underage wizards doing magic, family protection, post-schooling

[alhewison]

No: HPFGUIDX 38050

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "adatole" <adatole at y...> wrote:
> Just had to chime in on these threads.
> 
> First, I think we need to keep in mind that MOM is not exactly 
> stating that underage wizards should not perform magic. More to the 
> point, they are saying that underage wizards cannot perform magic 
> that would give them away to Muggles. 

Actually, I disagree with you here. The letters they receive at the 
end of PS/SS tell them not to use magic in the holidays. When Harry 
receives his reprimand from the MOM for the "pudding incident" it is 
because he contravened the law against using magic in front of 
Muggles - AND because as an underage wizard he was not allowed to use 
magic outside school.
> 
> Think about it - Lily obviously came home and performed magic, or 
> else Petunia could never have commented on turning teacups into 
> hedgehogs (or whatever the quote was in SS/PS). Fred and George are 
> constantly performing magic in their room, etc. I would strongly 
> suspect that Hermione also performs magic at home (probably to 
> practice the coming years' lessons and be prepared!). The 
difference between all these folks and Harry is that the adults 
around them support this activity, and would never tell anyone 
outside the  confines of the home.
> *****************
I think here, you have just underlined one of the inconsistencies in 
the Potterverse. Whilst it is possible that Lily was allowed to 
perform magic at home as the law could have been brought in after her 
time, Hermione certainly tried spells before she went to Hogwarts. 
However, once there we here no mention of her performing underage 
magic outside Hogwarts. The twins are a different matter, unless the 
pops and bangs we hear about were not magical which seems unlikely. 
Whilst this is probably just an inconsistency, people have tried to 
justify Harry getting caught, with the idea that he is more closely 
watched than other Hogwarts children.

> 
> In regard to Harry's protection in the Dursley's house - I would 
> personally avoid over-analysis. Just like the whole "Mother's Love" 
> protection thing, it is no more and no less complicated than that. 
> Harry was protected by Lily's sacrifice of love. He is protected by 
> the bond of family he shares with the Dursleys (whether they like 
him or not). Voldemort could walk up the front steps and knock on the 
> door, but there is some reason he could not harm Harry in that 
> environment (or else he would have tried by now - even by sending 
> Peter). 

Whilst you may well be right, I think there is enough amgiguity in 
canon to justify analysis. I personally believe that it is more 
complicated than just the bond he shares with the Dursleys although 
that is the core of the protection:

Voldemort says (GOF p.570 UK) that "he has been better protected than 
I think even he knows, protected in ways devised by Dumbledore long 
ago, when it fell to him to arrange the boy's future.Dumbledore 
invoked an ancient magic, to ensure the boy's protection as long as 
he is in his relations' care"  This indicates to me that whilst the 
protection is because he is with the Dursleys, there are a few lines 
("ways") of defence.

I also think that it is no coincidence that we have been reintroduced 
to Mrs Figg who used to babysit for Harry. We know that the same 
woman was both Harry's babysitter and a member of what Dumbledore 
called the "Old Crowd". It would not seem over presumptious to 
believe that Mrs Figg couls have been a wizard pretending to be a 
muggle. Why would she want to do that - other than to protect Harry 
who lived 2 streets away?

Ali

who must now go and wash her daughters hair! Back to reality