Lucius Malfoy nodded distantly. “I could not think of any reason why you would pay a hundred thousand Galleons to save a mudblood’s life. No reason save one, which would account for her power and bloodthirst alike; but then she died at the hands of a troll, and yet you lived.
That Voldemort is her father, and her muggle background a lie. “Secretly a pureblood” really is a very credible explanation if you actually believe in blood purism.
Fostering her out would be insurance against defeat. Placing her with pure-blood allies would not suffice for that eventuality, as such allies would most likely be going down with the ship too. Placing her with muggles takes her out of the war entirely, and the trace means she gets back into the wizarding world 11 years later no matter what happens..
Uhm. This is spookily compatible with Canon. For a girl with supposedly loving parents, she spends an inordinate number of holidays at hogwarts and the burrow. Worse, we never actually meet said parents at all in canon. We are told. By Hermione, that they get shipped to Australia with a case of amnesia. And I mean, “my parents are dentists” is exactly the kind of lie a clever 11 year old orphan might tell people to get them to iose all interest in further enquiries. So, basically, her family could oh-so-easily be entirely fiction in-universe.
Actually her parents, or at least people claiming to be such do appear in canon, if barely. They get no dialogue, but during the shopping trip in the second book there’s some mention of them being uncertain around all the magic and weirdness, Arthur Weasley saying something along the lines “oh wow, I get to meet real muggles, look they’re exchanging muggle money!”, and few lines about them being unnerved by the confrontation between Arthur and Lucius in the bookshop.
Perhaps that Hermione is also Voldemort in the same way HJPEV is Voldemort (since, Horcrux or not, that seems the likely explanation for Harry’s power and bloodthirst)?
Unlike Harry, Hermione has no past link to Voldemort. And, if you’re unaware of how Horcruxes work, it would seem much more likely that Voldemort’s spirit is possessing some one person, rather than two.
I am aware of how horcruxes work and V had eight in canon (although only one was another human—the only example of such a horcrux that we have. There is no mention anywhere whether it’s impossible to horcrux two humans). I tried to leave the possibility open that V and Harry’s connection is something other than a horcrux, although my wording wasn’t as clear as it could have been.
I like the Bellatrix possession idea a bit better than my own, but I don’t think we’ve hit on Lucius’ reason yet.
Actually in canon (or at least word of Rowling) there were two human Horcruxes: HP and Quirrell. That Quirrell was a Horcrux isn’t explicit, and isn’t relevant by the time Harry learns about Horcruxes, but Rowling has confirmed that he was.
Er, really? every thing i’ve read in the books indicates that quirrel was NOT a horcrux, but was posessed by the central voldemort who had previously been possessing snakes...or any other animal he could get ahold of.
So it was probably a blunder on her part when she said that quirrel was a horcrux, IF she said that.
Having looked into this, it appears that Harry was “technically” not a Horcrux, due to being an accident rather than prepared with the correct rituals; while Quirrel simply contained the soul fragment that was “original” Voldemort, temporarily.
How does that tie into the numerology? It’s stated that Voldemort wanted to have seven total shards of his soul—Riddle himself, diary, cup, diadem, snake, ring, and locket. Seems like she’s contradicting herself.
He DID want 7 total fragments.
Then he accidentally turned harry into one and didn’t realize he’d done so.
I can’t quit recall if he made nagini before or after the diary got zapped.
Quirrel is not a horcrux. he is possessed by voldemort himself.
Cannon Harry is an Accidental horcrux. Canon voldemort never realized harry was a horcrux BECAUSE he’d never used the incantation to seal the soul fragment within harry.
Last paragraph of this Pottermore screenshot describes him as an ‘effective horcrux’ I presume because he’s possessed by the remaining part of Voldemort’s soul.
“Effective” is not the same as “actual.” Quirrel wasn’t a horcrux in the sense that Harry or Nagini were horcruxes, even with what she’s saying there. She just meant to say that Quirrel was like a horcrux. No ritual was done to make him into a horcrux.
I think the idea was that with Harry the requirements of the ritual were fulfilled, though accidentally. One of those requirements is the death of an innocent.
But the HP wiki says that there’s some kind of incantation that goes along with it, so that’s either optional or… whatever. It seems to be like the Goblet of Fire portkey. The rule is the rule except when it isn’t.
The biggest difference between Harry-as-horcrux and Quirrel-as-horcrux is that Voldemort doesn’t seem to have killed anyone (as far as we know) to possess Quirrel. So even if Harry might have accidentally become a horcrux, Quirrel didn’t, although he might have served the same purpose a horcrux does in “keeping the soul anchored to the mortal world.”
I’m definitely not trying to argue that these things are consistent here, though. The point is that when people say something is “effectively” something else, they mean “practically” or “almost” rather than “actually.” Unless someone finds some corpus data that suggests that Rowling’s dialect (or, hell, her ideolect might be workable since she HAS written several rather large books) has a different usage...
I think the idea was that with Harry the requirements of the ritual were fulfilled, though accidentally. One of those requirements is the death of an innocent.
In HPMOR, maybe (I think so, anyway). Rowling has stated that her version of the ritual is lengthy, and involves hings that made her … publisher, I think? … throw up.
In the Bellatrix theory I’d interpret that as meaning that Lucius seriously doubts that Harry would survive something that manages to off Bellatrix. But I acknowledge that the phrase sounds like it means something more than that.
For those of you confused by this comment: I believe Manfred assumes Lucius suspected that Hermione was replaced by a polyjuiced Bellatrix Black. Lucius implies that he believes Harry to be a de-powered Voldemort in their discussion at the train station, and also believes Harry to be behind the rescue of Bellatrix from Azkaban. If you rescued your powerful minion, you would want to keep her close about you for your own protection and to accomplish tasks beyond your magical abilities. Hermione Granger is known to associate with Harry Potter, so she would be the ideal candidate for someone to replace with Bellatrix.
That makes no sense. First, Bellatrix is not dead (or whatever state Voldemort is in). Second, she could have had no contact with Hermione before escaping Azkaban.
Lucius thinks in terms of plots within schemes within intrigues; he does not necessarily assume that the body in Azkaban belongs to the real Bellatrix Black, or that the escape was real.
To save her in order to use her as Voldemort used Bellatrix, to bind her to him with the bonds of love as Voldemort did, because she was a powerful witch to be used as a tool.
What was the reason Lucius Malfoy thought of?
That Voldemort is her father, and her muggle background a lie. “Secretly a pureblood” really is a very credible explanation if you actually believe in blood purism.
And Bellatrix Black is her mother?
But why would they place her in custody of Muggles, instead of purebloods?
Break the trail connecting her to Bellatrix?
Fostering her out would be insurance against defeat. Placing her with pure-blood allies would not suffice for that eventuality, as such allies would most likely be going down with the ship too. Placing her with muggles takes her out of the war entirely, and the trace means she gets back into the wizarding world 11 years later no matter what happens..
Uhm. This is spookily compatible with Canon. For a girl with supposedly loving parents, she spends an inordinate number of holidays at hogwarts and the burrow. Worse, we never actually meet said parents at all in canon. We are told. By Hermione, that they get shipped to Australia with a case of amnesia. And I mean, “my parents are dentists” is exactly the kind of lie a clever 11 year old orphan might tell people to get them to iose all interest in further enquiries. So, basically, her family could oh-so-easily be entirely fiction in-universe.
Actually her parents, or at least people claiming to be such do appear in canon, if barely. They get no dialogue, but during the shopping trip in the second book there’s some mention of them being uncertain around all the magic and weirdness, Arthur Weasley saying something along the lines “oh wow, I get to meet real muggles, look they’re exchanging muggle money!”, and few lines about them being unnerved by the confrontation between Arthur and Lucius in the bookshop.
‘The great tragedy of Science — the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.’
Ah, but surely an orphan’s guardians might be similarly uneasy.
Perhaps that Hermione is also Voldemort in the same way HJPEV is Voldemort (since, Horcrux or not, that seems the likely explanation for Harry’s power and bloodthirst)?
Unlike Harry, Hermione has no past link to Voldemort. And, if you’re unaware of how Horcruxes work, it would seem much more likely that Voldemort’s spirit is possessing some one person, rather than two.
True, Hermione doesn’t have a link to Voldemort.
I am aware of how horcruxes work and V had eight in canon (although only one was another human—the only example of such a horcrux that we have. There is no mention anywhere whether it’s impossible to horcrux two humans). I tried to leave the possibility open that V and Harry’s connection is something other than a horcrux, although my wording wasn’t as clear as it could have been.
I like the Bellatrix possession idea a bit better than my own, but I don’t think we’ve hit on Lucius’ reason yet.
Actually in canon (or at least word of Rowling) there were two human Horcruxes: HP and Quirrell. That Quirrell was a Horcrux isn’t explicit, and isn’t relevant by the time Harry learns about Horcruxes, but Rowling has confirmed that he was.
Er, really? every thing i’ve read in the books indicates that quirrel was NOT a horcrux, but was posessed by the central voldemort who had previously been possessing snakes...or any other animal he could get ahold of.
So it was probably a blunder on her part when she said that quirrel was a horcrux, IF she said that.
Having looked into this, it appears that Harry was “technically” not a Horcrux, due to being an accident rather than prepared with the correct rituals; while Quirrel simply contained the soul fragment that was “original” Voldemort, temporarily.
How does that tie into the numerology? It’s stated that Voldemort wanted to have seven total shards of his soul—Riddle himself, diary, cup, diadem, snake, ring, and locket. Seems like she’s contradicting herself.
He DID want 7 total fragments. Then he accidentally turned harry into one and didn’t realize he’d done so. I can’t quit recall if he made nagini before or after the diary got zapped.
Quirrel is not a horcrux. he is possessed by voldemort himself.
Cannon Harry is an Accidental horcrux. Canon voldemort never realized harry was a horcrux BECAUSE he’d never used the incantation to seal the soul fragment within harry.
This is my point.
????
Last paragraph of this Pottermore screenshot describes him as an ‘effective horcrux’ I presume because he’s possessed by the remaining part of Voldemort’s soul.
“Effective” is not the same as “actual.” Quirrel wasn’t a horcrux in the sense that Harry or Nagini were horcruxes, even with what she’s saying there. She just meant to say that Quirrel was like a horcrux. No ritual was done to make him into a horcrux.
Not the same; agreed. However, there was no ritual done to Harry!Horcrux in JKR-canon either.
I think the idea was that with Harry the requirements of the ritual were fulfilled, though accidentally. One of those requirements is the death of an innocent.
But the HP wiki says that there’s some kind of incantation that goes along with it, so that’s either optional or… whatever. It seems to be like the Goblet of Fire portkey. The rule is the rule except when it isn’t.
The biggest difference between Harry-as-horcrux and Quirrel-as-horcrux is that Voldemort doesn’t seem to have killed anyone (as far as we know) to possess Quirrel. So even if Harry might have accidentally become a horcrux, Quirrel didn’t, although he might have served the same purpose a horcrux does in “keeping the soul anchored to the mortal world.”
I’m definitely not trying to argue that these things are consistent here, though. The point is that when people say something is “effectively” something else, they mean “practically” or “almost” rather than “actually.” Unless someone finds some corpus data that suggests that Rowling’s dialect (or, hell, her ideolect might be workable since she HAS written several rather large books) has a different usage...
In HPMOR, maybe (I think so, anyway). Rowling has stated that her version of the ritual is lengthy, and involves hings that made her … publisher, I think? … throw up.
None of the theories suggested thus far explain the last part of the quote:
The way I see it, Lucius could have been thinking one of two things (originally, before Hermione’s death) to say that:
Killing Hermione would also kill Harrymort (e.g. Hermione is some quasi-Horcrux Lucius may have heard of).
Hermione would certainly survive anything that Harrymort survives (e.g. Hermione also has all the magic skill of Voldemort).
In the Bellatrix theory I’d interpret that as meaning that Lucius seriously doubts that Harry would survive something that manages to off Bellatrix. But I acknowledge that the phrase sounds like it means something more than that.
I’m only coming up with Hermione having perhaps been replaced by a certain escapee.
Bellatrix black, I assume.
For those of you confused by this comment: I believe Manfred assumes Lucius suspected that Hermione was replaced by a polyjuiced Bellatrix Black. Lucius implies that he believes Harry to be a de-powered Voldemort in their discussion at the train station, and also believes Harry to be behind the rescue of Bellatrix from Azkaban. If you rescued your powerful minion, you would want to keep her close about you for your own protection and to accomplish tasks beyond your magical abilities. Hermione Granger is known to associate with Harry Potter, so she would be the ideal candidate for someone to replace with Bellatrix.
I don’t understand. Lucius thought that Harrymort wanted to bring up Hermione as his new Bella?
Or that Hermione was possessed by Bellatrix in the same way that Harry Potter was presumably possessed by Voldemort.
That makes no sense. First, Bellatrix is not dead (or whatever state Voldemort is in). Second, she could have had no contact with Hermione before escaping Azkaban.
Lucius thinks in terms of plots within schemes within intrigues; he does not necessarily assume that the body in Azkaban belongs to the real Bellatrix Black, or that the escape was real.
That she is Bellatrix Black? That… doesn’t quite make sense…
It makes sense enough, if you already believed Harry Potter was voldemort and don’t have harry’s perspective.
To save her in order to use her as Voldemort used Bellatrix, to bind her to him with the bonds of love as Voldemort did, because she was a powerful witch to be used as a tool.
Hence the bloodthirst comment.