My pet theory for some time has been that Narcissa was a Horcrux, and that Dumbledore was destroying said Horcrux by the only means he could—Fiendfyre. Are there any obvious gaps?
Yes: why would Dumbledore allow McGonagall to think that Voldemort only had one Horcrux?
“Perhaps not, then,” Dumbledore said after Minerva tried to explain. “I confess I had been hoping for something that would help in finding Voldemort’s horcrux, wherever he may have hidden it. But...” The old wizard shrugged.
Probably as much “not the headmaster’s style” to kill someone who happened to be a Horcrux so directly instead of weaving a complex plot to something, something, something, and then something else.
Canon seems to imply that living horcrux anchors can be killed normally to destroy the horcrux. (Magic apparently can’t actually fix death, and a horcrux is destroyed when the anchor is “damaged beyond magic repair”.)
I’m not sure MoR retains that, but it would be a huge game-breaker if it didn’t, and one that Voldie would have seen and taken advantage of: You could protect your army from all but a few arcane dark spells by having your minions horcrux each-other. Note that the rare Fiendfyre is mentioned as necessary to destroy a horcrux, but the much more common Avada Kedavra is not—which suggests that, if it were to work like that, horcruxing would make you invulnerable even to AK. (In other words, AK is not mentioned as one of the few horcrux-destroying spells because it only works on living people, and living horcruxes can be just killed normally instead of requiring advanced methods.)
Canon seems to imply that living horcrux anchors can be killed normally to destroy the horcrux
Canon gave us an example of two living horcruxes (Nagini and Harry Potter), and for the former the same sword of Gryffindor that had been used to destroy other horcruxes was used, while for the latter the weird stipulation that Voldemort had to kill Harry Potter himself was added.
The latter especially didn’t make much sense… But either way I suggest we not be too sure of what is required to kill a living Horcrux in HPMoR.
While I’m no longer convinced of the Narcissa-was-a-Horcrux hypothesis, I don’t buy this argument. Even if Voldie thinks of it (which, okay, that part’s reasonable), it assumes that he needs an invincible army more than he needs to keep the idea of Horcruxes secret. This is wildly implausible. His non-invincible army was doing just fine.
I’m not 100% convinced myself, it just seems likely. I won’t argue about the sword (nobody ever tried without it), canon is too fuzzy about the details and Eliezer explicitly said that he makes them up as he goes along.
About Voldie, if Horcruxes worked that way at the very least he would have thought to make himself the Horcrux of someone else, like Bella, just to gain the benefits as a back-up (even though he had horcruxes, reviving is a chore, and at least in MoR he’d be prepared against accidental defeat). And if I was him, I’d have at least my top followers horcrux a small object that I can easily destroy and that I can keep on me at all times (he had easy access to basilisk venom and magic pouches), and Obliviate them about the process to keep the secret. Of course, we have no indication he didn’t do that, except that a lot of his followers were killed and Fiendfyre is still considered rare.
But I still think such an effect would be too powerful for MoR, it’d basically remove anything but Fiendfyre and Basilisk-venom from the offensive options. (And it seems that Salazar’s basilisk might no longer available, though characteristically cannon seems to suggest that breeding a basilisk is ridiculously easy, just forbidden.) Also, if living Horcruxes are not killable by normal means, that would suggest that mean they don’t die of old age, either, which again would not quite fit.
Interesting idea.
My pet theory for some time has been that Narcissa was a Horcrux, and that Dumbledore was destroying said Horcrux by the only means he could—Fiendfyre. Are there any obvious gaps?
(EDIT: pedantarrific below points one out.)
Yes: why would Dumbledore allow McGonagall to think that Voldemort only had one Horcrux?
This is a very good point.
Probably as much “not the headmaster’s style” to kill someone who happened to be a Horcrux so directly instead of weaving a complex plot to something, something, something, and then something else.
Canon seems to imply that living horcrux anchors can be killed normally to destroy the horcrux. (Magic apparently can’t actually fix death, and a horcrux is destroyed when the anchor is “damaged beyond magic repair”.)
I’m not sure MoR retains that, but it would be a huge game-breaker if it didn’t, and one that Voldie would have seen and taken advantage of: You could protect your army from all but a few arcane dark spells by having your minions horcrux each-other. Note that the rare Fiendfyre is mentioned as necessary to destroy a horcrux, but the much more common Avada Kedavra is not—which suggests that, if it were to work like that, horcruxing would make you invulnerable even to AK. (In other words, AK is not mentioned as one of the few horcrux-destroying spells because it only works on living people, and living horcruxes can be just killed normally instead of requiring advanced methods.)
Canon gave us an example of two living horcruxes (Nagini and Harry Potter), and for the former the same sword of Gryffindor that had been used to destroy other horcruxes was used, while for the latter the weird stipulation that Voldemort had to kill Harry Potter himself was added.
The latter especially didn’t make much sense… But either way I suggest we not be too sure of what is required to kill a living Horcrux in HPMoR.
While I’m no longer convinced of the Narcissa-was-a-Horcrux hypothesis, I don’t buy this argument. Even if Voldie thinks of it (which, okay, that part’s reasonable), it assumes that he needs an invincible army more than he needs to keep the idea of Horcruxes secret. This is wildly implausible. His non-invincible army was doing just fine.
Also, ArisKatsaris’ comment.
I’m not 100% convinced myself, it just seems likely. I won’t argue about the sword (nobody ever tried without it), canon is too fuzzy about the details and Eliezer explicitly said that he makes them up as he goes along.
About Voldie, if Horcruxes worked that way at the very least he would have thought to make himself the Horcrux of someone else, like Bella, just to gain the benefits as a back-up (even though he had horcruxes, reviving is a chore, and at least in MoR he’d be prepared against accidental defeat). And if I was him, I’d have at least my top followers horcrux a small object that I can easily destroy and that I can keep on me at all times (he had easy access to basilisk venom and magic pouches), and Obliviate them about the process to keep the secret. Of course, we have no indication he didn’t do that, except that a lot of his followers were killed and Fiendfyre is still considered rare.
But I still think such an effect would be too powerful for MoR, it’d basically remove anything but Fiendfyre and Basilisk-venom from the offensive options. (And it seems that Salazar’s basilisk might no longer available, though characteristically cannon seems to suggest that breeding a basilisk is ridiculously easy, just forbidden.) Also, if living Horcruxes are not killable by normal means, that would suggest that mean they don’t die of old age, either, which again would not quite fit.