Here's the thread to pose your questions from the second book! Anything and everything that you have a question about can be posted here, and i ask that all member whether replying or asking a new question of your own, would respect those in this forum and do not reply with hostility.

Back at the Dursleys, Harry is mildly better because they are afraid of him, but it does make me wonder why he can't be shipped out more to wizarding families who would love to host him! He could still claim Privet Drive as his home, right? I suppose there is some fine print in there somewhere!

Happy reading! Thanks for your continued involvement!

I don't think so. Dumbledore would have made sure that Harry went back to the Dursleys because because, of course, it is safer for him there than in a wizarding family where Voldemort could get him. If anyone's forgotten, Harry had blood protection from his aunt Petunia - the fact that she let him stay with them sealed the charm that Dumbledore put on the Dursley's house so that Voldemort could not penetrate it whilst he was inside.
If you ask me it was up to Dumbledore whether Harry should stay at the Dursleys or another Wizarding family. It wasn't just because he would have been better off without the fame, he would have been better off with the sure protection from his blood relatives - anyone else and Harry wouldn't have been as protected.

Yes, I do agree. In fact, it was probably more important now that Harry stayed with the Dursleys because he knew what he was. He wasn't trained yet, he had hardly any skill, putting him in the middle of the wizarding world would have been a very bad idea. Now that he was no longer ignorant of the situation, he needed protection.
About Hagrid-- we know that he was expelled, but why didn't Dumbledore eventually try to give him a bit better of an education? Maybe teach him a little bit more? His skills were very lacking, he wouldn't be able to duel. Hagrid was a very important person in keeping Harry safe at school, perhaps he should have learned a bit more than something a third-year would learn. And maybe get him a proper wand, too.

Oh, I know it was all about the blood protection that Harry had to stay with the Dursleys, but I think I remember reading later that it was so long as he could claim number 4 Privet Drive as his home, the protection would remain. . .not necessarily that he actually had to reside there a certain number of days for it to work. He went with the Weasleys and with Dumbledore himself enough that I think the blood protection was in place so long as Petunia claimed Harry. It also surprises me that it seems Dumbledore never checked up on Harry all those years and it wasn't until he was 11 that he even got his own bedroom! (Sorry, that's a question for the other thread, I guess. ) Not that it would have changed the necessary, but I would think that they could have made sure the boy that was so important to everyone was taken care of and treated with at least some decency!

As for the Hagrid thing, I guess they snap the wands of all prisoners and that's it? Can't be right, though. . .the Death Eaters all had wands after they escaped. Hmmm.

One question that occurred to me was why didn't Harry offer to help the Weasleys out financially (like a new wand for Ron)? I know they would never have accepted it, but I'm sure the offer would have been appreciated. Or did he offer and I'm just a dork and didn't read it? I'm a bit slow this evening, I've got a nasty cold!!

As for why Harry had to return to the Dursleys each summer instead of going with another wizarding family (like the Weasleys)... I just finished GoF and Voldemort said, after coming back to power, that he could not touch Harry while at the Dursleys and that when he was away from the Dursleys home Harry was too well protected (Dumbledore, other ministry people), so I am guessing that perhaps Dumbledore thought it would be too much to ask of another wizarding family to be on constant guard while Harry was staying with them.

I too wonder why Hagrid was not allowed to regain his wand, or get a new one once his name had been cleared of opening the chamber when he had been a student. If the other DEs had been able to get wands when they escaped from Azkaban, as Passerby pointed out, certainly Hagrid could have gotten one as well.

And piggybacking on ladylila705's question about why Harry didn't offer to get Ron a new wand or to help out the Weasleys, I wonder why the Weasley's couldn't have used magic to make their situation better? Couldn't they have magically increased the size of their house, like they did to the Ford Anglia? Couldn't they have improved the look of their robes, so they didn't look so shabby?

I think that if harry didn't go to the dursleys for at least a little bit petunia wouldn't claim him so the protection would cease to exist

Even tho i have no idea why hagrid couldn't get another wand i believe that dumbledore did teach him at least some magic i mean he was able to do things during later books

Also i think that harry was young he probably didn't think he should offer the money anyway and though i agree that the weasleys probably could have mad their situation a bit better by magic i don't believe that was the point because its supposed to show that they are humble and happy regardless

I think Hagrid getting a new wand might have been impossble I mean don't the wizards only have one wand that they can have? I'm not sure but hagrid does have bits of his wand in the umbrella so I think he's happy with that. And also I don't think Hagrid needed to go back to Hogwarts for more training. It's not like they actually learn everything they need to know that you can prolly pick up in a book. I think Hagrid has all of the skills he needs and I'm sure he picked up many things as he grew up, and besides not many poeple would want to go up against Hagrid. He's pretty protect as well by the fact that he is part giant that helps as well.

As far as Harry staying with the Dursleys I think most people have answered that. He needed that portection and yea I think it would be pretty easy for Voldemort to get to him in the wizarding world. But hey you really don't know if the wizarding families would have been so willing to take him in.

As for the Weasleys, I actually wondered today as I read that part why Harry didn't offer to help them but alos I think he might have at some point but they didn''t acept it. I honestly don't think thye would have been able to make their situations better by creating money and making everything bigger and better. If that was possible then everybody would be rich and wealthy and living a great life. Its like your creating your own money and jewels and things. And besides I agree I don't think the Weasleys would do that anyways. Maybe JK made their life like that to show how great of people they are even in their situation.

I have to say as a last thing that it amazes me how much Gilderoy was able to accomplish for so long using other peoples' stories and lives...

Hagrid definitely could have gotten a new wand, because it happens all the time, like it DH when hermione breaks Harry's. So that is still a mystery... although maybe he just never cared enough to get one after his was taken away, but the Death Eaters had work to do so they needed wands, so maybe theirs were all new.

For the Weasleys, i just read GoF again and there was a line in there about how Harry would have happilly given them half of the money in his vault at gringotts, but they would never accept it. So I dont think its that Harry didn't have the thought or decency to offer to help financially, but he just knew they wouldn't accept. And Im sure, as you all have said, that JKR wanted to show how happy the Weasleys were even though they didn't have a lot and maybe play that against the Malfoys lifestyle which is filled with wealth, but also coldness and unhappiness.

I think Hagrid probably wasn't allowed to do magic, even after he was proved innocent because he hadn't undertaken enough education or training. Although he probably could have shown he was able to use a wand and cast spells, but under orders from the Ministry they might not have accepted this as proper..

I'm sure it's quite clear now that Harry was under powerful protection whilst staying with the Dursleys. Staying during the holidays and whilst he was at Hogwarts was enough protection under Dumbledore's watch, as well as Ministry officials. Another thing would be perhaps Dumbledore thought that he would impose too much pressure on another wizarding family who would be happy to take Harry. Although many would be willing for Harry to stay with them, i'm sure they would not realise the danger they would be put in with Voldemort coming back to power. Dumbledore also wouldn't have just placed Harry in any wizarding home, if need be he would have placed them in a home which he was connected to somehow either through trust or friendship etc.

This imposes another question about living.. but relates to the Prisoner of Azkaban (sorry, i know we're discussing CoS). If Sirius was cleared and freed, would Dumbledore have let him really stay with Sirius? He would be well protected staying in the Black house, nevertheless is the protection that Harry was between him and Petunia just too strong to let go of so quickly?

Wait a tick...didn't Harry actually call Hogwarts his home? Harry never considered Privet Drive to be home, and I don't think he ever felt at home there. So I really think that he just need to reside there because that was the safest place for him. I think it just had to do with the fact that it was kind of set way outside the magical world. (Magic is really all around, but the Dursley's house is probably the most non-magical place on earth...)

Hagrid was not proven absolutely completely innocent until Harry went down into the Chamber. At that point, Hagrid was like...60 years old or something. (Out of school, no math for my poor brain) I'm sure that Dumbledore gave Hagrid some kind of personal lessons because he stayed on the grounds. I doubt that Hagrid learned nothing, especially when there's magical stuff happening all around him. It's also clear that he was taught something because apparently he can Apparate and do non-verbal spells.

I think that the Weasleys being poor makes them who they are. They lean on family ties and relationships rather than money, and I like that. So I'm glad they made do with what they had. And it made it that much more awesome when Arthur finally started doing well for his family. Yay!!

Ooh, another question I just thought of! If students aren't allowed to use magic outside of school, then how was Hermione able to perform the charm to repair Harry's glasses? I know it's a minor charm, but it's still performing magic nonetheless. *Wait, did she offer that in the book or is my flu just making me think of the movie?* I remember in SS she did it on the train, and in CoS she did it in Diagon Alley.

Also, what kinds of anti-aging potions do they use? Hagrid definitely does not seem to fit the age range of 63, and neither does Lucius Malfoy.

I don't think Dumbledore would have prolly let him stay because that would have been too dangerous. Even if the Black house has protection I think Kreacher or somebody would have gotten word back to Voldemort. He was better being at the Dursleys no matter how miserable he may have been it was for his onw good.

As for ladylila's question that was just in the movies. His glasses weren't broken in the first book and in the second book Mr. Weasley fixed his glasses that time. Now that I think of it that was a flaw in the movie but in the book Hermione never did that.

I was using this more as a turn of phrase rather than what Harry felt. So long as he "had a home" there not so much that he "felt at home" there. I vaguely remember what you're saying, though, about him being told that he was too well protected when he was not at the Dursley's. I'm not sure it had much to do with out far outside the magical world it was set, though, as they were really ready to infiltrate the home the minute he turned 17. It had everything to do with Petunia's being his Aunt, I guess. And as I was reading CoS, who knows if Harry would have stayed there the entire summer had Dobby not been intercepting his letters from Ron and Hermione!

We're just not going to let this Hagrid stuff go, are we? Heh.

I'm thinking, though, they could have given him a new want. No, he'd not be able to go back to school at his age, but they could have helped him out a bit! He had to know enough magic that Dumbeldore felt comfortable with him being a professor (albeit of Magical Creatures). Obviously the whole wizarding school thing is a lot different, but it seems he'd have to have had some sort of greater education to be in charge of a class. Not that he was that great of a professor. I'll move on!

I wonder if the magical world had some sort of . . . law about appearing wealthier than you are? Meh. I honestly never really noticed that the Weasley's acted all the poor other than Ron moaning about it from time to time. They always seemed comfortable to me.

Okay, I have a question. You know how it says that if magic is used inside a home with minors, they don't know who actually cast the spell. Well, with Harry being in a non-magical home, it would appear obvious who cast it. In CoS, Dobby cast the Hover Charm. When that magic was used, why didn't Harry receive some sort of warning? It wasn't even brought up until his hearing in OotP. I would have thought that he would have received some sort of letter from the MoM about it right after it happened, but it never comes up.

Okay, well hopefully i'm understanding your question correctly, because i started a little late in the reread of CoS and just read that part over this weekend. If i'm correct Harry actually does get a letter from Mafalda Hopkirk....

"Dear Mr Potter,
We have received intelligence that a Hover Charm was used at your place of residence this evening at twelve minutes past nine.
As you know, underage wizards are not permitted to perform spells outside school, and further spellwork on your part may lead to expulsion from said school (Decree for the Reasonable Restriction of Underage Sorcery, 1875, Paragraph C).
We would also ask you to remember that any magical activity that risks notice by member of non-magical community (Muggles) is a serious offense under section 13 of the International Confederation of Warlocks' Statue of Secrecy.
Enjoy your holidays!
Yours sincerely,
Mafalda Hopkirk
Improper Use of Magic Office
Ministry of Magic"

That's the quote from the book (it's on page 21 in the US version), hope that this answers your question.

Oh well, stupid me! Guess I should have reread the book before asking that question. (No I'm not in the process of rereading because my schedule isn't allowing me at the moment. Shame on me, I know.) I didn't remember them ever sending him a letter about that. Guess I was thinking about the movie?

Thanks for pointing that out to me!

Next!

I think Rowlings was trying to imply that "giants" were not very bright and slightly more likely to be violent. I think after Hagrid was cleared, they were afraid to reinstate his wand for fear of any quick moves especially how protective he can be. It seems that a lot of the wizarding ways were based on fear.



As far as the new wand, I wondered that too, but wrote it off as a male pride thing. Ron may have gotten too upset that Harry had to buy him a new wand.

Hagrid has got a wand, the flowery pink umbrella, he just doesn't carry it around with him all the time like the others do. As for being released from Azkaban, I always assumed that it was because he could not be found guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. Furthermore, Hagrid never struck me as an eager and brilliant student so it isn't strange that he did not go back to school after being so shamefully expelled and imprisoned. Hagrid prefers to be outdoors and in close contact with nature and being a giant has been very useful to him and he can get by without having to use magic all that often so why go back? I certainly wouldn't... He knows some spells that are useful to him and that's enough for him. In DH towards the end when his cabin was on fire he couldn't remember the Aguamenti spell but he knew it. That just proves that he's had training but he wasn't a good student.

Well, I'm reading the book now, and I've got two questions.

One...Harry could hear the basilisk from the walls. The snake was loud enough so that he could hear it and understand it. But if Harry could hear its voice, shouldn't Ron and Hermione hear a noise too? They wouldn't understand it was saying something but they should listen to its hiss. If it was loud enough to go through they walls, they would notice it too, right?

The second question...Voldemort accussed Hagrid for the Chamber the first time. However, if they examined Myrtle's body, they'd found out she'd been somewhat frozen to death. Not biten, not eaten, like a spider would kill someone. She was intact. Plus, they could ask her how she died, and she would talk about it. Wizards knew that spiders don't kill with their eyes (thank God!). Plus, they could use veritaserum on Hagrid to find the truth about the monster he was hiding. Don't you think Dippet and everyone else were a little bit reckless when it came to revealing the one who caused all these?

Yes, I know, it doesn't matter really, but I was just wondering.

I think with the Chamber monster thing, it was very similar to what happened when they re-arrested Hagrid and when they blamed things on Sirius in later books. It is clear that the Ministry of Magic just wants to put out stories so it seems like they're doing things, and they completely disregard the truth. Fudge has been shown to be consistently ignorant of the facts, and even when they are told to him point blank, he refuses to acknowledge them. So I'd say it's just corruption and bad politics.

As for the basilisk in the wall thing...good question.

Yes, I guess you're right. I was amazed at how easily they let this go. If Dumbleodre was Headmaster at that time, he wouldn't have believed Voldemort, and he would have fought harder for the truth. I suppose Tom Riddle was a very charming boy indeed and managed to convince everyone that he was right. Plus, as it said in the book, he was the good student, and Hagrid was the trouble-maker. Chances were not good for Hagrid.

Ok, I'm now a bit caught up and starting PoA; I ended CoS yesterday (at about midnight) and have a few questions... about time. Maybe it's me or maybe it's the translation, but anyway if some one could clear that up for me, I'd really appreciate.
In the letter sent by Hermione when Harry arrives to the Burrow, she says that she's going to London with her parents on Wednesday to buy the school stuff, and that she could meet the guys then. However, the Weasleys go to Diagon Alley on Sunday, and they still meet Hermione. Is that the Grangers lived so far that they had to stay in London from Wednesday to Sunday (thing that I don't believe, seriously...), or... what?

And then, by the first Quidditch match, Oliver said they had been training under any climatics conditions, and Fred or George says something like that he hasn't dried out since August... but school started in September, so what had Quidditch to do with that then, he was already wet??



Yeah, I have no idea. I'd say that the hissing wouldn't be as loud as what Harry hears, but even Harry has trouble to make out what it's saying sometimes, so I don't know.

Dumbledore wasn't headmaster at the time of Tom Riddle [Voldemort] he was the transfiguration teacher at that time.



When the chamber was opened in CoS when he was headmaster, no one knew who opened it until the end of the book.



Voldemort didn't actually open the chamber, Ginny did with one of the horacrux's help, Tom Riddle's memory, not fully Voldemort. He was destroyed soon after.

I have a question, and this seems like the best spot to put it because this is the start of the crazed blood status obsession,
What would the blood status of a pureblood had kids with a half-blood?

Well...wouldn't they be a pure-blood? They have two magical parents....

Isn't Harry considered pureblood? Or maybe a witch or wizard with one halfy and one pure blooded parent would just be called a "full-blooded" wizard. I'm not really sure. Hagrid did say that most wizards nowadays were half-blood or less. I think that's why the concept of pureblood is so ridiculous to a lot of people now.

I think that pure-bloods are the families with no Muggle or Half-blood relations. For example, Dumbledore said in HBP that the Gaunts (sp?) were true-bloods because they got married to their cousins, who were true-bloods too, but this led to their descendents being a little nutty. So Harry was not a "mud-blood", like Hermione, but he was not a half-blood either because both his parents were magicians. However, he was not a true true-blood since his mum came from a Muggle family.

It's silly if you want my opinion.

If I remember correctly, I think JKR explained the pure-blood once. Or at least I read it somewhere. Anyways, it was explained that you were considered pure-blood if your family was a wizard back to your grandparents. In other words, if your parents and both sets of grandparents were wizards, you were considered a pure-blood.

I'm way behind everyone here but will ask my questions anyway.

This is me being pedantic:when the trio found Mrs Norris petrified,everyone was coming up the stairs from the feast presumably heading to their common rooms. So why was Malfoy, Goyle, Crabbe etc coming upstairs if their common room is in the dungeons?

And can someone explain Peeves to me please.He is described in the deathday scene as being "the reverse of very pale and transparent" because he's wearing a bright bow tie etc. Did he choose to be a poltergeist?

This is me being pedantic:when the trio found Mrs Norris petrified,everyone was coming up the stairs from the feast presumably heading to their common rooms. So why was Malfoy, Goyle, Crabbe etc coming upstairs if their common room is in the dungeons?

I'm not too sure about that, I was thinking about that too. Maybe there's another way to their common rooms from there, maybe the weren't heading back to their common rooms, or possibly JKR made a mistake

And can someone explain Peeves to me please.He is described in the deathday scene as being "the reverse of very pale and transparent" because he's wearing a bright bow tie etc. Did he choose to be a poltergeist?

I think I understand your question...
I'm guessing he did, I mean, any ghost can pick to be a polergist, it's just their personality described. I'm sure he looks like any other ghost though, it's just the clothes he's wearing that made the description be "reverse of very pale and transparent".