A Theory about Harry's Continued Placement With the Dursleys

[danajsparks.livejournal.com]

Some of us have questioned why Harry had to continue to spend several weeks with the Dursleys each summer after Voldemort returned at the end of GoF. If sharing Harry's blood allowed Voldemort to touch Harry, then it seems logical that it would also allow him to bypass any magical blood protections on #4 Privet Drive. So here's an idea, inspired by Arsinoe de Blassenville's The Best Revenge.

Dumbledore could argue that the Dursleys should have custody of Harry, even though they were Muggles, because Petunia was Harry's closest living blood relative. However, his argument probably would not have been especially valid unless Harry had actually lived with the Dursleys for at least a few weeks each summer. If Harry never actually spent any time with the Dursleys, then more distant wizarding relatives might have been able to present a good case for why they should have custody of him instead.

For example, let's suppose that Harry was the grandson of Dorea Black and Charlus Potter on the Black Family Tapestry. In that case, it's quite possible that, in the summer of 1995, Harry's closest living wizarding relatives (who were not convicted criminals anyway) were his second cousins Andromeda Tonks and Narcissa Malfoy. In the summer of 1995, Andromeda Tonks had long since been disinherited from the Black family, and Lucius Malfoy had the ear of the Minister of Magic. So, if Harry hadn't continued to live with the Dursleys for part of each summer, then the Malfoys might have been able to gain custody of the Boy-Who-Lived.

In a sense, then, the Dursleys did provide Harry with a "blood" protection, even after Voldemort returned. But it wasn't necessarily a magical protection; it was a legal one.

Comments

[terri-testing.livejournal.com]

Nicely argued. But-the only reason Tom possibly had to spare Lucius after such a transgression and betrayal was because he NEEDED him (and his connections) desperately.

A) Would Tom have wanted to let his other slaves know that he was so dependent on Lucius as to forgive him such a lapse? (Or dependent on any of them at all?) Would he have wanted his slaves to know they could get away with overtly disobeying his instructions and betraying him, provided only they offered enough when he came to chastise them for their crimes?

B) COULD the Tom we saw have refrained from killing Lucius, had he been accessible when Tom learned the truth? When he learned of the theft (not destruction) of the Cup, he killed not just the messenger, but all of his servants who didn'tmanage to get out of the room first. And Bellatrix expected that reaction to the information that any property Tom had entrusted to her had been stolen.

But at that time Tom didn't know the locket and ring had been compromised, much less destroyed. He's got 6 Horcruxes; one has been destroyed, another stolen (presumably with intent to destroy), but so far as he knew Locket, Ring, Diadem and Nagini are all safe and intact. So sure he is of this he doesn't yet trouble to protect Nagini.

So his reaction is not at learning that he's half-way to being vulnerable to Death, but to learning that he'd lost ANY of his anchors.

To return to the first point: if Tom had known, and raged at Peter (the nursemaid whom he absolutely could not afford to kill in his current weakened state) about faithless Lucius--WOULD have have wanted to bring up Lucius's worst transgression before his fellow slaves, given that he currently needed Lucius too much to give him the punishment the self-serving traitor was due?

He couldn't kill Lucius. Yet. And to let Lucius live, while letting his other slaves know the magnitude of Lucius's crimes against his master, would give the wrong impression.

No. In public, accuse Lucius of some of the other crimes against his master of which he was guilty, those which he shared with almost all of his fellows. Tom's mercy, then, in not simply killing Lucius, is the same mercy he's extending to his other faithless followers. Not an expression of utter dependence.

And not an invitation to every other slave to try the like, provided only that slave hoped he could make himself too useful to the master to kill outright.

[oryx_leucoryx]

There's a big difference between the circumstances of the destruction of the diary and those under which the cup was taken: The diary was destroyed as the object responsible for an immediate crisis. There was no sign that it was destroyed with the knowledge that it was (also) Tom's Horcrux. The cup on the other hand was just sitting quietly in the Lestrange vault, not doing anything, yet the trio entered the vault and took only the cup, not any of the other treasures or magical objects. Clearly they knew the significance of the cup, which means they must have known of at least some of the other Horcruxes. Therefore it isn't hard to see why Tom reacted much stronger to hearing the latter rather than the former.

What is odd is that Tom did not expect the destruction of the diary to eventually lead to a deliberate Horcrux hunt. Either he didn't realize the diary was destroyed by *Harry*, Albus' protege, or he didn't realize how much (if at all) of the diary's behavior Harry reported to Albus. Or perhaps he took the fact that he was able to survive the diary's destruction long enough to return to his body as evidence that Albus wasn't hunting Horcruxes and the reason for that being that for some reason Albus didn't make the connection.

Can we make an educated guess as to how much (or how little) of the events surrounding the loss of the diary Tom learned and which was the more likely source based on his inaction to protect the remaining Horcruxes?