Blood Wards of Privet Drive Clarification... (was: Re: Why wasn't Harry sent.. )

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 150227

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67 at ...>
wrote:
> 
> Carol responds:
> Can someone please tell me where this term "blood wards" comes 
> from and what it means? Is it a Briticism? I don't recall seeing
> it anywhere in canon.
> 
> I take it to mean both the blood protection ...
> 

bboyminn:

Well that's exactly what 'wards' means; protection. I first
encountered the term here in this group when people spoke in shorthand
referring to the 'wards' that protect Hogwarts. I think the use of the
term 'Blood Wards' was just another quick shorthand all-encompassing
term to describe the subject at hand. It seems clear enough, and don't
see any reason why we should adhere only to correct canon terms. We
frequently refer to the 'Prank', yet I don't recall that term in canon. 

> Carol continues:
> ...
> 
> As for the blood protection not protecting him from the Dementors,
> of course it doesn't. He's on Magnolia Crescent, not Privet Drive, 
> ... Dumbledore and the Order tell him not to leave the house for 
> any reason; he's safe there .... 

bboyminn:

This much I agree with, however, I have a problem with the next part.

> Carol continues:
>
> But if the Dementors return, or if the Death Eaters show up ..., 
> Harry will not be safe.
> 

bboyminn: 

Do you really believe that? I know, as previously quoted by others,
Dumbledore specifically mentions Voldemort when he explains the
protection of blood to Harry. But Dumbledore also mentions Death
Eaters and Voldemort supporters in similar conversations about the
Blood Protection.

Perhaps, I am reading your statement wrong, you seem to imply that
Harry is only protected from Voldemort while at the Dursleys. I say,
or at least I think, that Harry is protected from /anyone/ wanting to
do him REAL harm.

Yes, yes, as you point out below (now snipped), the Dursleys abuse
Harry and that could be considered harm. But I think we need to look
at the term 'harm' in context and perspective. Compared to what
Dementors, Death Eaters, fanatic Voldemort supporters, and Voldemort
himself intend to do to Harry, I don't see the Dursley's actions as
'harm' in that context. Yes, they are mean to him, but I don't think
the Dursley want any legal enquiries into Harry's health and status,
so they reasonably do not cross the line, based on their view of where
the line is.

I mean, I could give myself a paper cut, and one could logically,
though not so reasonably, say that I 'harmed' myself. While that is
techincally true, it is not true in any reasonable context.

My point is that when viewed in context, the Dursleys actions, as
unpleasant as they were, don't constitute 'grave' harm. 

Not trying to be a rabble-rouser or anything, I just wanted to clear
up the one point about the extent of protection at Privet Drive;
Voldemort only or anyone intent on doing Harry 'grave' harm?

I pretty much agreed with everything else you said.

Steve/bboyminn