Harry's family (was: Petunia)

[Bex]

No: HPFGUIDX 114291

Salit wrote:
> I too think the relatives in the mirror must have been dead but 
> even if they were not, the Dursleys were still the only choice, 
> because of the blood protection:
> 
> 1. He had to live with his mother's kin since it was her blood
> sacrifice that protected him, not his father's. Thus none of the
> Potters would do.
> 
> 2. I imagine that the closer the relative the stronger the 
> protection. A sister has more common genes than an aunt or uncle. 
> Assuming that Lily had no other siblings nor live parents, the 
> only choice was Petunia.
> 
> Incidentally I always wondered about the fact that some of the 
> people in the Mirror had Harry's eyes but they were referred to 
> as "the Potters" in the book (don't have it here but believe it 
> says something like "the Potters smiled and waved at him"). Either 
> JKR made a mistake and not all of them were Potters. That said, 
> could muggles actually see anything or show in the Mirror? My 
> guess is no, just like they can't ride a broom, use a wand or see 
> the Leaky Cauldron.

Yb's back:
Well, on the "Potters" comment, well, GOOD EYES! I read that section 
half a dozen times or better and missed it every time. It is 
probably a mistake, but of course, one could argue this: Did Harry 
ever know his mother's maiden name? He would probably refer to 
the "family" he saw in the mirror as the Potters since that is his 
surname. I think the passage shows how much Harry wants to distance 
himself from the Dursleys, and have a family of his own he could 
call "family" that wasn't the Dursleys, thus, the Potters. Never 
mind that some of them are obviously Evans' (by the eyes), that 
would imply less of a connection to Harry and more to the Dursleys 
(because Petunia was an Evans). Do you see what I'm saying?

I also think that if there were any option that would provide *any* 
protection (read: any significant amount of Lily's blood), DD would 
have used it. Plus, I still find it a little hard to believe that 
Petunia wouldn't have desparately tried to pawn Harry off on a 
relative, at least for most of the year. She would have tried to 
convince DD to use someone else (if there was one available) and if 
that didn't work, she'd do sort of what she does now: takes care of 
Harry (grudgingly) for a very short time of the year, then send him 
somewhere else. When he was younger, this would probably mean 
shipping him off to a relative's place. 

The only way she wouldn't do that (assuming she doesn't want Harry 
to die, i.e. she wants to keep the protection in place) is if she 
thought she *couldn't* get rid of Harry for any amount of time. But 
then the only way she'd let him go to Hogwarts is if she thought he 
was protected there too. If she thought the protection didn't work 
when Harry wasn't at the house, that would mean the when DD told her 
that Harry *had* to stay with her for his protection, he had 
exaggerated the truth at least a little. I'm not sure I like that 
theory. 

So Petunia knows that Harry is protected, even if he spends only a 
small part of the year at her home. Thus, the only way she wouldn't 
have shoved Harry onto someone in the family (someone she trusted 
enough to either know about his "strange" behavior or who knew about 
Lily), is if there wasn't any family available.

What I want to know is:
1) What was in the letter? Maybe Petunia kept it for all these years!

2) What in heaven's name did she tell Vernon? Especially when she 
found out that she *had* to keep Harry, and not ship him off to an 
orphanage?

~Yb