What Protected Harry?

[Fortescue]

I have been mulling this thought over in my mind for a few days and thought I would throw it out there and see what everone else thinks.

We were lead to believe that the reason Harry was protected from Voldemort while at Privet Drive was due to Lily's sacrifice the night she was killed. In DH we saw through Harry that Lily did indeed sacrifice herself in an attempt to save Harry. She faced Voldemort without a wand and did not try to fight him but only stood in front of Harry. But, James did the same thing! Voldemort's thoughts were of how stupid the two of them were for not having their wands on them. Neither Lily or James made a move to get a wand and we did not know if they had their wands on them or not. I would assume they both did since all the witches and wizards we have ever seen always carry their wands, regardless.

So then we have Harry walking into the woods to face Voldemort and lay down his life in order to save others. He too did not pull his wand to defend himself, but took Voldemort's wraith to save others. Harry survived again, but why? Was it his sacrifice that saved him? All Voldemort did was kill of the part of his soul that Harry had carried around with him for sixteen years.

So, what actually saved Harry, at Privet Drive?
Was it Lily's sacrfice only or did James's willingness to face death unarmed have something to do with Harry's protection at the Dursley's?

So, what saved Harry from AK again? Was it only the bit of Voldemort's soul inside him, was it his willingness to give his life to protect others, or was it something else?

Thoughts?

 

[Piper]

I think she definately meant that Lily and James were both without their wands at that moment. They trusted Peter as their secret-keeper enough to go about without being on guard all of the time, even though he was known to be a bit of a coward, and there existed the possibility that he could be tortured into telling if nothing else, (there seems to be some speculation in their occupations, I always though auror, but I think we can rule out Brain Surgeon and Rocket Scientist right here), James didn't willingly die without pulling out the wand to defend himself, he simply was caught off guard. He didn't have a wand handy, so no choice. Lily having a choice and dying is what protected Harry at Privet Drive, I take it in the scene before Kings Cross she was saying that Harry lived because the Elder Wand would not work in killing him, since he was the rightful owner.

 

[Horntail88]

Lily/James' sacrifice is definitely what has protected him all these years, but I myself am not to sure about how he escape the forest unharmed...possibly, Piper is right about the Elder Wand not working against its master, but it did it's job, didn't it? It shot the Killing Curse at Harry, it can't possibly control the effects OF the curse...meaning something else saved Harry that night.

We can rule out his sacrifice to save everyone else because Lily sacrificed herself for Harry, but she died in the end...

I think the Killing Curse only affected the part of Harry's soul that was tainted with Lord Voldemort, so while the Voldemort inside Harry died, the Harry inside Harry lived. Weird, I know, but that's the best I can think of...

 

[Weasleyfanforever]

I think this should answer the question:

"But if Voldemort used the Killing Curse," Harry started again, "and nobody died for me this time how can I be alive?"
"I think you know," said Dumbledore. "Think back. Remember what he did, in his ignorance, in his greed and his cruelty."
Harry thought. He let his gaze drift down over his surroundings. If it was indeed a palace in which they sat, it was an odd one, with chairs set in little rows and bits of railing here and there, and still, he and Dumbledore and the stunted creature under the chair were the only beings there. Then the answer rose to his lips easily, without effort.
"He took my blood," said Harry.
"Precisely!" said Dumbledore. "He took your blood and rebuilt his living body withit! Your blood in his veins, Harry, Lily's protection inside both of you! He tethered you to life while he lives!"

And a little bit later on (I didn't want to type the whole page and a half ) :

"He took your blood believing it would strengthen him. He took into his body a tiny part of the enchantment your mother laid upon you when she died for you. His body keeps her sacrifice alive, and while the enchantment survives, so do you and so does Voldemort's one last hope for himself."

 

[Horntail88]

But see, then how could Harry kill Voldemort if the same enchantment is in BOTH of them??? It leaves a very big opening for contradiction...

 

[Weasleyfanforever]

The way that I take it is that since the enchantment was only meant for Harry, it only works on him. Being in Voldemort kept the enchantment alive, but it didn't protect Voldemort. And again, the reason that Harry survived was because the protection was still intact, it killed the portion of Voldemort's soul that was inside him, but it didn't effect his whole and intact soul.

 

[Piper]

Yes I read those passages, but the enchantment/bond of blood, whatever, wore off when Harry turned 17 according to the storyline.

 

[Fortescue]

So if we disregard Harry's blood protection, which it seems makes sense as Piper said. Harry was no longer protected after his birthday, thus the Order's urgency to get him away from the Dursley's. That makes sense to me as it was a huge part of story from the beginning. If as Dumbledore said, the reason Harry survived the second AK was because he and Voldemort carried the same blood, I can buy the fact that Voldemort made the mistake of using Harry's blood, which he thought was to his advantage, but if Harry lost his protection at 17, wouldn't Voldemort then lose any benefit of having Harry's blood.

I can buy the fact that Voldemort guaranteed Harry's survival by using his blood, but only to a degree. I think there is still a gaping hole in that part of it.

I also agree that if the AK was shot from the Elder Wand at anyone, it would kill them regardless of who owned it. AK is AK and magic is magic so I find it hard to believe that that was what saved Harry.

 

[cj633]

Regarding the final battle in the hall
HP and the DH pages 743-744 US version " Harry saw Voldemort's green jet meet his own spell , saw the Elder Wand fly high, dark against the sunrise, spinning across the enchanted ceiling like the head of Nagini, spinning through the air toward the master it would not kill, who had come to take full possession of it at last."

...the master it would not kill, and Harry survives his 3rd Avada Kedavra curse. I liked that Voldemort was killed by ..." his own rebounding curse..." leaving Harry not a murderer and his soul whole.

 

[Weasleyfanforever]

So if we disregard Harry's blood protection, which it seems makes sense as Piper said. Harry was no longer protected after his birthday, thus the Order's urgency to get him away from the Dursley's. That makes sense to me as it was a huge part of story from the beginning. If as Dumbledore said, the reason Harry survived the second AK was because he and Voldemort carried the same blood, I can buy the fact that Voldemort made the mistake of using Harry's blood, which he thought was to his advantage, but if Harry lost his protection at 17, wouldn't Voldemort then lose any benefit of having Harry's blood.

I can buy the fact that Voldemort guaranteed Harry's survival by using his blood, but only to a degree. I think there is still a gaping hole in that part of it.

I also agree that if the AK was shot from the Elder Wand at anyone, it would kill them regardless of who owned it. AK is AK and magic is magic so I find it hard to believe that that was what saved Harry.

I think we have to think of the gleam of triumph in Dumbleodre's eye in GoF. He knew that Harry wouldn't lose that protection at age 17, even though he had to keep that pretense.

Everyone thought, before the Elder Wand, that if AK was shot from Voldemort's wand that it would kill them, regardless of who they were, and we all know the exception to the fact, and I think we all know the exception to the fact again, and I think the facts from book 7 prove why!

As I said, I think the protection may have lived in Voldemort's blood, but it didn't benefit him. Harry was the one the enchantment was meant for, and he was the one that prospered from it, because it was meant for him, and while it could be held by someone else, it couldn't be spread to them...

 

[Horntail88]

So you're saying it had nothing to do with the Elder Wand or Harry being it's true master, just that it's the same enchantment put in place by Lily that saved him? That seems like kind of a let-down...JKR's not known to use repetition in the series...

 

[cj633]

So if we disregard Harry's blood protection, which it seems makes sense as Piper said. Harry was no longer protected after his birthday, thus the Order's urgency to get him away from the Dursley's. That makes sense to me as it was a huge part of story from the beginning. If as Dumbledore said, the reason Harry survived the second AK was because he and Voldemort carried the same blood, I can buy the fact that Voldemort made the mistake of using Harry's blood, which he thought was to his advantage, but if Harry lost his protection at 17, wouldn't Voldemort then lose any benefit of having Harry's blood.

I think that there are two parts to this that everyone is confusing including myself until I thought about it some more. One is that Lily died to save Harry and that is the protection in Harry's blood. The other is the charm that DD put on Harry that lasted as long as Harry could call Privet Dr. home and ended when he turned 17.

OotP- page 836, US version, " ... a protection that flows in your veins to this day. I put my trust therefore in your mother's blood. I delieved you to her sister, her only remaining relative. ...
... she took you and in so doing she sealed the charm I placed on you. ...

I also wonder about the Elder wand. As I posted before I would not kill it's master, Harry, but it let the AV curse hit Harry in the forest unlike in the final battle in the hall. I suppose it was sensing and killing the part of Voldemort that was in Harry.

 

[Piper]

Well as it was written it sure seems like she meant the bond of blood protection got an extension, because that pretty much all she had them discuss, but I am holding firm to the original storyline telling myself that it must have been something else.

 

[Vold. E. Mort]

Actually, was it ever stated that the blood protection would expire at 17? I thought it was just the enchantment that DD cast on Privet Drive that expired as he left. Why would his mother's sacrifice have an expiration date? A mother's love is forever. Thus, the blood protection, born of Lily's love of her child, would endure all time, and always flow within Harry.

 

[cj633]

Thank-you Vold. E. Mort, that is what I was trying to say in my post when I said that there were to parts to the protection on Harry.

 

[cagedcactus]

I think that she gave the explanation in clear words in those last chapters.
Voldemort asks Snape why the Elder wand is not doing his bidding? Even after killing Snape, Elder wand doesnt really work greatly for Voldemort. He casts spells left and right inside Hogwarts just before his duel with Harry. The spells dont seem to have its real effect on people. Even Harry tells him that while facing the last stand.
Voldemort's last spell (the killing curse) rebounds on him, because he uses Elder wand to kill Harry. Harry is the true owner of Elder wand at that time. So Elder wand doesnt kill Harry, but through Expelliarmus spell it gets ejected from Voldemort's hands and kills him in return.

Lily provided the protection to Harry, that saved him at Godric's Hallow.
That protection was enhanced by Dumbledore when he puts his faith in blood protection and lands Harry in Petunia's lap. Harry can live with his blood protection until EITHER he stops calling Privet drive (his aunts house) home OR he becomes 17, which ever comes first. Because your bond as a child is broken with your parents when you become of age. Your love or your mother's love doesnt have to die at that moment. But the protection that a parent provide to child, kind of matures away, when the child becomes an adult, and is able to protect himself/herself.

That Love protection was in Harry's blood, through which he killed Quirell in first year. But in fourth year Voldemort negated the blood protection when he used Harry's blood to come back. But the protection that Dumbledore had provided on Privet drive still existed.

 

[Dr Winterbourne]

Umm, didn't Voldemort perpetuate the protection after its expiry date precisely by using harry's blood? And this is why it didn't stop working?

 

[Piper]

I think she was kind of all over the board with this protection thing.

It goes in a circle. Was he only protected at Petunia's until 17 by the second protection, the charm? If so why couldn't Voldemort/Quirrel touch him at Hogwarts? If it was because there were two different protections in play, without Voldemort having Harry's blood in PS/SS, he still coudn't touch him, so what changed when he got Harry's blood really?


If he was protected everywhere, and not just Petunias until 17, then why did Voldemort bother to come after him at all when they had to have 7 Harry's to move him, because he wasn't 17 yet.

If he was unprotected when he left Petunias, even under 17, then why couldn't Voldemort/Quirrel touch him at Hogwarts? lol

I think she would have done well to have just said the three Deathly Hallows Items saved him, and used that gleem of triumph for something else. Except she would have had to have actually given him the Elder Wand first..

 

[cagedcactus]

Umm, didn't Voldemort perpetuate the protection after its expiry date precisely by using harry's blood? And this is why it didn't stop working?

Ok here is the detailed version.....

Protection Number 1: Lily's sacrifice.....

Harry got this protection through Lily's sacrifice on that Hallowing night when Harry was a baby, and Voldemort got blasted by his own curse due to that protection on Harry. Harry, with the same protection in his blood, killed Quirrel in book 1, when Quirrel tried to touch him. This protection was cancelled out when Voldemort came back and used Harry's blood to rebirth. He could touch him after that.

Protection Number 2: Dumbledore's charm on Privet drive

Dumbledore gave Harry protection through his blood relation to Petunia. As long as Harry came back to that house to live after school was over, and Petunia accepted him there (willingly or unwillingly), no one could touch Harry with bad intention at Privet drive. This protection existed until Harry became 17. we all know what happened in DH....

I think both the protection were done by the time Harry left in chapter "Seven Potters".
What protected Harry when Tom casted first AK in forest? The horcrux. The horcrux that existed inside Harry, was killed with that AK, and the trauma caused Harry to go into unconciousness, where he met DD, who explained everything.

What protected Harry when Tom casted second AK in Hogwarts? The Elder wand.
Tom was never true owner of the wand. Harry was. Elder wand didnt kill harry, but through that Expelliarmus spell the Avada Kedavra rebounded, and killed Tom.

 

[Dr Winterbourne]

Thank you, cagedcactus.

With regards to the question asked above by Piper, Voldemort would have chased him before his birthday because he believed that he had negated the charm when he took the blood. And you're right, cactus, as soon as Harry left that house, with no intenton of returning, the charm should have ended anyway.

But are you saying that the charm is well and truly over, and plays no part in Harry's survival? I guess that makes the most sense - this book shows Harry out from behind his mother, dealing advice to his mentors, ad facing things on his own.