His mother's eyes (was: Ahha!! I've got it... Harry's eyes/TT/ LV mortality)

[Claire]

No: HPFGUIDX 122191


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" 
<justcarol67 at y...> wrote:
> 
> Kemper wrote:
> <snip>
> > In GF, we have a dark potion.
> > "Bone of the father unknowingly given you will renew your son.
> > Flesh of the servant willingly given you will revive your master.
> > Blood of the enemy forcibly taken you will resurrect your foe."
> > 
> > What about on a fateful Halloween, there was a love charm.
> > Blood of the mother freely given you will protect your blood.
> > Soul of the mother secretly given you will guard your son.
> > Life of the mother knowingly given you will defend your child.
> > 
> > Lily cuts her hand then places her hand on Harry's forehead.  The
> cut on her hand is lightning/eihwaz shaped.  She looks into her 
son's
>  eyes, and their souls touch.  A part of her soul stays with Harry; 
he
> has his mother's eyes.  Lily sacrifices herself, sealing the 
`mother's
> shield' charm.
> > 
> > What if one of the Ancient Laws of Magic, as it were, is you can't
> curse the dead and, if you do, something happens.  The curse 
rebounds
> back to the curser.  
> > So when the AK is cast against Harry, it rebounds back to LV 
because
> Lily is dead, and a part of Lily, through her charm, is in Harry.  
> > 
> > But then, why didn't LV die?  I don't know, but I'm thinking 
about it.
> 
> Carol responds:
> I've also been arguing for a protective charm placed on Baby!Harry,
> but your version gives me shivers. Also, we have indications that 
Lily
> was good with Charms but nothing has been said about her and 
potions.
> Still, a potion combined with an incantation does sound like a form 
of
> "ancient magic" so I'm certainly not ruling it out.
> 
> Here's my version, combining my theories and yours and attempting to
> answer the question about Voldemort:
> 
> Lily places an elaborate Protego (shield charm) on Baby Harry, 
perhaps
> involving an incantation like the one kemper hypothesized (as 
opposed
> to the mere name of the spell), and, using her finger, marks Harry's
> forehead with an (defense) eihwaz rune, like a priest marking a 
baby's
> forehead with a cross in a baptismal service. The incantation
> specifies that the charm will be activated by her self-sacrifice.
> Shortly afterwards, she is murdered, sacrificing herself for Harry 
and
> activating the charm. Voldemort tries to kill Harry, and the 
powerful
> Protego erupts through Harry's forehead, leaving an eihwaz-shaped
> opening that later turns into a scar. The Protego deflects the AK 
onto
> Voldemort, who is not killed because of the protections he put on
> himself (even he doesn't know which "experiments" made him immortal,
> but something did. See the speech in the graveyard quoted by Juli in
> post 121918). The force of the Protego explodes not only Voldemort 
but
> everything around him, and the house crashes on dead Lily and
> Baby!Harry. (Dead James is somewhere outside the house where he died
> duelling with Voldemort.) While the wound is open, some of 
Voldemort's
> powers and possibly some of his anger enters into Harry. (I don't
> think, as explained elsewhere, that he permanently lost those 
powers,
> but he can't use them until he regains a body, and meanwhile, Harry,
> marked as Voldemort's equal by the very scar that symbolizes his
> protection, now possesses some of the same powers in latent form.)
> 
> Anyway, I suppose Lily could have cut herself and used her blood to
> mark Harry with the rune to symbolize blood protection, but I don't
> see the necessity for that, or for the part about looking into his
> eyes. But at any rate, I think an explanation like this allows the
> scar to be caused by a cut when the AK hit (AKs normally don't leave
> any mark) and at the same time allows the scar to be a symbol of his
> mother's protection, the eihwaz (defense) rune.
> 
> As noted in an earlier post, JKR did say that the shape of the scar
> wasn't the most important thing about it, but she didn't say that 
the
> shape wasn't important at all.
> 
> Valky, what do you think? Are we hitting close to the mark?
> 
> Carol

Claire responds:
I'm delurking after a very long time because this theory utterly 
intrigues me (Carol, it gave me goosebumps too--nice going, Kemper).  
Especially since, after reading several of the entries, I remembered 
a couple of things:
1.  Reading not long ago the fact that Lily's wand was good for charm 
work was going to be important.  Which correlates nicely with 
Kemper's theory.
2.  Along the rune lines, could Hermione's mistranslation during her 
Ancient Rune's OWL have a bearing here?