Why was Harry sent to live with the Dursleys?

[Marianna Lvovsky]

No: HPFGUIDX 21599

It just struck me today on the umpteenth reread of
SS/PS.

Hagrid brings baby Harry and deposits him on the
Durleys' doorstep. The question is, why wasn't Harry
left with Sirius? After all, he was the one who was
HP's godfather, and I think, guardian.

And it is not because of his being "evil Voldemort
supporter." At least at the time of the Potters' house
blast, no one seems to think of him as a traitor.
Hagrid borrows his bike (and he says he got it from
"young Sirius Black" which does not seem the way to
refer to a murderer), and later in PoA, he talks about
how he comforted "the filthy traitor" (presumably when
got the bike). 

So, why leave young Harry with two nasty, Muggle
people who clearly do not want him, and not with
Sirius, who is a wizard, and Potters' best friend.
More than that, he's HP's guardian, so would have the
legal rights. Yet the thought does not seem to occur
to anyone (and as for protection Dumbledore cast
around Dursleys, unless it's something he could only
do with the family with Lily's blood), I am sure he
could do it around Sirius' house (whatever that may
be). Besides, at that moment, there is every
indication LV is gone forever. 

I understand that Sirius was in no condition that
night to either take HP, or ask to take him (he was
probably on auto-pilot and shock), but it's strange
that no one else seems to think twice on leaving HP
with the Dursleys. 

And no, I do not think "he would have a big head if he
was brought up in the magical world" counts as a
sufficient excuse. Not when going against the Potters'
clear wishes, that are put in legal form.

Marsha 





__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/