Harry's Protection (was Re: Questions)

[M.Clifford]

No: HPFGUIDX 119013


Kneasy:
> It'd be a bit of an anticlimax if Harry  was proofed against 
absolutely every kind of spell, assault and accident. Where's the 
tension in an impervious hero? Even Superman had his Achilles heel.  
> 
> I posted (a few months back) that the 'Ancient Magic' that protects
> Harry is only effective against Voldemort 

Valky:
Yes I agree with you Kneasy, I believe the blood protection and the 
surge that repelled Vernon Dursley are not the same power. The 
former being the force that caused Quirrelmorts *hands to burn* and 
the latter, perhaps a completely different power that the Dark Lord 
knows *not*. 


Kneasy:
> and even then it was Voldy's *person* but not his spells. I 
> wouldn't be surprised if the 'blood protection'  is/was not as 
comprehensive as some would think or wish.
> 

Valky:
Which is kind of where I am going with this investigation. 
In the Man with Two Faces PS Quirrel says about his attempt to on 
Harry's life.

" 'Master I cannot *hold* him - my hands - my hands'"

Harry asks DD later, " ' But why couldn't Quirrel *touch* me?' "
To which DD replies " '....It is in your very skin......It was agony 
to *touch* a person marked by something so good."

[Emphasis on hold and touch is my own]

But note that Quirrel said that he could not *hold* Harry as well. 

Now it can easily be translated that the burning sensation from the 
touch was what made Harry *impossible to hold*, that is until OOtP 
when we discover Harry in the *exact* same situation with Vernon 
Dursley, then it becomes more difficult to dismiss it that way. 

Kneasy:
> Wandless magic seemed to protect him when he was at his previous
> school and I'm willing to accept that it was the same automatic 
magic that kept him out of Vernon's grasping fists. At a rough guess 
I'd be willing to bet that 'wandless magic' is a wizard's (or wizard 
child's) protection against unwelcome Muggle attentions or possible 
damage from non-magical events, such as Neville being dropped out of 
a window. Certainly I can't ever remember it being reported as 
functioning reliably against magic or other wizards.
> 

Valky:
It could well be all this that you say here Kneasy, but thats not 
very exciting. ;D

Kneasy:
> Now if these other types of magic (Ancient, wandless) provide a
> measure of protection against *specific* types of threat against 
Harry, then the next question is - "What does blood protection guard 
him against?" closely followed by another question - "If it  
protects Harry, why is DD seemingly so pleased that Voldy has 
Harry's blood in him?"
>

Valky:
Yes, here is the crux of my investigation. We are given the prophecy 
in OOtP and we are told that Harry has a power that the Dark Lord 
does *not* know of. I expect quite some foreshadowing of this power 
in action has also been given to us through the course of the series.
I am looking in only four passages and so far it is adding up. 
As was quoted for me by Geoff Bannister in an earlier post, so far 
all that has been thoroughly discussed by DD, Voldemort and Harry is 
the *touch* of his skin bearing the protection of his mothers love.

There are two other mysteries about Harry's protection, one is the 
protection of the Durselys home, and the other is the *impossible to 
hold by the throat (strangle)* Harry. IMO JKR has given us almost 
all that she will ever give about the home, I am sure that most will 
agree that it seems that protection is wearing at the edges now and 
will soon be a moot point because it will be gone. However, the 
impossible to hold Harry is quite a new emergence in the series, and 
Voldemort seems to know nothing about it.

Kneasy;
> Back to the old "Dumbledore's gleam". 
> IIRC no-one ever has explained that satisfactorily.
> And I'm not even going to try.
> 

Valky:
Well I am. :D This is why I asked for the quote.
Harry says "....he was right.... it worked.... he *touched* my face"
And Dumbledore gets a curious gleam of triumph in his eyes.