Theories on The deathly Hallows...Now has spoilers!!! Beware!
#41
Darq Ali Wrote:Yes, a 'magical portrait' is a possible answer to this. But so far as we've seen, the only portraits who run messeges between Hogwarts and other locations are former Headmasters. [Others do so within the school, but only former Headmasters run messages between the school and other places. Well, of course, there is that one in the Prime Minister's office and the Minister of Magic's office, but that's a different case.]
Butting in here to say that probably the reason we've only "seen" former Headmasters run from their portraits in Hogwarts to other places, is because the portraits that hang in Dumbledore's office are of former Headmasters. Dumbledore says in OOTP that some of these former Headmasters were famous enough to have their portraits hang in other institutions.
:hello:"Will all of you who would like to die immediately and save yourselves the inconvenience and discomfort of being chased down and slowly hacked to pieces please step forward!"
Polgara as Barak
The Mallorean - Book 2
Reply
#42
GamgeeFest Wrote:If DD was under the cloak, why didn't he do anything to stop LV? Why did he have Hagrid retrieve Harry? This solution doesn't fit.

I think the simplest answer is that there was a portriat at Godric's Hollow that filled DD in on the details.

Snape being there would work also - but only if the other Death Eaters didn't know he had gone along. For if he had gone at LV's bidding and the other Death Eaters knew him to be there when LV was defeated, then Snape wouldn't have lasted for very long. So either he went in secret with LV (as Harry went in secret w/ DD at the end of HBP) or Snape followed LV in some other way. Or, he could have performed Legelimens on Pettigrew.

Right... he would have killed LV, so that idea sinks to the bottom of the lake.

So are you saying that Snape may have been there but hiding somehow? (only not using an invisibility cloak)

Or could someone else have been hiding under the cloak, what about McGonnegal (sp?) ?

The mirror that Harry was given- JKR said it was significant and we would find out why in this book. Could it have been present, in someone's possession? This would permit fast response. I suppose that Hagrid would be too big to fit under the cloak, so that is another idea that doesn't make it.
Reply
#43
It couldn't be McGonegal, as she didn't even know if the rumors of the Potter's deaths were true or not. I thought about the mirror also, but don't know how it would fit in here. And it could be that neither the mirror nor the cloak played any significance during the events in Godrics Hollow.
Sheldon: I'm not crazy. My mother had me tested.

~ The Big Bang Theory
Reply
#44
I had put the problem of "Why does Dumbledore trust Snape?" in with "How did Dumbledore know about the events of Godric's Hollow" together, as a solution to both.

A portrait/wittness would work, yes.

As would a wittness who was loyal to Dumbledore, such as Snape; who could have sent a message quickly by any number of means, such as Patronus.

Snape may have been there, but not "hidden under an invisibility cloak". JKR says he was not there, "hidden under an invisibilty cloak", which does not mean he was not there.

If Dumbledore had been there himself, I presume he may have been able to save the Potters; or at least Lily; and even if both parents had perished, he could have taken Harry himself, and it would not have been necessary to send Hagrid to do so. I rule out Dumbledore.

I insist that Peter Pettigrew had to have been there; and if he were not, then some other person or magical creature was, and gave him LV's wand, for Peter it was who returned LV's wand. But Peter was on LV's side, and then, with LV's fall, became 'out for himself'.

Sirius arrived later, as did Hagrid; just after, but after. For Dumbledore to understand the nature of Lily's death, and the magical protection he could thereafter invoke for Harry, he had to have exact knowledge of how Lily died ......... not just that she was dead. That he sent Harry to the Dursleys' with Hagrid, and to have a letter prepared explaining it to Petunia, proves that he did have such knowledge.

Now, if it wasn't Snape .............. well, then, we need another explaination as to why Dumbledore trusted Snape, and which {I presume} will lead Harry to trust him too .............. about that, I have no clue.
Reply
#45
GamgeeFest Wrote:Snape being there would work also - but only if the other Death Eaters didn't know he had gone along. For if he had gone at LV's bidding and the other Death Eaters knew him to be there when LV was defeated, then Snape wouldn't have lasted for very long. So either he went in secret with LV (as Harry went in secret w/ DD at the end of HBP) or Snape followed LV in some other way. Or, he could have performed Legelimens on Pettigrew.

Why would the other death eaters have killed him if they had known he was there? Perhaps there were several death eaters there. Snape, Pettigrew (as a rat)... Maybe such missions were always or usually attended by several people. I'm not so sure that LV wanted glory, but if he did, maybe he invited several DE to accompany him. When LV was defeated, maybe everyone scurried off, Pettigrew holding the wand. Even if Snape was there out in the open, why would it have been a problem? If the leader of the group, LV, had an unprecedented event happen to him- annihilation- maybe whoever else was with him simply fled immediately to avoid the same thing happening to them?
Reply
#46
It just seems to me that Snape had a hard enough time convincing the remaining DE that he was still LV's man when he supposedly wasn't anywhere near the area when LV was defeated, that they might have seen it even more as a conspiracy, if not outright mutiny, if Snape was known to have been there. I can hear it now. Instead of just accusing him of turning his back on LV and the other DE, he would be accused of actually handing LV over to his downfall - even if there was no conceivable way anyone would have known what would happen. The DE would convince themselves that it was some scheme of Snape's and DD's, and once they got over their shock, I wouldn't put it past them to seek some vengance. But that's just my speculation.

Of course, this problem goes away if there were multiple DEs there. Or, if no one knew that Snape was there.
Sheldon: I'm not crazy. My mother had me tested.

~ The Big Bang Theory
Reply
#47
I do not see that Snape's having been at Godric's Hollow would have been a problem for him with the other Death Eaters.

Snape's problem was that he was working at Hogwarts after the fall of LV, and was exonerated as being a Death Eater, by Dumbledore at the trials of followers of LV before the Wizingemot. That Dumbledore declared that Snape had "turned" on LV, before his fall, must surely have been known by all of the surviving Death Eaters.

We're left to speculate, and we have each reached our own conclusions about the 'real' status of Snape.

LV had sent Snape, a loyal Death Eater, to Hogwarts to secure a position, and become his spy inside Dumbledore's domain. Snape didn't get a job there on his first attempt, but he did overhear, and report, a part of Trelawney's Prophecy regarding "the one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord", which LV later applied to Harry Potter. So we know at that point that Snape was still loyal to LV.

Later Snape does get a job. After LV's fall, Death Eaters are being rounded up and tried. Some people had been Imperioused. Some who had followed LV claimed to have been Imperioused, while others sought to buy their freedom by 'naming names'. Karakov named Snape, but Dumbledore vouched for Snape as having "turned" prior to LV's fall. Snape remained at Hogwarts, presumed by the Death Eaters to be a traitor to their side, though still suspected by some on the good side, it seems; but Dumbledore gave him his 'second chance' and protected him.

When LV at long last did return, Snape did not go to his side at once; but waited a bit, going later on Dumbledore's orders .......... and had a private audience with LV. He managed to make LV listen to him, and claim that he had all the long years been biding his time, still loyal to LV, and had years of reports to make about Dumbledore and Harry Potter and so on. This same tale he spun for the Black sisters, though they weren't buying it easily.

Should we? Even after Snape killed Dumbledore?

As for the Godric's Hollow issue:

There cannot have been many there, but there must have been someone, unless the Wizarding World has common forms of "far viewers" so that the events were clear to both sides almost as soon as they went down. It is clear that both sides knew what transpired, and almost instantly.

McGonnagal didn't know with certainty that the Potters were dead; she asked Dumbledore if that were true, as well as, was LV really 'broken' and gone. She had learned that Dumbledore was placing Harry at the Dursleys' from Hagrid, and must have talked to others too, but was uncertain which rumors to believe. Yet all the Wizarding World was celebrating LV's fall, all the day after Halloween.

I cannot see Dumbledore getting a magic report and spreading it all over, before he even had Harry settled and protected. And that speaks for "someone" present, who made a general broadcast to all concerned of what went down ........... for it was widely known at least that LV had attempted to AK Harry, and failed to kill him, and that the curse had instead rebounded upon his own self instead. Who put this information out? The Ministry? Because they "read" the magic from afar? Or a person?

Then there is the factor that Harry is going to Godric's Hollow, not only to visit his parent's graves, but also because 'for him it all began there'. Hmm. Well, perhaps the talking portrait remains?

If a talking portrait was the sole wittness of the events, other than Peter Pettigrew, then only Peter's memory remains to access for a true record of the events of that night ........ other than Harry's, which {perhaps} might also be accessed. [Setting aside LV, of course, for again, I can't see he'd share.] The talking portrait {if there was one} clearly didn't know about Peter the Rat, for Sirius was blamed for Peter's betrayl, so, whoever made the report didn't see Peter Pettigrew. But I gather an Anamagus could fool a portrait as well as a Wizard.

So one can posit that it need not have been Snape who reported the events to Dumbledore, of course {and the fact that JKR seems to have denied Snape'
s presence, at least, using an invisibility cloak, points to my idea being wrong}. Harry may still learn something there, either from the portrait or some other means; or, Peter Pettigrew may tell him.

But then, how is Harry to learn why he must trust Snape? As I posit he must. Dumbledore never revealed all; but if Snape were the one who observed, and reported to Dumbledore, thus helping save Harry by getting word to Dumbledore very swiftly ............ that would work.

Hmm. About a month to go.




Reply
#48
[Spoiler for Deathy Hallows]





















Well, logical or not, my idea that Petunia might have referenced another Wizard boy, not James Potter, when she confessed she knew Dementors were real, and what they were, was correct.

And, in fact, 'that awful boy' was ........ Snape.

Just goes to show, some of my guesses were correct.



Reply
#49
I've said it in another post..but i'm amazed at how good some of the fans' predictions were. the whole plot was basically predicted at one point. Besides the idea of the Deathly Hallows which was introduced in the seventh.
Reply
#50
AJ786 Wrote:I've said it in another post..but i'm amazed at how good some of the fans' predictions were. the whole plot was basically predicted at one point. Besides the idea of the Deathly Hallows which was introduced in the seventh.

Just so.

I had a lot "right". So did others.

The Deathly Hallows could not be predicted. We had but one small mention in Half Blood Prince tying into that line {the Gaunt ring, with the symbol on it, which Marvalo called the 'Peverell coat of arms'}. Nothing to go on.

One thing I said was, I didn't want Harry to be 'a bigger badder worster killer wizard' than LV, and he wasn't. Harry never killed anyone. Instead, he trusted and relied on others {something LV never, ever did} and also, he worked to save others, avoiding harming them at all costs.

In the end, LV's last killing curse at Harry rebounded on himself, so, actually Harry didn't kill him at all ....... he killed himself. What Harry and his friends did was to hunt down and destroy Horcurxes, so that Tom Riddle could actually die.
Reply
#51
At some parts of the books though i definitely thought to myself that if i was harry i would've killed the person at that part. He let a lot of people live.
Reply
#52
AJ786 Wrote:At some parts of the books though i definitely thought to myself that if i was harry i would've killed the person at that part. He let a lot of people live.

Harry is the Christ figure. The Savior. He accepts, he forgives. He does not kill. Not even death eaters, not Draco; he risked his life to save Draco, when Draco was attempting to the last to thwart Harry's securing that last Horcrux item ......... He is so perfect, he goes willingly to let LV kill him; and because he does so willingly, he is so perfect, he gets to go back, not die.

I noted they were hungry in the woods, with squirrels mentioned, but all they ate was mushrooms, fish and berries. Heck, I'd have been blasting down a squirrel or pigeon for supper rather than go hungry, but the highest life form they killed was pike.

BTW, we were supposed to be looking for a traitor.

I assume it is Luna's father?

Or were we to see Dumbledore as a traitor? {I don't}
Reply
#53
Darq Ali Wrote:I will not deny that there is some mystery about Lily, and that it could involve Snape. One passage troubles me in this regard. The night of the Dementor attack upon Harry and Dudley, Petunia at long last does something that reveals her knowledge of the Wizarding World ......... she backs Harry's story about Dementors to Vernon. Harry is astonished; and when she is asked how she knows what Dementors are, she explains that she overheard something "that awful boy" was telling Lily about them.

Harry rounds on her for not naming his father, James, in her revelation of this event. But she does not. Which leaves us to wonder ........ was "that awful boy" James Potter, or .............. someone else? If it were someone other than James, it could have been anyone; any wizard of Lily's age, that is, as she said "boy" {not man} and, since the subject of the conversation overheard was "dementors", we must assume the speaker was a Wizard ....... but not, say, Dumbledore, who would not have been "a boy".

Who, then? If it were not James, but a companion, then it would most likely have been Sirius or Lupin, even Peter Pettigrew; but ............ it might just have been Snape; though, positing a setting where Petunia and Lily Evans were in the same place as Snape boggles the mind. Yet it might have been; at a Hogwarts event, perhaps? [Family sometimes visit Hogwarts students.]

These are my own first musings on the quote from Petunia about overhearing what Dementors are, as "that awful boy" told Lily about them.

We had no idea at this time that Lily had any magical connection prior to going to Hogwarts, and that the connection was a childhood friendship with Snape.

Rob Roy says he does not remember our conversation on this subject. He can go back and read my reasoning, and his, and compare what Deathly Hallows reveals on the subject.
Reply
#54
Darq Ali Wrote:[B]Rob Roy says he does not remember our conversation on this subject. He can go back and read my reasoning, and his, and compare what Deathly Hallows reveals on the subject.

I would love to. What thread was it in?
All your base are belong to us.

It could be that the purpose of my life is only to serve as a warning to others.
Reply
#55
RobRoy Wrote:I would love to. What thread was it in?
Uh, this one. Unless someone has changed it, of course.
Reply
#56
Darq Ali Wrote:Uh, this one. Unless someone has changed it, of course.

This explains why I have no memory of it. It appears that I didn't take part in the "awful boy" discussion. :bg:

Or at least not in this thread. :fright:
All your base are belong to us.

It could be that the purpose of my life is only to serve as a warning to others.
Reply
#57
Darq Ali Wrote:These are my own first musings on the quote from Petunia about overhearing what Dementors are, as "that awful boy" told Lily about them.

We had no idea at this time that Lily had any magical connection prior to going to Hogwarts, and that the connection was a childhood friendship with Snape.

Rob Roy says he does not remember our conversation on this subject. He can go back and read my reasoning, and his, and compare what Deathly Hallows reveals on the subject.

That would have been me and a few others who were debating this with you. At the time, it was a valid debate that "that awful boy" did not necessarily pertain to Snape. However, we now know that it does. Therefore, I think we can safely put this discussion to rest.
Sheldon: I'm not crazy. My mother had me tested.

~ The Big Bang Theory
Reply
#58
GamgeeFest Wrote:That would have been me and a few others who were debating this with you. At the time, it was a valid debate that "that awful boy" did not necessarily pertain to Snape. However, we now know that it does. Therefore, I think we can safely put this discussion to rest.

And I made it plain that my first reading resulted in thinking the most obvious meaning of the two references made by Petunia {"Her" and "that awful boy"} would, of course, mean Lily Evans and James Potter, just as Harry thought;

But that the text left some "wiggle room" for the reference to have been someone else for "that awful boy";

So that the reference could have meant some other Wizard boy, and that might have included Snape.

I was walked all over for that suggestion, was I not? My logic ridiculed.

So, now it is, 'lets drop it'. Gee. 'Good call', or 'you got that one right' would be in order, wouldn't it?

I'm perfectly happy to admit when my logic led nowhere ....... like the "traitor" issue; so far as I can tell, we're supposed to think Dumbledore was "a traitor", but I don't think that [he was acting as a general in a war must act, which is to say, some of his actions endanger 'the troops', and may even lead to some of their deaths: Such is the nature of warfare, and the leaders who send troops into harm's way, knowing some will die for the cause, are not "traitors" for so-doing, IMO]; so far as I can see, there really isn't a traitor in Deathly Hallows. But I suggested Trelawny, and I was totally wrong.
Reply
#59
I did not say "let's drop it". Kindly do not put words into my mouth. I just don't see any point in continuing to discuss a debate that has clearly been answered by the book.

You won this debate, no question about that - your guess was correct, as were a good many others. None of my guesses were right, but then again, I didn't really have any to begin with. I'm not a huge HP fan so it didn't really matter to me what may or may not have happened. I only formed one theory and I wasn't even serious about it, and I knew it was busted after rereading HBP. Arcadia and a lot of other fans were right about "Snape loves Lily". We were all wrong about the Deathly Hallows being the Horcruxes, and about Harry being a Horcrux himself - we had decided he couldn't be. That's just the way it goes with theories - sometimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong.
Sheldon: I'm not crazy. My mother had me tested.

~ The Big Bang Theory
Reply
#60
It is nice when one has made a correct guess to have it appreciated.

Good job, Darq! Smile Smile Smile

And I am pleased and grinning that my guess about Snape and Lily was correct, about the only one that I made that was correct, as it turns out. Oh, I had guessed correctly about most of the horcruxes, but so had many others.

I am not as happy that we were unable to guess about the deathly hallows because we had never been given any indication of them. It would have been more fair, for the guessing game that we were all enjoying, if they had been mentioned in a previous book somehow. Or some indication.
Reply

MYCode Guide

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Harry Potter theories badlands 10 1,386 November 5th, 2018, 12:17 PM
Last Post: august
  New (ish) book [No spoilers please] Irene 4 774 October 7th, 2016, 08:38 AM
Last Post: Irene
  the DEATHLY HALLOWS on TV Irene 1 592 December 12th, 2013, 04:23 AM
Last Post: Michael
  My thoughts on "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2" Michael 8 1,860 November 27th, 2011, 12:12 AM
Last Post: Michael
  Discussion for "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2" Michael 0 494 July 13th, 2011, 02:40 PM
Last Post: Michael
  Pictures: Harry Potter people at Deathly Hallows 2 premiere in London, July 2011 Michael 0 427 July 10th, 2011, 08:31 AM
Last Post: Michael
  Severus Snape poster for "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2" Michael 0 820 June 1st, 2011, 01:15 PM
Last Post: Michael
  Neville Longbottom featured on new Deathly Hallows poster Michael 0 551 May 30th, 2011, 03:40 AM
Last Post: Michael
  Ciaran Hinds to play Aberforth Dumbledore in "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" Michael 2 1,087 January 11th, 2011, 02:36 AM
Last Post: Michael
  Emma Watson Back to UK to Re-shoot Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 11 News From Yahoo! 0 539 December 25th, 2010, 09:23 AM
Last Post: News From Yahoo!

Forum Jump: