Why's the Bloody Baron so bloody?

[moorequests]

No: HPFGUIDX 84223

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nkittyhawk97" 
<nkittyhawk97 at y...> wrote:
> If I'm not mistaken, someone asked that very question in SS/PS.
> 
> Let's see... 
> 
> "How did he get covered in blood?" asked Seamus with great interest.
> "I've never asked," said Nearly Headless Nick delicately.
> (pg 124 US version)
> 
> Well, we all know that contention between Slytherins and 
Gryffindors 
> is nothing new. What if the Soon-to-be-nearly-headless Sir Nicholas 
> de Mimsy Porpington got into a bit of a *dispute* (to be worded 
> lightly) with the soon-to-be-bloody Baron, and the Baron didn't 
> manage to completely sever Nick's head, because Nick was killing 
him 
> at the same time.
> 
> Icky, I know.
> 
> Obviously, even now, after 500 years, and after becoming the best 
of 
> friends (as ghosts) it would be a touchy subject for them to... 
> er... discuss openly with ickle first years.
> 
> I know that's the only evidence I have... but anyhoo... thoughts? 
> 
> "nkittyhawk97"


  Unless Harry becomes friends with him, like he has become friends 
with Nearly Headless Nick, I doubt we'll ever know. I get the feeling 
that the ghosts don't want to talk about their deaths because they 
have never truly accepted them. (Nick's obsession about not being 
fully decapitated, and his speech to Harry about how he was a coward 
and didn't go on to the afterlife.)

  I'm guessing it was the same way with the Bloody Baron. Whatever 
happened to him, gruesome as it was, he was unwilling to accept it. 
He's a very taciturn fellow, apparently, so that also is evidence of 
his unwillingness to accept.

  I don't think the Bloody Baron killed him, however, since if you 
reread the part in CoS where Nick is describing his beheading, it 
doesn't sound like a struggle, but kind of an organized thing... 
maybe he was executed for witchcraft or something. 

 -M.M.