Why was Harry sent to live with the Dursleys?

[beyondthelamppost at yahoo.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 21602

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Marianna Lvovsky <mariannayus at y...> wrote:
> 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/

Hey Marsha! 

I think you are onto a lot of stuff here.  First you hit the $10,000 
question of why put Harry with the Dursley's.  ;o)  All we know is 
that Voldemort tells Harry in GoF that, because of some ancient magic 
invoked by Dumbledore, he cannot touch Harry while he is with his 
relatives.  I don't have a direct quote (Sorry.  I'm at work.), but 
it is my impression that there are no more Potter's.(Sirius refers to 
Harry as the last of the Potter's in the Shrieking Shack.)  So, I'm 
not sure if it's a matter of Petunia being related to Lily as much as 
it's that the Durlsey's are Harry's *only* living relations and that 
Harry must live with his relations in order for the spell to work.  

But I think you are right in that Harry should have legally been 
given to Sirius.  However, it was known (to those deciding Harry's 
fate) that Sirius was James's secret keeper - so that would explain 
some of the mistrust, but I also don't believe that Dumbledore has 
ever thought that Voldemort was destroyed - defeated perhaps, but not 
finished off, hence the protective spell he put on Harry.  So he was 
probably reading the signs and being (wisely) cautious.

However, I am with you in that I totally disagree with "he would have 
a big head if he was brought up in the magical world."  I believe if 
there had been a better way that he would have been put elsewhere, 
but *alas!* we have a long time before we find out why.  ;o)

- Jamie