Little Questions Answered v15

Version 14 (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=114821).

Welcome to the fifteenth instalment of the thread for all the quick questions coming to our minds!


Please keep in mind that this is for little questions only. Should you feel the urge to discuss a topic in depth, please stick to the according thread respectively create a new one, shouldn't your topic exist already.

For discussing possible contradictions, plot holes and inconsistencies, please check back here (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=114635).


Happy posting!

I've always been a bit confused on how Voldemort was killed. I don't understand how the killing curse was reflected back at him. Was it because the elder wand wouldn't kill its master, Harry? If so, then why did it reflect the spell? Shouldn't the spell just not have worked at all?

Was it because the elder wand wouldn't kill its master, Harry?


Thats right the Elder Wand wouldn't kill its master let alone harm him...whatever spell Voldemort had performed so far using it weren't intended on harming the master...

If so, then why did it reflect the spell? Shouldn't the spell just not have worked at all?

The spell didn't reflect it merely joined force with Harry's spell and acted along with the Expelliarmus spell directed at Voldemort. It was like Harry was fighting with two wands, and had fired two spells at Voldemort. That is why the spell worked. The Elder Wand just joined forces with Draco's wand which Harry was possessing. ;)

Ahh, now I understand. Thanks. :)

I was wondering with all those who Died in the battle at Hogwarts when the defenders were allowed to remove their dead and wounded before the last battle ,did they just leave the DE's on the field ??

Did the DE's also remove their dead ?

My first thought of an answer was "no, they didn't care about each other," but that is a bad answer, because it was easy to see that some of them cared a great deal for each other. However, I still think Voldemort would have viewed it as a sign of weakness, so they would not have dared to do it in his presence.

twinsrule26:
Did the DE's also remove their dead ?

I'm sure they did eventually. (They couldn't just leave the bodies there forever) But if they didn't, the Ministry and other wizards most likely did as part of the "clean-up". But this leads to another question of mine. Where did all of the death eaters go? Everyone had stopped to watch the fight between Harry and Voldemort, but when it's over the only mention of death eaters are the Malfoys. What happened to the rest? It would have taken time for them to leave the grounds, and they wouldn't have left until Voldemort was killed, and a little after if you add in shock to the equation. That's plenty of time for everyone to realize that there are still death eaters around. Were they captured? Or did they escape?

I can't remember that they made a clean up before the battle at all, but they collected the dead good guys in the end and I also think that they did the same with the bad guys. It would make no sense to leave them there and wait for the bad survivors to come and get them. Why would they come anyway, it's to much of a risk.

Was Filch at the school the same time that James and Lily was? I need to know for a fan fic that I am writing.

Also, I found this and was wondering if you know what the sorting hat became?

There is more to the Sorting Hat than one might think. In an interview (WEB LINKhttp://www.infoplease.com/spot/harrypotter1.html) JKR said:

"The character you might be most surprised to see evolve is none other than the Sorting Hat. 'There is more to the Sorting Hat than what you have read about in the first three books,' Rowling says. 'Readers will find out what the Sorting Hat becomes as they get into future books.'"

Also, I found this and was wondering if you know what the sorting hat became?

The character you might be most surprised to see evolve is none other than the Sorting Hat. 'There is more to the Sorting Hat than what you have read about in the first three books,' Rowling says. 'Readers will find out what the Sorting Hat becomes as they get into future books.

I think this was referring to both the changes to the Sorting Hat's song (more about working together than the distinctions between the Houses) and to the Hat's ability to produce Griffindor's sword, not just for Harry, but for Neville as well.

I think this was referring to both the changes to the Sorting Hat's song (more about working together than the distinctions between the Houses) and to the Hat's ability to produce Griffindor's sword, not just for Harry, but for Neville as well. And being able to resist the fire conjured by Voldemort.

and possibly it's ability to listen

Was Filch at the school the same time that James and Lily was? I need to know for a fan fic that I am writing.

Didn't Fred or George say that Filch had Confiscated the Marauders Map ?I know he had it in his office . And Filch himself refers to being at the school before Dumbledore becomes HeadMaster . We know that Dumbledore was HeadMaster when Remus was at school. This was because we are told by Remus that Dumbledore arranged to have the Whomping willow planted ,to hide the tunnel to the Shreaking shack. So Remus could go there safely every full moon . So Yes I believe that filch was at Hogwarts while Lily & James were there.

I hope this helps ?
twins:p

Was Filch at the school the same time that James and Lily was? I need to know for a fan fic that I am writing.


There's nothing that says he wasn't.

Molly talks (in GoF, I think) about Apollyon Pringle (I think that was how the name was spelled), who was Filch's predecessor as caretaker. Molly finished school before James, Lily and the rest started, though.

Filch could have taken over for Pringle after that point. Filch might even have been there as Pringle's assistant.

But this leads to another question of mine. Where did all of the death eaters go?


After Bellatrix is killed it says `Voldemort's fury at the death of his last, best lieutenant'. I took this to mean that at this point there were no more death eaters left.

Michael

After Bellatrix is killed it says `Voldemort's fury at the death of his last, best lieutenant'. I took this to mean that at this point there were no more death eaters left.

Michael

I see that as more that his higher ranked, inner circle were all gone, not all the Death Eaters.

I have a question about the basilisk that has been bugging me for a very, very, very long time. In CoS, you know how when the basilisk stares at people it kills them, but no one looked it straight in the eye so they all got paralyzed. Then, Hermione finds out that the basilisk uses the plumbing to go through the castle. That made me really confused. I don't understand how it uses the plumbing to go through the castle but yet...it can be seen by people? Because the plumbing (pipes and stuff) aren't supposed to be seen. Sorry if this doesn't make sense, I tried to explain it the best i can XD

I have a question about the basilisk that has been bugging me for a very, very, very long time. In CoS, you know how when the basilisk stares at people it kills them, but no one looked it straight in the eye so they all got paralyzed. Then, Hermione finds out that the basilisk uses the plumbing to go through the castle. That made me really confused. I don't understand how it uses the plumbing to go through the castle but yet...it can be seen by people? Because the plumbing (pipes and stuff) aren't supposed to be seen. Sorry if this doesn't make sense, I tried to explain it the best i can XD
It uses the pipes to travel from place to place in the castle, but it has to leave the pipes at some point to find its victims. Students (or ghosts) encountering the basilisk in the hallway were the ones who ended up Petrified. Moaning Myrtle was the only unfortunate one to actually see the basilisk straight on.

I see that as more that his higher ranked, inner circle were all gone, not all the Death Eaters.

Yes I wondered about that interpretation as well. In GoF when he comes back there are not that many DE's in the circle. I guess it depends what a DE is -- I have been assuming that is anyone with the dark mark. Are there others?

Michael

Yes I wondered about that interpretation as well. In GoF when he comes back there are not that many DE's in the circle. I guess it depends what a DE is -- I have been assuming that is anyone with the dark mark. Are there others?

Michael

I always though there were others, the ones at the end of GoF being the highest ranked and presumably they were also the ones with the mark. It is mentioned that Greyback didn't have the mark and then there were others who helped the death eaters as Ludo Bagman was accused of doing.

I always though there were others, the ones at the end of GoF being the highest ranked and presumably they were also the ones with the mark. It is mentioned that Greyback didn't have the mark and then there were others who helped the death eaters as Ludo Bagman was accused of doing.

Ah good thought. So I guess the answer to the original question might be something like

(i) DE's with dark mark all killed except for Malfoys.

(ii) DE's without dark mark and other voluntary VM allies I would imagine would just disappear pretty quickly when VM died or pretend they had been imperiused.

(iii) Real imperiused would come back to themselves.

Michael

I think it's very unlikely that all of the Death Eaters with the Dark Mark were killed except for the Malfoys. Right before the end of the battle, when Harry and Voldemort start facing off, we hear about all of the main, big Death Eaters, the ones with Dark Marks, fighting members of the Order. we never hear about any of them dying.

Also, after Voldemort dies we hear that the remaining Death Eaters were all being rounded up across the country. The chances of all of them dying IMO are very low. :)

I think it's very unlikely that all of the Death Eaters with the Dark Mark were killed except for the Malfoys. Right before the end of the battle, when Harry and Voldemort start facing off, we hear about all of the main, big Death Eaters, the ones with Dark Marks, fighting members of the Order. we never hear about any of them dying.

Also, after Voldemort dies we hear that the remaining Death Eaters were all being rounded up across the country. The chances of all of them dying IMO are very low. :)

I agree. And Jo did address this issue when she talked about how Kingsley gave everyone who fought in the final battle - who was of age of course - the opportunity to become an Auror if they wanted. They needed good Aurors to help round up the Death Eaters who got away and Kingsley felt that those who had fought in the battle had proven themselves to be capable. Harry and Ron took him up on that offer.

And Jo did address this issue when she talked about how Kingsley gave everyone who fought in the final battle - who was of age of course - the opportunity to become an Auror if they wanted. They needed good Aurors to help round up the Death Eaters who got away and Kingsley felt that those who had fought in the battle had proven themselves to be capable. Harry and Ron took him up on that offer.

Ah that's interesting. Can you point me at where she says this ? I saw where she talked about Ron and Harry.

Thanks - Michael

My question:

Why could Malfoy's injuries and scars be fixed after Harry Sectumsempra'd his behind... but not Fred's after Snape does the same?

The ear was probably gone for good and you can't make something appear out of thin air that lasts for long.

Why could Malfoy's injuries and scars be fixed after Harry Sectumsempra'd his behind... but not Fred's after Snape does the same?

My guess...
Snape was there to heal Draco. He was not there to heal George. I imagine as the author of the spell, he knew how to fix it. Maybe he knew an antidote no one else knew.

The ear was probably gone for good and you can't make something appear out of thin air that lasts for long.

Supposedly Dark Magic scars cannot be fixed (we know this from Bill's scars also, don't we?, even though they are caused by a warewolf) so Draco should have been scarred for life. Even if they can't regrow Fred's ear, it does not explain why Draco could be healed.


My guess...
Snape was there to heal Draco. He was not there to heal George. I imagine as the author of the spell, he knew how to fix it. Maybe he knew an antidote no one else knew.

That's my guess also, because he is chanting something over Draco... but I would think he was chanting some healing charm that Mdme. Pomfrey would also know.

That's my guess also, because he is chanting something over Draco... but I would think he was chanting some healing charm that Mdme. Pomfrey would also know.

Glad we agree on this somehow.
Well, neither one of them was at the burrow that night.That would explain it . But I stand by what I said, only Snape knew how to heal from Sectumsemptra.

Ah that's interesting. Can you point me at where she says this ? I saw where she talked about Ron and Harry.

Thanks - Michael

It was in the Pottercast interview (http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2007/1217-pottercast-anelli.html) she did with TLC. :)

My question:

Why could Malfoy's injuries and scars be fixed after Harry Sectumsempra'd his behind... but not Fred's after Snape does the same?

It was George who lost his ear - not Fred. ;)

This was explained on page in both HBP and DH. Molly couldn't make George's ear grow back because it was cursed off with Dark Magic and healing spells wouldn't work because of that. You have to know the counter-curse to reverse Dark Magic. Snape was able to help Draco because he got there quickly and knew the counter-curse to Sectumsempra - which makes sense seeing as how he invented Sectumsempra. Doing the counter-curse reversed the effects of the spell. Snape did say their might be some scarring, but if they applied Dittany in time, they might be able to avoid that.

Glad we agree on this somehow.
Well, neither one of them was at the burrow that night.That would explain it . But I stand by what I said, only Snape knew how to heal from Sectumsemptra.

Actually, it was the counter-curse. Healing spells don't work against Dark Magic.

Snape was able to help Draco because he got there quickly and knew the counter-curse to Sectumsempra - which makes sense seeing as how he invented Sectumsempra. Doing the counter-curse reversed the effects of the spell. Snape did say their might be some scarring, but if they applied Dittany in time, they might be able to avoid that.

Actually, it was the counter-curse. Healing spells don't work against Dark Magic.

This makes more sense... I must have missed the counter-curse explanation on the book.:tu:

Actually, it was the counter-curse. Healing spells don't work against Dark Magic.

Thanks Meesha!

This makes more sense... I must have missed the counter-curse explanation on the book.:tu:

Thanks Meesha!

You're welcome. :)

It is easy to miss. In HBP, Harry notes that Snape did the countercurse three times.

When Snape had performed his countercurse for the third time, he half-lifted Malfoy into a standing position

Dumbledore also explained that to Harry when he asked why Snape had been the one to attend to Katie Bell instead of Madame Pomfrey. Snape knew more about the Dark Arts and could do the required countercurses to reverse the effects or prevent the curse from spreading. We also see that in DH when Dumbledore called Snape after being cursed by the ring. And, of course, Molly also mentions that in DH when she says she can't make George's ear grow back because it was cursed off with Dark Magic.

From what we are shown, healing spells won't do any good against Dark Magic - you have to know the countercurse to either reverse the effects or stop the curse from spreading.

You're welcome. :)

It is easy to miss. In HBP, Harry notes that Snape did the countercurse three times.

When Snape had performed his countercurse for the third time, he half-lifted Malfoy into a standing position

Dumbledore also explained that to Harry when he asked why Snape had been the one to attend to Katie Bell instead of Madame Pomfrey. Snape knew more about the Dark Arts and could do the required countercurses to reverse the effects or prevent the curse from spreading. We also see that in DH when Dumbledore called Snape after being cursed by the ring. And, of course, Molly also mentions that in DH when she says she can't make George's ear grow back because it was cursed off with Dark Magic.

From what we are shown, healing spells won't do any good against Dark Magic - you have to know the countercurse to either reverse the effects or stop the curse from spreading.

Thanks, a TON.

I've been confused about this one for quite a while:( - thankfully you just cleared everything up. In fact, I was actually just going to head on over and talk about this in the Plot Inconsistencies thread:p
Another question that's been bugging me a bit is - does the Trace just vaguely detect magic that is done by under-seventeens, or can it be used to detect a specific individual? In CoS, the Ministry is unable to tell that it was Dobby who had done the hovering charm, and even then Dobby is PROBABLY not under seventeen. Does this mean that the Ministry uses the trace by household then?:no:
Thanks for answers, I'll check back soon.

[ All the best,
eaglestreasure ]

Valour and The Sword of Gryffindor.

In DH, The Prince's Tale, Dumbledore's portrait says:
"Now, Severus, the sword! Do not forget that it must be taken under conditions of great need and valour -"

In DH, The Silver Doe, Harry muses:
Where 'chivalry' entered into this, he thought ruefully, he was not entirely sure, unless it counted as chivalrous that he was not calling for Hermione to to it in his stead.

Why was "valour" required? Would the sword not really have worked (or run off back to the Sorting Hat or something) if it had not been retrieved under condition of valour? Did Harry's actions meet the threshold of valour (he isn't even sure it meets the lesser condition of chivalry).

I would argue that Ron reached the conditions of valour because he had to jump into water to save a friend who was drowning for unknown reasons (for all the information Ron had, he may have been jumping to his own death. He does not know why Harry is drowning (e.g. it could have been Garoting Gas or Gnargles or something in the water)). Harry also seems to think that Ron has reached the threshold of some condition because he thinks Ron should be the one to use the sword.

What would have happened if Harry had taken off the locket and had retrieved the sword with no complications? Would the sword have worked?


Another question that's been bugging me a bit is - does the Trace just vaguely detect magic that is done by under-seventeens, or can it be used to detect a specific individual? In CoS, the Ministry is unable to tell that it was Dobby who had done the hovering charm, and even then Dobby is PROBABLY not under seventeen. Does this mean that the Ministry uses the trace by household then?

There is a lively discussion in the Plot Holes, Inconsistencies thread on this very topic right now. It starts on post #947 and wends for the next four pages (so far).

Valour and The Sword of Gryffindor.

In DH, The Prince's Tale, Dumbledore's portrait says:


In DH, The Silver Doe, Harry muses:


Why was "valour" required? Would the sword not really have worked (or run off back to the Sorting Hat or something) if it had not been retrieved under condition of valour? Did Harry's actions meet the threshold of valour (he isn't even sure it meets the lesser condition of chivalry).

I would argue that Ron reached the conditions of valour because he had to jump into water to save a friend who was drowning for unknown reasons (for all the information Ron had, he may have been jumping to his own death. He does not know why Harry is drowning (e.g. it could have been Garoting Gas or Gnargles or something in the water)). Harry also seems to think that Ron has reached the threshold of some condition because he thinks Ron should be the one to use the sword.

What would have happened if Harry had taken off the locket and had retrieved the sword with no complications? Would the sword have worked?

Honestly, I think this should also be discussed in the Plot Holes, Inconsistencies, and Contradictions thread. From what we are shown, Harry didn't need to prove himself in DH at all because he had already done so in COS. Dumbledore didn't have to prove himself to use the sword to destroy the ring - he just took it out of the case. This seems more of an contradiction within the text to me.

And - just to be clear - it's the set up for this with Dumbledore telling Snape that Harry has to prove himself that I think is the contradiction. I like the scene itself - I just think Jo could have done a better job in setting it up without the contradiction.

There is a lively discussion in the Plot Holes, Inconsistencies thread on this very topic right now. It starts on post #947 and wends for the next four pages (so far).

Have we really been discussing that for four pages? :wow:

It was in the Pottercast interview (http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2007/1217-pottercast-anelli.html) she did with TLC. :)



Thanks for that. I missed that one. JKR's next book should be `All the interviews I did after Deathly Hallows'.


It was George who lost his ear - not Fred. ;)


They're hard to tell apart :-)

Michael

They're hard to tell apart :-)


Not after that, they weren't! :upset:

Does anyone know what Ginny's patronus is?

EDIT: Actually, seeing as the HP Lexicon doesn't know, I'd assume we've never been told.

Does anyone know what Ginny's patronus is?

EDIT: Actually, seeing as the HP Lexicon doesn't know, I'd assume we've never been told.

It's not book canon, but in the movies, Ginny's patronus is a horse (OoTP). Maybe they asked JKR? Or maybe they just made it up because it looked cool.

It's not book canon, but in the movies, Ginny's patronus is a horse (OoTP). Maybe they asked JKR? Or maybe they just made it up because it looked cool.I think they did just make it up because they thougt it fit Ginny's personality well. Personally, Ginny never seemed the horsey type to me. That was more Parvati and Lavender. :lol:

I think Jo did tell them who had what Patronus. We got Ron's Terrier, Hermione's Otter, and Luna's Hare. Hermione's is mentioned in the OotP book, but not Ron's or Luna's. So I think that Ginny's is supposed to be a horse, though only Jo knows why probably. :lol:
I think I recall an interview with Evanna that Jo told her what her patronus was.

I think Jo did tell them who had what Patronus. We got Ron's Terrier, Hermione's Otter, and Luna's Hare. Hermione's is mentioned in the OotP book, but not Ron's or Luna's. So I think that Ginny's is supposed to be a horse, though only Jo knows why probably. :lol:
I think I recall an interview with Evanna that Jo told her what her patronus was.

Ron's and Luna's are mentioned in canon.

From DH, The Elder Wand:
He saw Ron's silver terrier burst into the air, flicker feebly and expire; he saw Hermione's otter twist in mid-air and fade, and his own wand trembled in his hand, and he almost welcomed the oncoming oblivion, the promise of nothing, of no feeling...
And then a silver hare, a boar and a fox soared past Harry, Ron and Hermione's heads: the Dementors fell back before the creatures's approach. Three more people had arrived out of the darkness to stand beside them, their wands outstetched continueing to cast their Patronuses: Luna, Ernie and Seamus.

Of course, DH was not released before OoTP would have wrapped production, so the fact that they got Ron's and Luna's Patronuses correct (I can't recall if we see Seamus's) means that JKR probably did tell them what they were which might be an indication the Ginny's really is a horse. Either that, or the special effects teams are really, really good guessers (or Legimens).

Ron's and Luna's are mentioned in canon.

From DH, The Elder Wand:


Of course, DH was not released before OoTP would have wrapped production, so the fact that they got Ron's and Luna's Patronuses correct (I can't recall if we see Seamus's) means that JKR probably did tell them what they were which might be an indication the Ginny's really is a horse. Either that, or the special effects teams are really, really good guessers (or Legimens).

JKR told Evanna what Luna's Patronus was while filming OotP, even gave her a pendant with her patronus. I think there is no doubt that she was consulted and that Ginny's patronus is a horse.

You can get a good look at the pendant here after you expand the image:

http://gallery.the-leaky-cauldron.org/picture/218006

Something i always wondered about...how did george and fred find out the password for the marauder's map??????

Something i always wondered about...how did george and fred find out the password for the marauder's map??????

MA: How did they figure out how to work the map? JKR: Don't you — well. This is how I explained it to myself at the time, and this does sound glib. Don't you think it would be quite a Fred and Georgeish thing to say in jest, and then see this thing transform?
MA: Yeah.
JKR: Can't you just see them?
ES: But the exact word combination? Is that just a lot of luck, or Felix Felicis —
JKR: Or, the map helped.
MA: Yep, yeah. You can see them sort of answering and joking with each other —
JKR: And the map flickering into life here and there when they got closer and closer, and finally they hit upon the exact right word combination and it just erupts.

sorry if this has been discussed. I did a search and could not find what I was looking for.

So, I am reading through the Half Blood Prince again, in preperation for the movie to be released. Im about halfway through, and im confused. try to stay with me here, I apologize if this becomes wordy hard to follow. I do not remember the book very well, since I am just rereading it again for the first time since DH came out. so bear with me.

when Katie Bell touches the locket and becomes cursed in the Chapter "Silver and Opals", Harry and Dumbledore are discussing it in the following chapter. then, they begin to discuss Merope and on pg 261 (US ed.), Harry says, "How do you know she was in London?" Dumbledore then says, "Because of the evidence of Caractacus Burke, who helped found the very shop whence came the necklace we have just been discussing....THEN, Caractacus Burke comes out of the pensieve and gives a speech on how they got the necklace (supposedly the same one Katie touched). Burke says that it has SLytherins mark on it, and Merope had no idea how much it was worth, and was happy to get 10 Galleons for it.
Now. fast forward to the Chapter "Lord Voldemorts Request, when Voldy visits Hepzibah Smith and she shows him Slytherins locket and Hufflepuffs cup. Smith and Voldy are discussing it, and on pg 437, Smith says, "Burke bought it from a ragged-lloking woman who had no idea of its true value". Now, we know that Hepzibahs locket was the locket Voldy made into a Horcrux, the one that was previously in Grimmauld place before Mundugus wiped it clean. but it seems as if the locket Katie touched, and Hepzibahs locket, are one in the same. how can this be? the Horcrux locket was not at Hogwarts.
can anyone help me out? Im finding it hard to keep reading because this is stuck in my mind and I cant figure it out.

sorry if this has been discussed. I did a search and could not find what I was looking for.

So, I am reading through the Half Blood Prince again, in preperation for the movie to be released. Im about halfway through, and im confused. try to stay with me here, I apologize if this becomes wordy hard to follow. I do not remember the book very well, since I am just rereading it again for the first time since DH came out. so bear with me.

when Katie Bell touches the locket and becomes cursed in the Chapter "Silver and Opals", Harry and Dumbledore are discussing it in the following chapter. then, they begin to discuss Merope and on pg 261 (US ed.), Harry says, "How do you know she was in London?" Dumbledore then says, "Because of the evidence of Caractacus Burke, who helped found the very shop whence came the necklace we have just been discussing....THEN, Caractacus Burke comes out of the pensieve and gives a speech on how they got the necklace (supposedly the same one Katie touched). Burke says that it has SLytherins mark on it, and Merope had no idea how much it was worth, and was happy to get 10 Galleons for it.
Now. fast forward to the Chapter "Lord Voldemorts Request, when Voldy visits Hepzibah Smith and she shows him Slytherins locket and Hufflepuffs cup. Smith and Voldy are discussing it, and on pg 437, Smith says, "Burke bought it from a ragged-lloking woman who had no idea of its true value". Now, we know that Hepzibahs locket was the locket Voldy made into a Horcrux, the one that was previously in Grimmauld place before Mundugus wiped it clean. but it seems as if the locket Katie touched, and Hepzibahs locket, are one in the same. how can this be? the Horcrux locket was not at Hogwarts.
can anyone help me out? Im finding it hard to keep reading because this is stuck in my mind and I cant figure it out.
They are two completely different necklaces. The one Katie touched was a cursed opal necklace, but we don't know the origin of it. The Slytherin locket was sold by Merope to Burke, and purchased by Hepzebiah Smith, stolen by Voldemort, and later taken from the cave and given to Kreacher to hide.

Hope that helps!

Now, we know that Hepzibahs locket was the locket Voldy made into a Horcrux, the one that was previously in Grimmauld place before Mundugus wiped it clean. but it seems as if the locket Katie touched, and Hepzibahs locket, are one in the same. how can this be? the Horcrux locket was not at Hogwarts.
can anyone help me out? Im finding it hard to keep reading because this is stuck in my mind and I cant figure it out.

The necklace that curses Katie is not Slytherian's locket. In "Silver and Opals", the necklace that curses Katie is described as "An ornate opal necklace". The locket horcrux is just on a chain.

The cursed necklace makes it's first appearance in CoS. When Harry ends up in Knockturn alley, Harry sees Draco looking at "a card propped up on a magnificent necklace of opals; Caution: Do not Touch. Cursed - Has Claimed the Lives of Nineteen Muggle Owners to Date."

Also, I don't remember the necklace that curses Katie ever being described as a "locket". I believe it was only described as an opal necklace (though I may be wrong - I don't have my copy of the book with me). :)

ETA: Never mind, wingardium713 got there first :D

sorry if this has been discussed. I did a search and could not find what I was looking for.

So, I am reading through the Half Blood Prince again, in preperation for the movie to be released. Im about halfway through, and im confused. try to stay with me here, I apologize if this becomes wordy hard to follow. I do not remember the book very well, since I am just rereading it again for the first time since DH came out. so bear with me.

when Katie Bell touches the locket and becomes cursed in the Chapter "Silver and Opals", Harry and Dumbledore are discussing it in the following chapter. then, they begin to discuss Merope and on pg 261 (US ed.), Harry says, "How do you know she was in London?" Dumbledore then says, "Because of the evidence of Caractacus Burke, who helped found the very shop whence came the necklace we have just been discussing....THEN, Caractacus Burke comes out of the pensieve and gives a speech on how they got the necklace (supposedly the same one Katie touched). Burke says that it has SLytherins mark on it, and Merope had no idea how much it was worth, and was happy to get 10 Galleons for it.
Now. fast forward to the Chapter "Lord Voldemorts Request, when Voldy visits Hepzibah Smith and she shows him Slytherins locket and Hufflepuffs cup. Smith and Voldy are discussing it, and on pg 437, Smith says, "Burke bought it from a ragged-lloking woman who had no idea of its true value". Now, we know that Hepzibahs locket was the locket Voldy made into a Horcrux, the one that was previously in Grimmauld place before Mundugus wiped it clean. but it seems as if the locket Katie touched, and Hepzibahs locket, are one in the same. how can this be? the Horcrux locket was not at Hogwarts.
can anyone help me out? Im finding it hard to keep reading because this is stuck in my mind and I cant figure it out.

The cursed necklace was made of opals - it was not a locket. Burke was talking about Slytherin's locket - not the opal necklace that cursed Katie.

“Yes, we acquired it in curious circumstances. It was brought in by a young witch just before Christmas, oh, many years ago now. She said she needed the gold badly, well, that much was obvious. Covered in rags and pretty far along … Going to have a baby, see. She said the locket had been Slytherin’s. Well, we hear that sort of story all the time, ‘Oh, this was Merlin’s, this was, his favorite teapot,’ but when I looked at it, it had his mark all right, and a few simple spells were enough to tell me the truth. Of course, that made it near enough priceless. She didn’t seem to have any idea how much it was worth. Happy to get ten Galleons for it. Best bargain we ever made!”

And Dumbledore explained that further.

“Caractacus Burke was not famed for his generosity,” said Dumbledore. “So we know that, near the end of her pregnancy, Merope was alone in London and in desperate need of gold, desperate enough to sell her one and only valuable possession, the locket that was one of Marvolo’s treasured family heirlooms.”

Dumbledore only mentioned the opal necklace in reference to the shop Burke helped found - Borgin and Burke's. The remainder of the conversation was about what happened to Merope after Tom Riddle had abandoned her and how she had come to sell Slytherin's locket for 10 Galleons even though it was worth much more than that.

The cursed necklace was made of opals - it was not a locket. Burke was talking about Slytherin's locket - not the opal necklace that cursed Katie.

“Yes, we acquired it in curious circumstances. It was brought in by a young witch just before Christmas, oh, many years ago now. She said she needed the gold badly, well, that much was obvious. Covered in rags and pretty far along … Going to have a baby, see. She said the locket had been Slytherin’s. Well, we hear that sort of story all the time, ‘Oh, this was Merlin’s, this was, his favorite teapot,’ but when I looked at it, it had his mark all right, and a few simple spells were enough to tell me the truth. Of course, that made it near enough priceless. She didn’t seem to have any idea how much it was worth. Happy to get ten Galleons for it. Best bargain we ever made!”

And Dumbledore explained that further.

“Caractacus Burke was not famed for his generosity,” said Dumbledore. “So we know that, near the end of her pregnancy, Merope was alone in London and in desperate need of gold, desperate enough to sell her one and only valuable possession, the locket that was one of Marvolo’s treasured family heirlooms.”

Dumbledore only mentioned the opal necklace in reference to the shop Burke helped found - Borgin and Burke's. The remainder of the conversation was about what happened to Merope after Tom Riddle had abandoned her and how she had come to sell Slytherin's locket for 10 Galleons even though it was worth much more than that.

O ok thanks...that clears it up. I was under the impression that when Burke came out of the Pensieve, he was talking about Merope selling him the cursed necklace, because Dumbledore references it right before.
but it appears I was wrong.

Ron's and Luna's are mentioned in canon.

From DH, The Elder Wand:


Of course, DH was not released before OoTP would have wrapped production, so the fact that they got Ron's and Luna's Patronuses correct (I can't recall if we see Seamus's) means that JKR probably did tell them what they were which might be an indication the Ginny's really is a horse. Either that, or the special effects teams are really, really good guessers (or Legimens).

Yes, but not until DH, which came out after the film. The fact that they showed Ron's Terrier, and Luna's Hare in the film before we knew about them in the books shows that Jo did tell them about them, so having Ginny's as a horse sounds like that is what hers is supposed to be.

It uses the pipes to travel from place to place in the castle, but it has to leave the pipes at some point to find its victims. Students (or ghosts) encountering the basilisk in the hallway were the ones who ended up Petrified. Moaning Myrtle was the only unfortunate one to actually see the basilisk straight on.

Thank you, that really cleared things up :)

I had a question about the sword of Gryffindor in Deathly Hallows. Why exactly did Neville, Ginny, and Luna sneak in to Snape's office to steal it? Was it just because they couldn't stand the thought of Snape harboring the sword that they associate with Harry and Gryffindor, or was there some other reason?

I had a question about the sword of Gryffindor in Deathly Hallows. Why exactly did Neville, Ginny, and Luna sneak in to Snape's office to steal it? Was it just because they couldn't stand the thought of Snape harboring the sword that they associate with Harry and Gryffindor, or was there some other reason?They knew Dumbledore had left it to Harry in his will, so they were trying to get it back.

It's still not exactly clear about the prophecy thing with me.Why must either Harry or Voldemort die at the hands of other?Surely,someone else might track down and destroy all of Voldemorts horcruxes,including Harry, and finally kill Voldemort?Is there anything against it?Or wouldn't the bit of Voldemort inside Harry be destroyed unless it was Voldemort himself to try and kill Harry?Is there any reference in the prophecy about the fact that Harry is Horcrux?I'm actually a bit confused about the prophecy thing as I've just said!I would be delighted if someone enlightened me throughly.

It's still not exactly clear about the prophecy thing with me.Why must either Harry or Voldemort die at the hands of other?Surely,someone else might track down and destroy all of Voldemorts horcruxes,including Harry, and finally kill Voldemort?Is there anything against it?Or wouldn't the bit of Voldemort inside Harry be destroyed unless it was Voldemort himself to try and kill Harry?Is there any reference in the prophecy about the fact that Harry is Horcrux?I'm actually a bit confused about the prophecy thing as I've just said!I would be delighted if someone enlightened me throughly.
There are lots of great threads that have discussed it pretty in depth.
The Prophecy in light of Deathly Hallows (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=108059&highlight=prophecy&page=3) in particular might help you out, since it is rather confusing.

I just finished rereading DH a few days ago actually, and the basic explanation I came away with was "neither can live while the other survives" didn't mean that only one could live, but that both had to die. Voldemort had to kill Harry so that the bit of Voldy's soul inside Harry would be taken care of. So in that sense, yes, the 'Harry's a horcrux' thing is mentioned in the prophecy.

Anyone could have tracked down and destroyed the horcruxes (as we see many other people were responsible for the final blows). But Dumbledore didn't want Harry to share the full story with anyone, because somebody could have put the pieces together and figured out Dumbledore's plan. Figured out that he was essentially sacrificing Harry, and probably wouldn't have been able to go through with the "greater good".

It was said that Voldemort chose Harry because he saw himself in him. How would Voldemort see himself in Harry or Neville when they were babies? They wouldn't have developed their real personalities yet.

It was said that Voldemort chose Harry because he saw himself in him. How would Voldemort see himself in Harry or Neville when they were babies? They wouldn't have developed their real personalities yet.
That's not quite right. He chose Harry because he was a halfblood like him, not because of the personality.

It was said that Voldemort chose Harry because he saw himself in him. How would Voldemort see himself in Harry or Neville when they were babies? They wouldn't have developed their real personalities yet.The way I understood it, Voldemort chose Harry because he believed (hypocritically) that he would be weaker and therefore easier to defeat, because he was a halfblood rather than a pureblood. I think it's possible that Voldemort wanted so badly to deny that he was not a pureblood wizard that, over time, he convinced himself that he was indeed a pureblood instead of a half blood.

The way I understood it, Voldemort chose Harry because he believed (hypocritically) that he would be weaker and therefore easier to defeat, because he was a halfblood rather than a pureblood. I think it's possible that Voldemort wanted so badly to deny that he was not a pureblood wizard that, over time, he convinced himself that he was indeed a pureblood instead of a half blood.No, I think Dumbledore said he saw Harry as the bigger threat, which would counter that. Besides, how much weaker of an opponent could he pick than an infant?

O yes, I'd forgotten about that.

were neville and harry the only wizard boys born at the end of july?

O yes, I'd forgotten about that.

were neville and harry the only wizard boys born at the end of july?


I don't know if they were the only ones born at that time, but the prophecy also stated they had to be born to someone who had "thrice defied" them. To have two babies meet these criteria seems to be a lot.

I was watching Order of the Phoenix today, and I can't remember if this was also said in the book or not.

When Harry is in Umbridge's office, and she asks Snape the truth serum ( I can't spell the long name of it), and they say a few more things, and Snape is about to leave, Harry shouts to him. "They've got Padfoot at the place that it is hidden."

My question is How or when did Snape know whom Harry was referring to?

Also, did the twins ever find out who the Mauraders were?

I was watching Order of the Phoenix today, and I can't remember if this was also said in the book or not.

When Harry is in Umbridge's office, and she asks Snape the truth serum ( I can't spell the long name of it), and they say a few more things, and Snape is about to leave, Harry shouts to him. "They've got Padfoot at the place that it is hidden."

My question is How or when did Snape know whom Harry was referring to?

Also, did the twins ever find out who the Mauraders were?Sirius was revealed to Snape as a dog at the end of GoF, and had probably heard him referred to as Padfoot during his Hogwarts days, so he knew what Harry was talking about as soon as he said it. Snape, is, however, very good at hiding what he is thinking from everyone.


I don't know about the twins. I would love it if they had!

Yes, but not until DH, which came out after the film. The fact that they showed Ron's Terrier, and Luna's Hare in the film before we knew about them in the books shows that Jo did tell them about them, so having Ginny's as a horse sounds like that is what hers is supposed to be.

Yes, that sounds right to me!:agree:

Ginny seems like a horse person to me! (Well, it just seems to fit her...)

I've always wondered what Lupin's patronus was. If it said in one of the books, I've never known...

The way I understood it, Voldemort chose Harry because he believed (hypocritically) that he would be weaker and therefore easier to defeat, because he was a halfblood rather than a pureblood. I think it's possible that Voldemort wanted so badly to deny that he was not a pureblood wizard that, over time, he convinced himself that he was indeed a pureblood instead of a half blood.

How is Harry a half-blood? Lily is a witch, James is a wizard... Does that mean that one grandparent can pollute? Or is it just that Mborn + Pblood = Hblood?
:no: Darn it all, I'm confused again...:lol:

How is Harry a half-blood? Lily is a witch, James is a wizard... Does that mean that one grandparent can pollute? Or is it just that Mborn + Pblood = Hblood?
:no: Darn it all, I'm confused again...:lol:
Yes, it is because of the grandparents.


Why are some people in the wizarding world (e.g., Harry) called 'half-blood' even though both their parents were magical?

The expressions 'pure-blood', 'half-blood' and 'Muggle-born' have been coined by people to whom these distinctions matter, and express their originators' prejudices. As far as somebody like Lucius Malfoy is concerned, for instance, a Muggle-born is as 'bad' as a Muggle. Therefore Harry would be considered only 'half' wizard, because of his mother's grandparents.

If you think this is far-fetched, look at some of the real charts the Nazis used to show what constituted 'Aryan' or 'Jewish' blood. I saw one in the Holocaust Museum in Washington when I had already devised the 'pure-blood', 'half-blood' and 'Muggle-born' definitions, and was chilled to see that the Nazis used precisely the same warped logic as the Death Eaters. A single Jewish grandparent 'polluted' the blood, according to their propaganda.

Yes, it is because of the grandparents.


Why are some people in the wizarding world (e.g., Harry) called 'half-blood' even though both their parents were magical?

The expressions 'pure-blood', 'half-blood' and 'Muggle-born' have been coined by people to whom these distinctions matter, and express their originators' prejudices. As far as somebody like Lucius Malfoy is concerned, for instance, a Muggle-born is as 'bad' as a Muggle. Therefore Harry would be considered only 'half' wizard, because of his mother's grandparents.

If you think this is far-fetched, look at some of the real charts the Nazis used to show what constituted 'Aryan' or 'Jewish' blood. I saw one in the Holocaust Museum in Washington when I had already devised the 'pure-blood', 'half-blood' and 'Muggle-born' definitions, and was chilled to see that the Nazis used precisely the same warped logic as the Death Eaters. A single Jewish grandparent 'polluted' the blood, according to their propaganda.

OOOooooooooooooHHHHhhhhh....:tu::err::whistle:
:lol::lol:

I feel really stupid sometimes....

The whole half blood thing confused me too. It didnt make any sense. Harry should be like a 3/4 blood:lol:

The whole half blood thing confused me too. It didnt make any sense. Harry should be like a 3/4 blood:lol:

:):lol:

Yeah, I know - and that was because Lilly was a MB - what does that make Voldy! His dad was a muggle...

In chapter Spinner's End in HBP Snape says that his information to Voldemort led to the capture and murder of Emmelina Vance.How come he let this happen?I mean didn't he think his information might lead to such a thing?Or was Emmelina a victom for greater good?

In chapter Spinner's End in HBP Snape says that his information to Voldemort led to the capture and murder of Emmelina Vance.How come he let this happen?I mean didn't he think his information might lead to such a thing?Or was Emmelina a victom for greater good?

Yes, I think that she was. Snape had to give up something to Voldemort so Voldemort would see that Snape isn't just wasting his time with information that never leads to any action.

I have a question myself: Before the release of HBP and DH (possibly even OotP as well, but my memory isn't that great) J.K. Rowling put a lot of emphasis on how important Lily's (or Harry's one of the two) eyes would be. I never got how they were supposed to be important. Could someone explain this to me?

I have a question myself: Before the release of HBP and DH (possibly even OotP as well, but my memory isn't that great) J.K. Rowling put a lot of emphasis on how important Lily's (or Harry's one of the two) eyes would be. I never got how they were supposed to be important. Could someone explain this to me?

That contributed to Slughorn being willing to give Harry the Horcrux memory. Lily had been one of his favorites and Harry used that to convince Slughorn to give him the memory. It's one of the last things Slughorn says to Harry that night -

“You’re a good boy,” said Professor Slughorn, tears trickling down his fat cheeks into his walrus mustache. “And you’ve got her eyes … . Just don’t think too badly of me once you’ve seen it … ,”

I have a question myself: Before the release of HBP and DH (possibly even OotP as well, but my memory isn't that great) J.K. Rowling put a lot of emphasis on how important Lily's (or Harry's one of the two) eyes would be. I never got how they were supposed to be important. Could someone explain this to me?

I think the importance of the eyes was just that Snape would always see a part of Lily in Harry, which reminded him that Harry is the son of the woman he loved. Ultimately it prevents Snape from treating Harry worse I think.

In chapter Spinner's End in HBP Snape says that his information to Voldemort led to the capture and murder of Emmelina Vance.How come he let this happen?I mean didn't he think his information might lead to such a thing?Or was Emmelina a victom for greater good?
I doubt it was cold blooded betrayal. We're never told, but Snape is a good spy. I think he probably used the circumstances to his own benefit, maybe convinced Voldemort that a scrap of information he provided was more essential than it really was or something like that. I highly doubt she was straight up sacrificed. That was one of Bella's big arguments against Snape, that he seemed to manipulate Voldemort and garner his trust, even though she was the greater servant.

I have a question myself: Before the release of HBP and DH (possibly even OotP as well, but my memory isn't that great) J.K. Rowling put a lot of emphasis on how important Lily's (or Harry's one of the two) eyes would be. I never got how they were supposed to be important. Could someone explain this to me?

That contributed to Slughorn being willing to give Harry the Horcrux memory. Lily had been one of his favorites and Harry used that to convince Slughorn to give him the memory. It's one of the last things Slughorn says to Harry that night -

“You’re a good boy,” said Professor Slughorn, tears trickling down his fat cheeks into his walrus mustache. “And you’ve got her eyes … . Just don’t think too badly of me once you’ve seen it … ,”

I respectfully disagree. The eyes are mentioned over, and over, and over again throughout the books. I think it comes down to the old quote I cannot place: "the eyes are the window of the soul." Meaning, Harry, despite the Horrible Horcrux, is able to finally conquer evil, due to his soul being the semblance of his Mother's: Love. "Love" is also mentioned over and over again, and it indeed is the thing that conquers the corrupting influence of that piece of Voldemort in Harry.

EDIT: I see the emotional aspect there in Slughorn's reposnse, but he's also trashed. Tears run down my face when I'm trashed, too. And as I mentioned, many people have mentioned the same thing to Harry (but I'm doubting Lily had that many hardcore crushes under her belt).

I respectfully disagree. The eyes are mentioned over, and over, and over again throughout the books. I think it comes down to the old quote I cannot place: "the eyes are the window of the soul." Meaning, Harry, despite the Horrible Horcrux, is able to finally conquer evil, due to his soul being the semblance of his Mother's: Love. "Love" is also mentioned over and over again, and it indeed is the thing that conquers the corrupting influence of that piece of Voldemort in Harry.

EDIT: I see the emotional aspect there in Slughorn's reposnse, but he's also trashed. Tears run down my face when I'm trashed, too. And as I mentioned, many people have mentioned the same thing to Harry (but I'm doubting Lily had that many hardcore crushes under her belt).

The reference to Harry's eyes was in the context of his appearance - the resemblance to his mother - being significant in one of the books.

Do you know what Harry's parents look like?

"Yes. I've even drawn a picture of how they look. Harry has his father and mother's good looks. But he has his mother's eyes and that's very important in a future book."

Jo was most likely referring to the fact that Harry's resemblance to Lily would end up being useful in getting Slughorn to agree to give him the memory. I don't think the fact that Slughorn is drunk in that scene really changes that. He makes it clear from the beginning that Lily was one of his favorites. Getting him drunk only enabled Harry to be able to use Slughorn's respect and admiration for Lily to his advantage.

There was also a vague reference to the significance of Harry having Lily's eyes in regards to a particular power. This was a common fan theory and likely stems from this quote from an interview done around the time that GOF was released.

Are there any special wizarding powers in your world that depend on the wizard using their eyes to do something?

JKR: Why do you want to know this?

Well because everyone always go on about how Harry's got Lily Potter's eyes.

JKR: Aren't you smart - there is something, maybe coming about that, I'm going to say no more - very clever.

I'm not entirely sure what Jo would be referring to here. The Occlumency lessons with Snape come to mind - since Legillimency was a power that required eye contact. However, that doesn't really have anything to do with Lily and the fact that Harry had Lily's eyes wasn't significant there. That was just eye contact in general.

Then again, Jo might still be referring to Harry's appearance - she didn't actually answer the question.

Then again, Jo might still be referring to Harry's appearance - she didn't actually answer the question.

That seems to make more sense (to me). She was probably just ignoring the bit about a special power and referring to something coming up about how he had Lily's eyes (eg - Snape's 'reward.')

That's how I always read it. She didn't want to clarify exactly what was special about his eyes since that would have been giving too much away.

The way I understood it, Voldemort chose Harry because he believed (hypocritically) that he would be weaker and therefore easier to defeat, because he was a halfblood rather than a pureblood. I think it's possible that Voldemort wanted so badly to deny that he was not a pureblood wizard that, over time, he convinced himself that he was indeed a pureblood instead of a half blood.
This does not make sense to me. Voldemort would not choose a lesser threat over a greater one, if both were mere infants at the time. I agree with Dumbledore, in that Voldemort chose the child whom Voldemort thought the greatest threat - otherwise, Voldemort could be threatened by the other boy later on in the child's life.

While I agree that Voldemort eventually convinced himself that he was, more or less, a pureblood, I think the truth leaked out of him on this occasion. At that moment, he realized that he was also a half-blood and understood what he had risen to - despite his Muggle father. Thus, Harry would have seen much more threatening if Voldemort saw himself as the child.
Yeah, I know - and that was because Lilly was a MB - what does that make Voldy! His dad was a muggle...
Voldemort is a true half-blood, just like Harry. Although Lily was a witch, her bloodline is entirely Muggle (or almost so, JKR confirmed that there must have been a magical relative long ago for a Muggle-born to become a wizard/witch), which, in effect, registers Harry as a half-blood.
I think the importance of the eyes was just that Snape would always see a part of Lily in Harry, which reminded him that Harry is the son of the woman he loved. Ultimately it prevents Snape from treating Harry worse I think.
I agree. I do not think Slughorn giving Harry the Horcrux memory because of the similarity with Lily's eyes was as significant as Snape's love for Lily, made real through the presence of her eyes in Harry. Harry's eyes provided Snape a link to Lily, which allowed, in my opinion, his loyalty to Dumbledore to never waiver.

However, perhaps further discussion of the significance of Harry's eyes should go here:
The importance of Harry's eyes? (http://cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=109312)

The reference to Harry's eyes was in the context of his appearance - the resemblance to his mother - being significant in one of the books.

Do you know what Harry's parents look like?

"Yes. I've even drawn a picture of how they look. Harry has his father and mother's good looks. But he has his mother's eyes and that's very important in a future book."

Jo was most likely referring to the fact that Harry's resemblance to Lily would end up being useful in getting Slughorn to agree to give him the memory. I don't think the fact that Slughorn is drunk in that scene really changes that. He makes it clear from the beginning that Lily was one of his favorites. Getting him drunk only enabled Harry to be able to use Slughorn's respect and admiration for Lily to his advantage.

There was also a vague reference to the significance of Harry having Lily's eyes in regards to a particular power. This was a common fan theory and likely stems from this quote from an interview done around the time that GOF was released.

Are there any special wizarding powers in your world that depend on the wizard using their eyes to do something?

JKR: Why do you want to know this?

Well because everyone always go on about how Harry's got Lily Potter's eyes.

JKR: Aren't you smart - there is something, maybe coming about that, I'm going to say no more - very clever.

I'm not entirely sure what Jo would be referring to here. The Occlumency lessons with Snape come to mind - since Legillimency was a power that required eye contact. However, that doesn't really have anything to do with Lily and the fact that Harry had Lily's eyes wasn't significant there. That was just eye contact in general.

Then again, Jo might still be referring to Harry's appearance - she didn't actually answer the question.

Okay, I'm sort of doubting myself now. You have a lot more to back up your answer, so I guess mine was more of a personal opinion. But it still seems like a lot of work to have mentioned the eyes so many times, only to have them be important to getting the memory from Slughorn. (IMO, of course).

Ok, I've been reading stuff here about the eye subject, and I don't really think that one quote with Slughorn would have been the thing that Jo was talking about for all those years. It's a good idea, but the phrase "You've got your mother's eyes" has been used tons of times. It's a thought that I didn't realize was that Harry's eyes helped him get the memory but I don't see it as 'the all important Lily eye thing'. Besides I'm pretty sure Jo mentioned that Lily's eyes would play an important role before the release of DH.
I do like the Snape theory that seems a bit more plausible, because Snape saving Harry (directly or indirectly) is a recurring happening within the books. So maybe Jo was telling us to go back to the first three books and look at Snape's goodness as something caused by Lily. Because especially after book three, Snape still didn't forgive James for the werewolf stunt the Marauders pulled.

I've been wondering about this and have been thinking if maybe Jo just didn't put it in the book. Maybe Hogwarts (along with other schools) isn't all the schooling that wizarding kids can get. Perhaps there are wizarding colleges for students who want to continue learning beyond Hogwarts. Or maybe Hogwarts (and the other schools) are the only schools that wizarding kids get to go to. What are your thoughts on this?

I've been wondering about this and have been thinking if maybe Jo just didn't put it in the book. Maybe Hogwarts (along with other schools) isn't all the schooling that wizarding kids can get. Perhaps there are wizarding colleges for students who want to continue learning beyond Hogwarts. Or maybe Hogwarts (and the other schools) are the only schools that wizarding kids get to go to. What are your thoughts on this?
Here is what JKR said about a wizard college:
Q. Do you think that you will write about Harry after he graduates from Hogwarts? Isn't there a University of Wizardry?

A. No, there's no University for Wizards. At the moment I'm only planning to write seven Harry Potter books. I won't say "never," but I have no plans to write an eighth book.
We also know that Aurors must receive three years of training after Hogwarts, and other professions would likely require further training/education.

Apart from that, we have no further information about post-Hogwarts studies. This thread (Higher Education in the Wizard World (http://cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=101467)) is good for reference, though.

I've been wondering about this and have been thinking if maybe Jo just didn't put it in the book. Maybe Hogwarts (along with other schools) isn't all the schooling that wizarding kids can get. Perhaps there are wizarding colleges for students who want to continue learning beyond Hogwarts. Or maybe Hogwarts (and the other schools) are the only schools that wizarding kids get to go to. What are your thoughts on this?
From the way Jo discussed the taking of NEWTS and career counseling at Hogwarts it doesn't seem necessary. Hogwarts provides all the education students need to get all of the professions we're told about. Though I'm sure apprenticeships and internships are an important part of certain careers (such as Healers or wandmakers). There's been a lot of stories in fanfiction which include universities and I think it's possible, but it's not in canon.

As for pre-Hogwarts education, Jo has answered that question on her site (http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=101):

They are, as many of you have guessed, most often home educated. With very young children, as you glimpsed at the wizards' camp before the Quidditch World Cup in 'Goblet of Fire', there is the constant danger that they will use magic, whether inadvertently or deliberately; they cannot be trusted to keep their true abilities hidden. Even Muggle-borns like Harry attract a certain amount of unwelcome attention at Muggle schools by re-growing their hair overnight and so on.
I could imagine wealthy families like the Malfoy's might have tutors and such, but it doesn't sound as though there are magical "pre-schools" in the way we know them.

EDIT: oh and that! :) MrSleepy's fast

From the way Jo discussed the taking of NEWTS and career counseling at Hogwarts it doesn't seem necessary. Hogwarts provides all the education students need to get all of the professions we're told about. Though I'm sure apprenticeships and internships are an important part of certain careers (such as Healers or wandmakers). There's been a lot of stories in fanfiction which include universities and I think it's possible, but it's not in canon.

As for pre-Hogwarts education, Jo has answered that question on her site (http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=101):

They are, as many of you have guessed, most often home educated. With very young children, as you glimpsed at the wizards' camp before the Quidditch World Cup in 'Goblet of Fire', there is the constant danger that they will use magic, whether inadvertently or deliberately; they cannot be trusted to keep their true abilities hidden. Even Muggle-borns like Harry attract a certain amount of unwelcome attention at Muggle schools by re-growing their hair overnight and so on.
I could imagine wealthy families like the Malfoy's might have tutors and such, but it doesn't sound as though there are magical "pre-schools" in the way we know them.

EDIT: oh and that! :) MrSleepy's fast

I'm almost positive that if you want to drop out of Hogwarts after O.W.L.s you can. On the matter of schooling after that, as it's been said, the only further education that's been mentioned is the training for Aurors. But I'm not sure if it is simply work training or there is a speciality Auror school? Any thoughts on that?

I'm almost positive that if you want to drop out of Hogwarts after O.W.L.s you can. On the matter of schooling after that, as it's been said, the only further education that's been mentioned is the training for Aurors. But I'm not sure if it is simply work training or there is a speciality Auror school? Any thoughts on that?

I imagined it is on the job training but it is never mentioned specifacally, from what I remember the only two brief mentions are Tonks talking about how she nearly failed her stealth and tracking exam and the information Harry gets at his careers meeting.

I'm almost positive that if you want to drop out of Hogwarts after O.W.L.s you can. On the matter of schooling after that, as it's been said, the only further education that's been mentioned is the training for Aurors. But I'm not sure if it is simply work training or there is a speciality Auror school? Any thoughts on that?
Well, yes, but I'd image for the higher level jobs you'd need NEWTS, I'm sure there are jobs you can get without them just as there are jobs you can get without a high school or college diploma.
Probably similar to the Police Academy, not really it's own "school" but more comprehensive than on the job training. Hard to say though.

Ok, I've been reading stuff here about the eye subject, and I don't really think that one quote with Slughorn would have been the thing that Jo was talking about for all those years. It's a good idea, but the phrase "You've got your mother's eyes" has been used tons of times. It's a thought that I didn't realize was that Harry's eyes helped him get the memory but I don't see it as 'the all important Lily eye thing'. Besides I'm pretty sure Jo mentioned that Lily's eyes would play an important role before the release of DH.

I agree with you. The eyes just seem so focal, which is why I said that they must pertain to the ultimate outcome of the book, not a technicality. The outcome? Love vs. Death. And as we all know, Love wins.

Well, yes, but I'd image for the higher level jobs you'd need NEWTS, I'm sure there are jobs you can get without them just as there are jobs you can get without a high school or college diploma.
Probably similar to the Police Academy, not really it's own "school" but more comprehensive than on the job training. Hard to say though.

That's a good thought. It probably is pretty similar in a manner to how police academy is run. That also got me thinking about what someone would do for training if they aspired to be an Unspeakable. Any thoughts on that one, because I'm definitely pulling a blank.

Okay, I'm sort of doubting myself now. You have a lot more to back up your answer, so I guess mine was more of a personal opinion. But it still seems like a lot of work to have mentioned the eyes so many times, only to have them be important to getting the memory from Slughorn. (IMO, of course).


IMO it was important in kind of forshadowing Snapes love for Lily. It wasn't obvious at first but after finishing DH it was obvious that he wanted to see lily eyes before he died. So maybe all that hype was because of Harry being the last piece of Lily left. I think that Jo had planned the relationship between snape and lily a long time ago.

Significance of Harry's Green Eyes Revisited (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=59972&highlight=green%2A) :)

I'm pretty sure that this has been asked before, however I can't find the answer.

When Petunia told Harry in SS that Lily used to come home "turning rats into teacups", was she exagerating? Was Lily really coming home and performing illegal magic? Wouldn't she get be in big trouble with the Ministry for such actions?

I'm pretty sure that this has been asked before, however I can't find the answer.

When Petunia told Harry in SS that Lily used to come home "turning rats into teacups", was she exagerating? Was Lily really coming home and performing illegal magic? Wouldn't she get be in big trouble with the Ministry for such actions?

I think that even though it was illegal magic, that it did say in HP that it's up to the parents to enforce that specific law. The only reason Harry got caught was because he was the only wizard in the area. Therefore, since Lilly lived in a place, presumably where there would be more wizarding activity, she wouldn't have gotten caught.

Significance of Harry's Green Eyes Revisited (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=59972&highlight=green%2A) :)
Or, we can divert the discussion to an open thread: The importance of Harry's eyes? (http://cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=109312)
When Petunia told Harry in SS that Lily used to come home "turning rats into teacups", was she exagerating? Was Lily really coming home and performing illegal magic? Wouldn't she get be in big trouble with the Ministry for such actions?
She may have been exaggerating when she said Lily came home "every summer" with frogspawn and turning teacups into rats. However, since she does not approve of imagination as an adult, she would likely not have said this if it had not happened.

I see two possibilities for Lily's magic: 1. It was illegal, underage magic, or 2. It was when she was seventeen or older. I think it was underage magic, since it does not seem the type of magic she would do when she was of age.

However, she could have escaped warnings from the Ministry because she lived near Spinner's End, a community where we know at least one wizarding family lives. Thus, the Ministry may have detected Lily's magic but let it pass, unnoticed, because it could have been Eileen Snape.

I believe Lily's parents, who were thrilled with her magical ability, probably could not help themselves - they would want to see some of Lily's magic during the holidays.

*pfffs at no locks on closed thread*

:whistle:

I'm pretty sure that this has been asked before, however I can't find the answer.

When Petunia told Harry in SS that Lily used to come home "turning rats into teacups", was she exagerating? Was Lily really coming home and performing illegal magic? Wouldn't she get be in big trouble with the Ministry for such actions?

Jo answered this one on her website. :)

In "Philosopher's Stone" Aunt Petunia says that Lily came back from Hogwarts with frog spawn in her pockets and turned teacups into rats. If this is true, why wasn't Lily expelled?

Aunt Petunia is exaggerating a little; you have to allow for her state of mind when she started shrieking these things. However, just like her son, Lily was not averse to testing the limits of the Statute of Secrecy, so you can safely assume she will have had a few warning letters – nothing too serious, though.

A good resource to check to see if Jo has answered a question is. Accio Quote (http://www.accio-quote.org/index.html). :)

Was Lily aware of the magic she was invoking when giving her life for Harry? It doesn't seem likely, consider how the scene played out. And if not, why didn't she she go for her wand when he was killing James, or Apparate out of there with Harry? We know how James was wandless, but not why Lily was (just that she didn't have it on her, thinking the Fidelius charm was good enough), and it seems that Apparating would be the best course (and is, in a sense, what James tells her to do). I guess we just have to accept her wand was downstairs or something?

*pfffs at no locks on closed thread* The importance of Harry's eyes? (http://cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=109312) is an actual discussion thread actually. :p

Since we're in LQA, threads moved to the archives (like Eyes revisited) don't always get locked. They don't need to since the Archives is a non-posting area anyway.

Was Lily aware of the magic she was invoking when giving her life for Harry? It doesn't seem likely, consider how the scene played out. And if not, why didn't she she go for her wand when he was killing James, or Apparate out of there with Harry? We know how James was wandless, but not why Lily was (just that she didn't have it on her, thinking the Fidelius charm was good enough), and it seems that Apparating would be the best course (and is, in a sense, what James tells her to do). I guess we just have to accept her wand was downstairs or something?

Lily didn't have her wand on her either - she was putting Harry to bed and didn't think she would need it. They believed they were safe under the Fidelius Charm because they trusted Pettigrew. She couldn't apparate because she didn't have her wand - you can't apparate without a wand. That was established in DH.

In addition, it's unlikely that she would have been able to apparate from inside the house even if she had kept her wand on her. We are shown in HBP and DH that using anti-apparition jinxes was a standard protection enchantment. They couldn't apparate from inside the Burrow - they had to go outside beyond the gate to apparate. And they couldn't apparate from inside Grimmauld Place either - they had to apparate to a certain point on the steps outside.

James told Lily to take Harry and run - it's most likely that he was hoping to be able to buy her enough time to get her wand and take Harry out of the house where she could apparate.

Lily didn't have her wand on her either - she was putting Harry to bed and didn't think she would need it. They believed they were safe under the Fidelius Charm because they trusted Pettigrew. She couldn't apparate because she didn't have her wand - you can't apparate without a wand. That was established in DH.


James told Lily to take Harry and run - it's most likely that he was hoping to be able to buy her enough time to get her wand and take Harry out of the house where she could apparate.

I think I was unclear. What I meant was where was her wand that she couldn't get to it. We're not given much info, but it didn't seem like that's what she was trying to do, and so I assume it was downstairs or something.

Good point on the apparating inside (I know you need a wand, but overlooked that they probably had the anti-apparating jinxes up).

I still don't think Lily knew about the magic she was invoking though.

I think I was unclear. What I meant was where was her wand that she couldn't get to it. We're not given much info, but it didn't seem like that's what she was trying to do, and so I assume it was downstairs or something.

Good point on the apparating inside (I know you need a wand, but overlooked that they probably had the anti-apparating jinxes up).

I still don't think Lily knew about the magic she was invoking though.

I'll need to re-read that part to see if it mentions her wand anywhere. She was putting Harry to bed so it seems most likely that she left it in another room because she didn't think she would need it. I don't think it would have mattered in regards to getting away though - it is most likely that they had an anti-apparation jinx up.

You're right that Lily didn't know her actions would invoke a strong protection for Harry. There was no way for her to know that because nothing like this had ever happened before. Jo addressed that at some point - I'll see if I can find the quote for you tomorrow - but she said something along the lines that nobody had ever been offered that particular choice in that particular way. Nobody could have known that would happen because nothing like that had ever happened before.

There is some irony in that because it is actually Voldemort's actions that are the deciding factor. Lily refusing to step aside and let her child be murdered was not really a unique action - most parents would do that. It was Voldemort's choice that was unique there - that's what had never been done. By offering Lily a choice, he enabled her actions to invoke that ancient magic and protect Harry from him.

I'm sorry if this question has already been answered, but I'm new here...

This has been bothering me ever since I read the first book.

Where are Harry's grandparents?
Lily and James were both only 21 when they were killed. It's very likely that their parents were still alive, they wouldn't have been that old, unless they were killed by Voldemort/Death Eaters, possibly from being in the Order (James' family only, Lily's were Muggles)? But even so, what happened to them? And why does Harry never wonder who or where they are, and vice versa (Harry being so famous, the grandparents, if alive, would know who he was-and they never tried to find him???)? They are only mentioned a few times-Sirius mentions that he ran to James' house when he moved out of his own home, and that James' Dad was decent to him, and then in Deathly Hallows, Lily and Petunia are arguing and Lily glances over at her parents, who are looking around Platform 9 3/4. Other than that, nothing. You would think, with Harry being raised by the awful Dursleys, that he would try to find everything out about James and Lily's parents-I know when he's looking in the Mirror of Ersad (spelled that wrong, sorry) he sees grandparents and uncles behind his parents, but they're not really a big deal to him....and why did either set of grandparents never try to contact Harry? (if they were alive, although that's one hell of a coincidence, both sets of parents being killed...)

Another thing that bothered me, and again, I'm sorry if this has been answered before-
In the end of Goblet of Fire, everyone is standing outside watching the horseless carriages pull up. Harry even makes it a point to notice that they are horseless. Then, in OOP, Harry sees the threstals, and learns that he can see them because he saw Cedric die. He saw Cedric die before the end of the school term in Goblet of Fire-so why were the carriages still horseless to him when they pulled up to the school? He should've been able to see the horses.

First question: Rita: What happend to Harry's grandparents? Will we ever learn about them?
JK Rowling replies -> They're all dead and not particularly important to the story, although you will find out a little bit more.
MA: What about Harry's family — his grandparents — were they killed?

JKR: No. This takes us into more mundane territory. As a writer, it was more interesting, plot-wise, if Harry was completely alone. So I rather ruthlessly disposed of his entire family apart from Aunt Petunia. I mean, James and Lily are massively important to the plot, of course, but the grandparents? No. And, because I do like my backstory: Petunia and Lily's parents, normal Muggle death. James's parents were elderly, were getting on a little when he was born, which explains the only child, very pampered, had-him-late-in-life-so-he's-an-extra-treasure, as often happens, I think. They were old in wizarding terms, and they died. They succumbed to a wizarding illness. That's as far as it goes. There's nothing serious or sinister about those deaths. I just needed them out of the way so I killed them.

Second question: Frequently Asked Harry Potter Questions (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=95091), post #4.

I don't have my book right here but I am confused by something. In GOF after Harry returns from the graveyard. Fudge is saying he will take him to the hospital wing & DD says no, he will stay here. Then it says Fudge is walking with Harry when all of a sudden it is Fake Moody. What happened to Fudge? Is this a misprint or something? This has been bothering me for some time.

I don't have my book right here but I am confused by something. In GOF after Harry returns from the graveyard. Fudge is saying he will take him to the hospital wing & DD says no, he will stay here. Then it says Fudge is walking with Harry when all of a sudden it is Fake Moody. What happened to Fudge? Is this a misprint or something? This has been bothering me for some time.
In the confusion of them returning from the graveyard, Harry sees blurred faces including Dumbledore and Fudge and then the text says:
'He'll need to go to the hospital wing!' Fudge was saying loudly. 'He's ill, he's injured - Dumbledore, Diggory's parents, they're here, they're in the stands...'
'I'll take Harry, Dumbledore, I'll take him -'
'No, I would prefer -'
'Dumbledore, Amos Diggory's running...he's coming over...don't you think you should tell him - before he sees -?'
'Harry, stay here -'
Girls were screaming, sobbing hysterically...the scene flickered oddly before Harry's eyes...
'It's all right, son, I've got you...'
She doesn't note who's talking in each line, but it wouldn't be correct grammar to put another sentence from the same speaker on a separate line, if it was Fudge saying 'I'll take Harry, Dumbledore, I'll take him -'. Also, 'son' is what Moody calls Harry before, so I think it's Moody the whole time. She's just trying to show that in the confusion of all that was happening, everyone talking over everyone else, Harry didn't recognize him until later.

I was watching PoA today with my cousin and thinking back to the book. Do we know how Sirius escaped from Azkaban? I don't recall it being in the book, but I wasn't sure if Jo has ever answered this in an interview or anything. Or maybe it is just left to our imagination?

I was watching PoA today with my cousin and thinking back to the book. Do we know how Sirius escaped from Azkaban? I don't recall it being in the book, but I wasn't sure if Jo has ever answered this in an interview or anything. Or maybe it is just left to our imagination?

Yes, we were told in the book.

The knowledge Sirius had (that he was not a traitor, that he still blamed himself, that he had underestimated Peter) was not happy or pleasant, so it was not something that dementors could kill. That kept him grounded in reality.

He could transform into his animagus form without his wand. A dog's emotional state is different from a human's. That spared him some of the 24-7 torment of the dementors' power.

The dementors can't actually see, so they never knew he was transforming.

When Sirius saw the newspaper clipping with the photo, he realized Peter was at Hogwarts, where Harry should be, and thus was potentially a danger to Harry. That motivated him to escape.

He escaped by transforming to his animagus form. As a dog, he was skinny enough to slip between the prison bars. He reached the shore of the island that Azkaban is located on, and swam to the mainland.

Im sure this has been answered but I just can't remember the true answer.
Why did James give up his invisability cloak to Dumbledore before he and Lilly were killed.
I remember a lot of speculation, but am not sure I ever heard the real reason.
Can someone please help me?

Dumbledore asked James if he could borrow it to study it, suspecting it might be a Deathly Hallow, and then James was killed by Voldemort, so Dumbledore hung onto it until he gave it to Harry.

From DH, King's Cross:

"You. You have guessed, I know, why the Cloak was in my possession on the night your parents died. James had showed it to me just a few days previously. It explained much of his undetected wrong-doing at school! I could hardly believe what I was seeing. I asked to borrow it, to examine it. I had long since given up my dream of uniting the Hallows, but I could not resist, could not help taking a closer look. ...It was a Cloak the likes of which I had never seen, immensely old, perfect in every respect ... and then your father died, and I had two Hallows at last, all to myself!"

So with regards to tertiary wizarding education it is more a case of on the job training and being paid while you train.

Now I've forgotten exactly what an Unspeakable does - can someone please remind me so I don't have to go searching through 7 books to find out..... Do Unspeakables do Unknowable things? I mean we were told so we'd KNOW weren't we?

Now I've forgotten exactly what an Unspeakable does - can someone please remind me so I don't have to go searching through 7 books to find out..... Do Unspeakables do Unknowable things? I mean we were told so we'd KNOW weren't we?The Unspeakables work in the Department of Mysteries, researching some of the deepest mysteries of existence.

So that's why they won't commit themselves to anything at all - just like politicians really - except there are no really 'deepest mysteries of existence' since muggles have discovered most of them already...... Viva Stephen Hawkings......

So that's why they won't commit themselves to anything at all - just like politicians really - except there are no really 'deepest mysteries of existence' since muggles have discovered most of them already...... Viva Stephen Hawkings......



Also what the Unspeakables discover could be very dangerous, take their discoveries of time or the prophecies they hold.

What would you say is the closest the muggle world has to unspeakables, when I first heard of them I thought they were maybe like MI6 or something but later on it seems they are more like scientists.

A combination of most perhaps.... but then could they produce a Stephen Hawkings or an Einstein - UNLESS of course these two were already WIZARDS!!!!! Aha! We have the answer......

Yes, we were told in the book.

The knowledge Sirius had (that he was not a traitor, that he still blamed himself, that he had underestimated Peter) was not happy or pleasant, so it was not something that dementors could kill. That kept him grounded in reality.

He could transform into his animagus form without his wand. A dog's emotional state is different from a human's. That spared him some of the 24-7 torment of the dementors' power.

The dementors can't actually see, so they never knew he was transforming.

When Sirius saw the newspaper clipping with the photo, he realized Peter was at Hogwarts, where Harry should be, and thus was potentially a danger to Harry. That motivated him to escape.

He escaped by transforming to his animagus form. As a dog, he was skinny enough to slip between the prison bars. He reached the shore of the island that Azkaban is located on, and swam to the mainland.

Thanks! I forgot about that. I'll have to go and re-read that part of PoA again.

In the confusion of them returning from the graveyard, Harry sees blurred faces including Dumbledore and Fudge and then the text says:
'He'll need to go to the hospital wing!' Fudge was saying loudly. 'He's ill, he's injured - Dumbledore, Diggory's parents, they're here, they're in the stands...'
'I'll take Harry, Dumbledore, I'll take him -'
'No, I would prefer -'
'Dumbledore, Amos Diggory's running...he's coming over...don't you think you should tell him - before he sees -?'
'Harry, stay here -'
Girls were screaming, sobbing hysterically...the scene flickered oddly before Harry's eyes...
'It's all right, son, I've got you...'
She doesn't note who's talking in each line, but it wouldn't be correct grammar to put another sentence from the same speaker on a separate line, if it was Fudge saying 'I'll take Harry, Dumbledore, I'll take him -'. Also, 'son' is what Moody calls Harry before, so I think it's Moody the whole time. She's just trying to show that in the confusion of all that was happening, everyone talking over everyone else, Harry didn't recognize him until later.

Great thanks, that makes sense.

in the chamber of secrets when they travel by floo powder to diagon alley. harry says diagenelley and ends up in knockturn alley??????? how does this happen?? or is it just me being stupid???

How did Sirius get into Hogwarts during year 3?I always thought he used the passage through the Honeydukes up to the humpbacked hag's statue.There is no mention of how he did it in the book,though.Also,on a different topic,I was wondering if the Potion's book Slughorn lent Ron pertained to the Weasley twins.What made me think so is that Ron mentions it as not have been written on and as being puked on a page.It actually reminded me of Puking Pastilles.What do you reckon?

How did Sirius get into Hogwarts during year 3?I always thought he used the passage through the Honeydukes up to the humpbacked hag's statue.There is no mention of how he did it in the book,though.Also,on a different topic,I was wondering if the Potion's book Slughorn lent Ron pertained to the Weasley twins.What made me think so is that Ron mentions it as not have been written on and as being puked on a page.It actually reminded me of Puking Pastilles.What do you reckon? I always thought Sirius got in through the path from the Shrieking Shack (under the Whomping Willow), but that doesn't explain how he got through the front doors and up the stairs without anyone noticing him.

When Neville was set aflame by Voldemort, why didn't his face get burned?

When Neville was set aflame by Voldemort, why didn't his face get burned?


The magic Harry invoked by willingly sacrificing himself (the same magic that protected Harry his first 17 years...ie love) was protecting the Hogwartians from Voldemort. He cannot kill or torture them, and his spells aren't binding.


How did Sirius get into Hogwarts during year 3?I always thought he used the passage through the Honeydukes up to the humpbacked hag's statue.There is no mention of how he did it in the book,though.


Sirius snuck onto the Hogwarts grounds as a dog, and had been living in the Forbidden Forest. He probably just walked up to school from there.


He escaped by transforming to his animagus form. As a dog, he was skinny enough to slip between the prison bars. He reached the shore of the island that Azkaban is located on, and swam to the mainland.


And before that, he walked out the door to his cell when they brought him food. I still find it an odd image...dementors bringing prisoners food. ;)




When Sirius saw the newspaper clipping with the photo, he realized Peter was at Hogwarts, where Harry should be, and thus was potentially a danger to Harry. That motivated him to escape.


And it also helped clear his mind and give him something the dementors couldn't destroy.

When Neville was set aflame by Voldemort, why didn't his face get burned?Neville wasn't set on fire, just the hat was. :) The fire never became bad enough that it burnt Neville's skin, though.

Neville wasn't set on fire, just the hat was. :) The fire never became bad enough that it burnt Neville's skin, though.


Depends on whether you consider someone 'aflame' if their hat's on fire, I guess. ;)



"Neville here is now going to demonstrate what happens to anyone foolish enough to continue to oppose me," said Voldemort, and with a flick of his wand, he cause the Sorting Hat to burst into flames.
Screams split the dawn, and Neville was aflame, rooted to the spot, unable to move, and Harry could not bear it: He must act --

- DH, The Flaw in the Plan

Do we know the name of the orphanage that Tom Riddle was in? If yes, could someone either tell me or point me to it?

Do we know the name of the orphanage that Tom Riddle was in? If yes, could someone either tell me or point me to it?

I don't believe that the name of the orphanage is ever listed in the text. It's just refered to as an "orphanage". In the trailer, it's called "Wool's Orphanage" and there are a bunch of filming information it on the internet. Maybe they asked JKR what the name should be?

Do we know the name of the orphanage that Tom Riddle was in? If yes, could someone either tell me or point me to it?

As Wingardium says, it's never mentioned in the text. The Lexicon has this to say on the matter:



Which orphanage was this?

Voldemort purchased his diary on Vauxhall Road in London (CS13), and the closest orphanage to that location in the 1920s was the Stockwell Orphanage, begun in the mid-1800s by the famous preacher Charles Spurgeon. The Stockwell Orphanage might have been the place where Tom Riddle grew up in misery, although by all accounts it was not a repressive place of the type we imagine from Oliver Twist. Also, according to the original charter, children stayed at the Stockwell Orphanage only through age 14, and Riddle probably lived at his orphanage through age 17. We now know that Riddle's orphanage had girls, too - all but eliminating this one as a possibility.


http://hp-lexicon.info/wizworld/places/orphanage.html

Thanks! Also, do we know whether it's common practice for wizarding kids to be left at Muggle orphanages if the parents are dead, besides if there's family?

Well it depends. In Tom Riddle's case, he was sent off to a Muggle orphanage. I guess if nobody knows you're a Wizard, you would be sent with the Muggles.

Maybe Merope went for the first orphanage she could find. I think it said that she didnt look so good when she came in.

I don't think it would be common because wizards start showing their powers at a young age. I wonder what happens to those kids. Are they kept at the muggle orphanage? Are they sent somewhere else? Maybe there's a wizard orphanage. Does the ministry of magic have to come do memory charms on the muggle caretakers that have been taking care of these kids?

As far as I can remember no wizarding orphanage has ever been mentioned in the books or interviews. In CoS, chapter 13, we learned that riddle used to spend his summers at the Muggle orphanage.

dancer7:
Does the ministry of magic have to come do memory charms on the muggle caretakers that have been taking care of these kids?

They probably don't need to do any memory charms unless the child has performed serious magic, and it's usually something minor anyways. No one wiped Harry's teacher's minds when he turned his teacher's wig blue or jumped onto the school roof. Muggles are most skilled at finding reasons to explain magical occurences, and so a mind wipe may not always be necessary. As far as I know, Dumbledore didn't perform a memory charm on Mrs. Cole when he came to see Tom, and Tom had done a lot of magical things at the orphanage.

Although, even if they had wiped the memory of Harry's teacher, he wouldn't have known. :lol:

You have a point though. No memory charm was placed on Mrs. Cole.

It appears that Dumbledore didn't put any sort of Memory Charm on Mrs. Cole to make her forget any of the past odd events concerning Tom.

However, Dumbledore did put some sort of charm on her to make her think she had read information that answered her concerns when she in fact had been looking at a blank piece of paper. Perhaps the Imperius Curse? No, that's a bit extreme. Maybe it was the Confundus Charm.

He then conjured up the bottle of Beefeater. Why use legilimency to get information when a little Muggle potions work will do the job just as well? :lol:

However, Dumbledore did put some sort of charm on her to make her think she had read information that answered her concerns when she in fact had been looking at a blank piece of paper. Perhaps the Imperius Curse? No, that's a bit extreme. Maybe it was the Confundus Charm.

Probable confundus, I always loved how that bit reminded me of Dr Who :lol:

They probably don't need to do any memory charms unless the child has performed serious magic, and it's usually something minor anyways. No one wiped Harry's teacher's minds when he turned his teacher's wig blue or jumped onto the school roof. Muggles are most skilled at finding reasons to explain magical occurences, and so a mind wipe may not always be necessary. As far as I know, Dumbledore didn't perform a memory charm on Mrs. Cole when he came to see Tom, and Tom had done a lot of magical things at the orphanage.



Perhaps the memory charm is only used for the most major of magical incidents (such as inflating aunt Marge) for other cases it could just be ignored and hoped the muggles forget about it or maybe the Muggle Worthy Excuse Committee step in.

They probably don't need to do any memory charms unless the child has performed serious magic, and it's usually something minor anyways. No one wiped Harry's teacher's minds when he turned his teacher's wig blue or jumped onto the school roof. Muggles are most skilled at finding reasons to explain magical occurences, and so a mind wipe may not always be necessary. As far as I know, Dumbledore didn't perform a memory charm on Mrs. Cole when he came to see Tom, and Tom had done a lot of magical things at the orphanage.



Perhaps the memory charm is only used for the most major of magical incidents (such as inflating aunt Marge) for other cases it could just be ignored and hoped the muggles forget about it or maybe the Muggle Worthy Excuse Committee step in.

Perhaps the memory charm is only used for the most major of magical incidents (such as inflating aunt Marge) for other cases it could just be ignored and hoped the muggles forget about it or maybe the Muggle Worthy Excuse Committee step in.
I thought it was interesting that they only wiped Marge's memory, leaving the rest of the Dursleys with residual bitterness toward Harry. If they'd erased the incident from everyone's minds, it could have greatly improved relations in the household.

I thought it was interesting that they only wiped Marge's memory, leaving the rest of the Dursleys with residual bitterness toward Harry. If they'd erased the incident from everyone's minds, it could have greatly improved relations in the household.Well, at the time, the Ministry probably wasn't too concerned about the relationships within the Dursleys' household. It was more important that they keep Harry out of danger. It was necessary to wipe Marge's memory because she didn't know wizards existed and they didn't want her to know about the Wizarding world. The Dursleys had to know because they were Harry's guardians and plus Petunia already knew because of her sister.

It appears that Dumbledore didn't put any sort of Memory Charm on Mrs. Cole to make her forget any of the past odd events concerning Tom.

However, Dumbledore did put some sort of charm on her to make her think she had read information that answered her concerns when she in fact had been looking at a blank piece of paper. Perhaps the Imperius Curse? No, that's a bit extreme. Maybe it was the Confundus Charm.

He then conjured up the bottle of Beefeater. Why use legilimency to get information when a little Muggle potions work will do the job just as well? :lol:


Isn't it also possible that mrs. cole may have been a squib? Maybe when dumbledore tapped the piece of paper with his wand writing appeared . Snape can do that. We've seen him do it on at least one occasion.

Isn't it also possible that mrs. cole may have been a squib?I doubt that. From what we see Squibs always have knowledge of the Wizarding World and Mrs. Cole didn't seem to know what Tom was. When she was describing him, she called him "funny," and "odd," which are typical words that Muggles use to describe Witches and wizards.

Isn't it also possible that mrs. cole may have been a squib? Maybe when dumbledore tapped the piece of paper with his wand writing appeared . Snape can do that. We've seen him do it on at least one occasion.
From the context, it does not seem as if writing appeared on the piece of paper:
Harry now saw him slip his wand out of the pocket of his velvet suit, at the same time picking up a piece of perfectly blank paper from Mrs. Cole's desktop.
"Here," said Dumbledore, waving his wand once as he passed her the piece of paper, "I think this will make everything clear."
Mrs. Cole's eyes slid out of focus and back again as she gazed intently at the blank paper for a moment.
Since the narration still calls the paper "blank" after Dumbledore waved his wand, I do not think writing appeared on it. It is most likely that Dumbledore cast a Confundus Charm on Mrs. Cole, which caused Mrs. Cole's eyes to slide out of focus and back again.

I also doubt that Mrs. Cole was a Squib, since she would have identified the "funny things" that happened around Tom as magic. As it were, she could not explain all the strange happenings (Billy Stubb's rabbit, etc.), so it is most likely she was not a Squib or had any knowledge of the magical world. She was simply a matron of a London orphanage.

Since Muggles are very good at ignoring magic even if it is staring them in the face (as Mr. Weasley said), most magic done by underaged wizards who live among muggles will be explained away somehow. In aunt Marges case the ministry had to intervene to get her down and deflate her, so as they were on the spot and she had probably seen them using wands, her memory had to be modified.
Neither anyone at the zoo nor Harry's teachers had seen Harry do magic without any doubt, he hadn't used a wand or a spell, so they could be counted on to try and explain it away somehow, and, when they couldn't, to keep silent about it, because it was embarassing. Any talk about having seen magic would bring them in danger of being called weirdos or, if they insisted, mental, no one would take them serious and they know it. The Primeminister would never tell anyone about a magical world even though he knew for sure.
I don't know if those muggles who were in on the secret of magic, like the Dursleys, the Grangers or the Evans's were informed of the Statute of Secrecy and warned of dire retributions, if they should tell anyone, or if the ministry relied on there common sense to keep silent. I don't think the Grangers would have had many patients, after it got out they send her daughter to a freak school because they believed her to be a witch.

After Harry learns where Malfoy frequently goes,which is the RoR, he wants to try and check into it to work out what Malfoy's up to.Hermione says Harry can't do that unless he exactly knows what the room becomes when Malfoy uses it.Later,she turns out to be right.How did Pansy Parkinson achieve to get the list of DA members then?Hermione says it was Malfoy,but not Pansy as Umbridge had said at the night of the raid,who had broken into the room on that occasion.She also says Malfoy exactly knew what the room was being used for,the headquarts of DA what she says,when he got into it.Is there something I miss here?Malfoy,or Pansy actually,didn't know exactly what the room was being used for.All they knew was that there was supposed to be a meeting there.So I believe that knowledge would not be enough to reveal the door of RoR.Hope I made my point clear.Is there a book mistake here?Wasn't it Pansy,but not Malfoy,who had got into the room and brought the name list to Umbridge?Even if they did it together,how could they reveal the door?I feel frustrated,now:sigh:

After Harry learns where Malfoy frequently goes,which is the RoR, he wants to try and check into it to work out what Malfoy's up to.Hermione says Harry can't do that unless he exactly knows what the room becomes when Malfoy uses it.Later,she turns out to be right.How did Pansy Parkinson achieve to get the list of DA members then?Hermione says it was Malfoy,but not Pansy as Umbridge had said at the night of the raid,who had broken into the room on that occasion.She also says Malfoy exactly knew what the room was being used for,the headquarts of DA what she says,when he got into it.Is there something I miss here?Malfoy,or Pansy actually,didn't know exactly what the room was being used for.All they knew was that there was supposed to be a meeting there.So I believe that knowledge would not be enough to reveal the door of RoR.Hope I made my point clear.Is there a book mistake here?Wasn't it Pansy,but not Malfoy,who had got into the room and brought the name list to Umbridge?Even if they did it together,how could they reveal the door?I feel frustrated,now:sigh:

Harry tries to get the Room to grant him access to the same configuration of space that Malfoy was using. Unfortunately, if Malfoy's requirements for the space included keeping Harry out...


In 5th year, Harry and the rest needed a place they could practice DADA, 'safe from Umbridge and anyone loyal to her' (or however they phrased it). The RoR provided them that.

The night of the raid, Dobby warned Harry that Umbridge was coming. Harry found out later that Marietta had told Umbridge where (which corridor) to look for the RoR. Inside the room, they all had a panic attack and ran out into the corridors, where at least some of them were captured.

In my opinion, the Room worked as described and intended. Within the boundaries of the Room, the Room could provide for their requirements. One of their requirements while using the Room was to be safe from Umbridge and her helpers. If they had stayed in the Room, Umbridge could never have gotten in. If they stayed calm and realized what they required was an alternative egress, the Room would have provided it. Instead, they ran out beyond the Room's reach and got captured.

Umbridge and her minions were there when the Room was vacated, so they saw where the entrance was. Furthermore, I think she activated the Room without knowing it. She was standing outside in the corridor, the Room was vacant (so it didn't have anybody else's requirements to fulfill), and she had a requirement (that she and her helpers find some evidence in that room to discredit Harry and or Dumbledore). That's why Pansy was able to get in and find the roster.

New question. In PS/SS, why was Neville surprised when Ron & Hermione brought their wands to the Quidditch match? It seems like standard operating procedure to bring your wand everywhere you go in the Wizarding world.

New question. In PS/SS, why was Neville surprised when Ron & Hermione brought their wands to the Quidditch match? It seems like standard operating procedure to bring your wand everywhere you go in the Wizarding world.

My thoughts were that it was said to draw attention to the fact that they had their wands with them. Another thought is that perhaps they had not only had their wands with them but out rather than in their robes.

New question. In PS/SS, why was Neville surprised when Ron & Hermione brought their wands to the Quidditch match? It seems like standard operating procedure to bring your wand everywhere you go in the Wizarding world.

I'm guessing it's because Neville isn't the most informed student, especially at that point. ;)

Where was that, by the way? I looked at the first Quidditch match and couldn't find it...

I'm guessing it's because Neville isn't the most informed student, especially at that point. ;)

Where was that, by the way? I looked at the first Quidditch match and couldn't find it...

It's the match where Snape referees.

Ron and Hermione, meanwhile, had found a place in the stands next to Neville, who couldn’t understand why they looked so grim and worried, or why they had both brought their wands to the match. Little did Harry know that Ron and Hermione had been secretly practicing the Leg-Locker Curse. They’d gotten the idea from Malfoy using it on Neville, and were ready to use it on Snape if he showed any sign of wanting to hurt Harry.

It's not directly stated anywhere as far as I can recall, but there are a couple of times where it's implied that they don't take their wands to the Quidditch matches. But it's not consistent because they seem to have their wands on them most of the time - except Harry, who is playing. The only time Harry takes his wand for Quidditch is in POA when he's worried about the dementors attacking again.

This could be due to the rules about them using magic outside of class - I know there is at least one spot where it's specifically stated they're not supposed to do magic in the corridors and there is that part in PS/SS where the trio is worried about getting in trouble over Hermione doing the bluebell flames so they could stay warm outside. But it's not consistent so I can't say for sure.

It's also possible that Neville was just surprised that they had their wands out and ready to use - Ron was tucking his into sleeve - rather than in their pockets.

In PoS, Harry produces a full patronus in front of the whole school at the quidditch match against ravenclaw when malfoy and his cronies posed as dementer. but in OotP when the future DA is first meeting in the Hogs Head, Lee Jordan and most everyone else didn't know that Harry could produce a full patronus.... did everyone just forget about the quidditch match or what? Lee was commentating that game, you think he would have noticed a giant silver stag appearing on the pitch.

In PoS, Harry produces a full patronus in front of the whole school at the quidditch match against ravenclaw when malfoy and his cronies posed as dementer. but in OotP when the future DA is first meeting in the Hogs Head, Lee Jordan and most everyone else didn't know that Harry could produce a full patronus.... did everyone just forget about the quidditch match or what? Lee was commentating that game, you think he would have noticed a giant silver stag appearing on the pitch.

This was discussed in the plot holes thread (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?p=5095616) - posts 1075, 1078, and 1079. :)

Did Draco really have the dark mark?

If he didn't then what did he show to Borgin and why did he freak out when Madame Malkin touched his left sleeve?

I thought he was only being used by Voldemort to punish lucius. Why would he have the dark mark if he was a pawn?

I know this question has probably been answered before, but I just re-read book 7 (I can't stand to re-read book 6, I read it so many times for Horcrux clues that I'm sick of it).

In King's Cross Station: is the stunted flailing child:
1. Voldemort's soul - bowled over at the same time as Harry by the AK? or
2. Voldemort's horcrux - soul fragment - that had been lodged in Harry?

Did Draco really have the dark mark?

If he didn't then what did he show to Borgin and why did he freak out when Madame Malkin touched his left sleeve?

I thought he was only being used by Voldemort to punish lucius. Why would he have the dark mark if he was a pawn?I've asked that same question, and someone pulled out a quote where JKR stated he had one. I don't know where the quote is though. Check the "Treat Draco" thread.

In King's Cross Station: is the stunted flailing child:
1. Voldemort's soul - bowled over at the same time as Harry by the AK? or
2. Voldemort's horcrux - soul fragment - that had been lodged in Harry?We have a whole thread devoted to those questions. Here (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=112117). :)

Is there a mention of Crokkshanks in DH? Where is he? Did he go to Australia with Hermione's parents? Or stay in the Burrow? I can't remember that he was with the Trio, right?

About Neville's apparent confusion that Ron and Hermione have wands out at the match. It is most likely that he was surprised they had the wands ready rather than in pockets. But in book 4 Harry says he had gotten used to having his wand on him at all times in the wizarding world. Maybe first years don't always have their wands ready like older witches and wizards would.

Is there a mention of Crokkshanks in DH? Where is he? Did he go to Australia with Hermione's parents? Or stay in the Burrow? I can't remember that he was with the Trio, right?I don't remember. Seeing as making her parents forget they had a daughter was the first time Hermione did a memory spell do you think that putting a new one that they had a cat would have been a bit beyond her on the first attempt? And it might have triggered something in them to remind them likeit does in all the best movies. He definately wasn't with the trio that much I'm sure of so I'd say the Burrow is the best bet.

There have been sightings of an overgrown but what looks like a sort of large ginger cat around the inner city of Sydney. I have been know to pet, cuddle and feed this creature since he is close friends with my two feline companions. I last saw him today near the back fence of my inner-city terrace house. He looked very contented.......

There have been sightings of an overgrown but what looks like a sort of large ginger cat around the inner city of Sydney. I have been know to pet, cuddle and feed this creature since he is close friends with my two feline companions. I last saw him today near the back fence of my inner-city terrace house. He looked very contented.......
Ack! You mean they just left him there after Hermione's parents came back to England?!?!?

;)

No he's in Redfern Sydney Australia - lovely cat or whatever that... He's warming quite a few people around here this winter.....

Is there a mention of Crokkshanks in DH? Where is he? Did he go to Australia with Hermione's parents? Or stay in the Burrow? I can't remember that he was with the Trio, right?

I believe that there was a quick comment by Hermione or Ron before the wedding that they planned on leaving Crookshanks (and Pig) behind at the Burrow whenever they finally set out with Harry.

Sorry, guys, it's The Stone Forums here. It's OK to make some off-topic remark by time, but if you constantly spam the threads with real life references, we get problems. Please let's stick to canon analysis in here. Thanks. :)

:hmm: I used to be better at answering than asking...I'm out of touch :p.

Anyways, do we know what happened to the dragon that the trio broke out of Gringotts on? Or was that just dropped since they went into Hogwarts and started the whole final battle with their presence?

I think after they dropped into that lake that it just flew off on it's own. :shrug:

I was wondering why Harry's scar didn't respond to Gryffindor's sword back in CoS? We know that the locket responded when it was near the sword--fought back against something that could destroy it. And it seems like something similar happened with the sword and the ring with Dumbledore. So why wasn't Harry's scar, and that piece of Voldy, effected by the sword?

I think after they dropped into that lake that it just flew off on it's own. :shrug:

I was wondering why Harry's scar didn't respond to Gryffindor's sword back in CoS? We know that the locket responded when it was near the sword--fought back against something that could destroy it. And it seems like something similar happened with the sword and the ring with Dumbledore. So why wasn't Harry's scar, and that piece of Voldy, effected by the sword?

Thanks, that was my guess too :).

I wonder if the effect was different because Voldemort had re-arisen in the latter case, and not in the former?

I was wondering why Harry's scar didn't respond to Gryffindor's sword back in CoS? We know that the locket responded when it was near the sword--fought back against something that could destroy it. And it seems like something similar happened with the sword and the ring with Dumbledore. So why wasn't Harry's scar, and that piece of Voldy, effected by the sword?

Perhaps because Harry wasn't intending to use the sword to destroy the bit of soul in his scar as he was with the bit of soul in the locket

That may be possible but Harry just jumped into the lake to retrieve the sword and the horcrux started to tighten around his throat. How did the horcrux know that it was meant to be destroyed right then?

Why did Harry's scar do nothing when he walked into the forest? It was about to be destroyed then so what was the difference?

Exactly what type of killing causes the soul to split? Or, more specifically, what defines murder? We know that Snape's killing of Dumbledore didn't split his sould because it was all part of Dumbledore's plan. We know that Voldemort's Horcrux-making murders did split his soul, as that was his intent. And we're told by Slughorn that 'killing' splits the soul.

What then of all the DE killings throughout the years? Do a bunch of them have souls that are ripped asunder like Voldemort's (Dumbledore does tell us some of them are nearly as bad as the Dark Lord)?

What about Molly killing Bellatrix? It certainly seemed like she wasn't dueling to stun...

What about McGonagall's comment to Slughorn of 'we duel to kill?' Would this behavior split souls?

Exactly what type of killing causes the soul to split? Or, more specifically, what defines murder?My take on this (which is just my opinion) is that killing with the intent of specifically causing harm for no good reason causes one's soul to be split. Specifically with Molly killing Bellatrix - she was defending her child, who was in imminent danger of being killed by Bella. Regarding McGonagall's comment, I'd have to check back on the context, but it sounds like she's referring to fighting against the death eaters (correct me if I'm wrong though). Killing in this instance would qualify as fighting as soldiers in a war for defense purposes. I agree there is a fine line between what constitutes soul-splitting murder and what is just killing.

My take on this (which is just my opinion) is that killing with the intent of specifically causing harm for no good reason causes one's soul to be split. Specifically with Molly killing Bellatrix - she was defending her child, who was in imminent danger of being killed by Bella. Regarding McGonagall's comment, I'd have to check back on the context, but it sounds like she's referring to fighting against the death eaters (correct me if I'm wrong though). Killing in this instance would qualify as fighting as soldiers in a war for defense purposes. I agree there is a fine line between what constitutes soul-splitting murder and what is just killing. I agree with this, I wouldn't consider defensive killing as soul splitting. I wonder if the sould gets damaged in some fashion though, because we can see IRL how killing someone affects and innocent person.

If your soul is split, but remains intact within your body, without part placed in a horcrux, I wonder if it is possible to heal the split.

I agree with this, I wouldn't consider defensive killing as soul splitting. I wonder if the sould gets damaged in some fashion though, because we can see IRL how killing someone affects and innocent person.

If your soul is split, but remains intact within your body, without part placed in a horcrux, I wonder if it is possible to heal the split.


I think it probably is. If Jo said even Voldemort, had he shown remorse at the end, could've been healed far more than anyone supposed (granted, it was because he took some of Harry's goodness into him), I'm guessing almost anyone can be healed to some degree.

It does bring up another interesting question:

How far can the soul be mutilated, and to what degree can it be repaired? Voldemort keeps killing and killing and killing, long after his soul was mutilated beyond the 'usual evil.' Dumbledore (Kings Cross DH) says he rendered his soul so unstable it broke when he committed those unspeakable acts of murder (Lily and James and attempted Harry), but he kills plenty more after that...

In the hearing of Karkaroff Dumbledore says that Snape had turned spy for the good side before Voldemort's downfall.I thought Snape had abandoned Voldemort only after Lily and James died.In this case Dumbledore was lying?Or was it with Snape's information that Dumbledore knew Voldemort had been after Harry?I can't exactly remember this piece of information from DH.Would you please enlighten me as to what Dumbledore was refering to in the hearing?

Snape switched sides after Voldemort began to target Lily, James, and Harry. Snape told Voldemort about the prophecy but came to Dumbledore with "a request" after he had discovered Voldemort's interpretation of the prediction:
"I - I come with a warning - no, a request - please -"
"What request could a Death Eater make of me?"
"The - the prophecy...the prediction...Trelawney..."
"Ah, yes," said Dumbledore. "How much did you relay to Lord Voldemort?"
"Everything - everything I heard!" said Snape. "That is why - it is for that reason - he thinks it means Lily Evans!"
..."He thinks it means her son, he is going to hunt her down - kill them all -"
..."Hide them all, then, " he croaked. "Keep her - them - safe. Please."
"And what will you give me in return, Severus?"
"In - in return? Anything."
He was already on Dumbledore's side when the Potters were murdered.

Snape switched sides after Voldemort began to target Lily, James, and Harry. Snape told Voldemort about the prophecy but came to Dumbledore with "a request" after he had discovered Voldemort's interpretation of the prediction:
"I - I come with a warning - no, a request - please -"
"What request could a Death Eater make of me?"
"The - the prophecy...the prediction...Trelawney..."
"Ah, yes," said Dumbledore. "How much did you relay to Lord Voldemort?"
"Everything - everything I heard!" said Snape. "That is why - it is for that reason - he thinks it means Lily Evans!"
..."He thinks it means her son, he is going to hunt her down - kill them all -"
..."Hide them all, then, " he croaked. "Keep her - them - safe. Please."
"And what will you give me in return, Severus?"
"In - in return? Anything."
He was already on Dumbledore's side when the Potters were murdered.

I think that's still debatable. There are other factors here that must be considered.


It had already been established at this point that Voldemort had ordered Snape to spy on Dumbledore - which meant he had to find a way to gain Dumbledore's trust.
.
Snape had no reason to turn against Voldemort at this point because he had agreed to spare Lily.


I think it is most likely that this first meeting was part of Voldemort's plan to get Snape on the inside so he could spy on Dumbledore. I think Dumbledore probably knew that as well - or at least suspected it. It seems most likely that Snape didn't truly switch sides until Voldemort had betrayed him by breaking his word to spare Lily. At that point, Snape had a reason to turn against Voldemort.

However, in presenting all this to the Wizengamot, it would make more sense to go with the fact that Snape had actually come to him before Voldemort fell. Whatever Snape's motives were during that first meeting, Dumbledore felt he needed Snape to protect Harry and prepare for Voldemort's eventual return. The Wizengamot would be more likely to accept that Snape had turned against Voldemort on the basis of him going to Dumbledore before Voldemort fell. Not to mention that Dumbledore had promised Snape that he wouldn't tell anyone the real reason why he switched sides - he couldn't go to the Wizengamot and tell them that Snape switched because Lily was killed so he told them the order of events instead.

Thanks a lot MrSleepyHead:cool:I'd better be off to re-read DH

New guy here with a question, and this seems the place to ask it.

I just finished Deathly Hallows for the second time and simply cannot figure out what was Snape's source that revealed the true date and time of Harry's being moved from Pivot Drive to the Burrow.

Did I miss it, or is it merely left for speculation?

Thanks for the help and I look forward to some "deeper" discussions about the books and the characters, especially Snape.

New guy here with a question, and this seems the place to ask it.

I just finished Deathly Hallows for the second time and simply cannot figure out what was Snape's source that revealed the true date and time of Harry's being moved from Pivot Drive to the Burrow.

Did I miss it, or is it merely left for speculation?

Thanks for the help and I look forward to some "deeper" discussions about the books and the characters, especially Snape.

It's not exactly stated, but it's pretty much implied that it was Dumbledore's portrait.

DH, The Prince's Tale:

And the scene shifted. Now, Harry saw Snape talking to the portrait of Dumbledore behind the desk.
"You will have to give Voldemort the correct date of Harry's departure from his aunt and uncle's," said Dumbledore. "Not to do so will raise suspicion, when Voldemort believes you so well informed. ..."

Reminder!
This is a questions and answers thread, not a place for lengthy speculation or debating.

And all Snape discussion/speculation is restricted to the existing Snape threads.

I have deleted a few posts of speculation & debate.

I feel like a n00b, but when was Philosopher's Stone published? I know it's 1997, but the HPL says July 1, Wikipedia says June 30, an article on Accio Quote says June 26, and another page on Wikipedia says June 24. So what's the real release date?

Bloomsbury says June without giving the exact date.
http://www.bloomsbury.com/jkrevent/default.asp?sec=2

So that rules out July 1st. Jo's biographer Sean Smith says June 26, but who knows if he is a better source than any other?

so im rereading DH again, and I have a question...

I thought the Elder Wand is an unbeatable wand? how does Dumbledore defeat Grindlewald if Grindlewald had the Elder Wand?

so im rereading DH again, and I have a question...

I thought the Elder Wand is an unbeatable wand? how does Dumbledore defeat Grindlewald if Grindlewald had the Elder Wand?I'd say the same way that Grindlewald got it from the owner before him.

Just like the original story implies, that he (Grindlewald) perhaps boasted about being unbeatable.


I just finished Deathly Hallows for the second time and simply cannot figure out what was Snape's source that revealed the true date and time of Harry's being moved from Pivot Drive to the Burrow.
I thought it was Mundungus. Didn't Dd's portrait advise Snape to confund Dung to give him the idea of the 7 Potters. I made the assumption that during that little talk, Snape got the date and other information from Dung.

I will have to re-read to check this - but I'm not sure that Dd's Portrait had that information.

So that rules out July 1st. Jo's biographer Sean Smith says June 26, but who knows if he is a better source than any other?

Amazon UK lists the release date as June 26 as well. Amazon can sometimes be wrong, though. But, the evidence seems to be adding up that it was June 26th. WHSmith (UK) agrees with this date as well.

Philospher's Stone - UK (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Harry-Potter-Philosophers-Stone-Book/dp/0747532745/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1217988997&sr=8-1)

New guy here with a question, and this seems the place to ask it.

I just finished Deathly Hallows for the second time and simply cannot figure out what was Snape's source that revealed the true date and time of Harry's being moved from Pivot Drive to the Burrow.

Did I miss it, or is it merely left for speculation?

Thanks for the help and I look forward to some "deeper" discussions about the books and the characters, especially Snape.

Snape confunded Dung and gave him all the information including the date and the overall plan. Snape was acting on Dd's orders. I think it explains it all in the chapter "The Prince's Tale" but I may not be correct

I'd say the same way that Grindlewald got it from the owner before him.

Just like the original story implies, that he (Grindlewald) perhaps boasted about being unbeatable.

but if its unbeatable, how can he be beaten???

Because it is unbeatable only as long as it stays loyal to its owner. If another wizard comes along and wins it's allegiance, then it is no longer 'unbeatable' for the original wizard.

With all the Marauders now dead, does the map still work? We've seen that spells stop working when their casters die, will the map still open? Does it still show Hogwarts? Will it still insult people who try to mess with it?
Harry and Luna used it to get to Ravenclaw Tower. There is no mention of it afterward or in Jo's interviews. There are a ton of fan-fics that have Teddy or the kids using it or show Harry checking up on his children but could he really do that?

Personally, I don't think the map itself would be erased but I feel that the opening spell would no longer work, and the personalities of the Marauders would be gone.

so im rereading DH again, and I have a question...

I thought the Elder Wand is an unbeatable wand? how does Dumbledore defeat Grindlewald if Grindlewald had the Elder Wand?

Because the wand is unbeatable in a magic duel, most of the time the wand changes hands (loyalties) after someone beats their opponent in some way that is not a straight forward duel.
That is often by murdering them, poisoning them, attacking them while their attention is elsewhere, sneak attacks etc. Malfoy defeated Dumbledore by attacking him unexpectedly, and while Dumbledore was weakened by the potion from the locket basin, but the Elder Wand doesn't care anything about fairness, only who won.

Exactly how Dumbledore achieved this victory is open to speculation.

I bet it still works. James' voice still came out of the map in PoA, even though he was dead (hard to believe he was the only one then :(). So I bet Remus, Peter, and Sirius' voices would all do the same. And JKR has talked about it a bit post-DH, about how James "borrowed" it from Harry's desk a few times, so it probably still works. :)

Jo said in one of her interviews that James would have taken the map from Harry's desk, so I think it's safe to assume that it would still work.

I never understood this quote and i was wondering if it ment anything to anyone else?

Scrimgeor turned slowly on the spot and exchanged an incredulous look with Fudge, who really did manage a smile this time as he said kindly, "The trouble is, the other side can do magic too, prime minister.- Harry Potter and the half-blood prince, chapter one, page 18

Is it plausible that it stopped working and then George or Harry repaired it. Would it still be the same map? The same Marauders talking?
What kinds of spells stop working after death? Which don't?

Is it plausible that it stopped working and then George or Harry repaired it. Would it still be the same map? The same Marauders talking?
What kinds of spells stop working after death? Which don't?

No, I would assume that the map continued to work even after the deaths. They bewitched a piece of partchment and I think that it will always continue to work. James still "talked" even when he was dead, and Harry used it in DH when 3 of the 4 were dead. Harry and George wouldn't have been able to repair because I doubt that either of them would know how.

I never understood this quote and i was wondering if it ment anything to anyone else?

Scrimgeor turned slowly on the spot and exchanged an incredulous look with Fudge, who really did manage a smile this time as he said kindly, "The trouble is, the other side can do magic too, prime minister.- Harry Potter and the half-blood prince, chapter one, page 18


Fudge said this after the Premier Minister asked, why Scrimgeor and Fudge wouldn't be able to defeat Voldemort since they're wizards. Then Fudge reminds him that Voldemort is able to use magic as well. I don't think there is another meaning hidden. :)

yes but i thought there would be some meaning because of how Jo discribed the smile and etc. as if it was an inside joke

We've seen that spells stop working when their casters die,

Which ones were you thinking of, specifically?


Is it plausible that it stopped working and then George or Harry repaired it. Would it still be the same map? The same Marauders talking?
What kinds of spells stop working after death? Which don't?

I don't think there's any kind of list of spells that do or don't work after death (at least not outside of Jo's personal papers ;)), but I think it's a good assumption that things like Patronuses would stop working, where many other, long-term spells wouldn't. We see Moody's enchantments hold after his death. Hermione implies that the memory charm used on her parents would still work if she died. The magic invoked to protect Harry initially actually required his mother to die. Dumbledore's enchantment on Harry's house held after Albus was deceased. I'm guessing half the items in George and Fred's shop continue to work after The Battle of Hogwarts ;). Most enchanted objects we see remain enchanted long after the people who placed the original enchantments are gone (eg - Deathly Hallows, Moody's eye, etc).

I think, in general, most enchantments and charms can continue to work after the casters' deaths, whereas smaller, shorter-term things, and spells that requirte constant concentration, like Patronuses, could not.

yes but i thought there would be some meaning because of how Jo discribed the smile and etc. as if it was an inside joke

I took the smile between Fudge & Scrimgeor to mean "These Muggles -- they just don't get it, do they?" kind of thing. Like adults smiling at each other when little kids say stupid or silly things without realizing it's stupid or silly.

yes but i thought there would be some meaning because of how Jo discribed the smile and etc. as if it was an inside joke

It goes along with a quote from the previous paragraph (and the general tone of the whole conversation between Fudge and the Muggle Minister):

<Scrimgeour talking> "Well, that's really all I had to say. I will keep you posted of developments, Prime Minister -- or at least, I shall probably be too busy to come personally, in which case I shall send Fudge here. He has consented to stay on in an advisory capacity."
Fudge attempted to smile, but was unsuccessful; he merely looked as if he had a toothache.

Fudge's nerves are shot, and he's not at all happy about his situation (probably moreso because he knows he could've avoided it by listening to Dumbledore). He's just lost his job, is now essentially Scrimgeour's 'temporary assistant,' and has the unpleasant task of trying to explain his mess to the Muggle Prime Minister.

I don't think the smile was one of happiness; but more a combination of semi-reassurance to the Muggle Minister while giving him decidedly bad news, and a feeling of slight, I guess 'renewed importance' might be one way to put it, from being in 'the know' about what's going on (ie - that it's not so simple as 'wave a wand, make it better). It would be similar to how you might smile while responding to a complicated question posed in a simple fashion by a small child.

It could also be partially musing at how nice it would be for that to be the case...that they could just magic Voldemort and all the problems he's causing away...but since it's coupled with Scrimgeour's 'incredulous look,' I think it's more of just something small to smile at (lord knows Fudge needs it), and a reassuring way of informing the uninformed that things are not that simple.

EDIT:
A much more concise way to put it would be:

I took the smile between Fudge & Scrimgeor to mean "These Muggles -- they just don't get it, do they?" kind of thing. Like adults smiling at each other when little kids say stupid or silly things without realizing it's stupid or silly.


:)

in GOF, Moody makes the Goblet a portkey, and Harry and Cedric are transported to Tom Riddle Sr's grave....this is impossible isnt it? I thought it was impossible to transport in and out of hogwarts grounds by magic... ie. apparation, portkey, etc...

I think that portkeys are an exception to the anti magic rule . Dumbledore creats one to take Harry & the Weasley kids to # 12 grimmauld pl.

in GOF, Moody makes the Goblet a portkey, and Harry and Cedric are transported to Tom Riddle Sr's grave....this is impossible isnt it? I thought it was impossible to transport in and out of hogwarts grounds by magic... ie. apparation, portkey, etc...
Portkey's actually work within Hogwarts. In Ch 22 of OotP Dumbledore creates a portkey to take Harry and the Weasley kids to St. Mungo's and they leave from Dumbledore's office. Though, the maze seems to have been outside of the immediate grounds, or at least outside of the main wards.

Edit: twins rules :)