tilted that way. At a level so far advanced above school sports, the players are more advanced, so the Snitch must be tougher to catch. If it weren't, every match would be over in 5 minutes, which isn't good for gate receipts) and
Krum then beating the Irish Seeker to the Snitch (from what everyone was saying of his talent beforehand and what we saw in the early part of the match, Krum had a better than even chance of doing so)


So, it may not have been completely farfetched.

Only partially farfetched.

When Harry jumps onto the back of the dragon, and Hermione
and Ron follow, they then find themselves in this dragon-size
situation where the dragon has to squirm its way out of the
Bowels of Gringott's. (Basement of Gringott's ?)

i don't know how long it is in the book. on tape it's about a
minute or 2.

just from raising animals as a child, and reading every book
i could get my hands on (about animals), i thought it was
im-plausible for Harry and Ron and Hermione to stay on the
back of the dragon, and not get smushed.

when Harry and Hagrid are falling, Harry uses "accio" and it
pulls him toward Hagrid. i think the same spell would work
for the 3 some when they're sitting on the back of the dragon.

since they're sitting on the back and maybe Harry is up
close to the shoulders/ top of the front legs, it still seems
like they'll get smushed. unless they blast the entry-ways
and arches and portals and cave sections with "Confrendo !"
or some other blasting spell.

they do eventually start helping the dragon, to enlarge the
passageways.

it'll be interesting to see how they handle this in the movie.

This was always something that really bothered me - I think this was JK Rowling's self-admitted dislike of sport shining through here because NO sportsperson would ever cost their team the win by finishing the game early. This was one of the only bits of the book that really troubled me - if Krum had been so good at quidditch, he would've known the score, and protected the snitch from the irish seeker until the bulgarians had scored enough quaffles to get the win.

As it is, it is unrealistic and unrepresentative of the cut-and-thrust of real sport.

But isn't it said in the book that Krum realized the Bulgaria couldn't win? It was not based on a dislike of sport, but of Krum's character development. He's arrogant enough to catch the snitch when he gets the chance... because it's obvious that the rest of his team aren't capable of getting any closer to winning.

I'm not sure I agree. In (American) Football when a team is so far behind that they can not catch up they will run out the clock, not take time outs etc...

But the problem is that bulgaria weren't so far behind. I think they only ended up losing by 10 or 20 points (i.e. 2 quaffles). That's like a (european) football team choosing to give up a game when they are only 2-0 down, which wouldn't ever happen! Any professional sportsperson would tell you that they wouldn't throw in a game when they only have to score 1/2 goals/trys/runs/touchdowns to win.

And then there is nothing as cut-and-thrust as boxing (just ask Vernon Dursley) where the end of a match can be brought about by throwing-in-the-towel and conceding defeat. There are dozens of other examples from Cricket to marathons...

The problem with things like boxing and marathons is that they are not a point-based sport (primarily) and are subject to time limits, so not really a good comparison with quidditch. Ultimately I can understand why JK Rowling did it - the quidditch game couldn't take up too much time of the book and she had to end it somehow. But I'm just not sure it was done realistically, is all.:relax:

I don't remember if the book gives a specific length of time of the game...but the irish team scores 16 or 17 goals while bulgaria only scores 1 in what seems to be only a half hour or so. the chances of bulgaria scoring another 2 goals and then catching the snitch BEFORE the irish scores any more were slim to none. krum knows his team better than anyone and knows what they are capable of. a true sportsman knows how to lose with dignity and can demonstrate just how talented they are by choosing how to lose.
besides, that game would be most remembered by true fans of the game by the amazing catch krum had and not the final score.

Raviolissimo:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When Harry jumps onto the back of the dragon, and Hermione
and Ron follow, they then find themselves in this dragon-size
situation where the dragon has to squirm its way out of the
Bowels of Gringott's. (Basement of Gringott's ?)

i don't know how long it is in the book. on tape it's about a
minute or 2.

just from raising animals as a child, and reading every book
i could get my hands on (about animals), i thought it was
im-plausible for Harry and Ron and Hermione to stay on the
back of the dragon, and not get smushed.

when Harry and Hagrid are falling, Harry uses "accio" and it
pulls him toward Hagrid. i think the same spell would work
for the 3 some when they're sitting on the back of the dragon.

since they're sitting on the back and maybe Harry is up
close to the shoulders/ top of the front legs, it still seems
like they'll get smushed. unless they blast the entry-ways
and arches and portals and cave sections with "Confrendo !"
or some other blasting spell.

they do eventually start helping the dragon, to enlarge the
passageways.

it'll be interesting to see how they handle this in the movie.

I reread that passage, and it seems as though the three did have some trouble getting out at first. The books says that their backs, "scraped against the ceiling", and Harry, "could only cling to its back, expecting to be shaken off at any moment" (DH, US version, page 542). The three were sitting just below the wings, and the dragon was trying to get out head first, therefore, the trio would have had the length of the dragon's neck between them and the blocked passage, which might explain why they didn't fall off. Plus, the dragon tries to break through the passage, it doesn't squirm out, at least not until the trio enlarge the passage, by which time the hole will be big enough for them to fit through along with the dragon.

After seeing Sweeny Todd I have one. How was Ron able to use the sword to get the Locket of Harrys neck without slicing open his throat, or poisoning him with the sword?

thewbacca:
After seeing Sweeny Todd I have one. How was Ron able to use the sword to get the Locket of Harrys neck without slicing open his throat, or poisoning him with the sword?

Ron didn't use the sword to get the Locket off of Harry's neck. He went back for the sword after rescuing Harry.

DH, US version, page 386:
Ron explained how he had watched Harry jump into the pool and had waited for him to resurface; how he had realized that something was wrong, dived in, and saved Harry, then returned for the sword.

So I assume that Ron just pulled at the locket until its chain broke, I don't think that the links would be very thick. This leads me to another question. According to the book, not a lot of time passes between when Harry is pulled out of the pool and when Ron talks to him for the first time. How could Ron have dove back in, found the sword, grabbed the sword, and come back out in that time?

So I assume that Ron just pulled at the locket until its chain broke, I don't think that the links would be very thick. This leads me to another question. According to the book, not a lot of time passes between when Harry is pulled out of the pool and when Ron talks to him for the first time. How could Ron have dove back in, found the sword, grabbed the sword, and come back out in that time?

Remember, the pool wasn't very deep. Harry's problem was the locket. Ron could have easily done all that very quickly (also considering the fact that it was freezing, so this would have been more incentive to move fast).

guinevere_wood:
Remember, the pool wasn't very deep. Harry's problem was the locket. Ron could have easily done all that very quickly (also considering the fact that it was freezing, so this would have been more incentive to move fast).

Okay, that makes sense. Thanks. :) While I'm thinking of it. In DH, at the beginning of the book, Harry is talking with Vernon about what Voldemort would do to the Dursleys if he caught them.

DH, US version, page 33:
"The Order is sure Voldemort will target you, whether to torture you to try and find out where I am, or because he thinks by holding you hostage I'd come and try to rescue you."
Uncle Vernon's and Harry's eyes met. Harry was sure that in that instant they were both wondering the same thing. Then Uncle Verson walked on and Harry resumed . . .


I was wondering if we ever received confirmation on what they were wondering about. I've always thought that it was whether Harry would come to rescue them or not. It's kind of silly, but I thought I'd ask to see what everyone else thought.

Okay, that makes sense. Thanks. :) While I'm thinking of it. In DH, at the beginning of the book, Harry is talking with Vernon about what Voldemort would do to the Dursleys if he caught them.



I was wondering if we ever received confirmation on what they were wondering about. I've always thought that it was whether Harry would come to rescue them or not. It's kind of silly, but I thought I'd ask to see what everyone else thought.

No, that's not a silly idea at all.:) I always thought along those lines too. Harry and Vernon were both thinking there that they both knew there was probably no chance of Harry going to rescue Vernon if Voldemort had him. Maybe Dudley, or at least after his turnaround, but not Vernon. He was the worst of them all to Harry, and was probably the most one-sided and unchanged character in the series. Harry cared about 0% about him.

deathly721:
No, that's not a silly idea at all. I always thought along those lines too. Harry and Vernon were both thinking there that they both knew there was probably no chance of Harry going to rescue Vernon if Voldemort had him. Maybe Dudley, or at least after his turnaround, but not Vernon. He was the worst of them all to Harry, and was probably the most one-sided and unchanged character in the series. Harry cared about 0% about him.

I don't know. I don't think Harry would have it in him to let Vernon die at the hands of Voldemort. If he did, he would probably feel extremely guilty about it. If Harry cared 0% about Uncle Vernon, he wouldn't be trying to convince him to accept the protection of the Order. So I think Harry cares 3% about his Uncle. :p

What happened to Trevor?

No, that's not a silly idea at all.:) I always thought along those lines too. Harry and Vernon were both thinking there that they both knew there was probably no chance of Harry going to rescue Vernon if Voldemort had him. Maybe Dudley, or at least after his turnaround, but not Vernon. He was the worst of them all to Harry, and was probably the most one-sided and unchanged character in the series. Harry cared about 0% about him.Yeah, but there's also Harry, who has a good heart, and won't let harm come to people. He even tried to save Voldemort ("Try for some remorse, Riddle."). Would his lifelong hatred of his uncle dominate his good heart? Neither one knew.

Yeah, but there's also Harry, who has a good heart, and won't let harm come to people. He even tried to save Voldemort ("Try for some remorse, Riddle."). Would his lifelong hatred of his uncle dominate his good heart? Neither one knew.

I agree. I think that was the point of that. Harry wasn't sure what he would do in that situation and Vernon realized that. I think it's clear that Harry wouldn't have let and of the Dursleys die if he could prevent it - he also saved Malfoy and they hated each other. Harry didn't want anyone - including the Dursleys - to die because of him. But it was a moral dilemma for Harry. What would he do if it came down to risking himself - and the mission Dumbledore had left for him - to save the Dursleys? That was a question he couldn't answer to at that point.

Ron didn't use the sword to get the Locket off of Harry's neck. He went back for the sword after rescuing Harry.



So I assume that Ron just pulled at the locket until its chain broke, I don't think that the links would be very thick.No. Sorry, but that doesn't work. The chain was part of the horocrux (cause it could control it, drawing it inside itself until it choked Harry). If it was, it was under the same enchantments, and so was invulnerable to nearly everything. Brute strength alone wouldn't have an impact on it, no more than Gimli's axe on the Ring of Power. Plus, if it was choking him, there would be no way to get a grip on it and pull.

I agree. I think that was the point of that. Harry wasn't sure what he would do in that situation and Vernon realized that. I think it's clear that Harry wouldn't have let and of the Dursleys die if he could prevent it - he also saved Malfoy and they hated each other. Harry didn't want anyone - including the Dursleys - to die because of him. But it was a moral dilemma for Harry. What would he do if it came down to risking himself - and the mission Dumbledore had left for him - to save the Dursleys? That was a question he couldn't answer to at that point.While Vernon was asking 'Does he care about us, as his only remaining family? Or is he really a coward?" Though not along the same lines, they were both thinking the same thing.

thewbacca:
No. Sorry, but that doesn't work. The chain was part of the horocrux (cause it could control it, drawing it inside itself until it choked Harry). If it was, it was under the same enchantments, and so was invulnerable to nearly everything. Brute strength alone wouldn't have an impact on it, no more than Gimli's axe on the Ring of Power. Plus, if it was choking him, there would be no way to get a grip on it and pull.

What if Ron used his wand? I know you said it was invulnerable to nearly everything, but Ron didn't use the sword, and if he couldn't rip it off, using his wand is the only logical explaintion. Or maybe the locket itself wasn't enchanted, but merely was a normal locket that was manipulated by the horcrux. After all, Ron had to stab inside the locket to destroy, so that was where the power of the horcrux had to have been. Perhaps the outside of the locket, or the chain around it, was just a regular locket. The only reason I don't think that Ron went back into the pond, got the sword, and then broke the chain with it is that Harry felt it release him immediately after he was lifted out of the pond (if I interpreted the passage correctly). However, Ron was holding the sword in one hand and the broken chain in the other, so it does stand to reason that he used the sword to break the chain. But I'm not sure he would have left Harry in the snow, choking, to dive back in and take the time to grab the sword and get out again. On the other hand, we did decide that not a lot of time passed between those moments, so maybe Ron did use the sword, as it definitely would have been able to break the chain, as it was impregnated with basilisk venom. I hope that helps a bit, though I did second-guess myself a lot. :p

What if Ron used his wand? I know you said it was invulnerable to nearly everything, but Ron didn't use the sword, and if he couldn't rip it off, using his wand is the only logical explaintion. Or maybe the locket itself wasn't enchanted, but merely was a normal locket that was manipulated by the horcrux. After all, Ron had to stab inside the locket to destroy, so that was where the power of the horcrux had to have been. Perhaps the outside of the locket, or the chain around it, was just a regular locket. The only reason I don't think that Ron went back into the pond, got the sword, and then broke the chain with it is that Harry felt it release him immediately after he was lifted out of the pond (if I interpreted the passage correctly). However, Ron was holding the sword in one hand and the broken chain in the other, so it does stand to reason that he used the sword to break the chain. But I'm not sure he would have left Harry in the snow, choking, to dive back in and take the time to grab the sword and get out again. On the other hand, we did decide that not a lot of time passed between those moments, so maybe Ron did use the sword, as it definitely would have been able to break the chain, as it was impregnated with basilisk venom. I hope that helps a bit, though I did second-guess myself a lot. :pKreacher used everything he knew, and didn't do anything to the Horocrux exterior. It was protected very well, thats one of the reasons he went insane, he was constantly punishing himself for failing to destroy it. He also said this to Harry, Ron and Hermione. I think Ron would have remembered this, and just stayed down a second longer to grab the sword after grabbing Harry (remember, he is a lot stronger than Harry). But than that leads me right back to my original question, how did he use it without Killing Harry in the process?

Kreacher used everything he knew, and didn't do anything to the Horocrux exterior. It was protected very well, thats one of the reasons he went insane, he was constantly punishing himself for failing to destroy it. He also said this to Harry, Ron and Hermione. I think Ron would have remembered this, and just stayed down a second longer to grab the sword after grabbing Harry (remember, he is a lot stronger than Harry). But than that leads me right back to my original question, how did he use it without Killing Harry in the process?

If he had to use the sword, that could have been done without injuring Harry simply by placing it with flat of the sword against the back of Harry's neck. The blade would cut the chain without touching Harry. He wouldn't have had to do anything beyond flicking the chain with the tip of the sword really.

However, I think that is unlikely. The locket was the Horcrux - not the chain. The locket was able to manipulate the chain, but that's not really any different from the diary. It was able to manipulate the ink people used to write in it to respond back. If the chain broke, it would have no effect on the locket. It was the locket they had to stab with the sword - and they had to open the locket to do that. It is most likely that Ron simply broke the chain by pulling it or using his wand.

Kreacher used everything he knew, and didn't do anything to the Horocrux exterior. It was protected very well, thats one of the reasons he went insane, he was constantly punishing himself for failing to destroy it. He also said this to Harry, Ron and Hermione. I think Ron would have remembered this, and just stayed down a second longer to grab the sword after grabbing Harry (remember, he is a lot stronger than Harry). But than that leads me right back to my original question, how did he use it without Killing Harry in the process?
In the book, DH - chapter 19-page 370-US ed: Harry was in the water and he was holding the sword His fingers closed around the hilt. He pulled it upward.
Then something closed tight around his neck. He thought of water weeds, though something had brushed him as he dived, and raised his empty hand to free himself. It was not weed. The chain of the Horcrux had tightened and was slowly constricting his windpipe. The next paragraph talks about Harry struggling but unable to loosen the chain. He thought he was going to drown. there was nothing he could do, and the arms that closed around his chest were surely Death's

I read this as Harry having the sword the whole time he was in the water and Ron grabbed Harry and pulled him out. The sword stayed in Harry's grasp until Ron laid him on the ground. Then Ron took the sword from Harry and cut the chain off of him. That is the way I see this. The chain would be easy to cut, in my opinion. It was the locket that was the horcrux and therefore well protected.

In the book, DH - chapter 19-page 370-US ed: Harry was in the water and he was holding the sword The next paragraph talks about Harry struggling but unable to loosen the chain. He thought he was going to drown.

I read this as Harry having the sword the whole time he was in the water and Ron grabbed Harry and pulled him out. The sword stayed in Harry's grasp until Ron laid him on the ground. Then Ron took the sword from Harry and cut the chain off of him. That is the way I see this. The chain would be easy to cut, in my opinion. It was the locket that was the horcrux and therefore well protected.

Actually, Ron tells Harry that he got the sword out.

“Oh yeah, I got it out,” he said, rather unnecessarily, holding up the sword for Harry’s inspection. “That’s why you jumped in, right?”

Harry was unable to pull the sword out because the locket was choking him. Ron grabbed Harry and the sword because he realized that's what Harry had dived in to get.

Other than that, I basically agree with you. I don't think Ron used the sword to cut the chain - he may have, but I don't think it was necessary because the chain was not the Horcrux. I think it's more likely that he broke the chain by pulling the locket or used his wand. Either way, it could be done without hurting Harry.

If he had to use the sword, that could have been done without injuring Harry simply by placing it with flat of the sword against the back of Harry's neck. The blade would cut the chain without touching Harry. He wouldn't have had to do anything beyond flicking the chain with the tip of the sword really.

However, I think that is unlikely. The locket was the Horcrux - not the chain. The locket was able to manipulate the chain, but that's not really any different from the diary. It was able to manipulate the ink people used to write in it to respond back. If the chain broke, it would have no effect on the locket. It was the locket they had to stab with the sword - and they had to open the locket to do that. It is most likely that Ron simply broke the chain by pulling it or using his wand.That would be similar to saying that the pages of the diary were the horocrux, not the cover, so it would have been destroyed by the toilet. The Chain was attached to the Horocrux not through a loop, but by being created that way. And as for how it was done - How does that work? Were you suggesting he put the blade under the chain? How would he have done that if it was constricting Harry?

I was wondering if it said anywhere in the last book about what happened to all the Acromantulas ? Were they destroyed after the big battle or ???
I can't see them being let alive as they attacked the school and tried to kill the students & teachers/Defenders of the school . Is there any info one way or the other ?

Thanks

twins:p

That would be similar to saying that the pages of the diary were the horocrux, not the cover, so it would have been destroyed by the toilet. The Chain was attached to the Horocrux not through a loop, but by being created that way. And as for how it was done - How does that work? Were you suggesting he put the blade under the chain? How would he have done that if it was constricting Harry?

Actually, the pages of the diary were part of the Horcrux. The toilet didn't destroy the pages - it just got them wet. The basilisk venom destroyed the pages and the cover. However, all that ink used was not part of the Horcrux - the diary just manipulated the ink being used to be able to respond. I can find no description of the locket saying the chain was part of the locket rather than attached through a loop. I'd say it's most likely that the locket had a loop and was the chain was separate. That's also what is shown with the picture of the locket on the adult UK cover - it has a loop with the chain running through it.

Personally, I don't see any need for Ron to have used the sword at all. It is most likely that he just broke the chain by pulling it or perhaps used his wand for a spell to break the chain. Considering the circumstances, that's really all he had time to do - all of that happened fairly quickly. However, if he did have to use the sword, then he could slip the tip of the sword under the chain without injuring Harry. He would have to be careful, but they knew the sword was imbibed with basilisk venom - that's why they needed it after all - so Ron would have been careful if he had to do that. But I don't think it happened that way. There's no mention of the sword being used to cut the chain.

I was wondering if it said anywhere in the last book about what happened to all the Acromantulas ? Were they destroyed after the big battle or ???
I can't see them being let alive as they attacked the school and tried to kill the students & teachers/Defenders of the school . Is there any info one way or the other ?

Thanks

twins:p

There wasn't much information in the books about the Acromantulas. And I haven't seen any new information on them in any of JKR's interviews. I think that some were probably killed in the Battle of Hogwarts - it's inevitable, really. But other than that we can only speculate. :)

twinsrule26:
I was wondering if it said anywhere in the last book about what happened to all the Acromantulas ? Were they destroyed after the big battle or ???
I can't see them being let alive as they attacked the school and tried to kill the students & teachers/Defenders of the school . Is there any info one way or the other ?

Thanks

twins

LoonyMagic:
There wasn't much information in the books about the Acromantulas. And I haven't seen any new information on them in any of JKR's interviews. I think that some were probably killed in the Battle of Hogwarts - it's inevitable, really. But other than that we can only speculate.

I think the spiders retreated into the forest, and from there they probably went back to their original nest.

DH, US version, page 647:
Hagrid vanished amongst the spiders, and with a great scurrying, a foul swarming movement, they retreated under the onslaught of spells, Hagrid buried in their midst . . . and the spiders were swarming away with their prey, and he could see nothing of Hagrid at all.

After this, Harry, Ron, and Hermione try to run into the forbidden forest, which is where the spiders have gone. So although, as LoonyMagic said, some of the acromantulas were undoubtedly killed in the battle, I think that most of them retreated back into the forest, and afterwards continued to live in their original home once the death eaters had been driven out of it.

i always thought that the locket was repelled by the sword (kind of like magnets) and that ron lifted harry for enough away that he could just loop the locket (chain and all) over his head and off, get harry and the locket out of the water ... and then went back for the sword

GilleysPheoni:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i always thought that the locket was repelled by the sword (kind of like magnets) and that ron lifted harry for enough away that he could just loop the locket (chain and all) over his head and off, get harry and the locket out of the water ... and then went back for the sword

Ron broke the chain. The passage describes him holding the locket's, "broken chain" in one hand, and the sword in the other. The phrasing for this suggests to me that he used the sword to break the chain, but I am more inclined to believe that Harry dropped the sword as a result of the locket's chain constrict his windpipe, Ron pulled him out of the pond, ripped off the chain or broke it with a spell because it wasn't enchanted like the main body of the locket, then went back for the sword. When Harry opened his eyes, he saw Ron with the horcrux and the sword.

While I'm thinking of it. In DH, at the beginning of the book, Harry is talking with Vernon about what Voldemort would do to the Dursleys if he caught them.



I was wondering if we ever received confirmation on what they were wondering about. I've always thought that it was whether Harry would come to rescue them or not. It's kind of silly, but I thought I'd ask to see what everyone else thought.

They were both wondering whether Harry would come and rescue them I'm certain of that, so yeah you were right.

In HBP, page 238, it says Levicorpus in a nvbl spell, but when Hermione used it in DH, page 538, she "whispered" it. Any thoughts?

Ron broke the chain. The passage describes him holding the locket's, "broken chain" in one hand, and the sword in the other. The phrasing for this suggests to me that he used the sword to break the chain, but I am more inclined to believe that Harry dropped the sword as a result of the locket's chain constrict his windpipe, Ron pulled him out of the pond, ripped off the chain or broke it with a spell because it wasn't enchanted like the main body of the locket, then went back for the sword. When Harry opened his eyes, he saw Ron with the horcrux and the sword.
I'm more inclined to think that Ron used the sword to cut Harry free of the horcrux before they actually got out of the water, or shortly after. On page 371 (DH, U.S. edition), we have Harry feeling his neck, and realizing "someone had cut him free". Also, the chain was a shortened version when Ron held it up in front of Harry, implying it broke in more than one place. Probably everywhere the sword touched it.

I'm more inclined to think that Ron used the sword to cut Harry free of the horcrux before they actually got out of the water, or shortly after.



The chain was a "shortened version" because the locket had magically constricted it.

And, if it matters, I really don't think that Ron used the Sword to cut the chain free. Slipping a double-edged sword between a strangling-tight chain and a human neck really does not seem like A Good Idea.

Xurcroh_Erised:
In HBP, page 238, it says Levicorpus in a nvbl spell, but when Hermione used it in DH, page 538, she "whispered" it. Any thoughts?

Does a nonverbal spell have to be nonverbal, or can it be spoken anyways, perhaps with a lessened effect?

Does a nonverbal spell have to be nonverbal, or can it be spoken anyways, perhaps with a lessened effect?

I always thought that it had to be done nonverbally. If you could speak it, then why did Snape even make a note that it had to be nonverbal? I think that all verbal spells can be spoken nonverbally, but all nonverbal spells have to be spoken nonverbally.

deathly721:
I always thought that it had to be done nonverbally. If you could speak it, then why did Snape even make a note that it had to be nonverbal? I think that all verbal spells can be spoken nonverbally, but all nonverbal spells have to be spoken nonverbally.

But then this goes back to Xurcroh_Erised's original question. Hermione did say the spell aloud, so, unless JK Rowling made a mistake, that must mean that nonverbal spells can be spoken aloud with some effect.

But then this goes back to Xurcroh_Erised's original question. Hermione did say the spell aloud, so, unless JK Rowling made a mistake, that must mean that nonverbal spells can be spoken aloud with some effect.

Sorry, I should have adressed that. I always just thought that Jo made a mistake. It even happens to the best of us, then. :lol:

And, if it matters, I really don't think that Ron used the Sword to cut the chain free. Slipping a double-edged sword between a strangling-tight chain and a human neck really does not seem like A Good Idea.
If that is your theory, then Ron should not have been able to get the chain off at all, and Harry would have died of strangling. Ron had to have used the tip of the sword, as he would not have been able to get his hand between either -- and he was not holding a wand, only the locket in one hand, and the sword in the other. The sword is the only thing that makes sense to me.

I know that this isn't mentioned in the book, but maybe the chain loosened its grip on Harry when Ron took control of the sword.

I know that this isn't mentioned in the book, but maybe the chain loosened its grip on Harry when Ron took control of the sword.
Nice reasoning, that makes a lot of sense.

Quote:
Xurcroh_Erised:
In HBP, page 238, it says Levicorpus in a nvbl spell, but when Hermione used it in DH, page 538, she "whispered" it. Any thoughts?

Does a nonverbal spell have to be nonverbal, or can it be spoken anyways, perhaps with a lessened effect?

But then this goes back to Xurcroh_Erised's original question. Hermione did say the spell aloud, so, unless JK Rowling made a mistake, that must mean that nonverbal spells can be spoken aloud with some effect.

My thought on this is that nonverbal spells were used to be sneaky or covert in order not to give the target any idea what was coming . I believe that those spells could be used out loud but were used nonverbally to surprise their victim .I hope that helps .

twins:p

My thought on this is that nonverbal spells were used to be sneaky or covert in order not to give the target any idea what was coming . I believe that those spells could be used out loud but were used nonverbally to surprise their victim .I hope that helps .

twins:p But you would want any spell to be nonverbal in a duel, so why was that one specifically labeled "nvbl?" Rictusempra and Expelliarmus, for example, are not, but if you wanted the element of surprise, wouldn't you try to make them nonverbal?

It seemed that flying lessons, and likely most spells, were taught with the assumption that students were right-handed. Someone who was left-handed would have to wave their wand in the opposite direction. Would that produce the same effect? Did Ollivander's sell wands specifically designed for lefties? Or could wizards simply cast a spell on themselves to change their handedness?

Actually Ollivander asks Harry in PS/SS which hand his charm hand might be. So we know magic is not designed for wizards who are right-handed only. :)

It seemed that flying lessons, and likely most spells, were taught with the assumption that students were right-handed. Someone who was left-handed would have to wave their wand in the opposite direction. Would that produce the same effect? Did Ollivander's sell wands specifically designed for lefties? Or could wizards simply cast a spell on themselves to change their handedness?

It's probably like writing. Whether you're left or right-handed, the movements are exactly the same.

The chain was a "shortened version" because the locket had magically constricted it.

And, if it matters, I really don't think that Ron used the Sword to cut the chain free. Slipping a double-edged sword between a strangling-tight chain and a human neck really does not seem like A Good Idea.

Well, it is possible that Ron used the tip of the sword to cut the chain - he'd have to be careful, but that could be done without causing injury to Harry.

But I don't think that would have been necessary and I think Harry would have felt the sword if that were the case. I think it is more likely that Ron broke the chain by pulling the locket - or possibly the chain broke on its own because the locket constricted it to the breaking point. However, since Ron ended up holding the locket, it's more likely that he pulled the locket and broke the chain. And that would be the instinctive response in a situation like that - grab the locket and pull.

I have a totally different question. We are told that there's a lot of inbreeding among the pureblood families. The result being that the Wizarding population seems to be diminishing. If you look at the pureblood families (Malfoys, Blacks, Diggorys, Changs, Finnegans), they only have one child, sometimes two in this generation.

In the next, Harry has three children, but he's not pureblood, Lily was Muggleborn. Ditto for the Ron Weasleys, Hermione is Muggleborn, so there's new blood coming in. As for the Bill Weasleys, we don't know whether they have any child other than Victoire.

The senior Weasleys (Arthur and Molly) are the one outstanding exception, with 7 children. And that multitude of cousins/nephews and nieces.

What makes the Weasleys so special? :hmm:

As for the Bill Weasleys, we don't know whether they have any child other than Victoire.
According to the Weasley Family tree that Jo drew up Bill and Fleur had three children: Victoire, Dominique and Louis.

What makes the Weasleys so special?
It is a good question. I think they just wanted a big family. Maybe they were trying till they got a girl? It is all just kind of speculation, but I think Arthur and Molly were born to have a lot of kids and a warm family. I don't know if there is anything "special" about them, besides that they just wanted a big family. I think even nowadays big families are on the decline. Couples only have a couple children choosing many times for economic reasons. Raising a big family is expensive, but the obviously didn't bother Arthur and Molly much.

\In the next, Harry has three children, but he's not pureblood, Lily was Muggleborn. Ditto for the Ron Weasleys, Hermione is Muggleborn, so there's new blood coming in. As for the Bill Weasleys, we don't know whether they have any child other than Victoire.

The senior Weasleys (Arthur and Molly) are the one outstanding exception, with 7 children. And that multitude of cousins/nephews and nieces.

What makes the Weasleys so special? :hmm:
Bill and Fleur actually had three children as well, according to the Weasley family tree, named Victoire, Dominique, and Louis.

Perhaps the Weasleys just like children and having large families or maybe they aren't worried about any family fortune and having to divide it between children. There's no real canon answer to your question. You would think if families like the Malfoys were concerned with pureblood dying out that they would have large families like the Weasleys.

It is a good question. I think they just wanted a big family. Maybe they were trying till they got a girl? It is all just kind of speculation, but I think Arthur and Molly were born to have a lot of kids and a warm family. I don't know if there is anything "special" about them, besides that they just wanted a big family.
Thank you for the info on Bill and Fleur's children. :)

As to "just wanting" a big family, in real life (and believe me, I should know), "wanting" is not enough to conceive a child, even if you do everything necessary for that. Who's to say that the Diggorys, the Changs or the Finnegans didn't want more than one child but could not produce more than one?

My point is that, with all that inbreeding among pureblood families, the blood ran thin, and fecundity went down. The Patils have twin daughters (the Creeveys have at least two sons, but then they're Muggles) but most of the pureblood Hogwarts students don't seem to have any siblings, with the notable exception of the Weasley brood.

You would think if families like the Malfoys were concerned with pureblood dying out that they would have large families like the Weasleys.
My point exactly. Yet Bellatrix has no child (of course she probably would have loved to have one with V. but he wasn't interested - he wanted immortality for himself, not through progeny) and Lucius and Narcissa only have Draco. Apart from the Weasleys and the Patils (I'm not counting the Creeveys, they're Muggleborn and Dennis will probably have more than one child - we'll never know about poor Colin), none of the pureblood students (Abbot, Bones, Wood, Johnson, etc.) seem to have any sibling at all. Well, Dumbledore did have two siblings, but Grindelwald seems to have been an only child. Ditto McGonagall, Pomfrey, Sprout and the other staff. Pureblood families seem to have produced only one child or two, three at the most, some of them Squibbs. I don't know whether JKR meant it that way, but I find it significant.

To me, it seems that the purebloods are dying out.

I just find that a bit strange, that's all. :)

P.S. I was talking about Pureblood Wizarding families. Muggle families in today's world is a different matter, it depends on the country, the level of development, wealth, religion, tradition, etc - not to mention, of course, fecundity. It doesn't impact on the debate here, so I won't elaborate. :)

Perhaps the Weasleys just like children and having large families or maybe they aren't worried about any family fortune and having to divide it between children. There's no real canon answer to your question. You would think if families like the Malfoys were concerned with pureblood dying out that they would have large families like the Weasleys. Literarily speaking, wealthy families typically have fewer children, and financially lower class families breed like rabbits. I'm not sure why JRK chose to perpetuate this stereotype.

Literarily speaking, wealthy families typically have fewer children, and financially lower class families breed like rabbits. I'm not sure why JRK chose to perpetuate this stereotype.

Jo chose to have Ron be rather poor because she wanted to show how hard it was to be poor, like she was before she started to write HP. Since he had a lot of older siblibgs, he would get a bunch of hand-me-down things, which would annoy him even more. I think she made Malfoy rich and an only child to show how used he was to having everything he wanted all the time, and being a loved and caried-for kid. He was only rich to show an example of how the animosity was between the lower and upper classes of the Wizarding World.

This is all just IMO, of course. :)