Harry in the care of Dursleys (was Re: Lily (was gender-spiked musings); )

[david_p2002ca]

No: HPFGUIDX 33458

Rosie wrote:
 
> Yes, I agree! For all the reasoning in the world, I do not think 
that
> Harry should have been left in the care of the Dursleys. They 
clearly 
> hate him, and how they have got away with all the abuse for the 
past 
> 13 years is weird.

I don't think they hate so much as fear him and what he could do.  
Plus, they have seen the result of magic: it killed Petunia's sister 
and her husband.  So magic also cost the Dursleys any chance of ever 
reconciling with the Potters.  Again, as with Snape, Harry is a 
lightning rod for unresolved emotions and suffers for it.

Plus, as JKR alluded in one of the Scholastic chats, Dumbledore did 
not leave Harry without magical supervision.  Remember the old lady 
who would sometimes care for Harry - Mrs Figg (PS/SS)?  At the end of 
GoF Dumbledore tells Sirius to "...alert Remus Lupin, Arabella Figg, 
Mundungus Fletcher - the old crowd."  So the doddering old neighbour 
may well turn out to be a powerful witch protecting Harry.

Dumbledore isn't perfect, I'll admit.  But hiding Harry amongst the 
muggles (with a magic bodyguard hidden nearby) does make sense, with 
DEs still on the prowl, torturing and killing.  

David P