Trelawney was wrong,

[potioncat]

No: HPFGUIDX 121743


Potioncat is snipping several comments:
Carol wrote:
> So Trelawney, as usual, is not so much wrong as misreading the
> information available to her, just as she misreads the dog in the
> crystal ball as a Grim.

Potioncat:
To keep us all balanced here I have some observations and questions.

The Lexicon describes Snape as tall.  But I don't see their source.  
Does anyone know of any canon for Snape's height? (Oop does have him 
as "rather shorter" than Sirius.) But I don't recall Harry as ever 
thinking of Snape as short so he must be at least of average height.
(Although I'm reminded of Dustin Hoffman, as Hook saying, "To a ten- 
year-old I'm huge.")

Trelawney was using Harry's physical description and personal past 
to determine his sign.  Well, if a short dark person is really 
associated with Capricorn, Trelawney was correct....and obviously 
Harry was defiant enough to be born on the wrong date! (I don't 
know, is it correct?)

All kidding aside, not all the short dark wizards can be 
Capricorns.  And the only way Trelawney could be correctly reading 
Snape's sign at that moment was if something of Snape was in Harry.  
Which is the logic for it being Tom Riddle's sign she was 
predicting. 

So I don't think it was Snape she was talking about. Unless of 
course, it's a bit of Snape that was transferred to Harry and that 
would open a whole new set of good/Snape  bad/Snape posts....
Potioncat