Why didn't Lily apparate with Harry?

[Wab]

Apparation apparently requires a clear mind, something one is unlikely to have when pursued by a seriously cranky dark lord.

[ted baker]

maybe voldy put some charm on the house before entering that prevented anyone from aparating, like at hogwarts.

either way, when u think about these things you should always remember what alfred hitchcock said:

IF THEY'D CALLED THE POLICE, THERE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN A MOVIE!

[Chris]

I rather think that the house was protected like most wizarding dwellings, with an anti-apparition charm. Lily and James were talented enough to escape Voldemort three times previously (probably involving apparition and a bit of quick spell-work to buy time), so I tend to doubt that emotional state prevented their apparition.

We've seen several dwellings with an anti-apparition charm: Hogwarts, Slughorn's temporary home, and The Burrow, for starters. Towards the beginning of HBP, both Tonks and Dumbledore disapparate at the same spot outside the Burrow - and Arthur himself apparently has to go to that point, as he apparates to and from work and he had to knock on the door while Molly was serving Harry soup.

It appears quite likely to me that Lily and James couldn't get out of the house once Voldemort got to the front door or inside the house. Since they couldn't get outside the charmed area, they were trapped, and the rest is 4000-some-odd pages and counting .

[devonforever]

If the anti-apparition charm leaves them vulnerable then it will leave well, everybody in Hogwarts etc etc vulnerable n'est-pas? I think that there was an anti-whatever charm on the house because 1) quite frankly they didn't expect LV to turn up and offer to sell them tupperware and if he did it would stop the stealthy way in and 2) as has been pointed out ad-infinitum that a lot of wizards houses have the spell on it.

[kingwidgit]

Originally Posted by devonforever

2) as has been pointed out ad-infinitum that a lot of wizards houses have the spell on it.

Correct, wizarding dwellings use an enchantment to protect their home from unwanted Apparators, which Voldemort clearly was.

[dumbledorerulz]

Originally Posted by muggle_born1

Perhaps Voldemort placed an anti-appration charm on the house. That would make sense to do if you are about to kill people inside it.

i think thats an interesting idea but i think Lily would have stood her ground anyway she was really brave.surely there wouldn't have been a need to put an anti-apparition charm on the house if only the secret keeper knew where it was anyway,and dumbledore probally would have thought it safer without one because that way they could escape easily.

[kingwidgit]

Originally Posted by dumbledorerulz

i think thats an interesting idea but i think Lily would have stood her ground anyway she was really brave.surely there wouldn't have been a need to put an anti-apparition charm on the house if only the secret keeper knew where it was anyway,and dumbledore probally would have thought it safer without one because that way they could escape easily.

That argument could be used in reverse: Why would the Potters have to "escape easily" via Apparition if their whereabouts were so well protected by the Fidelius Charm and only the Secret Keeper knew their location?

[hermy_weasley2]

Whether or not the charms on the house prevented Apparition, Lily might not have been able to do it because of her state of mind. One of the D's of Apparition is "Destination", and I don't think Lily would be able to concentrate on a destination very well in that situation. Apparition might get easier with practice, but it could've been that Lily was not very fond of it like Harry having been Muggleborn and all.

[Anemoi]

Remember, when The Burrow (in book six) was under ministry protection, DD and Tonks both had to go to a certain point out from the house to dissaparate, in Hogwarts you can't apparate either, and in 12 Grimmauld Place, they always left through the front door, they didn't just apparate in or out.

My guess is that there are certain enchantments that were put up on these buildings, I doubt it simply has to do with the Fidelius Charm either, my guess is that they used an anti-dissaparation/apparation jinx or something, except as a protective shield, instead of the person to person version DD used to trap the DE's in the ministry.

I would say its also probably likely that it isn't that easy to throw off such enchantments, even if one put them together, if they are good enough to hold wizards off from sneaking in (thus being worth putting up in the first place) its also possible that side-a-long apparation does not work with infants, and that it would be way too much stress on an infants fragile body, just too much strain, kind of like when you are driving down the highway with an infant you don't put them in an adult seatbelt and go roaring along at 90, its just not safe.

Quite a few possible explanations really, I don't think there is any big mystery to it.

Personally I like the infants being fragile explanation, though I could of course be wrong.

[Numenorian]

Originally Posted by hermy_weasley2

Whether or not the charms on the house prevented Apparition, Lily might not have been able to do it because of her state of mind. One of the D's of Apparition is "Destination", and I don't think Lily would be able to concentrate on a destination very well in that situation. Apparition might get easier with practice, but it could've been that Lily was not very fond of it like Harry having been Muggleborn and all.

wooooooyeah! I think you nailed it! No really, you need to concentrate to apparate and with Voldemort in her house, James dead, Harry's life in danger and her own life in danger I do not think she could have apparated. Let's remember, though she did escape Voldemort not one, not two but three times, she still remains only human, a human that wants to protect her most precious thing; her son.

[DarkDaysAhead]

I've just always assumed that Lily didn't Disapparate because she couldn't, just like you can't Apparate or Disapparate at Hogwarts. Seems to me that since they were hiding, they wouldn't have wanted people to be able to Apparate into their home.

[req4adrm]

Originally Posted by DarkDaysAhead

I've just always assumed that Lily didn't Disapparate because she couldn't, just like you can't Apparate or Disapparate at Hogwarts. Seems to me that since they were hiding, they wouldn't have wanted people to be able to Apparate into their home.

True, but that explanation leaves the door open to the question: why would they not allow outward apparition? I totally understand a charm that would not allow unwanted apparition into the house/dwelling, but, in the case of an unwanted visitor, not allowing apparition out of the house leaves its residents in extreme danger.

[Numenorian]

Originally Posted by req4adrm

True, but that explanation leaves the door open to the question: why would they not allow outward apparition? I totally understand a charm that would not allow unwanted apparition into the house/dwelling, but, in the case of an unwanted visitor, not allowing apparition out of the house leaves its residents in extreme danger.

Maby the spell only works in that way. People can't apparate in the house, but they also can't apparate out the house.

[Xceptional]

Maybe the sensation could kill the baby? Cause dumbldore could have apprated with Harry from Godric's Hollow rite to the durselys. Wizards many times dont use appration they seems to be some limitations, many times in the book u would wonder why didnt the wizard just apprated? And maybe theres a way to follow someone who had just apprated from a spot u know kind of magic leaves traces so what was the point if Lily ran Voldemort will get to her anyway!

[req4adrm]

Originally Posted by Numenorian

Maby the spell only works in that way. People can't apparate in the house, but they also can't apparate out the house.

I think in the thousands of years wizards and witches have been around they would have realized that it'd be really unsafe to block apparition outwardly from a house/residence. They evolve just like other beings.

[Numenorian]

Originally Posted by Xceptional

Maybe the sensation could kill the baby? Cause dumbldore could have apprated with Harry from Godric's Hollow rite to the durselys. Wizards many times dont use appration they seems to be some limitations, many times in the book u would wonder why didnt the wizard just apprated? And maybe theres a way to follow someone who had just apprated from a spot u know kind of magic leaves traces so what was the point if Lily ran Voldemort will get to her anyway!

Yes, isn't that what dumbledore did? Didn't he follow Tonks after he left herry with the weasleys in the sixth book?
But then the question remains; Lily could have apparated to somewhere she had friends or a place where Voldemort couldn't do anything.

[kingwidgit]

Originally Posted by req4adrm

I think in the thousands of years wizards and witches have been around they would have realized that it'd be really unsafe to block apparition outwardly from a house/residence. They evolve just like other beings.

Perhaps, although canon shows that people apparated outside of a dwelling and then entered OR walked outside of a dwelling to then apparate away. Never do we see someone Apparating into or out of a dwelling...well, okay, we know that Montague Apparated out of the wardrobe and got stuffed up a toilet at Hogwarts for his trouble.

We DO see people, once inside a dwelling, able to Apparate within the confines of that dwelling. But in certain instances even this is prevented.

Also remember that an Anti-Disapparation jinx could have been applied by Voldemort or whoever else was at Godric's Hollow, thus preventing the Potters from escaping in that fashion. Dumbledore did put the Death Eaters in the DoM under an Anti-Disapparation jinx to prevent their escape.

There are a lot of variables to consider.

[DarkDaysAhead]

Originally Posted by kingwidgit

There are a lot of variables to consider.

I agree.

Whether wizards have evolved or not isn't indicative, as far as I can tell, of something having been changed. Just because they may have realized such a charm could be unsafe (Assuming they've realized that in the first place. I mean, if you think you've blocked people from apparating into your house and have it hidden, you probably wouldn't think, "Hm, this isn't safe.") doesn't mean they fiddled with it and "fixed" it. Unless I'm mistaken, we don't know how it works and therefore can't assume you can block just apparition/disapparition.

[Numenorian]

you can't just "fix" spells. A spell is not made by a wizard, something that many people seem to believe. You see, everthing around us is magic and we influence that magic trough using words or thoughts and doing special things. Every piece of magic is different and if a wizard finds a way to influence it, you got a spell. Then the wizard gives it a name, most of the time in latin. But that doesn't mean you can change the magic itself. So if a wizard found a way of keeping people from dissapparating in an object like a house, the magic itself may also contain you can't dissapparate out of it.

[DarkDaysAhead]

Originally Posted by Numenorian

you can't just "fix" spells.

Wasn't Luna's mother killed when one of her spells goofed? I seem to think she was tampering with them...