Significance and Meanings of Patronus Forms

[TreacleTartlet]

Originally Posted by arithmancer

Also, while "deer" may not be associated with mothering, does (the females) certainly are (deer species are uniparental, meaning the offspring are raised exclusively by their mothers and may never even meet their fathers). Does are also noted for their beautiful, gentle eyes.

Like with many animals the doe is fiercely protective of it's offspring. The Royal Parks warn people not to approach the deer in their parks,especially those with fawns as they can become very aggressive. Bambi's mum was very protective. Sorry, I always cry when I think of Bambi.


The Irish Celtic deity Flidais is assiciated with deer and her chariot was drawn by deer. She was a goddess of the forest, hunting and wild beasts and was not only associated with hunting, but was also the protector of the forest creatures. She had a herd of wild does that gave milk as well as magical cow that could provide milk for an entire army.

[kmhm]

*staff edit*

Anyway, I like how Patronuses seem to reflect the characters. Even partners. Like how Hermione's patronus which is an otter is part of the Weasel family, and Ron's is a Jack Russell Terrier which is known to chase otters and to be loyal.

[Goddess_Clio]

Originally Posted by TreacleTartlet

Like with many animals the doe is fiercely protective of it's offspring. The Royal Parks warn people not to approach the deer in their parks,especially those with fawns as they can become very aggressive. Bambi's mum was very protective. Sorry, I always cry when I think of Bambi.

As stated in your post, many animals are protective of their young, not just deer. Stating that Lily's patronus was a deer because deer are protective of their young is faulty logic to me because many other animals are also fiercely protective of their young: African bullfrogs have been known stand up to crocodiles, elephants and lions to protect their tadpoles, why wasn't Lily's patronus a bullfrog? (I suspect, as snapes_witch pointed out, that it was likely because a bullfrog patronus wasn't romantic enough image)

The Irish Celtic deity Flidais is assiciated with deer and her chariot was drawn by deer. She was a goddess of the forest, hunting and wild beasts and was not only associated with hunting, but was also the protector of the forest creatures. She had a herd of wild does that gave milk as well as magical cow that could provide milk for an entire army.

... but not motherhood.

Originally Posted by kmhm

Anyway, I like how Patronuses seem to reflect the characters. Even partners. Like how Hermione's patronus which is an otter is part of the Weasel family, and Ron's is a Jack Russell Terrier which is known to chase otters and to be loyal.

I find patronuses frustratingly inconsistent. Sometimes they represent the person's personality, sometimes they represent the one that person loves, sometimes they represent what that person feels protected by...

BTW, do we even know for certain that James' patronus was a stag? We know his animagus form was a stag but is the form of his patronus ever mentioned?

[MerryLore]

Originally Posted by Goddess_Clio

BTW, do we even know for certain that James' patronus was a stag? We know his animagus form was a stag but is the form of his patronus ever mentioned?

We don't know what his patronus was, based on the books - only his animagus. I think JKR confirmed his patronus was a stag in an interview.

[TreacleTartlet]

Originally Posted by Goddess_Clio

... but not motherhood.

I thought the nuturing with milk rather suggested overtones of motherhood.

However, personally I don't see why Lily's Patronus should represent motherhood. She really never got to be a mother for very long. I think, Molly who I see as the strong mother figure throughout the books, is more representative of "motherhood" in general. Hmm...I wonder what her Patronus was?

To me Lily's most important role in the books was her sacrifice and the protection it gave to Harry. Come to think of it, that's what Bambi's mother does for him; sacrifices herself to save him. Maybe JKR was influenced by "Bambi" when choosing Lily's Patronus.

[kittling]

Originally Posted by Goddess_Clio

As stated in your post, many animals are protective of their young, not just deer. Stating that Lily's patronus was a deer because deer are protective of their young is faulty logic to me because many other animals are also fiercely protective of their young: African bullfrogs have been known stand up to crocodiles, elephants and lions to protect their tadpoles, why wasn't Lily's patronus a bullfrog? (I suspect, as snapes_witch pointed out, that it was likely because a bullfrog patronus wasn't romantic enough image)

Prehaps the fact that bullfrogs aren't British animals is a major factor - after all iirc every patronus we see is either British or mythical (some times even a combination of the two - white/silver animals have a special significance in many British mythologies)

* Lynx are native to Britain but became extinct here in the 17th centuary

[Goddess_Clio]

Originally Posted by TreacleTartlet

I thought the nuturing with milk rather suggested overtones of motherhood.

I personally separate the ideas of nurturing and motherhood but to each their own.

However, personally I don't see why Lily's Patronus should represent motherhood. She really never got to be a mother for very long. I think, Molly who I see as the strong mother figure throughout the books, is more representative of "motherhood" in general. Hmm...I wonder what her Patronus was?

To me Lily's most important role in the books was her sacrifice and the protection it gave to Harry. Come to think of it, that's what Bambi's mother does for him; sacrifices herself to save him. Maybe JKR was influenced by "Bambi" when choosing Lily's Patronus.

The idea of Lily's patronus representing motherhood grew from the Feminism in DH thread where they were discussing the glorification of motherhood and how Lily's role as a mother is glorified, perhaps, more than James role as a father was (because it was Lily dying that envolked the protection placed over Harry).

Originally Posted by kittling

Prehaps the fact that bullfrogs aren't British animals is a major factor - after all iirc every patronus we see is either British or mythical (some times even a combination of the two - white/silver animals have a special significance in many British mythologies)

* Lynx are native to Britain but became extinct here in the 17th centuary

This is the second most convincing argument, I think.

As far as story-telling goes I can understand JKR's desire to keep things British and 'local' as far as the animals characters were gvien. Thinking non-canonically, however, it's a huge bummer to think that one would be restricted to having a patronus that came from your own contry or continent. That means no one in the US could be a horse because horses went extinct 12,000 years ago. Or be tigers or elephants or flamingos or panda bears... No one in Australia could be rabbits, sheep, foxes, horses and a whole host of other animals that Europeans introduced that aren't considered 'natives'. I'd hate to be from New Zealand, just about the only animal you could be is a bird! (Unless, you know, you like birds. )

And as far as the lynx issue, I thought the lynx went extinct in the UK like 1000 years ago, not 400? I also think it's kind of sneaky to give Kingsley a lynx as a patronus and justify it by saying "oh, but until x-number of years ago there were still lynx in the British isles!"

[MinervasCat]

White deer have numerous mythological and traditional meanings throughout history. But, could it be that JKR just chose an animal that is beautiful but resilient, strong, savy, and probably the last thing in the world anyone would expect Severus Snape to have as a patronus?

[arithmancer]

Originally Posted by Goddess_Clio

The idea of Lily's patronus representing motherhood grew from the Feminism in DH thread where they were discussing the glorification of motherhood and how Lily's role as a mother is glorified, perhaps, more than James role as a father was (because it was Lily dying that envolked the protection placed over Harry).

Actually, we were discussing why Lily's Patronus "had" to match James', which it was suggested is anti-feminist, and I suggested that maybe its form did not, in fact, represent James at all. I thought the doe might have been her Patronus from the start, because it represents her well. I did not suggest it necessarily did so exclusively because she is the ultimate mother figure. (Arresting eyes would be another reason, her liking of nature/the woods as suggested by where she and Sev played as children being another, and various of the positive qualities does are associated with listed in the several posts on this topic here, could arguably apply to her.)

We do not need to prove that does are symbolic of motherhood to suggest they may capture something of Lily's essence.

(http://www.cosforums.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=938, for the feminism discussion).

[Goddess_Clio]

Originally Posted by arithmancer

Actually, we were discussing why Lily's Patronus "had" to match James', which it was suggested is anti-feminist, and I suggested that maybe its form did not, in fact, represent James at all. I thought the doe might have been her Patronus from the start, because it represents her well. I did not suggest it necessarily did so exclusively because she is the ultimate mother figure. (Arresting eyes would be another reason, her liking of nature/the woods as suggested by where she and Sev played as children being another, and various of the positive qualities does are associated with listed in the several posts on this topic here, could arguably apply to her.)

We do not need to prove that does are symbolic of motherhood to suggest they may capture something of Lily's essence.

(http://www.cosforums.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=938, for the feminism discussion).

That's where the discussion probably began that ultimately led to discussion of Lily's patronus being linked to motherhood but honestly I don't think it's necessary to quibble about whose post was the one that spawned the Lily-as-Mother-Patronus-as-Mother discussion.

As for Lily and Snapes choice of play locations being suggestive of Lily loving the forest I personally think that's a huge stretch. We're never told it they hid under that tree because Lily suggested it; Snape might have suggested it so it would then be his love of the forest that took them to that location in which case Lily's patronus being a doe based on her "love of the forest" falls flat.

It seems to me that, whatever Lily's patronus means, she was given that particular animal as her patronus because it would match the patronus we assume James had, the stag, which takes us back to the feminist debate of why Lily's patronus had to match James's rather than both their patronuses changing to represent them as a couple.

You gotta love circular arguments.

[TreacleTartlet]

Originally Posted by kittling

Prehaps the fact that bullfrogs aren't British animals is a major factor - after all iirc every patronus we see is either British or mythical (some times even a combination of the two - white/silver animals have a special significance in many British mythologies)

I think the reason for this, is that the Patronus is very probably inspired by the white creatures found in Celtic myths that usually lead the hero on an adventure. Most often to the Otherworld. Maybe that's why the real creatures chosen by JKR for Patronuses, were all animals that would have been familiar to the Celts.

* Lynx are native to Britain but became extinct here in the 17th centuary

The lynx would have been known to the Celts. In fact the Celtic god Lugh was associated with the lynx, which was seen as stealthy and the keeper of secrets.

[OldMotherCrow]

Originally Posted by Goddess_Clio

It seems to me that, whatever Lily's patronus means, she was given that particular animal as her patronus because it would match the patronus we assume James had, the stag, which takes us back to the feminist debate of why Lily's patronus had to match James's rather than both their patronuses changing to represent them as a couple.

You gotta love circular arguments.

We know James's Animagus form was a stag, and I think that is the form that came first. I think it most likely that Lily's doe Patronus was based off James's stag Animagus form, and was meant to symbolize that she found their love to be protective. As for James's Patronus form, I don't know that it was a stag-- I don't think it was ever said in the books what it was. If it was a stag, though, I think it more likely that it was based off of Lily's doe, as a reaction to it, rather than on his Animagus form. So my opinion would be Stag Animagus caused Doe Patronus caused Stag Patronus.

[Goddess_Clio]

Originally Posted by OldMotherCrow

We know James's Animagus form was a stag, and I think that is the form that came first. I think it most likely that Lily's doe Patronus was based off James's stag Animagus form, and was meant to symbolize that she found their love to be protective. As for James's Patronus form, I don't know that it was a stag-- I don't think it was ever said in the books what it was. If it was a stag, though, I think it more likely that it was based off of Lily's doe, as a reaction to it, rather than on his Animagus form. So my opinion would be Stag Animagus caused Doe Patronus caused Stag Patronus.

I agree that we don't know for sure that James's patronus was a stag as I questioned in a previous post:

Originally Posted by Goddess_Clio

BTW, do we even know for certain that James' patronus was a stag? We know his animagus form was a stag but is the form of his patronus ever mentioned?

I do, however, feel like the fandom generally makes the assumption that James's patronus is a stag because his animagus form is a stag and the stag is the animal we then associate James with (just like we associate the dog with Sirius and the rat with Peter).

As far as Lily's patronus being a doe in response to James's animagus form which then meant James's patronus form was a stag in response to Lily's patronus, we don't know for sure which came first, Lily's patronus or her knowing James was an animagus that took the form of a stag. I think it would be an awfully big coincidence if Lily's patronus became a doe of its own accord, not knowing that James was already tied to that particular animal. I also feel like the animagus-dictates-patronus-which-dictates-another-patronus is a little too convoluted to feel right. It seems to me either James came into the relationship with his animagus form already in place which dictated his patronus form and Lily's patronus form or Lily's patronus form was taken after she knew about James's animagus form but that James's own patronus form wasn't actually a stag but some other animal.

The impression that I get is that JKR gave James and Lily matching patronuses that were meant to reinforce the "perfectness" of their relationship and that those patronuses took the form of deer because that's the animal James was already associated with in the novels.

Some to that, I just had another thought about the patronuses of couples: Arthur and Molly. Now, to me, Arthur and Molly are the living embodiment of what James and Lily would have been; they are sort of held up at the perfect model of parenting, very much in love with each other after years and years of marriage and devoted to each other and their families. Personally, like James and Lily, I would assume they would have matching patronuses to underline their love and relationship but Arthur's patronus is a weasel and I cannot find it in myself to see Molly with a weasel patronus or even a patronus from the weasel family (which would include animals like polecats, ferrets, stoats, ermine and minks or the more distant relatives like otters, badgers or wolverines). It seems to me that Molly would either have a different animal as her patronus, thereby telling readers that Arthur and Molly might not be the "perfect, loving couple" they are sort of made out to be or that Molly would arbitrarily have some weasel-like patronus simply because that is the animal her husband's patronus takes which circles back to the issue of feminism.

[StarryVeil]

Originally Posted by Goddess_Clio

I do, however, feel like the fandom generally makes the assumption that James's patronus is a stag because his animagus form is a stag and the stag is the animal we then associate James with (just like we associate the dog with Sirius and the rat with Peter).

I don't know if you view interviews as canon, but I do (cuz I don't see why information given by JKR outside the books would be deliberately inconsistent with the books), so here's what she says:

Bloomsbury Online Webchat Chely: James' Patronus is a stag and Lily's a doe. Is that a coincidence? J.K. Rowling: No, the Patronus often mutates to take the image of the love of one’s life (because they so often become the ‘happy thought’ that generates a Patronus).

Above, JKR doesn't argue that James's Patronus was not a stag; she rather gives an explanation to validate the theory that James and Lily's Patronuses were stag and doe, respectively. So I don't see why we shouldn't believe James's Patronus was a stag.

I also feel like the animagus-dictates-patronus-which-dictates-another-patronus is a little too convoluted to feel right.

I agree. I think it basically went like this: James became an Animagus at 15 which, I think I can safely assume, was before either of them were practicing Patronus charms. Now feminists may not like it, but IMO the simple fact is that James's Animagus being a stag is the foundation from which all the deer Patronuses of the story stemmed, simply because James's "animal spirit" had been determined at such a young age. I think the usual occurrence is that one's Animagus and Patronus forms are the same (this makes me wonder what happens when Rita Skeeter casts a Patronus ) and since Lily didn't have an Animagus form, her Patronus matched the already-existing form of James's.

Whether she knew about James's stag before casting her Patronus...I'm not sure. Snape seemed to "identify" Lily as a doe but I can't think how he could have known that her Patronus was a doe. Similarly, Harry didn't know of his father's stag Animagus and/or Patronus forms before casting his own stag Patronus- it was just some sort of inexplicable magic that did the "matching", IMO. Therefore, I think as long as Lily was in love with James, her Patronus would have been a doe whether or not she knew about his Animagus and/or Patronus forms before casting her own Patronus for the first time.

Some to that, I just had another thought about the patronuses of couples: Arthur and Molly. Now, to me, Arthur and Molly are the living embodiment of what James and Lily would have been; they are sort of held up at the perfect model of parenting, very much in love with each other after years and years of marriage and devoted to each other and their families. Personally, like James and Lily, I would assume they would have matching patronuses to underline their love and relationship but Arthur's patronus is a weasel and I cannot find it in myself to see Molly with a weasel patronus or even a patronus from the weasel family (which would include animals like polecats, ferrets, stoats, ermine and minks or the more distant relatives like otters, badgers or wolverines). It seems to me that Molly would either have a different animal as her patronus, thereby telling readers that Arthur and Molly might not be the "perfect, loving couple" they are sort of made out to be or that Molly would arbitrarily have some weasel-like patronus simply because that is the animal her husband's patronus takes which circles back to the issue of feminism.

I don't think not having matching Patronuses is a sign of weak love or anything. It's just that James and Lily's case had to be distinctive. They were Harry's parents - the couple to contrast Tom and Merope. From the quote below, it's clear that JKR has tried to highlight the differences between the circumstances of Harry's and Voldemort's births:

Interview for The Volkskrant Your books are about the battle between good and evil. Harry is good. But is Voldemort pure Evil? He is also a victim. He is a victim, indeed. He is a victim, and he has made choices. He was conceived by force and under the influence of a silly infatuation, While Harry was conceived in love; I think the conditions under which you were born form an important fundament of your existence. But Voldemort chose evil. I've been trying to point that out in the books; I gave him choices.

IMO, to emphasize this particular difference between Harry and Voldemort, JKR gave James and Lily matching Patronuses as a testament to the strong love out of which Harry was born. I wouldn't be surprised if Alice and Frank Longbottom have matching Patronuses too - because both Harry and Neville were marked men and there had to be something blatantly opposite from Voldemort about their births.

[mikar]

At First Sorry for my English.

Long time, no one anwser in this topic and almost everything was told about patronus, but i would like to give my 5 galeons to this.

I was working on small fanfiction located in 1998-2000 and was thinking about patronus(es).
Ron patronus is in some way Hermione.
Hermione - otter is Ron (otter is one family with weasel)
Tonks (big four leg) is Lupin woulf.
Snape is Lily.

From what Jo said patronus is patron, protector of wizard. She said too that Patronus can Change if we love some one - Tonks had changed (fact from book) Lily or James was Changed too.

How i see Patronus.
If its energy of your soul, image/creation of your patron what in my country is in some meaning understand as somebody who is yur Shield, shield of ypur heart.
Patronus for me is not only image of your protector but has elements of your own.
Another think is that you not always know you love somebody from the begining. Ron and Hermione patronuses are known from HP5 but love is known for sure in HBP.
Tonks fall in love with Lupin some way betwean Order and HBP
Harry has in hart at first place his dead parents, and his father was his rural (im not sure this word is ok) model. So his patronus was Stag. Even thou happy memory was with Ron Hermione or magic at all.

What we know about Ginny? she first meet Harry at platform 9,3/4 and fall in love at age 10. she talk about him all the time in summer. She wrote in Tom Riddle diary about him. It always was Harry. No one else.
What person is Ginny: Strong, wild, impulsive, loyal, has a greate hart, talented witch, friends and family are at first place always. she has trouble with talk and showing fealings.
In my opinion that can describe Harry.
I see them as soul mates.
My theory is: Of Ginny and Harry ale so much soulmates, if Patronus can change to depict person we love, if Ginny did't realy love non of her boyfriends - her word - so her Patronus Horse is probably Harry.
Harry has Stag after James but in my opinion if his protector will be Ginny, they will mary at some point his patronus will in 99% change into Horse.
Ginny Patronus will not change becouse he love hary from begining, and if it is not Stug or Doe at this point it means Harry has to be Horse.
Not becouse he love Ginny. But becouse he will finde him self at her.
I would like to see faces of this four, when Harry say Expecto Patrono and from wand jumps beautifle horse. Best will be if he would stand side to side with Ginny and two horses will run to attack Dementors.

[Goddess_Clio]

Originally Posted by StarryVeil

I don't know if you view interviews as canon, but I do (cuz I don't see why information given by JKR outside the books would be deliberately inconsistent with the books)

No, I don't view interviews as canon. (I don't view Pottermore as canon, either, even though I enjoy reading the extra stuff and think it's fun.) The HP canon, to me, includes only the 7 novels that tell Harry's story. And, FYI, the interviews JKR has given over the years do occassionally contradict one another, which is a major reason I don't consider them canon.

Originally Posted by StarryVeil

JKR doesn't argue that James's Patronus was not a stag; she rather gives an explanation to validate the theory that James and Lily's Patronuses were stag and doe, respectively. So I don't see why we shouldn't believe James's Patronus was a stag.

It comes down to a question of canon: James's patronus form was never explicitly mentioned in canon therefore there is a big reason why I don't feel the need to believe James's patronus was a stag. It was never explicitly stated in canon - it was never even mentioned - therefore, James's patronus form, to me, is still canonically undecided, though there is a strong implication, via Lily's patronus form, of it being a stag. That's not conclusive evidence, though.

Originally Posted by StarryVeil

I think the usual occurrence is that one's Animagus and Patronus forms are the same

Why is this a "usual occurence" though? The only explicit example of an animagus form and a patronus form being the same (IIRC) is McGonagall's tabby cat. Does one example prove the rule? I don't think so. McGonagall could be the one exception to the rule. Unless I'm not remember another example, I don't think there's enough evidence to state that the animagus form and the patronus form being the same is a "usual occurance." That's an assumption, to me, that isn't supported by canon (i.e. the books)

Originally Posted by StarryVeil

Whether she knew about James's stag before casting her Patronus...I'm not sure.

I, personally, think she knew of James's animagus form when she learned to cast a patronus. Of course, I'm also under the impression that she was taught ro cast a patronus only after joining the Order, since Lupin says that it's very advanced magic and most adult wizards have trouble doing it or don't even bother. That implied to me that patronuses were never taught in school. I admit, though, that we don't know that for sure.

Originally Posted by StarryVeil

Snape seemed to "identify" Lily as a doe but I can't think how he could have known that her Patronus was a doe.

I think there had to have been a moment where Lily cast her patronus in front of Snape so that he saw the form her patronus took.

[cool_chick_div]

I don't think it is necessary to know someone's patronus or animagus to be able to cast your own and have it be similar to theirs. The example of Harry not knowing James' animagus is given before. Harry also cast something close to a corporeal patronus in the quidditch match against Ravenclaw that had left Remus shaken as he recognized James. Dumbeldore also recognized it. Harry did not know that James was a stag.

I feel that James' patronus is a stag simply because there in that interview JKR did not say otherwise when it was stated in the question. I'm sure she would have said otherwise. Or maybe we'll get more information on Pottermore. But because she did not say he did not have a stag patronus I think it was the same as his animagus.

Lily being in love with James is enough to have her patronus become a doe. But I did not really believe that. I've always saw them as that perfect match in love like soul mates. They were compatible and JKR wanted to show the difference of Harry conceived out of love with Riddle coming from false love/infatuation. Also, I felt that Lily was always a doe; it did not change because of James. She is warm and loving and a doe represents something similar.

[Goddess_Clio]

Originally Posted by cool_chick_div

I don't think it is necessary to know someone's patronus or animagus to be able to cast your own and have it be similar to theirs. The example of Harry not knowing James' animagus is given before.

I agree, Harry didn't need to know that James animagus form was a stag in order to cast a patronus in the form of a stag. Harry learns that after the fact.

Lily doesn't need to have know James was a stag animagus in order for her patronus to become doe, but I believe that it's likely that she knew because James would have told her or she would have found out he was an animagus (this is my own belief and it not substantiated by canon, to be clear).

The one I have trouble with is Snape linking his doe patronus to Lily without knowing that she was linked to the animal form of the doe in some way. Whether his patronus form came before he knew or after he knew, I don't know, but I do believe that at some point she had to have cast her patronus in front of Snape in order for him to make that connection, otherwise he could have cast a bullfrog patronus or a black bear patronus or falcon patronus and found a reason to call it representative of Lily.

[snapes_witch]

Originally Posted by Goddess_Clio

I agree, Harry didn't need to know that James animagus form was a stag in order to cast a patronus in the form of a stag. Harry learns that after the fact.

Lily doesn't need to have know James was a stag animagus in order for her patronus to become doe, but I believe that it's likely that she knew because James would have told her or she would have found out he was an animagus (this is my own belief and it not substantiated by canon, to be clear).

The one I have trouble with is Snape linking his doe patronus to Lily without knowing that she was linked to the animal form of the doe in some way. Whether his patronus form came before he knew or after he knew, I don't know, but I do believe that at some point she had to have cast her patronus in front of Snape in order for him to make that connection, otherwise he could have cast a bullfrog patronus or a black bear patronus or falcon patronus and found a reason to call it representative of Lily.

If Harry doesn't need know his father's animagus form to make a stag patronus, why does Snape have to know Lily's patronus to form his Silver Doe? For that matter, there's no book canon about Lily's patronus.

Is the original casting of the patronus charm a conscious choice of the form? Does Severus think: 'I'm going to cast a doe because I'm in love with Lily and that's her patronus?" I suspect it's more like his happy thought is the memory of his childhood with Lily (before Hogwarts) and his patronus becomes a Silver Doe representing Lily as a result. Just my opinion of course.

[wolfbrother]

Originally Posted by snapes_witch

If Harry doesn't need know his father's animagus form to make a stag patronus, why does Snape have to know Lily's patronus to form his Silver Doe? For that matter, there's no book canon about Lily's patronus.

Harry seems to think it was. The doe has been associated with Lily so I think at some point Snape's patronus changed to a doe and Dumbledore told him the connection.

Is the original casting of the patronus charm a conscious choice of the form? Does Severus think: 'I'm going to cast a doe because I'm in love with Lily and that's her patronus?" I suspect it's more like his happy thought is the memory of his childhood with Lily (before Hogwarts) and his patronus becomes a Silver Doe representing Lily as a result. Just my opinion of course.

I'm not sure you can spoof your patronus. The patronus animal changing was supposed to be a rare occurrence.