Little Questions Answered v.18

[willfitz]

Originally Posted by Dobby138

I have a question about wands. Before someone is taken to Azkaban, for example; Sirius, isn't their wand taken off them/snapped? If so, how come Sirius still has his wand in POA and later books?

It seems that students' wands are snapped when they are expelled from Hogwarts. Wands are given so students can learn magic, but if they aren't learning magic, there is no reason to allow them to have a wand, as anything they would do with it would be illegal.

Originally Posted by snapes_witch

Even before I read JKR's comment, I thought Mrs Figg was lying about seeing the dementors. Even Harry doubted she'd actually seen them! (pg. 144)

Well, sure, but I interpreted that he was doubting because she had given a visual account of the Death Eaters only at that point. Once she finishes the explanation with all of the senses invoked by a Death Eater, there is no trace of doubt by Harry that I can recognize. However, this point is moot, as the story works either way.

[Dobby138]

Originally Posted by willfitz

It seems that students' wands are snapped when they are expelled from Hogwarts. Wands are given so students can learn magic, but if they aren't learning magic, there is no reason to allow them to have a wand, as anything they would do with it would be illegal.



Well, sure, but I interpreted that he was doubting because she had given a visual account of the Death Eaters only at that point. Once she finishes the explanation with all of the senses invoked by a Death Eater, there is no trace of doubt by Harry that I can recognize. However, this point is moot, as the story works either way.

I think you misunderstood my question. I do not mean students who are expelled from Hogwarts, I mean people who are sentenced to Azkaban. Are their wands taken from them when they are taken to Azkaban? If so, how is it that Sirius had his wand after he escaped from Azkaban?

[willfitz]

Originally Posted by Dobby138

I think you misunderstood my question. I do not mean students who are expelled from Hogwarts, I mean people who are sentenced to Azkaban. Are their wands taken from them when they are taken to Azkaban? If so, how is it that Sirius had his wand after he escaped from Azkaban?

Sorry, no I did not misunderstand. I meant I think they are only snapped when expelled from Hogwarts. When they have already graduated, then it does not seem to be standard protocol to snap the wand. After all, if they are worried about the offending wizard putting the wand to further ill use, they would just keep them in Azkaban even longer.

So I think that wand snapping is purely a Hogwarts thing, and not an Azkaban thing. Hope this is clearer.

[twinsrule26]

Originally Posted by Dobby138
I have a question about wands. Before someone is taken to Azkaban, for example; Sirius, isn't their wand taken off them/snapped? If so, how come Sirius still has his wand in POA and later books?

I have worked in a police station (I'm a Janitor) and I saw people being brought in for booking , their possessions were taken and inventoried then bagged up and stored away so they could be returned when they were let out . Maybe the same thing happens at Azkaban ?

[Dedalus Diggle]

Speaking of wands, why would not a person keep a spare or two, just in case. They do not seem to be all that expensive. They are essentially just thin wooden sticks, as easy to break, apparently, as any other dry stick. And even if they are more expensive than I recall from PS/SS, wouldn't a family like the Malfoys have some extras, just as rich families in real life have multiple cars, boats, houses, etc.? And yet Lucius was left completely wandless when LV took his.

[merrymarge]

I don't think rich people would want to have spare wands. A wand is like a tool, or an instrument to aid a wizard/witch to do magic. Wands work best when the wizard/witch choses the wand. You can preform magic with any wand, however, there seems to be a special bond between the magical person and the wand. That's partly why Neville had trouble usig his father's wand. That's also why the Elder Wand didn't work for Voldemort.

[X_Bumblebee_X]

I agree with merrymarge (I assume you meant when the wand chooses the wizard and not vice versa) but it is possible that you can only possess one wand at any time. There is nothing to argue this point in the books however, its just a theory but because the wizard and the wand are on a journey of magical discovery together, and they (wand and wizard) learn from each other with each spell cast the rules of wandlore may limit a person to one each.
However by not giving rich people like the Malfoys spare wands in the books for whatever reason JK uses the wand IMO as a symbol of importance in book 7 ie only those worthy have wands (muggleborns wands are taken away from them, Lucius wand being taken is like Voldemort magically castrating him) and having spares would,I think, strip from the drama of taking someones wand from them, or a wand breaking or being won from a person.

[merrymarge]

thank you. You explained it better than I did.

[Darksmith]

That would depend on the crime!

If you get away serving 6 month surely they'll stash away your wand somewhere safe until it can be returned.

But if you are condemned to life imprisonment you're not supposed to get out,ever. So they might very well destroy the wand.And if they ever were to cut such as "you help us chase your former associated we improve you living conditions",they might just secretly summon a wand maker for you...or not.

Just something I noticed:
In OoptP Sirius tells the weasley children they can't go to St Mungo till the hospital contacted Molly.
That's not true, molly does have the magical clock that would tell her her husband was in perilous danger, she could've told them with a two way mirror (as far as we know they are neither rare nor illegal artefacts) and with permission from the Headmaster they'd be there to assess his health.

[merrymarge]

Were some of the DE sentenced for life imprisonment? If so, why didn't they go mad, like Sirius mentioned?

[Darksmith]

Just something I noticed:
In OoptP Sirius tells the weasley children they can't go to St Mungo till the hospital contacted Molly.
That's not true, molly does have the magical clock that would tell her her husband was in perilous danger, she could've told them with a two way mirror (as far as we know they are neither rare nor illegal artefacts) and with permission from the Headmaster they'd be there to assess his health.

I wonder, could an owl find her master if he was under the Fidelius charm?

[Dedalus Diggle]

Originally Posted by merrymarge

Were some of the DE sentenced for life imprisonment? If so, why didn't they go mad, like Sirius mentioned?

professional courtesy

[liquidtree]

I have made my own thread about this in the "wand section" I believe, but it was suggested that I post here as well...

These are just some fun questions you guys might like.

Where do you think Alastor got his "magic eye"?

We all know that Lupin was one of the best in the series, if you agree, what reasons do you think this to be true?

Just for fun...did you know that they originally wanted Hugh Grant to play the role of Lockhart? And if he did, do you think it would have been worse or better for the film?

In GoF (the movie), they had Neville give Harry the Gillyweed. In the book, Dobby gives it to him. Are you happy that Neville did it in the movie instead? Or would it have been better to involve Dobby more and furthermore explain why Snape mistrusted Harry so much in regards to who kept stealing from his ingredients closet?

This might be a stupid question (bc we all want more films), but do you think they should have stuck with the idea to make Gof into 2 movies? After book 3, any of the books, arguably, could have been split into 2 movies.

Be very honest on this one....which book did you realize that Ron and Hermione would end up together?

How strong is Butterbeer? =)

WHY oh WHY did they NOT include the scene where Dumbledore visits the Dursleys in the film? In the book, Dumbledore casts a spell to have the drinks continuously hit the Dursleys in the head, since they would not grab the drinks. I found this extremely funny and it would have been awesome to see.

Speaking of Dumbledore, he has a lot more comedic moments in the books than the movies. Why do you think this is? I know that movies have to cater to the people who have NOT read the books as well, but I still think it would be cool to see more of his humor....

More to come, but, I hope you enjoy answering these. =)

[willfitz]

Originally Posted by liquidtree

Where do you think Alastor got his "magic eye"?

I wouldn't say that we really have anything to go on here. Perhaps Dumbledore developed it for him?

We all know that Lupin was one of the best in the series, if you agree, what reasons do you think this to be true?

Best what? Is there a word missing? Do you mean best at something?

Just for fun...did you know that they originally wanted Hugh Grant to play the role of Lockhart? And if he did, do you think it would have been worse or better for the film?

Strictly speaking, this forum discusses only the series of the books and things which contribute to canon, but in my view, Lockhart could not have been played any better than he was.

Be very honest on this one....which book did you realize that Ron and Hermione would end up together?

Order of the Phoenix.

How strong is Butterbeer? =)

Well, it may not even have alcohol, but I'd say it would be no more than the equivalent of 2%.

For questions on the movies, you should post in the Muggle Studies section.

[Darksmith]

I wonder, could an owl find her master if he was under the Fidelius charm?

[horcrux4]

Originally Posted by Darksmith

I wonder, could an owl find her master if he was under the Fidelius charm?

I assume so since the owl would be under the Fidelius charm too, wouldn't it? If it lived at home, that is.

On the same lines, could a house elf apparate into a house under the Fidelius charm if its master ordered it to? They don't seem to obey the same rules of magic as humans.

[bellatrix93]

Originally Posted by Dedalus Diggle

Speaking of wands, why would not a person keep a spare or two, just in case. They do not seem to be all that expensive. They are essentially just thin wooden sticks, as easy to break, apparently, as any other dry stick. And even if they are more expensive than I recall from PS/SS, wouldn't a family like the Malfoys have some extras, just as rich families in real life have multiple cars, boats, houses, etc.? And yet Lucius was left completely wandless when LV took his.

Some people actually do that. In OotP when the Order is at Privet Drive, Mad-Eye keeps his wand out and says that no one bothers anymore with the 'primary' wands' secrecy, or something like that. So I guess it means that some people actually keep more than one wand. I wonder, though, why not many people do that. It's better than having your wand broken and then using one that doesn't work well for you (assuming you can't get your hands on another one of your own immediately)

[BurrowGhoul]

Originally Posted by bellatrix93

'primary' wands' secrecy

Wasn't it "elementary wand safety?" (I can't find my book...)

[bellatrix93]

Originally Posted by BurrowGhoul

Wasn't it "elementary wand safety?" (I can't find my book...)

Oops, yes, I checked and it's elementary wand safety, I was wrong about that . He says: Elementary wand-safety, nobody bothers about it anymore.

[Alastor]

As for wands being cheap I don't think so. Harry paid seven Galleons for his.