portrait in GH -Nature of Movement

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 97465

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" <nkafkafi at y...> wrote:

> > 
> > bboy_mn:
> > 
> > I'm not saying it absolutely would not be a portrait of someone
> > specifically from Hogwart's history, only that the field of likely
> > candidate is far bigger and more likely if they are taken from 
> > general wizard history. <snip>

> 
> Neri:
> I had assumed that ONLY Hogwarts headmasters and headmistresses can 
> move between their different portraits in different houses (maybe 
> because they were powerful wizards in life) but now I see that DD's 
> words may be interpreted also as if any wizard with more than one 
> portrait can move between his portraits. I don't think this is true, 
> because in such a case everybody in the WW would have known about 
> it, and we would have heard about this before. ...edited...
> 
> Neri

bboy_mn:

I think I see your points. One of which is that no one in the wizard
world would have much privacy if every portrait could go running off
and reveal what it had seen or overheard. That would be a major
dis-incentive for anyone to have a portrait in their house.

But regardless of the restrictions on the movements of portraits, just
having a portrait in your house especially in your bedroom would, in
my book, be an awkward invasion of privacy. Even more so for teenage
boys who are often compelled to releave certain hormonal urges. (yes,
an unpleasant subject, but a harsh reality of teen life.) My point is
that even if portraits are very restricted in movement, they are still
a substantial invasion of privacy.

Let's look at what we know.

All portrait characters appear to be able to move between portraits at
the location where they are hung. Violet comes for the chamber off the
Great Hall to the Fat Lady's portrait. When the Fat Lady is slashed
she runs to other portraits. Sir Cadagon - the Mad Knight runs through
several portrait to show Harry and Ron the way to Divinations class.
These examples and other make my conclusion a reasonable extension of
available information. 

So, we have now establish that portrait characters can move from
portrait to portrait, but it seems inferred that Hogwarts portrait
characters in general can not leave Hogwarts castle.

Now Dumbledore adds a new concept, portrait characters who have
portraits in other locations can move between those portraits. Based
on the wizard who ran to find the injured Mr Weasley, once at the new
location, they are again able to move from portrait to portrait.

This second character's movement ability (location to location) seems
a reasonable extension of the first ability to move (local portrait to
local portrait). I see no reason to restrict it to
Headmaster/headmistresses. 

Portraits of this nature are not going to be very common. Hand painted
portraits are usually only found in rich people's house and public
buildings (government offices and museums). My point here is that hand
painted magical portraits are probably not a problem for the average
wizard, because they can't afford them.

In the case of Phineas Nigellus being in both Hogwarts and the Black
house, you will notice that at the Black house, he was placed in a
spare bedroom. The lack of prominent placement could be an indication
that he was more liberal that the general Black clan, and therefore,
did not rate placement in a place of honor, like above the fire mantel
in the main lounge (living room).  

Logically, if you have a portrait character that you don't trust, you
wouldn't put him in a location where he couldn't overhear or see much.
Lucius Malfoy would indeed be unwise to plan his DE activities in
front of a portrait of Phineas Nigellus, because Phineas has a higher
allegiance to the current headmaster than he does to his family.

I certainly can't say that you are wrong, but I think the location to
location movement is a reasonable and logical extension of movement
from portrait to portrait within the limitations that have been set.
Dumbledore's reference to Head's portraits when he explains to Harry
is not an absolute, but is driven by context. He is in a room of
Head's portrait explaining something that is being done by Head's
portraits. I see not reason for him to expained that explanation into
a broad generalization when he has a perfect illustration right there.


Just a thought.

bboy_mn