Lilly's touch was:Magical protection -- the Dursleys

[Kara]

No: HPFGUIDX 45027

"jastrangfeld" <msbonsai at m...> wrote:
> Ok, I've just had a thought.  It says while Harry's in 
> his "relations" care.  That does not specifically say the "Dursley's" 
> care.  If it were their care, are we talking "just" when he's in 
> their house?  Then he's not protected at the elementary schools he 
> went to.

I've wondered about that, too. I would think that he would be
protected wherever he went, so long as he was staying with them. Or,
if he has to be with them, or near them at all times to be protected..
well, he does go to school with Dudley. And it seems that any other
time he's either at home, or he's with Petunia and/or Vernon (such as
going shopping).

> What if, and I know it's a stretch . . . but what if somehow there's 
> another relation there . . . say his parents are somehow still 
> involved in the afterlife?  Perhaps this is still referring to the 
> protection of his mother dying to protect him?  

This is interesting, but if his mother was still protecting him..
wouldn't he be protected wherever he went? I would think if Lily's
spirit was protecting him in some way, she would always be with him.
Plus, he isn't really in her care.

I mean, if we think 
> about it, and hmm I hope I have all this right now, but Dumbledore's 
> gleam in his eyes, maybe that referred to his knowledge or fierce 
> determination that Harry remain safe?  

My opinion on the gleam in his eye was because Harry had been touched
by Voldemort, and survived. He had survived without his mother's
protection. I'm quite annoyed, because my friend has my copy of GoF to
read, so I can't look up the quote to be sure.. but if I remember
correctly, Harry had just told Dumbledore that Voldemort can now touch
him, and that is when Dumbledore gets the triumphant gleam. Because
Harry has proven to be able to go up against Voldemort, without the
protection, without help, and lived. And that's certainly something to
be triumphant about. But, I know this one has been debated
endlessly... so this has probably already been brought up.

> Ok, so maybe I'm stretching this way too far out there, but does 
> anyone else have thoughts on this?  I'm intriuged at the "relation's 
> care" rather than stating just the Dursley's names.  It makes it that 
> so much more could be read into this :o)

I am, too! It makes it sound that there are other relatives out there.

~ Kara (who is a newbie to the list :)