So you want to replace a single point of failure for defending a baby with a single point of failure for the entire Order? Remember what happens when the Secret-Keeper dies, after all.
And there’s a bit of a difference between hitting a single-family house and a large battle.
So you want to replace a single point of failure for defending a baby with a single point of failure for the entire Order?
How would Dumbledore be any easier to kill as a Secret-Keeper than otherwise? Wait, before that, how would Dumbledore’s death be any more crippling to the Order if he was a Secret-Keeper than otherwise? He dies, they’ve pretty much lost the war, baby Harry Potter or no baby Harry Potter.
Remember what happens when the Secret-Keeper dies, after all.
I am. Are you?
(Dumbledore’s death resulted in everyone read into the Secret of 12 Grimmauld Place becoming Secret-Keepers themselves; the Fidelius was still in place.)
Edit: The wiki claims- unfortunately without attribution- that Dumbledore offered to be the Potters’ Keeper, and was turned down.
Edit2:
Similarly, find me an example of Voldemort having backup on any of his attacks, and I’ll believe that him lacking it here is relevant.
The Ministry raid at the end of OotP.
And there’s a bit of a difference between hitting a single-family house and a large battle.
The wiki claims- unfortunately without attribution- that Dumbledore offered to be the Potters’ Keeper, and was turned down.
I definitely remember this from the third book. The adults are talking about the Potters’ deaths in the Three Broomsticks Inn and someone mentions that Dumbledore himself offered to become the secret keeper, but was turned down with insistences that Sirius Black would never betray them.
EDIT: Found it.
“So Black was the Potters’ Secret-Keeper?” whispered Madam Rosmerta. ”Naturally,” said Professor McGonagall. “James Potter told Dumbledore
that Black would die rather than tell where they were, that Black was
planning to go into hiding himself… and yet, Dumbledore remained
worried. I remember him offering to be the Potters’ Secret-Keeper
himself.”
So you want to replace a single point of failure for defending a baby with a single point of failure for the entire Order? Remember what happens when the Secret-Keeper dies, after all.
And there’s a bit of a difference between hitting a single-family house and a large battle.
How would Dumbledore be any easier to kill as a Secret-Keeper than otherwise? Wait, before that, how would Dumbledore’s death be any more crippling to the Order if he was a Secret-Keeper than otherwise? He dies, they’ve pretty much lost the war, baby Harry Potter or no baby Harry Potter.
I am. Are you?
(Dumbledore’s death resulted in everyone read into the Secret of 12 Grimmauld Place becoming Secret-Keepers themselves; the Fidelius was still in place.)
Edit: The wiki claims- unfortunately without attribution- that Dumbledore offered to be the Potters’ Keeper, and was turned down.
Edit2:
Emphasis mine.
I definitely remember this from the third book. The adults are talking about the Potters’ deaths in the Three Broomsticks Inn and someone mentions that Dumbledore himself offered to become the secret keeper, but was turned down with insistences that Sirius Black would never betray them.
EDIT: Found it.