Harry at the Dursleys

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 118534


Tammy wrote:
> > I too see Dumbledore's comments as him being glad he's not a 
pampered little prince. Actually I think "pampered little prince" can
actually be translated from Dumbledore's nice version to the  not so
nice "spoiled little brat", which is what I think Dumbledore meant,
but is way too nice to use. 
> > 
> > The way I see it, Dumbledore was afraid that Harry would come out>
ending up like Lockhart or Draco, who are both spoiled and pampered
brats. 
> > 
> > If Harry had been raised in a wizarding home, where the fame could
change his personality and make him spoiled and pampered, would he
then still be able to be the one to go out and kill LV as the 
prophecy seems to indicate? If you consider that Dumbledore knew the
prophecy and probably read it as "Harry has to kill LV," then 
Dumbledore probably feared Harry going to a wizarding home where he 
would end up being spoiled and pampered, and not learning the harsh 
lessons he needed to learn.
> 
> 
Siriusly Snapey Susan responded:
> While I agree w/ this assessment of what DD was likely thinking 
> regarding the "pampered little prince" & placing Harry w/ the 
> Dursleys...and have, in fact quite recently, defended that action... 
> I must confess that something just struck me.  Perhaps it was
Tammy's mentioning "like Draco".  
> 
> Tammy argued that DD was thinking about the prophecy when he decided 
> Harry should be kept out of the WW because he was thinking about 
> Harry's having to kill Voldy someday, and he wanted a child who
would be most able to do that, hence, *not* a spoiled, pampered, 
> egotistical, puffed up brat.  I've thought this was part of it,
too--along w/ DD's believing that the only truly *safe* place for
Harry was w/ his blood relative.  [Alas, not totally safe, as it turns
out, but safe from Voldy & his henchmen.]
> 
> But what struck me just now was that by leaving Harry in the Muggle 
> World, with no indication that he's magical, while this likely 
> ensures the no pampered prince part of the equation, DD's also 
> ensuring that young Harry will *not* be doing what Draco [and other 
> WW kids such as the Weasleys] are likely doing--learning magic!  If 
> Harry's going to have to be skilled enough to defeat Voldy at some 
> undetermined date in the future, it's an interesting call to
*remove* Harry from any opportunity to learn any kind of magic at all
until age 11.  
> 
> Was that an awfully big gamble that it would take Voldy at least
that long to return?
> 
> Was it more important that Harry not be a pampered little prince
than that he get the chance to learn some magic? <snip>

Carol responds:
If the wizarding family followed the laws of the WW, Harry would not
have been allowed to practice magic before age eleven anyway, nor
would he have owned a wand. Only a few students, mostly those from
Dark Wizard families (Severus Snape and possibly Draco) seem to know
much about magic (other than the accidental variety and possibly
flying) before they get to Hogwarts. Besides, Harry the "pampered
prince" would have thought he knew what he needed to know already.
After all, he had "defeated" Voldemort at the age of fifteen months.

I don't think being a "pampered prince" would have helped him learn
magic at an earlier age. It might, however, have led to arrogance and
an undisciplinable "know-it-all" attitude that would have been very
disadvantageous, not to mention dangerous to himself and the whole WW,
in the future opponent of Voldemort.

Carol, who thinks that DD is both wise and good, but neither
omnipotent nor omniscient, and that placing Harry with Muggles was
indeed in his best interest for a variety of reasons