Dumbledore's Magnaminity

[M.Clifford]

No: HPFGUIDX 142951

a_svirn:
> Also I must say that you are overlooking a few pertinent points in 
> making this comparison. Lady Catharine comes at a quite reasonable 
> hour, not calculated to cause the family any inconvenience. 


Valky:
There is no proof that Dumbledore 'calculated' his arrival to be
inconvenient to the Dursely's due to the hour. And neither is it
inferred that he was there at that time to deliberately cause
inconvenience. In fact we are even assuming that it *was* so
inconvenient to the Dursleys that he arrived at 11:00pm, even they
don't mention it.
 

a_svirn
> Unlike 
> Dumbledore, who is not only totally unwelcome visitor, but also a 
> complete stranger to the Dursleys', Lady Catharine is a welcome 
> guest at the Bennett's household.  Unlike Dumbledore, she has a 
> claim on their hospitality: after all, Elisabeth while staying in 
> Kent enjoyed hers – such as it was. She is also a patroness of Mr. 
> Bennett's cousin and heir. There is no reason in the world why she 
> shouldn't come to visit the Bennetts while staying in the 
> neighborhood.


Valky:
I think your reasoning is false here, Dumbledore does have claim on
their hospitality. And he is not a stranger.

You say there is no reason at all Lady C shouldn't become because she
is a Patroness of the Head of House's relative? What's Dumbledore
then, a wet teabag? Dumbledore is a patron of Harry's school of
Harry's world he is a Patron of the head of Household's relative - by
your own reasoning you are agreeing with me - Dumbledore is obliged to
call in. Are you now going to say that harry's relationship to the
Dursley's doesn't exist?

a_svirn:
> In fact, if it had been just a social call it would 
> have been a very pretty gesture.

Valky:
Then surely you can see how the same goes for Dumbledore? No?

> a_svirn:
> The only similarity in her behavior 
> with that of Dumbledore's is that she behaves rudely, 

Valky:
With the same veneer of etiquette as Dumbledore - goes to this side of
the argument.



a_svirn:
> ...ignores her 
> hosts in favor of the only person she really wants to see 

Dumbledore didn't ignore the Dursleys. All Dumbledore *ignores*, if
you care to reunite yourself with the text, is the Dursley's
embarassing themselves with their wanton greed and stupidity.

 
a_svirn:
> and that 
> she presumes to preach proprieties wile behaving improper herself. 
> 

Valky:
Well that would be out of character for Dumbledore. I can't honestly
understand where you'd get the notion that the writer strove for such
a wholly contradictory character flaw. The whole series will need a
rewrite now with Hypocrite!Dumbledore thoroughly backed up in all
manner or else are we to assume that it wasn't Dumbledore at all?
Don't mind the sarcasm :) I really only mean to point out how much
more logical an in character explanation of Dumbledore's behaviour
would be.

Valky