On the other hand (was Re: Disliked Uncle Vernon)

[Tracy Hunt]

No: HPFGUIDX 93061

> Kneasy:
> > "Ah," you say, "but that means that the Dursleys should treat 
> > Harry by the code prevailing."
> > "Ah," says I, "why didn't DD and the WW stick to *their* moral 
code
> > instead of stuffing Harry into the equivalent of Dotheboys Hall?" 
> > 
> > If anyone's morals are  at fault it's DD's. He *knew* how the 
> > Dursleys felt about the Magical World, James and Lily and the 
> > treatment that would be meted out to Harry and did bugger all 
> > about it; and if he didn't know beforehand, he should damn well 
> > have known from Mrs Figg in a very few years. Did he do anything? 
> > No. 
> > 
> > What reason did DD give to Minerva that night in Privet Drive? He 
> > didn't want Harry growing up spoilt and thinking he was somebody
> > special. What better place to avoid that than with kindly, 
> > solicitous Uncle Vernon. 
> > 
> > The Dursleys acted in an entirely predictable fashion - one that I
> > suspect DD anticipated. How else could he be sure  that Harry
> > would leap at the chance to go to Hogwarts? But if Harry was
> > unhappy, then how much easier does it become to slot him into
> > his pre-ordained role in DD's plan?  

Tcy:
I'm not sure about Puppetmaster!Dumbledore - but I have to agree with 
Kneasy (groan) on this point.  I find it very difficult to believe 
that Albus didn't know what he was setting Harry up for.  He may have 
underestimated some of the specifics - but I'll bet just about 
anything that he knew what he was doing. 


> Susan:
> Interesting thought, that--that DD violated his own world's moral 
> code in depositing Harry w/ the Dursleys.  I will enjoy reading 
> others' responses to that....
> 
> You brought up that some would be sure to argue the Dursleys should 
> abide by the prevailing code of British society.  I personally 
think 
> they *should* be held to that code, yes, but even if one goes along 
> with your argument--that DD & the WW did not stick to *their* own 
> moral code--I still think this doesn't address the question I was 
> hoping to get at:  If the Dursleys objected that much to having 
> Harry dropped on their doorstep, if they where determined that to 
> take him in would mean they would mistreat & abuse him, then why 
did 
> they not pass on the "offer"?  Why *not* enroll him in an orphanage 
> or turn him over to foster care?  As I stated in my original post, 
> if they were frightened of DD--if they feared he was watching them 
> closely & evaluating their "parenting" skills--they'd never have 
> treated Harry as they did.  So why didn't they just say, "No way, 
> Jose?"  Whose moral code to abide by would not even have been an 
> issue in that, would it?


Tcy:
How can we judge the Dursley's decision to take Harry if we don't 
know the circumstances under which they made this decision?  Judge 
away on how they have treated Harry - but until we know what that 
letter from Dumbledore contained, it seems silly to say that they 
should have just passed on the offer.  Perhaps there was no offer.  
Perhaps it was an ultimatum.  Perhaps Petunia opened the door to 
deposit her milk containers and the milkman was approaching the 
house -she grabs the bundle to avoid the appearance of impropriety 
and later realized that by Harry crossing the threshold, she'd sealed 
her fate as his guardian.  Too many unknowns to judge them on this 
one.