[HPforGrownups] Re: Why not BRIBE the Dursleys, for heavens sake?

[Janet Anderson]

No: HPFGUIDX 123276

Lupinlore suggests:

> > If he doesn't want to use money, its hard to imagine he could
>not use magic to deliver material advantages to the Dursleys.
>Yes, it is a violation of Wizarding Law.  But it's impossible to
>believe Dumbledore couldn't have pulled that bit of larceny off.

I don't think magical advantages would be permanent; remember leprechaun 
gold?  And the Dursleys might not want something that was produced by magic, 
because it was, well, magical.

I think the main objection to bribing the Dursleys is that the money used 
would have to be Harry's inheritance -- and that, in my opinion, would be 
quite immoral.  That money is Harry's, left to him by his parents, and to 
give it away to the Dursleys without Harry's knowledge or permission (not 
even knowledge that he *had* such money, before his eleventh birthday) is 
not something I think Dumbledore would do. Remember, he had the key to 
Harry's vault.

(I'd like to know, by the way, the circumstances under which Dumbledore got 
possession of James's things such as the vault key and the Invisibility 
Cloak.  Wouldn't Sirius have had such things?  And if so, when and why did 
he pass them on to Dumbledore?  Or were they at Godric's Hollow? More 
questions ...)


Janet Anderson