Little Questions Answered

Does anyone know all the subjects Hermione took OWLS in? The book says 11...

1) Arithmancy
2) Astronomy
3) Ancient Runes
4) Defence Against the Dark Arts
5) Care of Magical Creatures
6) Transfiguration
7) Herbology
8) Potions
9) History of Magic
10) Charms.

What's number 11? The only other subjects I know of are Divination and Muggle Studies... she dropped both of them in 3rd year.

good question - i'm stumped i'm afraid

Does anyone know all the subjects Hermione took OWLS in? The book says 11...

1) Arithmancy
2) Astronomy
3) Ancient Runes
4) Defence Against the Dark Arts
5) Care of Magical Creatures
6) Transfiguration
7) Herbology
8) Potions
9) History of Magic
10) Charms.

What's number 11? The only other subjects I know of are Divination and Muggle Studies... she dropped both of them in 3rd year.
Muggle Studies

That really bothered me too. Did she just take the Muggle Studies OWL without taking the class in her 4th and 5th years?

Was Muggle Studies on her OWL report? I don't remember?

With muggle parents, she probably could skip the class for a couple years and could still do very well in the OWL. Since she took the class in her third year, she would know about how much she would have to know for her OWL. I think that just knowing how to use a telephone is about OWL level. Maybe she just flipped through the 5th year textbook without taking the class, making sure she knew everything she needed to. Even Harry, who has a "perfectly normal, thank you very much" aunt and uncle, and a spoiled cousin with all the newest technology, would be way ahead of the rest of the class. Skipping two years would probably not even be a problem for Hermione.

I have another question: Grawp was at the funeral. He'd been kept hidden before, the way the situation was treated by the Trio made me assume smuggling giants was illegal - so how come he was at the funeral? With the Minister and Umbridge and billions of other people.

I think in OotP, the issue with people knowing about Grawp was that it would notify the ministry that Hagrid had in fact been sent to see the Giants. By HBP, the ministry knows that DD was right all along and is not about to punish an order member for anti-LV efforts.

Were all the giants banished, or just driven out of Britain?
And even if giants weren't allowed, do you think anyone would be foolish enough to tell a grieving Hagrid to remove his giant brother? And Grawp seemed pretty well behaved too. I just can't imagine anyone going up to Hagrid at the funeral and telling him Grawp has to leave.

i think wizards killed giants - and the last of them just left britain for safety.

i think wizards killed giants - and the last of them just left britain for safety.
I believe that you are correct .The Wizards of the MoM hunted them down and drove them out of Britain ,around the end of the first VW. The survivors where sent to the mountains up north ,where Hagrid & Madam Oylimpe found them and well you know the rest of that story . I believe that the expansion of the Wizard & muggle population, in Britain in the last 100 years ,doomed the Giants to a slow death in Britain. there just wasn't enough land left for them to live on without too much interaction with muggles . So out they go off to the mountains and solitude .

Okay. I don't know if this was asked before (forgive me if it was), but aren't all the dead Headmasters of Hogwarts in portraits in the Headmasters office? So couldn't Harry just take advice from portrait-Dumbledore? It's not as if the portraits loose the memories of their past lives; Phineus Black seems to remember his life pretty well.

Okay. I don't know if this was asked before (forgive me if it was), but aren't all the dead Headmasters of Hogwarts in portraits in the Headmasters office? So couldn't Harry just take advice from portrait-Dumbledore? It's not as if the portraits loose the memories of their past lives; Phineus Black seems to remember his life pretty well.

Yes, Harry could talk to him, and it is very likely that Harry will learn more from Dumbleore's portrait. He probably would have tried to talk to him if he had thought of it, but he had so many other things on his mind. Maybe he did think of it but just didn't ever have a chance. The only time he was in the headmaster's office after his death, McGonagall and the other heads of house were there. None of them were supposed to know anything about Harry's horcrux hunting, (although it wouldn't be too hard for Slughorn to figure out) so he wouldn't be able to discuss it while they were there.

Also, Dumbledore was sleeping. Maybe he was pretending to, like the other headmasters, but I can't imagine Dumbledore deceiving his allies in the slightest bit without a very good reason. Dumbledore had said that death is the next great adventure, maybe Harry just wanted to let him enjoy it. If Harry had been talking to him, it would have stopped him from going to any of his other portraits during their discussion. He had just died, after all, he needed to put everything in order before he could chat with Harry. School ended almost immediately after that, so Harry didn't have time to go back to his portrait later. I do think that he will visit Dumbledore's portrait in the seventh book, whether he goes to Hogwarts or not.

Okay. I don't know if this was asked before (forgive me if it was), but aren't all the dead Headmasters of Hogwarts in portraits in the Headmasters office? So couldn't Harry just take advice from portrait-Dumbledore? It's not as if the portraits loose the memories of their past lives; Phineus Black seems to remember his life pretty well. Just wanted to add that there's a thread on this for further discussion: Dumbledore portrait in headmaster's office: can it talk? (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=59965)

wow. thanks all. :)

I thought it was odd that, when talking about Dumbledore's burial no one asked the portrait what he would want. I mean it was there with them in the headmasters office.

I thought it was odd that, when talking about Dumbledore's burial no one asked the portrait what he would want. I mean it was there with them in the headmasters office.
Yes, but he was sleeping. My feeling is that Dumbledore's portrait wouldn't be talking to anyone until his body was buried. But that's just my thought.

Yes, but he was sleeping. My feeling is that Dumbledore's portrait wouldn't be talking to anyone until his body was buried. But that's just my thought.Interesting idea, I rather like it.

I think also it would have been odd, and would have broken the somber mood, to have someone say 'ang on, let's just ask him - oy! Dumbledore! Do you have any funeral ideas?

I think also it would have been odd, and would have broken the somber mood, to have someone say 'ang on, let's just ask him - oy! Dumbledore! Do you have any funeral ideas?That would have been really weird! But remember what Jo said about portraits just repeating catchphrases? Someone asked her at the Endinburgh Book Festival last year, if it would help Harry to talk to a portait of his parents, and she said, no, it wouldn't help much.

My little question was the one of whether Ginny was really seeing Dean or she only said it to wind Ron up. I guess we know the answer now...:D

My little question was the one of whether Ginny was really seeing Dean or she only said it to wind Ron up. I guess we know the answer now...
I don't think Ginny deliberately tries to wind up Ron because I have a feeling she doesn't like it very much when he does. Ron winds himself up over Ginny's lovelife and she seems to tolerate it most of the times.

I don't see why Ginny should not go out with Dean. Or do you think all her boyfriends were just to anoy Ron or make Harry jealous? NO:td:

I don't see why Ginny should not go out with Dean. Or do you think all her boyfriends were just to anoy Ron or make Harry jealous? NO
I personally don't think that either of those were her motive for going out. I think it was simply to try to move on from Harry and have a good time with her boyfriend like other normal teenagers. That's not to say that she didn't love Harry, but she was trying to make the best of the situation since she believed that he didn't love her.

I personally don't think that either of those were her motive for going out. I think it was simply to try to move on from Harry and have a good time with her boyfriend like other normal teenagers. That's not to say that she didn't love Harry, but she was trying to make the best of the situation since she believed that he didn't love her. :agree:

My little question is: How did Wormtail kill 12 muggles at once? He certainly didin't use AK because that would be too slow and he couldn't risk being exposed as the killer and traitor. So is there some kind of spell of mass destruction? If yes, how come the Death Eaters don't use it?

I'll appreciate any ideas. If it's explained in the book, please tell me.

So is there some kind of spell of mass destruction? If yes, how come the Death Eaters don't use it?
Might depend on the power of the witch or wizard casting the spell. Peter blew up the street, the Muggles may have been killed by flying debris (or large chunks falling on them).

My little question is: How did Wormtail kill 12 muggles at once? He certainly didin't use AK because that would be too slow and he couldn't risk being exposed as the killer and traitor. So is there some kind of spell of mass destruction? If yes, how come the Death Eaters don't use it?

I'll appreciate any ideas. If it's explained in the book, please tell me.
Good question. I don't know but would like the answer too. It probably wasn't AK since that doesn't leave a mark and probably wouldn't blow up a street. The scene is described as Peter holding his wand behind his back and blowing a hole in the street - so perhaps the blast from the street then killed 12 muggles and they weren't directly hit by Peter's spell at all.

I have another question: why did Bella refer to Sirius as "the animagus Black" to VM? Was she trying to distinguish between he and Regulus? And, if so, why? Regulus had been dead for some time by then right?

Nicole, justaHPfan: Thanks for your replies. I forgot about the street being blown up. That could have been the reason.

I have another question: why did Bella refer to Sirius as "the animagus Black" to VM? Was she trying to distinguish between he and Regulus? And, if so, why? Regulus had been dead for some time by then right?
I think she didin't want to call him Sirius and the Blacks are such a big family that she just wanted to distinguish him from the other Blacks. That's just my humble opinion:)

Nicole, justaHPfan: Thanks for your replies. I forgot about the street being blown up. That could have been the reason.


I think she didin't want to call him Sirius and the Blacks are such a big family that she just wanted to distinguish him from the other Blacks. That's just my humble opinion:)


I assumed she wanted to disassociate herself from knowing a blood traitor like Sirius on a personal level. Family seems important to her (in Spinner's End she says to Narcissa she wouldn't hurt her own sister) and I think she wanted to make it seem like he shouldn't be considered part of that family.

Good question. I don't know but would like the answer too. It probably wasn't AK since that doesn't leave a mark and probably wouldn't blow up a street. The scene is described as Peter holding his wand behind his back and blowing a hole in the street - so perhaps the blast from the street then killed 12 muggles and they weren't directly hit by Peter's spell at all.

I have another question: why did Bella refer to Sirius as "the animagus Black" to VM? Was she trying to distinguish between he and Regulus? And, if so, why? Regulus had been dead for some time by then right?
Sirius and Bellatrix are cousins and knew each other since they were kids, I think by not using his first name she distanced herself from him. And she said 'animagus' to leave no doubt who she refers to and IMO to stress that he was a capable wizard and important enemy whom she had to pay full attention. And she had been successful in her battle (:sad:) so Voldemort can’t blame her :scared:

why did Bella refer to Sirius as "the animagus Black" to VM? Was she trying to distinguish between he and Regulus? And, if so, why? Regulus had been dead for some time by then right?
It's a very impersonal way of referring to someone and this helps depict the hatred that she feels towards him as she considered him to be a 'blood traitor', i.e. he was a pure blood but he didn't follow LV's regime.

IMO to stress that he was a capable wizard and important enemy whom she had to pay full attention.
I always thought that the 'animagus' was a way to distinguish him only. Her ego and belief in her own powers over that of a 'blood traitor' I believe meant that she had no doubts as to wheather or not she'd be able to beat him.

It's a very impersonal way of referring to someone and this helps depict the hatred that she feels towards him as she considered him to be a 'blood traitor', i.e. he was a pure blood but he didn't follow LV's regime.


I always thought that the 'animagus' was a way to distinguish him only. Her ego and belief in her own powers over that of a 'blood traitor' I believe meant that she had no doubts as to wheather or not she'd be able to beat him.
But Bella was looking for an excuse, they had failed to get the prophecy and Voldemort was very displeased, but she had just murdered someone he had wanted dead for a while.

But Bella was looking for an excuse, they had failed to get the prophecy and Voldemort was very displeased, but she had just murdered someone he had wanted dead for a while.
I don't think that Sirius was all that high up on LV priority list of who to kill, I think it was more of a personal vendetta between Sirius and Bella. LV was much more interested in killing Harry and getting the prophecy than anything else. It was the Ministry of Magic who really wanted Sirius apprehended because they believed falsely that he was working for LV.

On Pg. 297 (SS), half way where Harry makes the remark about Nicolas: Dumbledore say's "You did do the thing properly, didn't you?"

Is he talking about using the invisibility cloak to research Flamel?

I thought it was odd that, when talking about Dumbledore's burial no one asked the portrait what he would want. I mean it was there with them in the headmasters office.

I think he probably left a will saying how he wished to be buried...or perhaps he had talked to someone about it, like Professor McGonnagall.

On Pg. 297 (SS), half way where Harry makes the remark about Nicolas: Dumbledore say's "You did do the thing properly, didn't you?"

Is he talking about using the invisibility cloak to research Flamel?
I'd put money on researching Flamal.

On Pg. 297 (SS), half way where Harry makes the remark about Nicolas: Dumbledore say's "You did do the thing properly, didn't you?"

Is he talking about using the invisibility cloak to research Flamel?

I always thought that Dumbledore was talking about the trio's efforts in trying to solve the whole puzzle, put all the pieces together.

Okay, on page 379 of the UK ed. of HBP is says ...Do we know who that is? Are there ghosts drifting arond all the time and we just don't hear about them? Or is she important? Or does it say in the first book, as I sort of recall, that there are hundreds of ghosts all around? Just wondering :)
Hagrid stopped talking as the ghost of a long-haired woman drifted past, then resumed in a hoarse whisper....

Sorry - this might be a really late posted response, but when Harry found the Mirror of Erised, after he took Ron back there

"I'm freezing," said Ron, "Let's forget it and go back."
"No!" Harry hissed, "I know it's here somewhere."
They passed the ghost of a tall witch gliding in the opposite direction, but saw no one else....
"So, back again Harry?"...
"It -- well -- it shows me my family --"
"And it showed your friend Ron himself as head boy."
"How did you know --?"
"I don't need a cloak to become invisible," said Dumbledore.

I wondered if DD travelled around as a female ghost?

I wondered if DD travelled around as a female ghost?
I thought it was simply another of Hogwarts ghost as I'm sure that DD knows many spells which help him conceal himself, and I'm not sure if there is a spell which can turn you into a ghost.

Well.. anyway, looking at Madame Hooch's artificial green eyes in SS the movie, I wondered ... why? are they like a bird's eyes ??? The flying teacher.

"I don't need a cloak to become invisible," said Dumbledore
I wondered if DD travelled around as a female ghost?
I think DD used a Disillusionment Charm, like Moody used on Harry before they left the Dursley's at the start of OotP. Harry's body had taken on the exact color and texture of the kitchen unit behind him. DD would have been able to blend right into a wall, and since it was dark, Harry would never have noticed him. :)

I think DD used a Disillusionment Charm, like Moody used on Harry before they left the Dursley's at the start of OotP. Harry's body had taken on the exact color and texture of the kitchen unit behind him. DD would have been able to blend right into a wall, and since it was dark, Harry would never have noticed him. :)
I like that idea :)
But IMO JKR never decided how he became invisible. He 's a powerful wizard, he can do it.

i think that portraits reflect the personality of the deceased, rather than actually being particularly capable of conversation...sirius says that phineas nigellus was the least popular headmaster hogwarts ever had, and look what a nasty attitude his portrait always has. and armando dippet is incensed when he won't do as dumbledor asks; i bet dippet was a big stickler for the rules, since the portraits are "honor-bound to give servibe to the present Headmaster...(ootp)."

originally posted by Evik
"He certainly didin't use AK because that would be too slow and he couldn't risk being exposed as the killer and traitor. So is there some kind of spell of mass destruction?"

originally posted by JustaHPfan
"It probably wasn't AK since that doesn't leave a mark and probably wouldn't blow up a street. "

actually, jkr tells us in ootp that AK can cause quite a bit of destruction and leave a very noticeable mark if cast by a powerful witch or wizard. in the MoM, bellatrix's attempt to AK harry shatters the fountain into several pieces, and Voldemort's attempt causes the security guard's booth to catch fire...

actually, jkr tells us in ootp that AK can cause quite a bit of destruction and leave a very noticeable mark if cast by a powerful witch or wizard. in the MoM, bellatrix's attempt to AK harry shatters the fountain into several pieces, and Voldemort's attempt causes the security guard's booth to catch fire...And it blew up the Potter’s house at Godrics Hollow!

does snogging refer to only kissing?

Well.. anyway, looking at Madame Hooch's artificial green eyes in SS the movie, I wondered ... why? are they like a bird's eyes ??? The flying teacher http://www.cosforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=28359.
Their teacher, Madam Hooch, arrived. She had short, grey hair and yellow eyes like a hawk.

actually, jkr tells us in ootp that AK can cause quite a bit of destruction and leave a very noticeable mark if cast by a powerful witch or wizard. in the MoM, bellatrix's attempt to AK harry shatters the fountain into several pieces, and Voldemort's attempt causes the security guard's booth to catch fire...
Yes, but I meant that it can't kill 12 people at once. You have to cast the spell on evry single one of them and thus kill them. What I mean is that you can't kill 12 people directly by AK. I hope I am not wrong.

does snogging refer to only kissing?Kissing and cuddling.

Yes, but I meant that it can't kill 12 people at once. You have to cast the spell on evry single one of them and thus kill them. What I mean is that you can't kill 12 people directly by AK. I hope I am not wrong.I think you are right. I always envisiaged Wormtail's spell as more of a large explosion, since it blew a hole in the ground right down to the sewers and was explained away by the Muggleworthy Excuse people as a gas explosion.

DD probably can become invisible...or a piece of furniture like his friend Slughorn.

I have always thought that DD meant it as a metaphor, not literally. But who knows, maybe he actually was able to become invisible. It wouldn't surprise me.

i was just pointing out that AK is a curse that will manifest itself physically in some way...

on another note: if they took all the trouble to make Madam Hooch's eyes so strange in the movie, would it really have been so difficult to slip Dan Radcliffe some green contact lenses?

I have always thought that DD meant it as a metaphor, not literally. But who knows, maybe he actually was able to become invisible. It wouldn't surprise me.
Considering that Harry was literally invisible I figured that DD was also able to do so. One option which occurs to me was *** Disillusionment Charm which Moody performed on Harry so that he'd blend in to his surroundings. Being such a powerful wizard I'm sure there are also numerous other spells that DD had at his disposal.

What was the animal James turned in to?

What was the animal James turned in to?
James' animagus was a stag.

What was the animal James turned in to?
A stag.


on another note: if they took all the trouble to make Madam Hooch's eyes so strange in the movie, would it really have been so difficult to slip Dan Radcliffe some green contact lenses?
They tried that in the first film. Turns out, Radcliffe was allergic.

In the long run, I think the color is less important than the fact that they are so much like his mother's, and that point has been stressed in the movies.

ahh...good to know.

Allergic? When they can create dragons, house elves, etc., I do not see why they cannot color Harry's eyes GREEN! It's the little things that bug me, obviously. :eyebrows:

Allergic? When they can create dragons, house elves, etc., I do not see why they cannot color Harry's eyes GREEN! It's the little things that bug me, obviously. :eyebrows:
This is one of the few things that doesn't bother me. As Whiz said, they've made the connection between Harry and Lily's eyes and that's all that counts ... at least for me.

the thing about it that bothers me so much is that the red/green juxtapositon from the books will be missing with regard to harry's/voldemort's eyes. ah well...

the thing about it that bothers me so much is that the red/green juxtapositon from the books will be missing with regard to harry's/voldemort's eyes. ah well...
I'm sure when Harry and LV go head-to-head they'll be alot more things to take in rather than simply the colour of their eyes, at least for me anyway. The red/green juxtoposition however does symbolise evil and purity respectively, and since it has been stressed throughout the movies that Harry's eyes are green like Lily's that's all that matters to me.

I agree...when they stress so much in the books that harry's eyes are identical to his mothers...'almond shaped and green' it somewhat annoys me in the movies. I probably won't notice the eye colour in movie number 4 right away because i'll be to focused on what's going on...but after i watch it over, and over and over again...i'll start to notice little things like that. :)

I probably won't notice the eye colour in movie number 4 right away because i'll be to focused on what's going on...but after i watch it over, and over and over again...i'll start to notice little things like that.
That's the same with any text, book or film, so when people start reading the books over they notice little hints that they hadn't before.

the thing about it that bothers me so much is that the red/green juxtapositon from the books will be missing with regard to harry's/voldemort's eyes. ah well...
If I remember correctly, they did try to cgi Radcliffe's eyes in the first film and decided it looked too fake. In the end, if it was really important, JKR would have insisted and the moviemakers would have found a way to make them green, even if Disney artists had to be kidnapped to handcolor them in each individual frame.

If I remember correctly, they did try to cgi Radcliffe's eyes in the first film and decided it looked too fake. In the end, if it was really important, JKR would have insisted and the moviemakers would have found a way to make them green, even if Disney artists had to be kidnapped to handcolor them in each individual frame.
Since JK was involved in the whole film making process & wasn't too worried about the fact that Harry wouldn't have green eyes in the film then I don't see any reason for us too either. It's been emphasised plenty using dialogue nevertheless.

Allergic? When they can create dragons, house elves, etc., I do not see why they cannot color Harry's eyes GREEN! It's the little things that bug me, obviously. :eyebrows:
They said that they tried and he looked weird. I guess it didn't come out entirely natural so they gave up.

Could someone direct me to the thread that discusses the parallels that exist between HP and other movies or books. I'm sure there was one up but I can't seem to find it.

James' animagus was a stag.

So his patronus and animagus were stags?

If I remember correctly, they did try to cgi Radcliffe's eyes in the first film and decided it looked too fake. In the end, if it was really important, JKR would have insisted and the moviemakers would have found a way to make them green, even if Disney artists had to be kidnapped to handcolor them in each individual frame.


Since JK was involved in the whole film making process & wasn't too worried about the fact that Harry wouldn't have green eyes in the film then I don't see any reason for us too either. It's been emphasised plenty using dialogue nevertheless.

I agree it is not a big deal that Radcliffe's eyes are not Green all the time, but aren't there contacts that change your eye color? Why don't they just use those for close-up scenes of Harry's face..if would be easier and cheaper for the movie makers anyway....

So his patronus and animagus were stags? I could be remembering wrong but I don't think that we know for a fact that James' patronous was a stag. I think we simply know that his animagus was a stag and that Harry's patronous is a stag. Although we may not know for sure James' patronous, I think it is very likely that it was a stag as well. This is because it seems to be that both the patronous and animagus come from the essence of the person, so it would make sense for them to be the same.

I could be remembering wrong but I don't think that we know for a fact that James' patronous was a stag. I think we simply know that his animagus was a stag and that Harry's patronous is a stag. Although we may not know for sure James' patronous, I think it is very likely that it was a stag as well. This is because it seems to be that both the patronous and animagus come from the essence of the person, so it would make sense for them to be the same.
I believe that this may be a hint that suggests that Jame's patronus is also a stag. When Lupin was teaching Harry the Patronus Charm and Harry succeded, he was "both shaken and pleased" and comes over to congratulate Harry on his spectacular Patronus. Lupin must have been "shaken" from seeing that Harry's Patronus is James's own Patronus. A bit of a stretch I admit :)

I can't believe how many posts were made since yesterday! :wow: Thanks Murzim, haha, Greeney & Evik for answering me about "the animagus Black" comment - it makes sense that Bella would want to distinguish herself and perhaps to even make her, um, distraction from Harry destroying the prophecy more meaningful. :eyebrows:

When Lupin was teaching Harry the Patronus Charm and Harry succeded, he was "both shaken and pleased" and comes over to congratulate Harry on his spectacular Patronus. Lupin must have been "shaken" from seeing that Harry's Patronus is James's own Patronus. A bit of a stretch I admit :)I think Remus would be pretty 'shaken' just to see James in animagus form again. We're not even positive that James could cast a patronus (I think he could, but we haven't been told it in canon. The closest we get is that the Order uses Patronuses as messengers, however, we don't know if they did that in the last war or if it's something new to this one.

However, I don't remember Harry casting a full-STAG Patronus until the lake scene. Does anyone have the quote for when Remus SAW Harry's Stag Patronus?

I believe that this may be a hint that suggests that Jame's patronus is also a stag. When Lupin was teaching Harry the Patronus Charm and Harry succeded, he was "both shaken and pleased" and comes over to congratulate Harry on his spectacular Patronus. Lupin must have been "shaken" from seeing that Harry's Patronus is James's own Patronus. A bit of a stretch I admit :)
Perhaps not a bit of a stretch. If Harry truly is the spitting image of his father (except for his eyes of course), you can imagine that Lupin was taken back to a day when they were young and it was probably like seeing James for a moment. I also think it's a safe bet to think that a person's patronus would also be his/her animagus form. Too bad we never saw Sirius' Patronus to know!

What if it turned out this was all a dream! Wouldn't that suck? That would be soooooo cheesy!

However, I don't remember Harry casting a full-STAG Patronus until the lake scene. Does anyone have the quote for when Remus SAW Harry's Stag Patronus?Hey there,hwyla! I believe he made a full stag patronus against the 'fake Dementors' (aka Draco & Co.) at the Quidditch match. Lupin came up to him afterwards and told him 'nice Patronus' a little shakily. Sorry - can't provide the exact quote, as I don't have my books. Somewhere in POA.
:)

Well, IF a person's patronus is the same as their animagus, then Tonks would be an werewolf animagus (if she could be an animagus)

There's been interesting discussion before that would imply differently. That your animagus form reveals your inner self. But that your Patronus reveals who you wish or believe protects you. James' stag as Harry's protector makes very good sense. IF James could do a Patronus, then I think it would have been more likely to have been a symbol of his own father (or someone else he felt 'protected' by)

Interesting hwyla... that's a good point. But Tonks' patronus changed after a "traumatic" event that affected her patronus. Prior to that, do we know what it was? Also, DD tells Harry in PoA that "Prongs" did ride again - that Harry found him inside himself. That tends to denote that the same characteristics that gave James his animagus form (stag) are reflected inside Harry - hence his patronus. That seems to draw a connection between the 2... (patronus & animagus I mean)

I have a question about HBP. My mom and I were talking about Snape being the HBP, and we started to talk about James and how he knew Snape's spell. I don't remember how James learned of Snape's spells. Did James take the potions book and read it?

We do know that James was a stag when he transformed. After Harry saw his stag patronus, he realized why the fourth name on the map was Prongs. Later he asked Lupin about it (When Harry went into Lupin's office while he was packing), and Lupin confirmed that James had always been a stag when he transformed.

I don't remember how James learned of Snape's spells. Did James take the potions book and read it?We don't know. Sorry. There is nothing in any of the books to tell us...yet, if ever.

We don't know. Sorry. There is nothing in any of the books to tell us...yet, if ever.
Oh. That is okay. I was just wondering if the sixth book said anything about it.

Well.. anyway, looking at Madame Hooch's artificial green eyes in SS the movie, I wondered ... why? are they like a bird's eyes ??? The flying teacher.
I think thy are more a yellow then green. She is always explained to look like a hawk or hawklike eyes or something(sorry havent got the book on me) so they gave her hawklike eyes.

hah...maybe i just have a thing for green eyes.

I don't think that your patronus and animagus form are generally the same because
JKR said in an interview: ' You can't choose and don't know what animal you become, imagine spending years on it and then turning into a cockroach(?) (I can't remember what, but it was useless and disgusting)
That indicates you can't just check your Patronus to find out
One person can only turn a specific animal but we know that your Patronus can change (Tonks did and I believe if Harry will cast his next Paronus a great dog will accompanie the stag)

There's been interesting discussion before that would imply differently. That your animagus form reveals your inner self. But that your Patronus reveals who you wish or believe protects you. James' stag as Harry's protector makes very good sense. IF James could do a Patronus, then I think it would have been more likely to have been a symbol of his own father (or someone else he felt 'protected' by)
Another distinction between a patronus and an animagus is that your animagus won't change as it reflects your inner self, whereas your patronus can change due to a traumatic experience, like we saw happen with Tonks in HBP.

When did JKR ever say that your animagus reflects your inner self?
I know it seems to fit with the Marauders but did she make it a general rule?

JKR World Book Day webchat:

kelly_holland: When you turn into an Animagus, can you choose what animal you become? Or does this get "assigned" to you?
JK Rowling replies -> No, you can't choose. You become the animal that suits you best. Imagine the humiliation when you finally transform after years of study and find that you most closely resemble a warthog.

When did JKR ever say that your animagus reflects your inner self?
I know it seems to fit with the Marauders but did she make it a general rule?
She doesn't use those words exactly but in the quote below JK states that your animagus is one that 'suits you best'.
JKR World Book Day webchat:
kelly_holland: When you turn into an Animagus, can you choose what animal you become? Or does this get "assigned" to you?
JK Rowling replies -> No, you can't choose. You become the animal that suits you best. Imagine the humiliation when you finally transform after years of study and find that you most closely resemble a warthog.

Thank you haha. I didn't find the quote.

Mme Hooch & her yellow eyes... I wondered if she turned into... an eagle owl? & flew to Voldie? I never noticed that red/green eyes connection - way to go! Personally, I don't miss the eyes in the movie.

This tarot card, it's yin-yang, and the birds they use to symbolize are the white owl & black raven. That rang a bell with me.

Also, re patronus', I read that an otter is druid symbolism for healer...

Hermione = otter
Cho = Swan
Ron = Jack Russell? The dog that chases the fool?

Good catch on her eyes in relation to the owl/eagle that flew to Voldemort in GOF. I was wondering about that as I has just finished reading that very passage last week.

Thanks for your thoughts, Murzim, haha, amc, regarding the patronus and animagus form. Interesting ideas. Wonder what McG's patronus is since her animagus is a cat? :eyebrows:

I have a question about HBP. My mom and I were talking about Snape being the HBP, and we started to talk about James and how he knew Snape's spell. I don't remember how James learned of Snape's spells. Did James take the potions book and read it? I'm sure this is in several threads, but recently in the "No Holes Barred... Snape/Lily v.?" thread, this has come up again with regards to the clues we get from Snape's Worst Memory (SWM).

I also wonder why Harry's hair is not black. In so many of the video clips and movie stills, it looks as if his hair is brown. Oh well. I'll survive! :D

I also wonder why Harry's hair is not black. In so many of the video clips and movie stills, it looks as if his hair is brown. Oh well. I'll survive! :DMaybe you could find a thread about what the actors look like somewhere in Muggle Studies. :)

I have a question about HBP. My mom and I were talking about Snape being the HBP, and we started to talk about James and how he knew Snape's spell. I don't remember how James learned of Snape's spells. Did James take the potions book and read it?If you mean Levicorpus, I imagine it was the sort of spell that people saw others performing and copied. Lupin said it was popular.
I think thy are more a yellow then green. She is always explained to look like a hawk or hawklike eyes or something(sorry havent got the book on me) so they gave her hawklike eyes.The picture and quote are here (http://www.cosforums.com/showpost.php?p=3208915&postcount=1045).

Good catch on her eyes in relation to the owl/eagle that flew to Voldemort in GOF. I was wondering about that as I has just finished reading that very passage last week.I think that's a bit of a stretch! Just because she has eyes like a hawk, she must be an eagle owl Animagus and a Death Eater??? There are plenty of real owls in the wizarding world. (An eagle owl is a large owl, not an eagle, by the way. picture here (http://www.ism.ac.jp/~eguchi/images/photo/europe-eagle-owl.jpg))

I'm sure this is in several threads, but recently in the "No Holes Barred... Snape/Lily v.?" thread, this has come up again with regards to the clues we get from Snape's Worst Memory (SWM).
I found something last night about this. Thanks.

Well, IF a person's patronus is the same as their animagus, then Tonks would be an werewolf animagus

I never caught that the Patronus chagned into a werewolf, i thought that it was a dog for Sirius, but that makes sense now...wow i am surprised i didn't catch that....

I never caught that the Patronus chagned into a werewolf, i thought that it was a dog for Sirius, but that makes sense now...wow i am surprised i didn't catch that....A nice bit of misdirection on JKR's part! For all the theories who claim Jo has misdirected us on various points, it's a good idea to look at how she actually does misdirect. Here it's clearly based on assumptions - Harry isn't sure, but since he is thinking of Sirius, he makes that connection and completely misses the Lupin thing.

A nice bit of misdirection on JKR's part! For all the theories who claim Jo has misdirected us on various points, it's a good idea to look at how she actually does misdirect. Here it's clearly based on assumptions - Harry isn't sure, but since he is thinking of Sirius, he makes that connection and completely misses the Lupin thing.

I never made the connection either that it was a werewolf instead of a dog, even after the whole Lupin/Tonks thing was made public, but that makes sense now..

It was a big 4 legged thing, Harry thought of Sirius so dog, but now we know of Lupin we assume werewolf, but actually we don't know.

If your patronus is a turtle - does it still take messages fast?

If you mean Levicorpus, I imagine it was the sort of spell that people saw others performing and copied. Lupin said it was popular.
If you mean Levicorpus, I imagine it was the sort of spell that people saw others performing and copied. Lupin said it was popular.

but how do you "copy" a non-verbal spell just by watching someone?

I think that's a bit of a stretch! Just because she has eyes like a hawk, she must be an eagle owl Animagus and a Death Eater???

I think her eyes were wierd on purpose, and since we see so little of her in the other books & movies, I think it has to play in the future. The future now is only book 7. What other relevance can wierdness have - in the context of these books?

Hey all,

When Ron is talking about his fear of spiders, he says Fred turned his stuffed bear into a spider when he was 3 right?

So Fred was 5.

How is Fred doing transfiguration at age 5?

Or is there something else to it?

it seems like most wizard children are capable of uncontrolled magic-remember when harry turned his teacher's wig blue? we've also heard stories like this with other characters as well: neville, for example.

When Ron is talking about his fear of spiders, he says Fred turned his stuffed bear into a spider when he was 3 right?

So Fred was 5.

How is Fred doing transfiguration at age 5?

Or is there something else to it?
Harry could do magic before he even knew that he was a wizard, for example growing back his hair overnight after a particularly horrible haircut. The power to perform magic is within you however wands are simply tools which help you focus that power.

Hey all,

When Ron is talking about his fear of spiders, he says Fred turned his stuffed bear into a spider when he was 3 right?

So Fred was 5.

How is Fred doing transfiguration at age 5?

Or is there something else to it?
That's seems to be pretty advanced magic for a five year old. It seems the Weasleys are pretty talented in general and Fred might have picked up some spells from the older ones. Probably even "borrowed" his Mum's wand. Bet he got blistered for that one. :evil:

Yes I agree it's quite possible Fred 'borrowed' his Mum's wand, or maybe it was accidental magic, that's sure to happen in a group of untrained wizards!

If you mean Levicorpus, I imagine it was the sort of spell that people saw others performing and copied. Lupin said it was popular.
Thanks. I just reallized that you anwered. Sorry for being late on thanking you. Now that you say it, that could be a reason. Thanks.

I think her eyes were wierd on purpose, and since we see so little of her in the other books & movies, I think it has to play in the future. The future now is only book 7. What other relevance can wierdness have - in the context of these books?Sometimes, especially in the first books, it simply serves to add colour to this exciting magical world! So we encounter self-shuffling playing cards, a small child sprouting wings and flying around her father's head, pipe tobacco that produces green smoke and smells of old socks, sweets that can make you levitate, or burn a hole in your tongue, plants that bite ... all these things illustrate what a weird, exciting, and potentially dangerous world Harry now lives in - in complete contrast to his old life in Little Whinging, and to most of the readers' lives!
but how do you "copy" a non-verbal spell just by watching someone?Good question! But since Lupin says lots of people used that spell, we have to assume that Snape either taught it to someone, or people saw him using it and copied him. Maybe he used to say the word Levicorpus at first, but wrote non-verbal in the book because he found people were copying him. It's another illustration of the Marauders' skill that they were good at non-verbal hexes in 5th year, when the Trio didn't even start learning non-verbal spells until 6th year.

....since Lupin says lots of people used that spell [LeviCorpus], we have to assume that Snape either taught it to someone, or people saw him using it and copied him. Maybe he used to say the word Levicorpus at first, but wrote non-verbal in the book because he found people were copying him. It's another illustration of the Marauders' skill that they were good at non-verbal hexes in 5th year, when the Trio didn't even start learning non-verbal spells until 6th year.Or it could be an illustration that Harry's DADA classes really ARE behind - that non-verbals should have come earlier - note that in SWM, Snape also used a non-verbal. After all, Harry's year has had two totally useless DADA teachers (Lockhart and Umbridge)

However, I think you're dead on about Snape teaching LeviCorpus to others. Apparently, Snape went to a great deal of trouble to invent a bunch of 'joke' like spells (ones that according to Harry and Ron seem like something the twins would make up). This really doesn't fit Snape's profile whether we believe he was a dark arts oddball or a victim of the Marauders. In either of those cases, it's not 'joke' spells he would be inventing. He would be looking into solely dark or painful spells if he was really into the dark arts or he'd be looking into protections and maybe a bit of revenge if he's just a victim.

So, why the 'joke' spells? I think he developed them specifically to teach other Slytherins - in hope of buying protection, either from the Marauders or from the Slytherins themselves.

We can see some evidence that Snape had Lucius (and possibly Bella) as 'protectors' in his 1st and 2nd year at Hogwarts. Sirius implied in GoF that Snape hung out with a 'gang' of Slyths. It seemed at the time we read this that Snape was surrounded by 'friends'. Yet since then, we see no evidence of these 'friends' during SWM - either they were too scared to act or they weren't 5th years (this was after an OWL - all 5th years)

In OotP, we learn Lucius is apparently 5 or 6 years older than Snape and Sirius even calls Snape Lucius' Lapdog. This sounds a great deal more like an unequal alliance - where in return for 'protection' (either from the other Slyths or even protection from Lucius himself) 6th year wealthy, pureblood Lucius 'allowed' half-blood and apparently poor 1st year Snape to 'do' for him in a kind of 'servant' mode (something actually typical in English Boarding Schools in Literature)

We also can now figure Bella's age after HBP. She's confirmed as the eldest Black sister, so she's older than Andromeda who apparently had married and had Tonks by '73 - a year after Lucius finished Hogwarts. At the youngest, Andromeda is apparently the same age as Lucius. For Bella to be older than them AND have been at Hogwarts while Snape was there, she has to have been a 7th year when Snape was a firstie, leaving Lucius as definitely a 6th year then.

Of the remaining members of that 'gang' Sirius spoke about, we can guess that Rodolphus should probably be closer to Bella's age than Snape's since he married her (not a proven age, but a likely one) Additionally, we know that he and his brother are purebloods or Bella would have been blasted off the Black tapestry. This leaves us with only Avery and Rosier whose blood status we don't know.

However, I feel fairly safe in guessing that this entire group was 'pureblood' and thatit's unlikely that they ever accepted Snape as an 'equal'. It's also likely that Snape was the youngest of the group. At least while Bella and Lucius were still in school. Perhaps the group dropped him once Lucius left, but it seems more likely that they were all just leaving him as they finished school, leaving Snape with fewer and fewer protectors.

By which point, I figured the rest of Slytherin had discovered that he was really quite smart and so 'useful'. Whether it was in tutoring or in creating spells that they could use against others. It seems that James. etc. used multiple spells of Snape's against him (HBP - Flight of the Prince), yet Lupin didn't have any idea that the popular LeviCorpus was his. Seems most likely, that Snape taught his invented 'joke' spells to the other 'Slyths' as a means of 'protection' for the half-blood among the pures and perhaps they weren't always careful to use these spells non-verbally. Hence, an easy way for a supposedly non-verbal spell to become popular.

Excellent points re Snape's spells, hwyla.
Or it could be an illustration that Harry's DADA classes really ARE behind - that non-verbals should have come earlier - note that in SWM, Snape also used a non-verbal. After all, Harry's year has had two totally useless DADA teachers (Lockhart and Umbridge) I don't think Harry's class is behind in non-verbals. They were not required to use non-verbal spells on their DADA OWLs, since Harry couldn't do them at that time, and he got an 'O'. They start learning non-verbals in Charms and Transfiguration in 6th year too. In their first class, Snape doesn't say they are behind, just that he's surprised so many of them managed to get an OWL, and that they are complete novices in non-verbals.

I hace a SS question, how much had Quirrel been in Hogwarts when Harry entered..... was he new

I hace a SS question, how much had Quirrel been in Hogwarts when Harry entered..... was he newThat is a point of debate. Hagrid and Percy both talk as if Quirrell had been teaching before that year, and he's not introduced by DD at the start of term feast, like all new teachers are. One theory that seems popular is that he taught for a year, then took a year off to study in the field, that's when he picked up Voldemort.

I hace a SS question, how much had Quirrel been in Hogwarts when Harry entered..... was he new

I always thought that Quirrel was at Hogwarts before PS/SS but obviously he could not have been a DADA teacher because he was only it for a year...following the curse...so he had to teach something else...i wonder what though.... :huh:

I always thought that Quirrel was at Hogwarts before PS/SS but obviously he could not have been a DADA teacher because he was only it for a year...following the curse...so he had to teach something else...i wonder what though....
But I think he must have been there for longer since he wasn't introduced by DD at the start of term feast like he normally does for new teachers or teachers who are teaching a new subject. I think the 'curse' only started with Quirrel, thus ever since Harry came to Hogwarts.

Quirell did teach DADA in some previous year. We are told that he specifically took a sabbatical to go get more 'hands-on' experience. This minimum of a year off is apparently when he met VM. He then returns to teach for only a year.DD specifically stated that the curse started when he refused to give VM the position in '56. Perhaps the curse would be better understood if instead of saying it forces the teacher into leaving at the end of the year, that we look at it as a curse where there will not be two years straight where the DADA position is taught by the same person.

PS/SS never actually states that Quirrell was a teacher before his encounter w/ LV. Hagrid says,"He was fine while he was studyin' outta books but then he took a year off ter get some first-hand experience..." Hagrid seems to know Quirrell and his activities well, which is probably because Quirrell left Hogwarts not too long ago.
It is possible that he started mid-year(like McGonagall) the year before Harry arrived. This would explain why he wasn't introduced as a new teacher. As for the curse, maybe Quirrell's teaching time expired when Voldemort began to possess him; perhaps he was around for longer than a year beacuse some of the time doesn't actually count as his own.

Something completely different:
In chapter 19, Elf tails (p. 395 UK ed.) Dobby said ‘And if Dobby does it wrong, Dobby will throw himself off the topmost tower, Harry Potter !’
Dumbledore dies falling from the topmost tower, I think that’s too much of a coincidence for JKR.
What do you think?

i don't think they are the same person.. if thats what your hinting at. i don't think that dumbledore is either ron nor dobby from the future.

Dumbledore never said he could "sense" things hundreds of miles away from Hogwarts. And who do you run to when the government and most of its officials are corrupt? You can't do anything. The only one with the power to do something about it was Fudge, and he didn't want to admit that he might be wrong.

Again, the government itself is corrupt. And any government has the ability to turn corrupt; it doesn't have to be magical. So when you say "if this had been the muggle world," you should remember Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and so forth.

if the government is corrupt in the wizarding world then wouldn't Sain Mungo's have corrupt workers...? then neville's parents wouldn't necesarily be safe there.

oh and if there is corrupt government in the muggle world then we need to work extra hard for peace!

Something completely different:
In chapter 19, Elf tails (p. 395 UK ed.) Dobby said ‘And if Dobby does it wrong, Dobby will throw himself off the topmost tower, Harry Potter !’
Dumbledore dies falling from the topmost tower, I think that’s too much of a coincidence for JKR.
What do you think? Hmm ... it DOES seem to be a bit too coincidental .. I mean, regarding some theories flying around the 'Net saying that most of the times Ron usually says things that come true, but Dobby's topmost tower thingy in reference to Dumbledore? I don't think it can really be possible .. =/ Just my two cents though, been away from CoS Forums too long; I don't catch up fast. o.O

if the government is corrupt in the wizarding world then wouldn't Sain Mungo's have corrupt workers...? then neville's parents wouldn't necesarily be safe there. Maybe they'll interview workers before accepting them lest corrupt workers worked in Saint Mungos .. ? Or maybe the situation is so bad (regarding the corruption) they won't even accept workers - they'll grab as much students as they can that are graduating from magic schools? Or maybe they would have made use of the current workers and work overdrive with them ...

Something completely different:
In chapter 19, Elf tails (p. 395 UK ed.) Dobby said ‘And if Dobby does it wrong, Dobby will throw himself off the topmost tower, Harry Potter !’
Dumbledore dies falling from the topmost tower, I think that’s too much of a coincidence for JKR.I agree that it's a foreshadowing - perhaps it's even a hint that DD was 'in' on it (that it was a plan between him and Snape - that by ordering Snape to kill him if need be, he was essentially 'throwing himself off the tower' - however, it could also just be a hint that it was the fall that actually killed DD, not Snape's AK. Which seems to be the truth based on when Harry was released from the Pertificus aand the fact that DD had a trickle of blood coming from his mouth (against gravity)

if the government is corrupt in the wizarding world then wouldn't Sain Mungo's have corrupt workers...? then neville's parents wouldn't necesarily be safe there. We already have proof of some corruption on their ward. Bode died there in OotP, just when he was recovering. Considering however that we know Lucius used to donate to St Mungos and there were clues that Bode had been Imperio'd (possibly by Malfoy??) - it would seem that the Longbottoms might be safe now while Lucius is in Azkaban (might not be, but let's hope)

I'd say it was a combo myself, the only known survivor of the AK is Harry, and to be honest, I don't see Dumbledore survivng it, no matter how powerful he is.

As to the corruption, I'm not too sure. Malfoy made frequent visits to the Ministry when Fudge was in power, could money have changed hands? And what about the attacks on the Bridge and the West country at the start? Maybe Malfoy turned ugly on Fudge...?

We already have proof of some corruption on their ward. Bode died there in OotP, just when he was recovering. Considering however that we know Lucius used to donate to St Mungos and there were clues that Bode had been Imperio'd (possibly by Malfoy??) - it would seem that the Longbottoms might be safe now while Lucius is in Azkaban (might not be, but let's hope)But we don't know for sure if someone just didn't recognise the plant.

But we don't know for sure if someone just didn't recognise the plant.
Don't healers have to take Herbology at NEWT level? Healer Strout should have recognized the plant. At the very least, she's guilty of negligence and should be sacked. Don't forget that Lockhart also escaped on her watch.

As to the corruption, I'm not too sure. Malfoy made frequent visits to the Ministry when Fudge was in power, could money have changed hands? And what about the attacks on the Bridge and the West country at the start? Maybe Malfoy turned ugly on Fudge...?
Malfoy was already in Azkaban.

it would seem that the Longbottoms might be safe now while Lucius is in Azkaban (might not be, but let's hope)
I think they're safe as long as they show no signs of recovering.

I'd say it was a combo myself, the only known survivor of the AK is Harry, and to be honest, I don't see Dumbledore survivng it, no matter how powerful he is.EXCEPT if the caster doesn't really want them dead. Hence fakeMoody's comment that the entire class could hit him with an AK and he'd only get a nosebleed. DDs 'power' doesn't have anything to do with whether Snape's AK worked. Only Snape's feelings make the difference.

And since JKR has pretty much given us 'proof' that it was really the Fall that killed DD (that trickle of blood that Harry wiped away is physical 'proof'- IF he hadn't, then Pomfrey would have known the truth and told us - not that I think Harry did that on purpose to hide anything) then we must accept that Snape didn't want to kill DD badly enough for his AK to work, even if it meant he would die from the Vow instead. Snape still killed him. It just shows that he didn't WANT to do so.

But I think he must have been there for longer since he wasn't introduced by DD at the start of term feast like he normally does for new teachers or teachers who are teaching a new subject. I think the 'curse' only started with Quirrel, thus ever since Harry came to Hogwarts.

Oh yeah i agree...sorry if i didn't make that more clear....

EXCEPT if the caster doesn't really want them dead. Hence fakeMoody's comment that the entire class could hit him with an AK and he'd only get a nosebleed. DDs 'power' doesn't have anything to do with whether Snape's AK worked. Only Snape's feelings make the difference.
I thought fakeMoody meant they were not powerful enough...

I thought fakeMoody meant they were not powerful enough...Moody meant that the Unforgivable Curses need powerful intentions behind them to work. Bellatrix said the same to Harry in the Department of Mysteries: "You need to mean them!" i.e. you really should have it out for someone to use the curse.

What did it mean when Tonk's patronus changed? What was it before??

I have always been confused with this...

... was the sword actually made a horcux?

What did it mean when Tonk's patronus changed? What was it before??

Harry was told that a patronous can change if the person is under great mental stress. Tonks had fallen in love with Lupin, but Lupin refused to get involved with her because of the war against Voldamort. So her patronus changed into a warewolf, I am not sure what is was before.

I have always been confused with this...

... was the sword actually made a horcux?No one knows for sure. However, many think that since Godric Gryffindor's sword has been safe in Dumbledore's office, the chances of Voldemort securing it for use as a horcrux is highly unlikely.

No one knows for sure. However, many think that since Godric Gryffindor's sword has been safe in Dumbledore's office, the chances of Voldemort securing it for use as a horcrux is highly unlikely.
And if it was one, I believe that DD probably would have figured it out before he died.

We never saw Tonk's patronus before, but it is said that it changed shape, so then it changed to a werewolf.

We never saw Tonk's patronus before, but it is said that it changed shape, so then it changed to a werewolf.
:agree: It changed because she was under great mental stress. Tonks had fallen in love with Lupin, but Lupin refused to get involved with her because of the war against LV.

I thought fakeMoody meant they [the DADA class during the unforgivables lesson] were not powerful enough...We saw in PoA what the cumulative power of underage wizards could add up to with the trio's combined Expellaramus of Snape. Threw him against the wall (or onto the floor, I forget which) hard enough to knock him unconscious (must have hit his head really hard). And that was just 3 kids. Imagine an entire class.

'snicker' I just realized something - the kids literally 'expelled' Snape who the previous year had wanted Harry and Ron expelled for having been seen flying the Weasley car to school. 'snicker' JKR has such wonderful little gems hidden, doesn't she?
-------
I'm not sure that it was 'mental stress' that changed Tonks patronus. She was under duress, but that affected the quality and power of her magic (just like we saw with Merope). The patronus changing had more to do with strength of her love for Remus, not with her depression. It may even have proved that Remus already loved her and would protect her where ever possible - even to the point of rejecting her. If Remus had accepted her love from the beginning and she didn't have any reason to become depressed, her Patronus still might have changed to a werewolf.

This sets up the possibility that there will be another Patronus change in bk7. Snape's Patronus has been kept secret from us. It MAY be too indicative of his loyalties already - or it may change to FAwkes, allowing him to actually send the Order (or at least a gulliable Harry, hoping it's really from DD) messages

Patroni seem to represent someone who would protect the witch or wizard. Hence, 'Prongs' for Harry

This isn't HP- related, but it's COS-related.
What's with those little spinning pink or gold stars (haha has one) that are sometimes appear under the post count at the top of a post?

EXCEPT if the caster doesn't really want them dead. Hence fakeMoody's comment that the entire class could hit him with an AK and he'd only get a nosebleed. DDs 'power' doesn't have anything to do with whether Snape's AK worked. Only Snape's feelings make the difference.

Yes, it's the same thing that Bellatrix tells Harry in OotP during the ministry fight, that justified anger won't make crucio work. In order to work an unforgivable properly, you have to be completely unrighteous in your hatred, you just have to want to cause the pain for no reason or for selfish ones it would seem.

This isn't HP- related, but it's COS-related.
What's with those little spinning pink or gold stars (haha has one) that are sometimes appear under the post count at the top of a post?I think they indicate the length of time the person has been a member of the forum - at least one of those star colors does (a gold star for every year). don't know about pink stars - don't remember seeing any

I think they indicate the length of time the person has been a member of the forum - at least one of those star colors does (a gold star for every year). don't know about pink stars - don't remember seeing any


Explanation is HERE (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?p=2799806#post2799806).

Basically... One star per year, stars turn pink after 1000 days.

What's with those little spinning pink or gold stars (haha has one) that are sometimes appear under the post count at the top of a post?
I have a gold star because I've been at CoS for one year. Every year you get a new star. When you reach 1000 days the gold stars turn to pink.

:agree: It changed because she was under great mental stress. Tonks had fallen in love with Lupin, but Lupin refused to get involved with her because of the war against LV.
Oh ok. I remember Snape (being his usual snippy self) telling her that the first one suited her better. So it changes to a were wolf because that was the object causing her stress?

Oh ok. I remember Snape (being his usual snippy self) telling her that the first one suited her better. So it changes to a were wolf because that was the object causing her stress?
Yes, perhaps. It may also be because she thinks about Lupin (and hence a werewolve) alot and that comes out in her Patronus.

Oh ok. I remember Snape (being his usual snippy self) telling her that the first one suited her better. So it changes to a were wolf because that was the object causing her stress?
I think a patronus represents a protector, or someone who makes the caster feel safe. The word Patronus resembles the latin word patron, a benefactor.

I think a patronus represents a protector, or someone who makes the caster feel safe. The word Patronus resembles the latin word patron, a benefactor.
This is probably also why Harry's partonus is a stag, as it represents his father.

Patron - a lord-master, a protector
Patronus - defender, protector, advocate
Pater - father [someone who's usually associated with protecting the family and providing for their needs]

Thus, extrapolating from this "Expecto Patronum" means to expect a protector.

I agree with Whizbang - it wasn't the stress that changed her Patronus, it was that who she envisioned as her protector had changed to Remus. Her Patronus would have changed in this case even if Remus had accepted her from the start. The stress and disappointment over Remus was what 'weakened' Tonks (just like with Merope)

i thing harry patronus is a stag because he thought he saw his father...
and that way he got the confidence to make one....

i thing harry patronus is a stag because he thought he saw his father...
and that way he got the confidence to make one....I think it was a stag already at the Quidditch match.

I think it was a stag already at the Quidditch match.Yep, in the scene where he thought Draco was a dementor, even though Harry didn't see it himself.
The reason Harry thought the Stag patronus in the forest was his dad was because of the time travel confusion. Since Harry was trying to conjure his own Patronus to protect Sirius and himself, he had no way of knowing that his future self would also be conjuring one.

Yes, I suppose I never bothered to look up Patronus for its roots. The comment Snape makes to Tonks about her Patronus looking "weaker" is because he evidently recognizes it, and we know he dislikes the marauders, and is a bit disgusted with her for making it obvious where her love lies. The actual weakness she gets (problems metamorphosing) is from the stress. This is why I don't believe that Tonks is evil, as popular as that theory is getting, because why would she be in love with Lupin (and she must truly be if her Patronus changed to him) if she was on the dark side? I did have a question though... why would Hermione even suggest that Tonks was in love with Sirius? They were cousin's for goodness' sake! Did she mean something else by it, or is that common other places? It seems awfully strange to me, only people of a rather odd religion around here do anything close to that.

I have a question:

Why is it that only rich people seem to have house elfs when they don't get paid anything and hence are technically free?

Maybe originally they were brought from a house-elf dealer (a bit like slaves) and then the house-elf's line stay with the same family

Maybe originally they were brought from a house-elf dealer (a bit like slaves) and then the house-elf's line stay with the same family
Well I assumed that the house elfs stayed in the family but I wasn't sure as to how they were originally came into the family, so I guess that's a possibility. Thanks.

House Elves come from old old mansions, hence only the rich tend to be able to afford them. That was the impression that I got. Well, I don't know really where they technically come from, but Ron says something to the effect that house elves only come with big old mansions, therefore saying that they've lived in the same big places for a very long time.

House Elves come from old old mansions, hence only the rich tend to be able to afford them. That was the impression that I got. Well, I don't know really where they technically come from, but Ron says something to the effect that house elves only come with big old mansions, therefore saying that they've lived in the same big places for a very long time.
So, what your saying is that houseelfs come with big, old mansions, and since the rich are the only people who can afford them, they tend to be the ones who possess house elfs while other poorer families don't.

I think it was a stag already at the Quidditch match.
In this case, it's particularly interesting that his patronous is a stag, rather than something representing his mother. We know that his mother was protected him from LV when he was one years old so it seems that something relating to her would have been a natural patronous. I wonder why JKR chose to use James anyway.

In this case, it's particularly interesting that his patronous is a stag, rather than something representing his mother. We know that his mother was protected him from LV when he was one years old so it seems that something relating to her would have been a natural patronous. I wonder why JKR chose to use James anyway.I suppose because then she would have needed to do something she had some specific reason for not wanting to do until bk7 - tell us more about Lily - at least enough that we would recognize her 'animal spirit'. JKR set up Harry's recognizing the form of his father as his patronus, only because he had learned that his father had been an animagus and his father's nickname.

This is important as it sets up the entire concept of the protector as Patronus. For instance, we would not have figured this out from say Hermione's otter, possibly symbolizing 'inquisitiness' - that she sees her search for knowledge as her protector - or that the otter (a relative of the weasel) would be the animal symbol of Ron (his animal spirit) since otters are very 'playful' and funny or Ron's terrier (which sounds like Molly to me!)

Ron's terrier struck me as funny because of course Ron would want something big and flashy that set him apart from others. Instead, he gets a small dog! :lol: Just like his hand-me-down rat (turned traitor) and tiny little owl (once he finally secures an owl)! Poor Ron! :p

So, what your saying is that houseelfs come with big, old mansions, and since the rich are the only people who can afford them, they tend to be the ones who possess house elfs while other poorer families don't.
The interesting thing is that there is a House Elf Relocation Office in the MOM.
(Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, pg vi)

I've often wondered if Dobby was the Potters' house elf (rich pureblood family) and he was relocated to the Malfoys after the Potters were killed. It could explain how and why he went to Harry in CoS.

I dunno. As one of the family survived he would still have had an owner. But maybe the special circumstances....

That relocation office might perhaps collect a huge fee for relocation. So poor people just couldn't walk in and pick a house-elf.

I jsut re read the Philosopher's Stone. And I have one question. Two actually.
1. Who gave the cloak back to harry, hidden under his bedclothes with a note attached saying "Just in Case"??
2. I thought Transfiguration was the change of something into something else. So how did McGonagall change the Chessmen to make them bigger? Surely thats a charm at most? I don't get it.

As for Dobby, I'm not sure. Harry wasn't a wizard,so he probably couldnt take Dobby even if he belonged to Harry, and also even if Harry would want him.

Realistically.. Would you??

I jsut re read the Philosopher's Stone. And I have one question. Two actually.
1. Who gave the cloak back to harry, hidden under his bedclothes with a note attached saying "Just in Case"??Dumbledore gave it back to Harry...if you have the US version you'll notice the script used is that of DDs.
2. I thought Transfiguration was the change of something into something else. So how did McGonagall change the Chessmen to make them bigger? Surely thats a charm at most? I don't get it.It was a charm, an engorgement charm, I think....the professor's didn't necessarily have to do a bit of magic that was their specialty---just as long as it was a bit of magic provided by them...

EDIT: Just thought...perhaps the magic provided by McGonagall was that the rest of the chessmen recognized 'witches/wizards' as other chessmen...after all, to play the game, Harry, Ron, Hermione, and Quirrellmort had to take the places of real chessmen...
As for Dobby, I'm not sure. Harry wasn't a wizard,so he probably couldnt take Dobby even if he belonged to Harry, and also even if Harry would want him.

Realistically.. Would you??I think Harry would much prefer Dobby over Kreacher...Dobby would be over the moon to be a part of the Potter family...

It was a charm, an engorgement charm, I thinkI thought she transfigured the chessmen to make them alive?

I thought she transfigured the chessmen to make them alive?They were already wizard chess...which move and speak...why would she need to bewitch them in that manner when they already possessed those qualities...

I don't have the US edition, we were the unspoilt people over here, hee hee! I don't know why we never got the illustrations in the chapters either,it's odd. And it doesn't say anything about the writing, just that it was there.(I'm talking about the time after they left the cloak in the Astronomy tower, is that what you're talking about too? That the cloak kind off, appeared in Harry's bed a few weeks later?!) Tut Tut. I suppose, when compared to Kreacher, yuor theory is VERY feasible!

As for the Transfiguration thing, It says, (again, British Version, 1st edition. Checked my cousins 28th edition too, nothign changed!), that Professor McGonagall must have TRANSFIGURED the chessmen to make them bigger. So I thought that was odd! But thanks anyways! I'm not sure about them recognising true humans as players,it might make sense, and probably does, but still something isn;t prinyed right, or I'm missing something,or of course *whisper* JKR might have made...a MISTAKE!

They were already wizard chess...which move and speak...why would she need to bewitch them in that manner when they already possessed those qualities...Good point. And they already knew how to play the game (as evidenced by Harry's chessmen giving him advice "don't send me there!") I obviously need to reread SS/PS.

There's a bit in PS just before Snape's I thnk where Hermione's saying something like:

We've had Spriuts, that was the Devil's Snare, Flitwick charmed the keys, Quirrel's was the Troll, McGonagall charmed the chess set so it was alive, that leaves Snape's.

As for Dobby. Welcome to the Grey Zone.

I don't have the US edition, we were the unspoilt people over here, hee hee! I don't know why we never got the illustrations in the chapters either,it's odd. And it doesn't say anything about the writing, just that it was there.(I'm talking about the time after they left the cloak in the Astronomy tower, is that what you're talking about too? That the cloak kind off, appeared in Harry's bed a few weeks later?!) Tut Tut. I suppose, when compared to Kreacher, yuor theory is VERY feasible!Yep, that's what I'm talking about...I've got both the US/UK versions...let me check....it never does say...but the script thing is something that is only in the US version...the writing is identical to that on the letter at Christmas time, though.
As for the Transfiguration thing, It says, (again, British Version, 1st edition. Checked my cousins 28th edition too, nothign changed!), that Professor McGonagall must have TRANSFIGURED the chessmen to make them bigger. So I thought that was odd! But thanks anyways! I'm not sure about them recognising true humans as players,it might make sense, and probably does, but still something isn;t prinyed right, or I'm missing something,or of course *whisper* JKR might have made...a MISTAKE!Maybe you should post it in book mistakes...but then again...

"McGonagall transfigured the chessmen to make them alive..." [PS/SS {US} pg. 284
Perhaps she did transfigure a regular chess set....
"...for the best-played game of chess Hogwarts has seen in many years, I award Gryffindor house fifty points." [PS/SS {US} pg.305]

:huh: So it looks like Rapunzul was right, and so were you...nothing about 'Wizard's Chess"...

It seems that I've been corrupted by the movies... :lol:

We've had Spriuts, that was the Devil's Snare, Flitwick charmed the keys, Quirrel's was the Troll, McGonagall charmed the chess set so it was alive, that leaves Snape's.

it actually says: "Well, we've had Sprout's, that was the Devil's Snare, Flitwick must've pout charms on the keys- McgGonagall transfigured the chessmen to make them alive..."

Which now makes even less sense. I preferred my incorrect version! (Sorry bout that, by the way!). How can you change something into something else, hence making it alive?Am I missing something really obvious?

I don't think we were both right, I think we are all right in a sense, I just think it might be more that...We're missing something!!I think the reason the writing was the same style was because it was jsut in italics of the same print normally used. I mean, it says farther back when he first gets the cloak that it was in "narrow, loop writing", which, in the UK books, it is not! This is so funny! :D

it actually says: "Well, we've had Sprout's, that was the Devil's Snare, Flitwick must've pout charms on the keys- McgGonagall transfigured the chessmen to make them alive..."

Which now makes even less sense. I preferred my incorrect version! (Sorry bout that, by the way!). How can you change something into something else, hence making it alive?Am I missing something really obvious?

I don't think we were both right, I think we are all right in a sense, I just think it might be more that...We're missing something!!I think the reason the writing was the same style was because it was jsut in italics of the same print normally used. I mean, it says farther back when he first gets the cloak that it was in "narrow, loop writing", which, in the UK books, it is not! This is so funny! :DI'm not sure....we have seen something like this in the series though...LV bewitch's dead bodies into Inferi...they can move about and do things---but they aren't really alive...hmmm...you've asked a 'stumper' of a question...

I hate my questions. I'll never ask another.

Actually, I've just come up with another... Nah, only messing! I'd say it could jsut be a misprint or something, probably no ones thought about it like this before, it is a fairly minor question really, isn't it?! In comprison to everything else we will mull over for the next two years or so!

There are no such things as minor questions. This inconsistency proves McGonagall is the traitor we have been seeking all along. Congratulations!

Oh dear. Shall I let on something? McGonagall is one of my favourite characters! THough she's not really, she's grand like. I'm looking forward to seeing the new film, I have a question regarding Book 4. Why did Dolores Umbridge get away with using the Cutting Quill? Surely if Dumbledore had found out he would have flipped? Like he did when she "manhandled" Cho's friend Marietta? Sorry for all thew weird irish frequently used words yuo can see, like my consistent use of "like" "sure" and "grand". I can't stop! (Just a few thousand people have said it to me before!

There are no such things as minor questions. This inconsistency proves McGonagall is the traitor we have been seeking all along. Congratulations! :lol: lindaluna--you should get with my brother and sing a duet...that's what he swears too!!

Why did Dolores Umbridge get away with using the Cutting Quill? Surely if Dumbledore had found out he would have flipped?Harry never told anyone but Ron & Hermione about it...they probably let Ginny in on it, though...otherwise, no one knew...we know that Umbridge used the same punishment on Lee Jordan because Harry recommended Hermione's cure to him. But nowhere do we see any adults being made aware of the Toad and her nasty little quill..

:lol: lindaluna--you should get with my brother and sing a duet...that's what he swears too!!..Is your brother on the forum? Ok I'm goofing - whew - just pulled an allnighter for a paper. 1. done 2. don't do this, does not improve quality 3. If you're going to do it, do it when you are younger - I used to be able to, now I'm a wreck.

12 Grimmauld & Gaunt Hut: Magically connected?

- both have snakes on the door
- one rich (London) one poor (country)
- could a united estate have been split or sold over the years?
- Bloody Baron in SS/PS "gaunt face"
- SIrius Black "gaunt face lit into a smile"
- Sirius mother "house of my fathers" (bizarre if she MARRIED Black - ie was not BORN Black).

Could 12 Grimmauld have been the London HQ of the DE in VW1?

...she led him on tiptoes past a pair of long, moth-eaten curtains, behind which Harry supposed there must be another door...Filth! Scum! By-products of dirt and vileness! Half-breeds, mutants, freaks, begone from this place! How dare you befoul the house of my fathers --Stains of dishonor, filthy half-breeds, blood traitors, children of filth..."This is private property. Can't just walk in here and not expect my son to defend himself."
"Defend himself against what, man?" said Ogden, clambering back to his feet.
"Busybodies. Intruders. Muggles and filth."My daughter - a pure-blooded descendent of Salazar Slytherin - hankering after a filthy, dirt-veined Muggle?...You disgusting little Squib, you filthy little blood traitor!

I just think the similarities between the houses are overwhelming!

Oh dear. Shall I let on something? McGonagall is one of my favourite characters! THough she's not really, she's grand like. I like her too, but Maggie Smith is one of my favorite actresses and I can't tell them apart.

I saw the Grimmauld Place thing, and we know that they were all dark wizards, but again, I'm sensing that we are missing something. the use of those words are just that- frequent use. I mean, those would be like our rude names for others, it's just the same thing I think. I find it difficult, if this was so, that Sirius would not then have given information to Dumbledore, after all, as he states himself "I would have died, died rather than betray my friends." Surely betrayal and failing to give information just because you don't want to is much the same? No question of his courage, he was placed in Gryffindor. This should also tell us a lot about Snape, who is denying who he and his family was, to do something good. And I firmly believe he has no ulteroir motive.

Harry never told anyone but Ron & Hermione about it...they probably let Ginny in on it, though...otherwise, no one knew...we know that Umbridge used the same punishment on Lee Jordan because Harry recommended Hermione's cure to him. But nowhere do we see any adults being made aware of the Toad and her nasty little quill..

I know that, but I would see no reason why Lee Jordan wouldn't say anything, that seems strange.

it actually says: "Well, we've had Sprout's, that was the Devil's Snare, Flitwick must've pout charms on the keys- McgGonagall transfigured the chessmen to make them alive..."

Which now makes even less sense. I preferred my incorrect version! (Sorry bout that, by the way!). How can you change something into something else, hence making it alive?Am I missing something really obvious?
Harry's class transfigured teapots into tortoises, tortoises are alive, teapots are not. Who knows what McGonagall started with, transfiguration appears to be easier when the original object and result are similar, but would McG have taken the easiest route? Wizard's chessmen understand the game, but they can't move themselves, the player has to, while with McGonagall's giant set, one side moved all on it's own.

The interesting thing is that there is a House Elf Relocation Office in the MOM.
(Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, pg vi)

I've often wondered if Dobby was the Potters' house elf (rich pureblood family) and he was relocated to the Malfoys after the Potters were killed. It could explain how and why he went to Harry in CoS.
But Kreacher stayed in Grimmauld Place even with no one living there... though I suppose the Potter house was destroyed. But Kreacher still had to answer to the Black family, so if that was the case, wouldn't Dobby still be answerable to Harry, ultimately? And why would Dobby be relocated to the Malfoys when they were on trial for being death eaters at the time?

I think on the chess thing then, that JK simply hadn't clearly defined all of her 'subjects' yet, being the first book. It was a bit of a stretch to call that transfiguration, but it was a really cool idea to have a living chess game, but she had already used the charms teacher and was left with McGonagall who hadn't done anything. And it is McGonagall's sort of thing... logic. So maybe magicked would be a more appropriate word, but it gets the point across.

Chess is strategy, Snape's poison puzzle was logic.

We don't know how long it might have taken for Dobby to be relocated, if that's what happened at all. It doesn't seem hard to believe that the Potters would have a house elf, though.

We don't know how long it might have taken for Dobby to be relocated, if that's what happened at all. It doesn't seem hard to believe that the Potters would have a house elf, though.
However, wouldn't Harry have inherited him/her after his parents died?

Harry was hidden away with the Dursleys.

I find it very hard to believe that Harry has had his own house-elf since he was a baby and nobody has thought to tell him about it - especially if it is Dobby! What on earth would be the point of keeping it secret? Since house-elves usually belong to old mansions and serve there for generations (c.f. all the heads on the wall in Grimmauld Place), and we know the Malfoys have a mansion, it makes sense for Dobby to have spent his life there until he was freed. For anything else to be true, there would need to be clues laid, and I can't see any. Dobby would have told Harry if he had once belonged to the Potters. He also explained very clearly when he first turned up at Privet Drive, just why he cared about Harry - because when the Dark Lord was defeated, life became better for house-elves.

If the Potters had a house-elf, and everyone knew Harry was alive - hidden but alive - surely someone would have given the house-elf a temporary job until Harry was old enough to own it. In that case, Harry would know about it by now. At the very least, Dumbledore would have mentioned it when Harry inherited Kreecher.

How many people know about the phophecy concerning Harry and Voldermort?

Colonel Fubster, your idea os very good, but can you try to tell me now what could she have started with? I mean, at the end of the day, even when you start off with one thing and transfigure it, who would one side move itself, but the other wouldn't? it seems an illogical thing to do really. And what could possibly be the original thing anyway? I suppose an engorgment charm is possible to make up the size, but what resembles a chessman?ha ha! lonwewriter, very few. Only Snape, Dumbledore and Harry know the truth. But there is always speculation, and several death eaters know ABOUT it, though not the content.
I'm not so sure about Dobby, it would seem that he was just trying to do what is right, because he dislikes the Dark Arts after suffering because of them. Maybe it was Dark Arts that originally enslaved the house elf, and so Dobby found this out, and wanted to do something about it? he is a very different House Elf, to be sure.

How many people know about the phophecy concerning Harry and Voldermort?That's a question Jo won't answer! Snape, Voldemort, Dumbledore and Harry know. I would guess someone else does too, because of Jo's cagey answer to the question about whether the DEs went after Neville or his parents. It's here (http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/rumours_view.cfm?id=25)Section: Rumours
The Lestranges were sent after Neville to kill him
No, they weren’t, they were very definitely sent after Neville’s parents. I can’t say too much about this because it touches too closely on the prophecy and how many people knew about it, but the Lestranges were not in on the secret.

Thanks guys, that info helps me with my current HP fanfic I'm writing.

How many people know about the phophecy concerning Harry and Voldermort?

Here's the people confirmed

1- Harry
2-Dumbledore
3- Professor Trelawny
4- Hermione
5-Ron
6- Snape
7- Voldie

and then there are also probably DEs because they were at the MoM and some of the DA may know. Probably the Order too and Unspeakables because they work there.

I'd say between 20-30 people, maybe more are sure of it's existence and then some of the general public may know of it as a rumor.

Trelawny doesnt know she has no idea of the phrophacy she made.

But let's not forget that Voldemort doesn't know the whole thing. I had forgotten Ron and Hermione though! Professor Trelawney doesn't know, because she went into a trance to give the prophecy. I think what JKR might mean is that there are several Death Eaters who knew, and Voldemort sent the Lestranges after Nevilles parents to kill them, though not the baby, because he thought if he wanted to kill one, kill both. So he was probably going to find Neville when he instead got Harry.

Because Wormtail gave him the info. (This info could have passed Dumbledore by.. Just an idea..)

I had forgotten Ron and Hermione though! Neither of them has been told the exact wording. They just know Harry's incomplete summary/conclusion of it.

Colonel Fubster, your idea os very good, but can you try to tell me now what could she have started with? I mean, at the end of the day, even when you start off with one thing and transfigure it, who would one side move itself, but the other wouldn't? it seems an illogical thing to do really. And what could possibly be the original thing anyway? I suppose an engorgment charm is possible to make up the size, but what resembles a chessman?Thank you.
I suppose she could have started with rocks, or tree branches, or beetle legs, I don't think it matters. Although the students use objects or animals that resemble the results they are supposed to get, to make it easier, that wouldn't be necessary for McGonagall.
She didn't have to do all the pieces at once, with the same spell. She could have done each side separately, or each piece individually. For example, turn all rocks into white chessmen that move themselves, and all branches into black chessmen that need direction from a person, and would accept being replaced by a person. Or, turn this thing into a white bishop that can move itself, this next thing into a black knight that needs direction, and so forth.
I doubt that size is an issue, FakeMoody easily transfigured Draco into a ferret, and a ferret is much smaller than a person.
Also, there's nothing that says she couldn't have use a Charm in addition to her Transfiguration spell.... :huh:

Harry was hidden away with the Dursleys.
What about Kreacher? He stayed at the mansion when his next master (Sirius) was away at Azkaban. Does that mean that because the Potter house was destroyed, (assuming the Potters owned Dobby) that's why Dobby wasn't there waiting for Harry?

Colonel, I think you've unfumbled the fumbled and solved the unsolveable! w00t!Cheers, that part never made any sense at all to me! As for this Kreacher/ Dobby theory, I think that Dobby was always the Malfoy's House Elf, and tehre is one reason for this. If he was Harry's house elf, or the Potters, why does he say he remembers the days of the Dark Lord, when all house elves were treated like dirt? Surely the Potters would not have treated him with contempt. As Sirius says, you judge a man by how he treats his inferiors, not his equals.

As Sirius says, you judge a man by how he treats his inferiors, not his equals.
The exact quote if anyone cares for it is:

"If you want to know what a man's like, take a good look at how he treats his inferiors, not his equals."

What about Kreacher? He stayed at the mansion when his next master (Sirius) was away at Azkaban.

It is important to remember that Kreacher is psychotic and Dobby is not. I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with the theory, but it could be possible that Kreacher wasn't relocated because he was still taking orders from a member of the Black family; albeit, a purity-obsessed portrait, but, you know....

Am I missing something, or is DD's hand on the front of the book totally not blackened and withered? That's his right hand... total screwup huh

I'm sure this has been brought up before, but I haven't had time to look through all the threads or the entirety of this thread, and as this was just pointed out to me yesterday, I felt, in my outrage, that I'd share this one more time with the general public.

...I think what JKR might mean is that there are several Death Eaters who knew, and Voldemort sent the Lestranges after Nevilles parents to kill them, though not the baby, because he thought if he wanted to kill one, kill both. So he was probably going to find Neville when he instead got Harry.VM could not have sent the LeStranges after the Longbottoms, he was already Vaporized. And remember that the LeStranges etc, didn't attack until long enough after VM was gone that people had begun to feel safe again - I'm betting at LEAST a year after VM was gone.

Additionally, there really isn't anything to suggest that they went there to kill the Longbottoms. Bella was apparently trying to get Frank (the Auror) to tell her where they had VM hidden. She either did not believe VM had died or she thought that he could be revived if she had his body. This is basically one of our best clues that she knew about a horcrux (altho' it's unlikely that she actually knew it WAS a horcrux - just something that could be used to bring VM to life) This is actually how I think Regulus found out about the locket.

So, in a way, she could still been working on VMs orders even after his backfired AK.

However, I sincerely doubt that VM told ANY of his DEs that a baby was going to be born who could defeat him. Bad for morale. They've probably guessed by NOW that the prophecy says something about Harry and VM, but since the orb broke they don't know what it is. However, I'm sure a few of them have at least figured out that Harry's a danger to VM by now.

The only DE we can guess knew something about the prophecy other than Snape and VM would be RAB. His note implies it somewhat. And I think that IF he did know then it was only because Snape told him. VM would not.

Am I missing something, or is DD's hand on the front of the book totally not blackened and withered? That's his right hand... total screwup huhYou're correct - at first I thought they had just flipped the image but I then realized that since it's a wrap-around image they couldn't have. So, I think it was probably actually on purpose - since they released the cover images to the public early. Perhaps they worried that IF DDs hand had already been blackened it would give too much away?

It's interesting to note also that Harry is apparently left-handed in the cover illustrations (books 1,4,5 & 6) yet it's never been mentioned in the text.

It's interesting to note also that Harry is apparently left-handed in the cover illustrations (books 1,4,5 & 6) yet it's never been mentioned in the text.
Actually something is mentioned in Book 1 -- Harry says he's right-handed.

From SS, page 83 US:
"Well, now -- Mr. Potter. Let me see." He pulled out a long tape measure with silver markings out of his pocket. "Which is your wand arm?"
"Er -- well, I'm right-handed," said Harry.

Actually something is mentioned in Book 1 -- Harry says he's right-handed.[when getting his wand]Thanks! I forgot - so I wonder why he's shown as left-handed? Bk1 cover - he uses his left to reach for the Snitch and Bks 4, 5 & 6 he's holding his wand in his left hand. Maybe the illustrations WERE all painted flipped (with the front cover on the left of the painting instead of the right) - that would explain not seeing DDs blackened right hand - we'd really be seeing his left one.

Whatever the reason may be, Mary Granpre isn't Jo. Therefore her illustrations are not canon. The only British covers showing Harry using his hands is GoF where he holds the broomstick with his right and tries to reach the dragon egg with his left, and HBP where he holds his wand with his right hand. But Dumbledore holds the wand with his left. Those illustrations are of course not canon either.

Trelawney doesn't consciously know about the prophecy. And LV and Snape only know half of it.

Trelawney doesn't consciously know about the prophecy. And LV and Snape only know half of it.

Just relating to this, does Snape only know half of it? Wouldn't Dumbledore have told him about all of the prophecy once Snape was on the Order's side?

Just relating to this, does Snape only know half of it? Wouldn't Dumbledore have told him about all of the prophecy once Snape was on the Order's side?
In OotP, DD tells Harry that only the two of them know the full contents of the prophecy. DD may have told Snape the rest of the prophecy at some point after that, or he may not.
Colonel, I think you've unfumbled the fumbled and solved the unsolveable! w00t!Cheers, that part never made any sense at all to me! Glad I could help, vampiricduck! :)

But Kreacher stayed in Grimmauld Place even with no one living there... Did he? Dumbledore had no intention of Kreacher falling into the hands of Bellatrix Lestrange. It's reasonable to assume that he took control of Kreacher while he worked out how to prevent the house-elf going to any of the surviving Blacks. Though I suppose the Potter house was destroyed. But Kreacher still had to answer to the Black family, so if that was the case, wouldn't Dobby still be answerable to Harry, ultimately? That's the possibility I'm considering when I suggest this as a potential reason that Dobby was able to warn Harry. He couldn't say anything against the family he worked for, though.

Another possible explanation is simply that one of the Malfoys sent Dobby. But I have no real reason to suspect that.

And why would Dobby be relocated to the Malfoys when they were on trial for being death eaters at the time?We only hear that Lucius was acquitted.

Just relating to this, does Snape only know half of it? Wouldn't Dumbledore have told him about all of the prophecy once Snape was on the Order's side?
No. I can't see DD giving out that kind of information. He might have been fearful that LV could pick it out somehow.

I find it very hard to believe that Harry has had his own house-elf since he was a baby and nobody has thought to tell him about it - especially if it is Dobby! What on earth would be the point of keeping it secret? What on earth is the point of keeping any of the information that's been kept secret from Harry? By his own account, Dumbledore's great mistake was his secretiveness and it was nearly their undoing.

Since house-elves usually belong to old mansions and serve there for generations (c.f. all the heads on the wall in Grimmauld Place), and we know the Malfoys have a mansion, it makes sense for Dobby to have spent his life there until he was freed. Then why is there a House-Elf Relocation Office at all? All kinds of things could have happened to the Malfoy's elves necessitating getting a new one.
For anything else to be true, there would need to be clues laid, and I can't see any. Dobby would have told Harry if he had once belonged to the Potters. Why? Nobody tells Harry very much at all about his parents. He also explained very clearly when he first turned up at Privet Drive, just why he cared about Harry - because when the Dark Lord was defeated, life became better for house-elves. That doesn't explain how Dobby was able to go to Harry to warn him in the first place. And the clue, if you want to call it that, is in FBA***T.
House elves do go with old mansions, and Harry has never seen his family's home. The house was destroyed and he has never taken possession of any inheritance but the Gringott's vault and the Invisibility Cloak. He's never seen his property.

If the Potters had a house-elf, and everyone knew Harry was alive - hidden but alive - surely someone would have given the house-elf a temporary job until Harry was old enough to own it. In that case, Harry would know about it by now. At the very least, Dumbledore would have mentioned it when Harry inherited Kreecher.
I wonder if Dumbledore would have told Harry about Kreacher if he hadn't needed to be sure that the house-elf wouldn't fall into the hands of Bellatrix.

Anyway, it's not a theory that I have much faith in, just a possibility to consider.

then why is there a House-Elf Relocation Office at all?

Because sometimes entire families die out with no heirs to inheret the elves?

Because sometimes an owner gets miffed at an elf and sacks them? (Mr. Crouch)

Dobby states in GoF that he spent 2 years looking for placement before finding Winky and contacting DD for a job at Hogwarts. It's not like the magical community exactly WANTS to have house elves running all over the place trying to find wizard homes looking for work. It would benefit the magical community to find a clearinghouse type setup for elves looking for jobs and people looking for elves.