I'd like to say a huge thank you to savingharry, one of our best residential theorists, for pulling together this post and summarising the arguments that were in the old thread

I hope everyone will appreciate the time he's taken to do this and make sure that you have a good read through this post before replying to avoid repeating things that have already been discussed

The old thread has been archived and may be found here.

--------------------------------------------------------------

On September 13th, Jo left an intriguing message on her website:



When we went to the Extras section, NAQ was:



Ok, so now we have the question. Why did Dumbledore have the cloak? He can make himself invisible without it, so he didn’t need an invisibility cloak. So why?

Well, before the theorizing begins, let’s establish a couple of things:

A) James got the cloak from his parents:


Snape wasn’t under the invisibility cloak when the Potters died:


C) Invisibility cloaks (according to Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them) are made from Demiguise hair that has been spun into a cloak. The Demiguise is described as 'a peaceful herbivorous beast, something like a graceful ape' (9), its only unique feature being its ability to turn invisible.

So, here’s what we know about the cloak’s history:
1) James received the cloak from his parents as a gift/heirloom.
2) James used the cloak in school much like Harry does.
3) James died and the cloak somehow ended up in Dumbledore's possession.
4) Dumbledore gave the cloak to Harry as a Christmas gift his first year at school.

So, the question remains, where did he get it? There are numerous suggestions, and I’ve broken them down into categories (if someone brought it up first, I tried to cite where I could):

Someone wearing the cloak while the Potters were killed
Petunia Dursley (curiouslybored): Petunia was closer to her sister than it previously seemed. Petunia was visiting her sister when Voldemort killed the Potters. Petunia communicated with Dumbledore via Owl as she had seen her sister do. He sent messages back, and she sent him the cloak. This would explain what Jo has said about Petunia:


So Petunia would be the only living eye-witness to the attacks on the Potters. If the events of that night are important, as they appear to be, then this would be very important.

Wormtail: The sniviling, fearful git would induce enough pity in the Potters for them to lend him their cloak. In fact, thinking of the situation, if James was still in possession of the cloak at the time Wormtail became secret keeper, they would, no doubt, let him use it, especially if he asked. Wormtail could then be under the cloak when Voldemort went to the Potters so as to show him where the house was. He would want to be under the cloak, of course, because he would be fearful of being found out a traitor. Remember, Sirius ran into Wormtail in Godric's Hollow on the way to the Potters. So he was in the area. It would then have come into Dumbledore’s possession by himself or through Snape, which could redeem one or the both of them.

Hagrid (nagini777): Hagrid, being unable to do magic, could not stand up against the Dark Lord (explaining why he didn’t fight back). He could have been guarding Harry during the events or something similar.

Another Order Member: Order members could have been guarding the house when the Potters died on a rotating shift. Their having the cloak would make them a witness to the events.

Hermione: This goes back to the unlikely sibling theory concerning Harry and Hermione. However, seeing as Hermione’s parents were originally written as having seen the blast in an early version of the book, this seems unlikely.

Someone had the cloak to hide under it at some other point:
Several people have been suggested as having used the cloak for some other unknown task:
RAB (this would, most likely, require RAB to be someone other than Regulus Black, as Regulus died a year before the Potters’ death)
Neville
Snape (Jo only said that he wasn’t under the cloak the night the Potters died)
Another Order Member

Other theories on the cloak’s importance :
The cloak is a horcrux itself
The cloak was used to hide a horcrux
Something has been magically hidden inside the cloak, similar to the Mirror of Erised or the Sorting Hat. (TriadOfDarkness)
Either James or Lily or both worked in the Department of Mysteries in the room unable to be opened. The cloak could then either be the key itself or contain a key for the room. (pottypotter)
James left it with Dumbledore after a meeting where Snape was bound to James in an unbreakable vow of loyalty and protection. (Uglybaldboy)
The cloak being with Dumbledore indicates that the Potters’ death was all part of a plan to overcome the Dark Lord
What’s important is that James didn't need the cloak - or that he wanted it to be kept safe for a while, rather than someone else needing it for some reason. (Capricorn)

As stated above, it could have been Wormtail who had the invisibility cloak. However, things did not go exactly as I interpret what is stated. If I understand the above about Wormtail, it says that Wormtail and Sirius met in Godric's Hollow before the attack on the Potter family. This is not right. After the attack, Sirius was at the bombed out home and argued with Hagrid about which of the two of them should take Harry away. Hagrid prevailed, and Sirius gave him the motorcycle. (Sirius would have known that it was Wormtail who betrayed the Potters and that it was his, Sirius,' fault for handing over the Secret Keeper job) After that, Sirius ran into Wormtail; they dueled, and we were left with Sirius alive, muggles dead, and Wormtail's toe. Wormtail could have had the cloak at the time, which he could have hidden under while he cut off his toe and pitched it out into the street. When Wormtail escaped, probably into the broken sewer below the bombed open street, the cloak would have been left behind. (PA ch10, pp205-8 US paperback) But here's where I am unsure. Sirius was left standing there, laughing. "And Black standing there laughing, with what was left of Pettigrew in front of him...a heap of bloodstained robes and a few--a few fragments--" (p208) Did Sirius pick up the cloak in this scenerio? Or, did the Magical Law Enforcement Squad? Or, did DD show up and take the cloak?

My guess is that Wormtail had it and then Sirius obtained it lyk Mrs. Figgy said. After Dumbledore left the Dursley's house after leaving Harry on their doorstep, he could have met up with Sirius while he was at the Ministry of Magic, or in Azkaban for "killing" Wormtail. Maybe Dumbledore had it then, and wanted it to go to it's rightful owner, Harry. So in Harry's first year, he recieved the cloak.

This is probably wrong, but it seems more lykly to me than other theories posted and heard.

ok.. so why does everyone think that someone was under the cloak to begin with?
i know that JKR said she was never asked why DD had the cloak to begin with.
but in the first book when harry gets the cloak DD says that James left it in his possession before he died.
so why did that mean someone was under it at all?
is there really any evidence.. if there is i just dont see it.

I just thought that dumbledore might have just been vague about how he got james's cloak just like he has been vague about why he trusts snape. Dumbledore isn't one to offer explanations about his reasoning. All I know is that Petunia is not a squib but serves some important purpose and that Dumbledore is in possession of the cloak. Why I ask would Dumbledore not tell Harry how he recieved the cloak? If it was Sirus who got gave him the cloak than why not tell harry? If it was Peter pettigrew why not tell harry? I mean peter is already a bad guy we know this so why would it matter if dumbledore told harry. Since we know it was not snape it had to be someone that left it in dumbledores possession becausse I don't think james would give up his cloak if it wasn't absolutely necessary. Someone had to be there the night the potter's died in order for Dumbledore to know what he knows and it made sense to me it would be Mrs. Dursely since we know she has been in contact with Dumbledore and the fact that she was truly scared when she heard about voldermort being back and then she was oddly flushed in the sixth book when Dumbledore told her that Harry needed to only come back only one more time to secure the protection and then I thought that maybe she hid under the cloak to escape voldermort and that she knew more about the wizarding world then she let on. Maybe that is why she is so senistive when it comes to magic. In life people like to ignore or fear the things they don't understand or the things that cause them anguish and feel will make them outcasts in society or different. So in short it is not necessary that someone was hiding under the cloak it just made senes in light of the fact that the cloak's purpose is to hide a person and I feel it served its purpose that way and that this idea supports the fsct that Petunia knows about the magical world, has kept in touch with dumbledore, and resents magic. iIdon't beleive the cloak is a horcrux. I simply beleive the cloak is a way for J.K. Rowling to link harry to petunia in a way that advances the plot and explains petunias attitude towards magic and harry.. Meaning it could lead to harry finding a horcrux or a way of understanding more about his mothe.

I think Aunt Petunia was under the cloak, and that this saved her life while simultaneously making her a living, 'invisible' witness to the night the Potters died. I say 'invisible' because she was not only in fact invisible, but her witness status is unknown to LV so he has no reason to kill her in the aftermath (not that he cares if people 'know' about his actions, but I think he cares to hide the fact of the horcruxes, which she would have witnessed to also be going on that night).

So Aunt Petunia owes her life to the Potters, which may mean she has a life debt (no evidence that such cannot apply to muggles if they so choose).

I suppose it's possible that the cloak only covered an object that night--in the chaos it may have come to rest on top of the thing LV was going to use as horcrux receptacle. My problem with that is that if the cloak makes whatever it is over invisible, why isnt the cloak itself always invisible, since it is always covering something (i.e. it is always in the spatial world).

Correct me if I am wrong--when Tonks finds Harry on the train after Malfoy has broken his nose and he is laying invisible under the cloak on the floor--she simply grabs the cloak off him. She does not, if I recall correctly, kick around to see if there is anything on the floor, she just grabs the cloak? She explains to Harry that she suspected something when he didnt get off the train and she saw this compartment had the shades down. But that does not account for her being able to just grab the cloak off him with accuracy before rooting around. I am perplexed at how Tonks keeps showing up at crucial moments for Harry. There is something we don't know about her, I think, and her facility (if I am not mistaken in my memory) with 'knowing' someone is under a cloak may be part of this. Tonks is not much older than Harry, so she had no adult role at the beginning of the story, but what role might she play? Does an auror just have the ability to see through cloaks, like DD seems to have and some others? I feel compelled to go back through OoTP to review her character. But a quick review of the lexicon reminds me that she nearly failed "stealth and tracking" (interesting, since she stealthily tracks Harry a number of times), and excelled at "concealment" (interesting too, since she unravels Harry's concealment under the cloak). Hmmm. Her lineage is interesting too.

I read through JKR's exact choice of words again, and something struck me. Something so simple I could kick myself for not noticing it before.



Note : "at the time of James' death"

Also note : "Your father left this in my possession BEFORE he died"

Guys, DD had the cloak BEFORE James died. What does this tell us? That James knew he was likely to die. He knew Voldemort was coming for him. It's also likely he knew why. What does that mean?

It means DD knew - it means he had a plan. It's one of the clearest pieces of evidence yet that there is a higher purpose to all this, it might even be connected to that "Gleam of triumph" in DD's eyes - even to Snape eventually killing him.

I'm more convinced than ever that DD had all this worked out long ago.

Which is a shame really, because pumpkinjuice's points about Tonks were very interesting. I see what you mean about her not hunting around for Harry, but I always figured that a part of him was probably visible after he fell - he was getting a bit big for the cloak and it didn't cover him as well as it used to.

Maybe that's why James didn't need it anymore - he'd simply outgrown it!

Hey Louise, glad you liked the Tonks comments, but what makes you think anything about the whereabouts of the cloak during the Potters death would void those comments? I meant them as independent, but since both related to cloaks I posted them together.

On a related point there, since the order is borrowing cloaks, it seems that it is possible for it to cover adults, at least not huge ones. And I think Malfoy would have made sure that nothing of Harry stuck out if his goal was to make sure he was not discovered until London.

The exact wording you supply about JKR's comment does seem to back up what you say, that this is a plan that has been in the works for a very long time. It doesnt prove there was a plan, but strongly suggests it--James might, as some have suggested above, have lent it to DD for use by members of the Order and during one of those loans LV happened to find them. But if that were the case, I think that by the beginning of book 6 as Harry is told to keep it with him at all times, DD would have told him.

Even if there was a plan, tho, that does not preclude Petunia being there. DD had the cloak at the time of James death, it had been left in his possession, but that doesnt circumscribe much in terms of what it was doing, where it was, etc. Possibilities still abound (whew, I thought I'd have to stop thinking about this...).

I agree with you, Louise, that the wording is important - for two reasons, actually. Firstly, Jo is the author, and her word is by definition something we should look at very carefully. Secondly, but more convincingly - Dumbledore never lies. If he said James left the cloak in his possession, that's what happened.

It wasn't an accident that Dumbledore got the cloak, unless James left it in his possession as an accident. So yeah, it was definitely before James's death.

I can't see Dumbledore sacrificing the Potters in a grand scheme though. If he is one thing it is wisely cautious (especially where life and death are concerned), and I can't think that he'd sacrifice Lily and James's lives and risk Harry's where Voldemort's mysterious powers are involved. Harry only survived because Lily refused to stand aside - something Dumbledore had no control over or no way of predicting. He couldn't even predict that such a sacrifice would save Harry, because no one had ever survived the AK curse up till then. If it hadn't been for Lily, all three Potters would have died and that wouldn't have served any purpose.

So, why did James give the cloak to Dumbledore if he didn't need it, and if he wasn't planning on dying, as such?

I'm not convinced Aunt Petunia needed it. If you read Philosopher's Stone, (which starts on the morning after the Potters' death) there is nothing weird about her behaviour that day which could suggest that she was emerged in a fight against an evil wizard. She chatted away about gossip to Uncle Vernon, and told him that Dudley had learnt a new word (shan't!).

I think Dumbledore's 'last' happened after Harry's arrival a Privet Drive, because that was the time he invoked the magic that would keep Harry safe at Aunt Petunia's home. I'm guessing it was some form of an extended Fidelius Charm.

Anyway, back to who could have needed the cloak... no idea. Wormtail isn't a bad option, but I don't think he ever had it in his possession - Dumbledore might have been meaning to give it to him, but never got the chance. Not a very constructive post (more dectructive), but I'll have to think more about this before venturing a guess on this. It's frustrating that we don't have much to go on.

I'm a little unclear as to why everyone thinks that someone should be under the cloak at all. Is it because of the theory that someone else was at Godric's Hollow that night? I just want to clarify that before I delve any further into this theory because, right now, I'm a little blinded by that; I'm not sure where everyone is getting this that there was someone else there either. Have I missed something JKR said in an interview?

Not that I know of... The only reason I speculate about who else could have needed the cloak (for whatever reason) is because Dumbledore obviously didn't need it, so either James really didn't want to have the cloak in his possession, or someone else needed it - apart from him and Dumbledore.

I'm not convinced there was someone there that night either - sounds iffy, because if they were invisible, they'd be on the good side - so why not help the Potters?

Er, so I think it would either have been for another mission of the Order's, or James simply wanted to get rid of the cloak - whether temporarily or permanently. Why I can't imagine...

I think that if the Potters' death was planned, then they were in on the plan--that it was not Dumbledore's plan alone. DD has made it clear that love is a kind of ancient magic, and to me that suggests that all kinds of plans in the name of/employing love as an instrument of good and justice are possible. Love isnt just something that confers protection in some passive way, I suppose--maybe I'm wrong, but it seems that there might actually be some skills and strategies in the instrumentality of love in a war with evil, especially since LV can be counted on to systematically not understand this magic. So Lily and James may have been very much active choosers of this fate, long before LV showed up at their door. Given that DD had early spies, he might be expected to know that Pettigrew was untrustworthy in the first place. I dont think we know everything there might be to know about why Sirius changed his mind at the last moment (tho I don't think he was in on the plan).

Some of my reasoning for this will wind up in the thread where I raised that question about why on earth James was head boy when he was always in trouble.

I am softening on my intuition that Petunia was under the cloak, but if she was her behavior the morning the story begins can be explained via the good old memory charm.

The notion that the whole cloak thing just comes down to someone in the Order needing it strikes me as unsatisfactory as per the narrative. I think there is more to it than that.

I think the main things to consider is this:

1) The significance of the cloak can't be shared unless we have someone who can share it with Harry. With Dumbledore and James both dead, that narrows down the list of known characters significantly. Most likely by Lupin, Pettigrew, Snape, or McGonagall, characters who would be aware of that he owned the cloak in the first place.
2) Since the cloak has to be crucial, that means that it has to do more than just explain backstory. The exange has to be instrumental in some way to lead up to something else.
3) How goes have people done in the past of predicting future story arcs of future stories based on pre-existing clues? Most likely, if the invisibility cloak is a crucial plot device, then it'll be crucial in a context that we don't have yet. So anything you can guess in detail is probably wrong.

As far as James knew, as long as he had Pettigrew as the secret keeper, he was safe. So there would be no need for Aunt Petunia to hide in cover, no need for watchman to be around, etc., as long as the secret was safe with Wormtail. In fact, having guards arounds would simply draw more people to them.

So if James felt his life was in danger, it could only be either because he suspected that Wormtail would turn on him, or because he suspected the Wormtail would be found out and captured. Now, in the former case, you have a situation where Dumbledore/James were aware of Wormtail's dual nature all along but were hoping to redeem him, the same way that Dumbledore still wanted to see the good in Draco. This is also backed up by the fact that Dumbledore insists that James would have spared Pettigrew's life if given the chance. The only question there is how the cloak would fit into the equation. Probably wouldn't.

In the latter case, you have to wonder why James thought that Peter would be in danger, and how this could possibly be a "crucial" detail in the final book. Harrry shouting to Pettigrew, "My dad once lent you his cloak!" might be a nice detail, but it's hardly cruicial.

So I think that the cloak would have to be instrumental to something else. The first question is, why would an invisibility cloak be needed? Well, either to hide something, or to go on a covert mission. I think that Dumbledore would be more than capable of hiding something on his own far better than an invisibility cloak, so that leaves the a covert mission.

My guess is that it has something to do with Mundungus Fletcher, a character who seems like he could make good use of an invisibility cloak, and who's had heavily foreshadowing so far. Given his tendency to steal, he probably used t to steal a horcrux. Remember, they didn't know about the Horcruxes at the time, so Dumbledore wouldn't have been asking for them. Also, Voldermort wanted to make his horcuxes out of items with historical significance, which are items that Mundungus would want to keep to himself, because the other members would have forced him to return the items back to the rightful owners. The invisibility cloak would explain how he would manage to steal such an item without being discovered.

Keep in mind that even though JKR stated that the exchange would be crucial, that does not necessarily mean "planned." Dumbledoore is not all knowing, and it could be something completely unforeseen that worked out to their advantage.

Mmm...then I'm going to have to say that I remain totally unconvinced that anyone needed to have been under the cloak at all. If JKR hasn't said that somewhere, then I'm afraid I have to say that there really isn't any evidence for it. There is evidence that James and Lily were prepared for the possibility that they might die though, and it's conceivable that Dumbledore knew about this "ancient magic" thing that Lily invoked when she died for her son.

Of course, the question would remain that if Dumbledore was the only wizard LV feared, why didn't DD try to kill LV himself when he had the opportunity? The only reason he would have allowed James and Lily to endanger themselves, if he did at all, was because even at that early stage, he suspected LV of having horcruxes. How likely that is though, I don't know.

i think there is some special power about harry's particular invisibility cloak

Actually this statement of your makes a lot of sense Louise. If James and Lily were aware that they might die, it is logical to assume that they must have taken several steps to ensure their affairs in order. It is much like a will, most people have a will which is usually drafted sometime before their death. I mean it is intriguing, perhaps most people do get a premonition of their deaths. James and Lily would have wanted their affairs to be in order and thus their actions such as leaving the invisibility cloak with Dumbledore. If it was a family heirloom, then they would have wanted it to be handed down the line and believed Dumbledore to be the best person to take care of it. If we recall, Dumbledore also had Harry's Gringotts vault key. It's likely that this too came into his possession before James and Lily's deaths, because they trusted him to take care of it.

An invisibility cloak is a valuable tool in operations involving stealth and tracking as in the case of Order of the Phoenix and considering that James and Lily were effectively under house arrest, they would have had no use for it, so James chose to hand it over to someone who would, but then that doesn't explain why give it to Dumbledore and not Sirius, who was to lead the death eaters on a wild goose chase.

I am also not sure about someone else being there at Godrics hollow that night, because the house was totally destroyed and Harry survived because of the protection his mother placed on him. If indeed someone was there, they would have had a hard time escaping before the house came tumbling down. As far as I am concerned the thing has too many attributes of a red herring, just a kind of thing to keep people occupied. The possibility of the cloak being a horcrux is nullified because Dumbledore would have done all that he could to destroy it, regardless of it's antique value. He had the cloak for ages and somewhere down the line he would have found out if it indeed was one.

The reason why Dumbledore chose not to kill Tom was that he long back suspected Tom of having made horcruxes. If we recall his memories they came from Morfin, Bob Ogden, Hockey the house elf. Morfin and Hockey did not survive long after they were imprisoned, so this even would have happened somewhere around when Tom was about 20. Dumbledore being an intelligent chap would have suspected something by then. I am sure his knowledge of Slughorn telling Tom about horcruxes did not come from legilimency, but from a chance conversation he might have had with Slughorn either in the school or later under the influence of liquor. Not too difficult for him to put two and two together, though it surprises me why he took so long to dispose of the ring. He told Harry that after his encounter with the diary in Harry's second year, his suspicions about Tom's horcruxes were all but confirmed, then why did he take 4 years to track down the ring. He had those memories long back and with Tom out of the way, he could have used his spare time to destroy the ring at least if not all. Unless there's lot more it than meets the eye. I am not too comfortable with the idea that it was all planned with specific events happening at a specific time

Whoa, this is really excellent, I hadn't thought of this tho it did intrigue me to wonder how long DD has been building his strategy. This timeline is fascinating--and frightening. It means that in all these years, DD has really been held at bay by the horcrux problem (unless there's something we dont know); it also means that only by making Harry his enemy could LV ever be conquered--and this explains DD's exceptional reverence for Harry. I do think DD could have known about the Horcrux plan through legilimancy while Tom was a student, since he was Head Boy and I'm betting that involves plenty of Headmaster face-time.

Why indeed did it take 4 years to track down the ring....maybe DD didnt suspect LV would put it in ruins? Even still....there aren't that many significant places in LV's past to check. Hmmm...

What do you mean exactly by your last sentence?

I mean, I found it very intriguing that many events happened only after Harry came to Hogwarts. What prevented Dumbledore from searching for horcruxes till Harry's sixth year? It was not that he was waiting for Slughorn's memory, after all he had destroyed one a few months back. The memory was just to confirm the probable number of horcruxes that Tom had created. Why did he not do anything for 13 years when Tom was exiled? If he allowed Snape to kill him because of the injury he suffered during the destruction of the horcrux, then did he plan to go after them only after Harry turned 16 and did he also plan for Snape to take his life?

I mean many things do not make sense here. He should have acted when he learnt about Quirell, when he saw the diary with T. M. Ridlle written on it and heard Harry's story, when he heard Trelawney's prophecy about Tom's return, when Tom finally came back. Furthermore, when he was suspended from Hogwarts in 1992 and 1995, did he go looking for horcruxes? If not why not? Nothing stopped him from seeking out the Horcruxes then, why did he wait till Harry's sixth year to start searching for them? Sounds almost as if the things were synchronized to happen when they happened. Weird if you ask me.

I agree that things seem a bit weird. What I've never been able to figure out is when Dumbledore started realising Tom/Voldemort was making/planning to make horcruxes. (Too many options here! )

Something I still don't agree with, though, is that James and Lily were planning on dying, and it has to do with Dumbledore's philosophy on things.

Dumbledore was a few things - wise, intelligent, cautious, aware of the boundaries of his knowledge and abilities (how far or near they were in certain fields) and he loved his friends/fellows/proteges more than anything. Harry was the first person ever to have survived the AK curse, and when Mcgonagall asked Dumbledore how it had happened, he answered that they might only guess, they might never know. Dumbledore never lied, so I don't think he had figured out why Harry was alive yet.

Jo's answer to the question of why Voldemort gave Lily so many chances was this:



So Lily had no idea that Harry would survive, and neither would Dumbledore have known, because this hardly sounds as though they planned her refusal to stand aside.

I also don't think Dumbledore would gamble with lives - and definitely not with the boy who seemed predestined to stand a chance against Voldemort. It's just too removed from the his character as we have come to know him. If things hadn't happened exactly like they did (see that very last sentence of Jo's), Harry would not have survived. So without being able to see the future, Dumbledore had no way of predicting Harry's survival - and we all know what he thinks of trying to predict the future.

Not that this proves anything in connection to the cloak, but I'm quite sure Wormtail wasn't the subject of a scheme to be redeemed.

Also, I'm not so sure Dumbledore knew Wormtail had been made Secret Keeper... The only thing that is said about it is where Sirius explains it all, and McGonagall's words in the Three Broomsticks:





So there's no evidence that Dumbledore knew Wormtail had been made Secret-Keeper. Also, notice that Sirius was also planning on going into hiding. Isn't it possible that James had asked Dumbledore to give the cloak to Sirius? Something about Sirius going into hiding sounds ... odd. It jumped out at me when I read PoA a while ago, and I think that if Sirius's reason for going into hiding turns out to be significant, it would explain why the fact that James gave the cloak to Dumbledore is 'crucial'.

It could also link up easily with the Regulus story - could it be that Sirius went into hiding as a result of Regulus's death in some way? There are many possibilities as to why, but I think this is where evidence dries up. I suspect that more of the Black family were involved somehow, and this would tie up the three major clues Jo has given us - the Black family tree, this bit about James's cloak and RAB.

Oooh, I like this. I am percolating these past few days a strong sense that the Blacks, especially Walburga Black, the mother in the screaming picture, are crucial. Getting all this linked up with the cloak mystery AND the RAB mystery is really provocative--and would make sense given that JKR otherwise has too many separate ends to tie up in HPDH.

I'll say here what I said elsewhere, Walburga sounds an awful lot like Walpurgis, which was the original name for the DE (Knights of Walpurgis). Walburga has its own meanings, but its interestingly similar....That Harry says her portrait is the "most realistic" he had ever seen, that she is screamingly mental in it such that no one wants to listen to it (even just listening to the book on cd I wanted her to be shut up ASAP) seems to suggest it has information for us. Interestingly, they do keep covering the portrait, which is like putting the cloak over things except for sound rather than vision. Hmm. If RAB did, as I think, take the horcrux and bring it home, anything or anyone in the house could know, especially Kreature.

Capricorn I agree with you there, but I disagree with a lot of what JKR has to say. To decry James behaviour as animalistic is an insult, not only to his sacrifice but to all the fauna out there, who are much more selfless than humans. I do not agree with her that James did not have a choice. HE HAD a choice. He could have run back to Lily and tried escaping together instead of holding his ground. He could have asked Lily to fight Tom, while James tried to escape with Harry. the bottomline is that eh sacrificed his life so as to give his wife and child some chance and to consider that animalistsic is good, but the way in which she said it was insensitive.

Regarding her second statement, there is too much confusion. On her website she says that if Neville had been targetted and someone had sacrificed their life for him, he would have been accorded the same protection. From her second statement here, I get a feeling that the protection is invoked only if the person who sacrificed themselves for you had a clear choice such as in case of Lily. Tom asked her to get aside and she did not so he killed her and Harry received the protection. Suppose a variant of this scenario had happened, Tom shoved her side and turned his wand onto Harry, but before the curse could strike Harry, Lily intercepted it by throwing herself in front of Harry and taking the curse. In such a case would Harry still receive the protection? Suppose Tom entered the room and Lily was standing to one side, he didn't even need to push her aside , but still she jumped in front of Harry to take the curse, would it still have the same effect? Too confusing if you ask me.

I agree that Dumbledore had no way of predicting Harry's future and none had an inkling that such a thing would happen. But Dumbledore did know that Harry would have to face Tom as the dark lord "would mark him as his equal". Even then it's possible that till the incident actually happened, Dumbledore had no idea about the "power he knows not". But then he had a fair idea about Tom's immortality and the possibility that he had used horcruxes to that effect. Why didn't he go after then till Harry's sixth year especially after the diary incident where all his doubts would have been erased?

You are right that James and Lily did not plan to die, but they may have accepted the fact that they were in danger and may possibly die, therefore all these contingency measures to ensure that their affairs were in order, much like wills and testaments and this may be the reason for them to hand the invisibility cloak to Dumbledore

I don't think she was insulting James - not in the least.



The simple fact is that Lily had time to choose, and James didn't. In this instance, Lily's bravery was of a higher calibre. It's really not insulting to say that Lily was braver than James in this instance - that's simply how it happened. She isn't saying that James wasn't being brave, or that Lily had always been braver than James. I think her answer speaks of her liking for both characters. The events of that night placed them in different situations, and they had different choices to make - both did the best they could. I don't doubt for one second that, had James been given the chance, he would have sacrificed himself in the exact same way. But Voldemort didn't give him that chance, and that's just the story.

I mean, it was never her object to portray James and Lily as equally brave at all times, and some acts are simply braver than others - there's nothing wrong with that, and she certainly didn't say James wasn't brave. I think, at the very least, we should allow Jo to lay out her plot like she thinks best - I mean, if we didn't like it, why are we reading it? I'm not blindly swallowing everything she writes (I don't like Harry/Ginny and I'd tell her that if I got the chance), but there comes a point where it is OK for children's books to just be.

As for her second statement - she was just trying to explain that it was entirely Voldemort's choice. Nothing more, nothing less. She cannot be expected to keep absolutely everything in mind when answering various, possibly related, questions. Is it reasonable to expect that she should have answered in the line of 'If Neville had received the same protection (i.e. exactly like Lily in that his mother would have had a choice etc. etc.) he would have been the chosen one'? Or is it fine to realise that the context of both questions were different, and that she was simply answering the question at hand? She was trying to explain two very different things, and her answers really aren't that inconsistent to make me suspicious of her true meaning.



But he had no way of knowing that it would be by a physical encounter. I can mark someone as an equal without ever being face to face with them.



Very possible, but I am not convinced, as such. I still rather prefer Sirius as a possibility, simply because it offers so many ways of tying up all the loose ends, like pumpkinjuice said.

And while I'm on that topic, I really like your idea for Walburga, pumpkinjuice! Yeah, she is strangely prominent - and different than the many portraits we have encountered. I also like the reference to the original name for the DE's. I have long suspected that the Black family will feature very much in HPDH and the more I think about it, the more it seems to make sense to me.

Actually she had been asked that question and she addresses it on her website, I'll quote it on her part



From this I can make out that the very act of sacrifice would have invoked the protection, she's very clear on that. The basis of this protection is that "to love someone more than one would love one's own life". Therefore a sacrifice of that magnitude would have provided the ancient protection under any circumstances and not specifically those that happened on that fateful haloween night. Of course she does mention that "had Frank and Alice been prepared to die like Lily"

I am not saying her answers are inconsistent, just a trifle confusing especially when you look at her explanation on her website. The question is did Harry survive because Lily was given an explicit choice to step aside and chose not to do so, in the process sacrificing herself for Harry or would he have survived even if Lily was not given an explicit choice by Tom but would have thrown herself in front of the curse. Some would say that there is no difference here, but looking at it, I feel that the scenarios are quite different in their own way.

You may be right in saying that in this instance Lily's bravery maybe of higher calibre, but I believe that the two were different kinds of bravery alltogether. Much like what Dumbledore describes in Philosophers Stone when he awarded points to Neville. "There are all kinds of courage, It takes a great deal of bravery to stand up to our enemies, but just as much to
stand up to our friends.", therefore bravery and courage cannot be quantified. I hope this doesn't appear as if I am trying to stretch the topic unnecessarily or trying to argue for the sake of arguments.



But perhaps he did. The next line of the prophecy says "either must die at the hand sof the other for neither can live while the other survives". That would have convinced Dumbledore that they would face each other sometime or the other, but when he had no idea. The prophecy could have been like one of many that go unfulfilled, but in this case Tom was determined to kill Harry, so the prophecy was invoked. Again Dumbledore would have expected Tom to come after The Potters, but would have believed that they were safe enough and that this maybe another of those prophecies that went unfulfilled. Alas that was not to be the case



You maybe onto something there, because Walburga is not the only portrait to be featured prominently in the series. Phineas Nigellus who incidentally happens to the oldest Black mentioned in the books, is also featured prominently both in OotP and HBP. So the Blacks are definitely important. Armando Dippet makes an appearance quite a few times as well. Perhaps Blacks are really important. If we recall Harry himself is likely to have descended in part from the Black line. Come to think of it so have many of his close friends save for Remus, Luna and Hermione.

Mayfair, your question:
"The question is did Harry survive because Lily was given an explicit choice to step aside and chose not to do so, in the process sacrificing herself for Harry or would he have survived even if Lily was not given an explicit choice by Tom but would have thrown herself in front of the curse. Some would say that there is no difference here, but looking at it, I feel that the scenarios are quite different in their own way."

is fair enough, and maybe Rowling's comments are not clear enough to answer it. While I agree that bravery cannot be quantified, I think she's saying there is something mightily special about the first instance in your disjunctive. I dont really think Lily's sacrifice saved Harry in fact, tho it conferred the special protection offered by the conscious (i.e. by explicit choice) setting aside of one's own life when one is given an opportunity to think about it. Voldemort's choice conferred the power on Harry to survive him, along with whatever Harry was already in himself in terms of blood/ability/nature. I dont think she is downgrading instinct (James), only 'hallowing' choice.

Come to think of it, Lily is a good parable for the bystander problem in the contemporary world scene. We are all very conscious of profound suffering around us, and are given ample opportunity to sacrifice, tho we usually do not, to the great sadness of the victims (look to the left of the screen); this is different, tho more familiar, than the odd chance of saving someone through instinctual heroism (like the guy who just saved someone in the NYSubway). The message is about the importance of choice, what we are willing to do when given the chance to think about it.

That's very true. The difference comes from the fact about having the chance to think over your choices before doing something. The consequences can be much harder on oneself because of the conscious thinking that went behind the decision. IN instinctive situations there's not much to mull over (though some degree on introspection is inevitable) so the outcome need not be dissected on the basis of available choices.



I am not to sure about that because according to her anyone willing to sacrifice their lives for someone they love, would have invoked the same protection. This scenario is different because Tom inadvertently transferred some of his powers to Harry (Mind connection, Parseltongue are the two that come to mind) which indeed is unique. Now what I wonder is whether this kind of a power transfer is unique to this situation or would it happen in every case where the killing curse was deflected. Suppose Harry was targeted by Belltarix Lestrange and Lily sacrificed herself for Harry. As far as we know and assume, Belltarix is not immortal and would have been killed outright if the killing curse deflected onto her. Would any powers be transferred in this case?

Of course Tom's aim was to use Harry's death to create a horcrux therefore the transfer of some of his powers may have been due to the something he must have done to commence splitting and binding his soul, which he was unable to fufill and some part of it went into Harry. If that's indeed the case, then was eh carrying some priceless artifact with him in his robes to act as a vessel for a piece of his soul that he wished to bind after killing Harry? If yes, was that artifact retrieved or much of that piece of soul imploded with few fragments entering Harry and endowing him with some of Tom's powers? I wonder.....

P.S. Sorry for going way off the topic

Well, here's a way to pull your last right onto the topic, mayfair! --

You mention LV's robes....I'm sure I read about this somewhere, but cannot remember which thread (I searched this one to no avail).... But what happened to his wand when he went Vapormort? Could the cloak have been involved in the post-vaporization adventure of LV's wand ? Only if it (the cloak) were still at the house, I suppose, which seems unlikely given some of Albus Dumbledore's and others' points. Hmmm.

I am so glad that you brought that one up. I mean, we saw the return of the said wand in the fourth book in the graveyard, suggesting that it indeed survived that night and was carried away or safely hidden by a Tom faithful. That Tom wielded the same wand again is proved beyond question, by the priori incantatem effect. The question is what happened to the wand after Tom fled from there. Of course he himself would have been incapable of handling it in his spirit form. This leaves certain possibilities:

1. There was someone else who accompanied Tom that night and therefore was well aware of the fact that Tom had survived. This rules out those who denounced him (Malfoy, Snape, McNair, Karkaroff etc) or those who attacked Longbottoms to find about the whereabouts of Tom from them (Lestranges, Crouch Jr, Rosier?). The only person who could have been in that situation was probably Wormtail. I mean he expected Tom to come back and that's why he took shelter with a wizarding family for any news of Tom. The question is did he have an invisibility cloak that night? If it was it may not have been the Potters cloak because, James had handed it over to Dumbledore and if Dumbledore had given it to Peter, he would have known about the secret-keeper switch. After all he would definitely consult James before giving his artifact to someone and he could only reach James through secret keeper.

2. Tom had not lost all of his abilities. Perhaps he was able to possess a passing muggle to retrieve his wand and escape to some place safer where the muggle would have died and his wand would have been hidden for safe keeping. When Pettigrew escaped from Hogwarts, he went straight to Tom and the first thing Tom would have asked himt o do was to go and retrieve his wand.

3. Tom bewitched an inferius to carry his wand for him. Perhaps, he brought one inferius with him to Potters residence.

I wonder if any of them could be true

Well, on that, there is a quote from Jo explaining the "last" issue:



Note that she says that Dumbledore sent her letters before the one on their doorstep. Before he left Harry there. So, this seems to explain that. I can't, for the life of me, see another reason why he'd do that. But this seems to explain that to me.



Well, here's how I see it on that issue. The "it's all a plan" thing has never semed to fly for me, because of the reasons that has been worked out here in the past few posts. Also, why would James want to give Dumbledore the cloak? Just because it was all a plan doesn't mean that James would need to give Dumbledore the cloak unless the cloak held some inherent importance (i.e. it was a horcrux, which seems even more unlikely due to the fact they didn't just destroy it). So I think that when you look at it, there are only 3 logical conclusions:

1) it held some inherent significance, and James left it to Dumbledore for safekeeping

2) it was used to hide someone or something at some point, and that think is inherently significant, or was witness to something significant.

3) The cloak itself is not significant other than the fact that it was left, indicating some sort of meeting or something the like. To explain, look at this explanation:



I think that the second one has the most appeal to me, just because Jo could have used anything, but she used the invisibility cloak. And there seems to be this big mystery about that night, like there are things about it we don't know yet. So this would be one big plot point that would explain that. And if you go with that, then Petunia seems to be the most likely choice, simply because I can't think of anything else that she could have done that would make her more important or whatever to explain all the mystery about her.

-Fish

Going back to the Vapormort/Wand discussion, if we assume that a Death Eater carried the wand away, it would have to have been Wormtail.

In GoF, Voldemort's wand was used to murder Frank Bryce. Harry saw this before the Quidditch World Cup. Clearly then, it happened before the World Cup. How did Voldemort get the wand? Wormtail must have given it to him.

There were only two wizards that helped return Voldemort to his body: Wormtail and Crouch Jr. Crouch Jr was not released from the Imperius Curse until after Winky had been released, that is, after the World Cup. So, the only Death Eater that helped Voldemort return to power that had a chance of possessing the wand was Wormtail.

How then could Wormtail have possession of Voldemort's wand? I can see no other reason than he hid it in the first place (which would mean he took it from Godric's Hollow) or Voldemort told him where to find it. If this is what happened, Vapormort must have been able to move the wand somehow, since he was unable to use magic to move it. And he clearly did not have a faithful Death Eater to help him.

I would like to start by saying hello to all as this is my first post. Someone mentioned earlier on about tonks pulling the IC directly off of HP but what was never said that HP had rolled over some when the train first started to take off. I thought perhaps the cloak had slid off partially during this. I am also curious if LV had made another horcrux after he got his body back if the 1 he intended to make with killing HP did fail. I also wonder if he made another horcrux to replace the 1 he knew was destroyed in the diary. It would also restore the perfect number of 7 pieces. Sorry for going off topic on that it might be discussed somewhere else but I have only finished reading this thread and the 1st part of it as well.

But the thing to consider is that Wormtail was waiting for 12 years for any news about Tom. He himself wasn't sure of what happened to Tom that night and was waiting for any information about Tom's resurgence. If he knew that Tom was alive, he would have gone to him sooner and helped him regain his body. It seems that Wormtail was like other death eaters, who had no idea as to where Tom was or whether he was alive or dead so he faked his death and sought refuge with a wizarding family so as be alert for any news about Tom. If this scenario is correct then he may not have been the one to hide Tom's wand. Of course he was the one to retrieve Tom's wand on Tom's directions, but I believe it was someone else who hid the wand on Tom's instructions.

Mayfair, it seems possible that even if he did witness the attack on the Potters, he would still be confused about LV's status--no one had ever seen the process before, of what happened to LV. If Pettigrew knew about the horcruxes, then he would need to lay low and figure things out; if he did not, he still needed to lay low and figure out what it was that he had just seen happen. So it makes sense that he demonstrated confusion about LV's status, since there was really no one who could explain to him what it meant for LV to go vapormort. Even LV is unlikely to have explained to him, or even really known that much about it, so I doubt he had prior instruction on what to expect (and LV would never expect to be undone, esp by a child).

So that still leaves it quite possible that he was there and the one who grabbed the wand. It would be interesting to know if LV's wand was used for the 'showdown' with Sirius, tho I doubt it as Pettigrew would have needed to stash it for safekeeping already before he went into hiding as the rat.

But my question is that Tom in vapormort form was still alive. Was he assisted by someone in escaping from there? We know that he can communicate in his spirit form, so did he give instructions to whoever, was with him that night? Because if there indeed was someone there that night, Tom could have very well asked them to finish the job for him. Of course the deflection of the curse would have dissuaded anyone from doing so. But recall that Tom had no idea of the reason behind that.

INterstingly, in the graveyard he did not mention anyone being with him that night, though he mentioned Wormtails role time and again. That brings us to the question, was there anyone there that night? If not then how did Tom and his wand make their way out of there? I would think about an inferius or a possessed muggle to do this. But Tom says in the graveyard

"I miscalculated, my friends, I admit it. My curse was deflected by the woman's foolish sacrifice, and it rebounded upon myself. Aaah . . . pain beyond pain, my friends; nothing could have prepared me for it. I was ripped from my body, I was less than spirit, less than the meanest ghost. . . but still, I was alive. What I was, even I do not know... I, who have gone further than anybody along the path that leads to immortality. You know my goal - to conquer death. And now, I was tested, and it appeared that one or more of my experiments had worked ... for I had not been killed, though the curse should have done it. Nevertheless, I was as powerless as the weakest creature alive, and without the means to help myself... for I had no body, and every spell that might have helped me required the use of a wand. . . ."

"I remember only forcing myself, sleeplessly, endlessly, second by second, to exist. ... I settled in a faraway place, in a forest, and I waited. . . . Surely, one of my faithful Death Eaters would try and find me. . . one of them would come and perform the magic I could not, to restore me to a body . . , but I waited in vain. ..."

That doesn't indicate that he had any help there, else he could have commanded them to restore his body. I am more and more inclined that he was alone that night.

Hello all and welcome to WeasleyRon, good thought about LV replacing the horcurxes he knew were ruined but, gosh, I hope not!!!

Wow what a topic *rubs very fatigued eyes*

There are many things here on and off topic of great importnace! I have many thoughts stemming from what I have read.

First:
DD knew about the Prophecy. Snape told DD that LV knew some of it and would be looking for the boy. DD notified the Potters and the Longbottoms (I believe?). We know that the Potters were in hiding. So yes, there would have been a will of sorts or at least some wishes. They new what might happen. They knew what might have to be done (try to fight/stop LV).

Since the cloak was such a rare and valuable item James would have wanted it passed on and be used (either for good old fashioned school boy pranks or for good ) in the event of something bad happening. If nothing bad happened, he would get it back from DD.
_____________________________________________
As far as the Potters before their death:

James knew (they all knew – as per the discussions in the shack in PoA) there was a spy. They couldn’t trust anyone (except DD). Giving the cloak to anyone but DD could be risky. I mean Lupin didn't trust Sirius, Sirius didn't trust Lupin, etc. etc.
_____________________________________________


Until Harry came back to school and Quirell showed up with LV, I think, DD was hoping for the best. No one had heard from LV in all that time. Maybe he was gone. Although DD knew deep down this was not true. He had theories but not the urgent need to work on them he has after.

When Harry came to school and LV showed back up DD knew he had to earnestly work to track things and people down. He had to ‘persuade’ people out of memories, etc.

DD must have known that going after the Horcruxes would be dangerous. He had to wait to help Harry get to a certain age with enough knowledge to succeed. He couldn’t give Harry the task of destroying all the horcruxes because Harry would get damaged or killed. DD knew when the time was right.

I guess this is the 'things had to happen at certain times in certain ways' idea people are not fond of huh?
____________________________________________
Someone asked why DD didn’t kill LV himself. That was answered someplace I think. DD killed his own dark wizard, Grindelwald, in 1945. His time was over. It is time for someone else to take over.
There was also the prophecy that LV made real by going after the Potters.
______________________________________________

Walburga means strong protection, of what? A horcrux? Walpurgis is a variant of this name......Very interesting pumpkinjuice. I thought she might have more. Kreacher talks about her like she is alive all the time. How would Kreacher know what to take if someone didn’t tell him what was important (like Daddy Blacks outfit!) I love this train of thought!!!
_______________________________________________

Careful you all. In reading your posts I am warming up to the Harry as horcrux theory. If DD sent the curse, killed Lilly and his soul separated then it could have gone into Harry and thus the transfer of parsletongue, mind connection etc.
________________________________________________
Finally:
If Peter was at the hollow and LV knew it he would have used him like he used Quirill yes? I don’t think LV knew Peter was there. Peter liked to watch (remember Snapes Worst Memeory). He would have gone to see how his actions were acted upon. He was not invited by LV therefore he would have remained hidden (by whatever means). He could have retrieved the wand and hidden it. It would explain why LV didn’t just destroy him for all his sneakiness (hiding as a rat, and just being a rat).

Mayfair I like you #2 scenario about LV, the muggle and Peter, too.


Wow there is a lot to think about.

I think what happened was that the potters went into hiding didnt they because i remember in one of the films professor magonigel sed so ok so then i think that james left in dumbledores possesion to keep for harry becaus ehe new harry would need it so he passed it down to his son as his father did to him because he new he was gonna die or somthing like that what do you think pm me if you think im wrong or if you agree with me or something xx nat xx

hi Prof, I do like your point, hard as it is to swallow, that 'things had to happen at certain times and in certain ways'. There is an issue of tempo underlying the development of this plot, not just narrative tempo but almost cosmic tempo. DD put little stock in divination, and yet there is a sense of heroic destiny in play here that is about as close to 'divinable fate' as anything can get. And some of the divinations do in fact work out. This is not to negate choice, but to fold it into a fabric of broader processes of some kind. A kind of what philosophers call "compatibilism"--freedom and determinism coexisting. People's choices tend to be given chance to happen at the time when they would need to happen for the cosmic story to continue.

Yes, your point about Kreacher is true--he talks about her like she's alive....I just thought it was because he's in some elfin denial about the fate of the pure-blood family he revered. But the problem with any idea of the mother being actually alive (not just in Kreacher's mind and in the echoey manner of a portrait) would have to overcome the problem that Kreacher genuinely belongs to Harry now. Unless he is a deeper turncoat than thought possible, and he obeyed Harry under higher order.

But little of this explains why Dumbledore having the cloak is important. I think that is the question at hand. Jo said that the answer was "crutial," so we must ask "why would Peter being under the invisibility cloak be "crutial" to the plot? And how would it have gotten into Dumbledore's hands? That is perhaps an even better question. The right question, as it happens. Remember, this isn't some idea someone came up with saying "I think this gap is important" like we see all over this forum. This is what Jo said herself. So I think that we can rule out answers like "James gave it to dumbledore for safe keeping." I'm not belittling this response. Really, I'm not. What I'm saying is that, if James gave it to Dumbledore, then why? If it is a sign of a plan, then how do you deal with the objections, and why does it matter? If someone was under it, then why is that person being at the potters that night important? It is that all-important question of "so what?"

Fish

Fish
I agree with you. Why did James give DD the cloak. Did he think that, at the time, it would better serve in DDs hands because he (James), Lilly and Harry were in hiding?

There must have been something more than that. There must have been some kind of plan.

I emphatically don't think Peter was under the cloak at the house. He would have hidden it and DD would not have gotten it. JKR said James gave it to DD, not Peter or anyone else. I do think Peter might have been there. He like to watch, was probably pretty good at hiding, (LV might have even known he was there). Peter saw what happened, knew LV would find a way to come back. Took the wand and hid it. Then went to hide in a place where he could hear news and keep a look out. Or just plain hide, the little rat.....



That is the main question. There needs to be a lot of pondering done on this. I can think of many reasons but, like you said, none of them would be truly important to the plot (eg. it was a valueable possesion that James wanted kept safe; he gave it to DD or use by the Order, he knew he would die and wanted to pass it down, etc.)

The only plot important thing I can think of now is that someone was supposed to be standing guard under it and failed to show or showed and failed to help - or couldn't if it was Petunia. (I don't think Petunia was there. Why? and someone would have to do a memory charm, again why?)

Earlier I had thought that perhaps DD had confiscated it from James during his Hogwarts days and James had not retrieved it, thus the "Your father left this in my possession before he died" Not "Your father gave this to me for safe keeping before he died" or "your father loaned this to me for Order business before he died". But that isn't major to the plot.

That'sProfessor, that's a good point--Peter might indeed have been there watching but not under the cloak. Thanks for dissociating those in my mind...

Fish is right, the importance of the cloak being in DD's possession is the question. Remind me whether the theory that it is descended somehow from Gryffendor has been disproved?

If you subscribe to the theory that Harry's family line is the heir of Gryffindor (DD said 'only a true Gryffindor could pull that [the sword] out of the hat' or something like that) then the cloak would be a relic of Gryffindor since it was passed down from Harry's grandfather to his father etc. It's rare and valuable, probably very old.

Oh here's a tangent possibly proving it's age.... since people of ancient times were smaller than people now...and Harry is growing out of the invisibility cloak...it wasn't made for a child, why would you make something so special just for a child? It was made for wizards smaller in stature, therefore it is very old.

ok I'm back now. Sorry about the trip into tangent land.

Still, why is it so important that DD had it?

I was sitting in the dentist chair *cringes at the memory* today and was trying to focus on why. I was trying to come up with a timeline of events from the time that DD interviewed Trewlaney with Snape overhearing until the time the Potters were killed. What I got was:

The interview: DD, Trewlaney, Snape
Snape tells LV almost immediatly
Snape tells DD what he did
DD sends Potters and Longbottoms into hiding
Sirius tells Potters to use PP as secret keeper
Sirius 'goes into hidin't to throw LV off
PP is supposed to be in hiding
PP runs to LV and 'rats' out the Potters
Sirius is suspicous of PP and goes to 'check' on him Why?
LV goes to Godrics Hollow (I think PP is shadowing)
LV kills James
LV advances on Lilly and gives her several chances to move
Lilly refuses and dies
LV advances on Harry, throws the AK and it backfires.
LV turns into Vapormort
DD sends Hagrid to get Harry

Where was Snape?
Where was DD?
Where was Madeye?
Where was Lupin? I think the books say but don't remember.


My questions are many, did this all happen in a matter of hours or a day? If not James would not have been able to sit and wait. There would have been some kind of plan.

Perhaps they were going to draw LV out and try to defeat him at the Hollow. Perhaps James gave the cloak to DD to have a guard posted. But something went wrong.

I read a theory on another board about James having Gryffindors sword at the Hollows that night. Maybe he thought that would defeat LV.

It seems that something did go terribly wrong that night. I think there was a plan that failed or someone that failed.

Thoughts?

Cris

Oh my, Cris, if something like your theory is true, that there was a plan that failed, or someone who failed in executing or planning the plan--that fits EXACTLY with DD's words at the bowl in the cave..."no, no, not them...its all my fault...kill ME! ..." etc. As far as I see right how, anyhow....and maybe I am leaving out words that don't fit this intuition, books in the other room....

Maybe DD was vague, thus, about "James left this in my possession before he died", because saying much more about how he came to have it would reveal to Harry that his own (DD's) failure is partly to blame for the deaths of the Potters. Maybe what we will learn in Bk 7 is of this and other imperfections of the master. To make him human, not to diminish him. And to help Harry realize that despite his (Harry's) not being a great wizard, his heart (blood) might be what can kill LV (since DD could not, as per the prophecy, and as DD seems to have realized through HBP at least).

This doesnt fill in all the blanks of course, but it's a stab--can anyone debunk it to move us along?

jkr almost said that harry is not heir of gryffindor
MA: What about Harry's family his grandparents were they killed?
JKR: No. This takes us into more mundane territory. As a writer, it was more interesting, plot-wise, if Harry was completely alone. So I rather ruthlessly disposed of his entire family apart from Aunt Petunia. I mean, James and Lily are massively important to the plot, of course, but the grandparents? No. And, because I do like my backstory: Petunia and Lily's parents, normal Muggle death. James's parents were elderly, were getting on a little when he was born, which explains the only child, very pampered, had-him-late-in-life-so-he's-an-extra-treasure, as often happens, I think. They were old in wizarding terms, and they died. They succumbed to a wizarding illness. That's as far as it goes. There's nothing serious or sinister about those deaths. I just needed them out of the way so I killed them.
MA: That sort of shuts down Heir of Gryffindor [theories], as well.
JKR: [Pause.] Yeah. Well - yeah.
MA: Another one bites the dust.

I think there was some time gap between all these events. lets re visit OotP, when Dumbledore was about to reveal the prophecy to Harry. I quote Dumbledore here

'....But the prophecy was made to somebody, and that person has the means of recalling it perfectly.'
'Who heard it?' asked Harry, though he thought he knew the answer already.
'I did,' said Dumbledore. 'On a cold, wet night sixteen years ago, in a room above the bar at the Hog's Head inn....'

If Harry was 15 in 1996 I think, then the event must have happened sometime in 1980. Thu,s these events would be separated by over a years time. I believe a lot many things happened in that one year than mentioned in the books. That would give all the parties involved plenty of time to choose their options and perhaps that's when James may have decied to hand over his cloak to Dumbledore. But it still doesn't explain why?

So many plans could have been formulated and failed then, but I admit that I am totally stumped on the possible reason for James to hand over his cloak to Dumbledore. The only reasons that come to mind are the hopelessly mundane ones such as James giving it to Dumbledore for safekeeping etc. But none explain it to the degree to satisfy the curiousity generated after JKRs assertion of the significance of this event

Thanks for the reference snivellusfan. saved me the trouble. Of course, if you look at the quote in context, it's not a full denial, but it's close anyway. Close enough. But nevertheless, the question is this: Let's say that the cloak is griffindor's. Dumbledore obviously wasn't aware, as he said that the sword is the only momento of griffindor's in existence. Also, niether James nor Dumbledore knew it was a horcrux, or they would have destroyed it. So why did james give it to dumbledore. It takes us back to the original question, and the problem I raised previously. No, I don't think that is it.



That's my point exactly. And is why I don't go with the "it was all a plan" theory. Well, since we seem to have worn out these ideas, let's go back to some previous ones that prehaps should be revisited (this is from my summary in the first post):

1. The cloak is a horcrux itself

2. The cloak was used to hide a horcrux

3. Something has been magically hidden inside the cloak, similar to the Mirror of Erised or the Sorting Hat. (TriadOfDarkness)

4. Either James or Lily or both worked in the Department of Mysteries in the room unable to be opened. The cloak could then either be the key itself or contain a key for the room. (pottypotter)

5. James left it with Dumbledore after a meeting where Snape was bound to James in an unbreakable vow of loyalty and protection. (Uglybaldboy)

6. The cloak being with Dumbledore indicates that the Potters' death was all part of a plan to overcome the Dark Lord

7. What's important is that James didn't need the cloak - or that he wanted it to be kept safe for a while, rather than someone else needing it for some reason. (Capricorn)

By the way, what do you guys think of the Petunia issue? If you follow the link in my sig, you'll see my whole argument on the issue.

-Fish

I'd like to pick at Fish's option 3, something has been magically hidden inside the cloak.

Some possibilities:

1. A Horcrux: It is intriguing to think it might be hiding a horcrux, with the added intrigue that maybe James in his Hogwarts marauding came across something in the recesses somewhere which is what Tom wanted to come back for when he came asking for a job from DD. But against this is the fact that sending the cloak out into the story the way it has been--such that Harry could have just lost it or had it stolen at any time--would be wierd.

2. Some kind of device relevant to the DoM, perhaps even the veil. Someone above suggested that maybe it is a key of some kind, for the locked door, or maybe something that could interact with the veil in the mysterious archway. Could the cloak, placed over the veil that HIDES (renders invisible) what is on the other side, render the other side visible? It would be a double negation of visibility, which would add up to visibility. Both are 'cloth' of some kind. This is cool, but feels farfetched.

3. Something James found at Hogwarts that was indeed an artifact of Gryffendor's , that he wanted to get into safe hands. The fact that DD talks of the "only known relic of GG" leaves open the wide possibility that there are artifacts unknown to him, and maybe James stumbled across one in his marauding, especially given his Head Boy privileges. In this scenario, the two possibilities are that he told DD about it when he gave him the cloak, or that he did not. I dont have further thoughts on that disjunct at the moment, except that you'd think James was .

Now, about the heir of Gryffendor theory being shot down--perhaps my headache is hampering me, but I am unclear how the innocence of James' parents deaths in any way really shuts down the theory that Harry is heir of Gryffendor? Granted JKR gives a positive--though stumblingly hesitant--respond to that insight, but how is that so?



4.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the Fidelius Charm on the house in Godric's Hollow works like the one on Number 12, Grimmauld Place. That is, one can get into the house with the proper permission, but the person can be seen outside the house before entering. What if the cloak was meant to be used by people, other than DD who had his own way of being invisible, to go to the house when necessary. The Potters may have needed stuff, whatever, brought to them from time to time. They were effectively prisoners in their house. During the more than a year from before Harry was born (at the time of the prophesy) until he was about one year old, they were under threat. The Potters could have wanted some fresh veggies, a newspaper, or whatever during that year. Yea, I know about magicing stuff, but sometimes you want the real thing.

That is a good point. Maybe Lily persuaded her sister petunia to help james and herself.. This could explain why petunia is so upset when it comes to james and Lily. Petunias way of dealing with the past to is to blame what happened on other people so she doesn't have to deal with reality. She probably sees her sister when she sees harry and this further brings back the past which she must repress at any cost. So this fact that the potters were sort of like prisoners and needed outside help could further the theory that petunia was under the cloak when the potters were killed because she had been visiting regularlyand she relayed the message to dumbledore.

is it possible that nevilles parents were under the cloak, i just thought that hiding the longbottoms and the potters together would be a good idea for added protection, however this does leave me somewhat confused as to when the longbottems were tortured,

can anyone expand on this

Well, Harry's parents were killed on Oct. 31 and Dumbledore explains that the Longbottoms were tortured when everyone thought they were safe, which was most likely around late November, December time. For this theory to be true, two grown adults would need to be able to fit under the Cloak with a baby boy, Neville, and keep him quiet so as to avoid detection. I dont see that happening. Also, it would be unwise to hide both set of parents with babies born as the seventh month dies in the same place... you would want to compartmentalize them, so if one set dies, the other set will still live.

I also do not think, that Frank and Alice Longbottom, respectable aurors, would hide under a cloak while watching the Potter's die... and then Voldemort turning on Harry. If they were indeed under the cloak, and well timed Avada Kedavra would have achieved the same effect as Lily's Sacrifice, causing his soul to be ripped from his body in a more direct manner. He would never see it coming when he is focused on Lily or Harry.

~Albus

I actually never considered the fact that they would do nothing, it probably slipped my mind, however they may have had neville with them but used silencio on him ( seems cruel ) and then performed a memory charm on him so he forgot what he saw, which could be why he is so forgetful.

Also they may not of helped the potters as they were only visiting and not supposed to be there, and didnt want to risk neville.