Dumbledore and Scabbers

[maria_kirilenko]

No: HPFGUIDX 55942

I wrote about the "Pettigrew casting spells on unsuspecting Weasley 
children" theory.

Marianne asked:
>I must have missed this discussion.  Point me in the right direction 
>to show me where the evidence exists that Peter Imperio'd one or 
>more of the Weasleys.  And, what would be Peter's motivation?  
>Voldemort was almost non-existent for most of those years.  What 
>would make Peter risk discovery to use the Imperious Curse on kids?  
>To what end, when he had no Master to serve? 

I don't know when this point was first brought up, but Heidi briefly 
recapped it today in message # 55901: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/55901

>No, not really.  I probably didn't make myself clear.  Obviously, 
>having a DE lounging around the kitchen is not something one would 
>want.  My point was that, once Dumbledore knew about Scabbers' real 
>identity, Peter was long gone on his way back to Voldemort.  So, is 
>there a pressing reason to tell the Weasleys that the rat that used 
>to be in their house, but now is gone, was Pettigrew - especially if 
>you have no proof on hand to back up that statement?  And, if, as 
>Headmaster, all of the Weasley children seem perfectly normal, do 
>you make the judgement that perhaps it's not worth throwing everyone 
>into an uproar over something you can't prove to them?  

I'm guessing that Dumbledore asked himself this question at the end 
of PoA and came to the same conclusion as you. <g> But most people 
have moral qualms about stuff like that. I, as a logically thinking 
(most of the time, anyway) person, fail to see why kids in America 
are allowed to have sex, smoke and drive from the age of 16 or 18, 
but are forbidden to drink alcohol until they turn 21. 

Anyway, even though logic, maybe, possibly, speaks against it, I'm 
sure Molly and Arthur will be absolutely *furious* when they find out 
about the whole affair, and especially when they find out that it's 
been concealed from them for over a year. Fear the Wrath of Molly 
Weasley, Dumbledore...

I wrote:
> What interests me more is whether Hermione's parents knew that she 
> was Petrified in CoS.

Marianne continued:
>Or whether the Weasleys ever learned about Ron's broken leg.  

Nah, a broken leg is nothing. At a school where they teach magic, 
accidents are bound to happen. Of course, the most interesting thing 
about the broken leg is the circumstances, but that's a whole another 
story.

The basilisk is different, though. That can't be considered as a mere 
accident, and is also something the parents should know about... it's 
their kid, after all. But somehow, I doubt that they were ever told 
about it. Once it became obvious she wasn't anywhere near death, 
Dumbledore let out a great big sigh of joy at not having to contact 
anyone, probably. 

He isn't a very *moral* person when it comes to little things like 
that, is he?

>Although, I have to believe that as soon as Ron got home for the 
>summer, Molly grabbed him by the ear and dragged him in front of 
>Arthur and said, "Why do you seem to be more than just a nodding 
>acquaintance of Sirius Black?"

LOL! I would *love* to see that scene written!

Maria