What if Regulus is ALIVE? (LONG)

[Jen Reese]

No: HPFGUIDX 161993

> Lana wrote:
> Not responding to any particular post, but if Regulus was still 
> alive, how could Kreacher be Harrys?  It would seem that if 
> Regulus was alive, then Kreacher wouldn't have ahd to obey Harry 
> right?
 
> Julie:
> Not necessarily. I don't recall any canon that a house elf 
> somehow  *knows* whether a wizard is actually alive or dead. If
> Regulus was announced  dead, and Kreacher truly *believed* Regulus
> was dead (whether he saw a body or not), then Kreacher would now 
> believe he belongs to Harry, IMO. 

Jen:  If there had been an enchantment on 12 GP like Dumbledore 
mentioned in "Will and Won't"--that the house had to pass to a pure-
blood and closest living relative to Sirius--then the house and 
Kreacher would have automatically passed to Regulus if alive.  Since 
there wasn't such an enchantment, Kreacher doesn't alone disprove 
the theory.  Though come to think of it, that was a risky move on 
Dumbledore's part if he knew Regulus was alive.  Then the house 
wouldn't have passed to Bellatrix and eventually Harry, or more 
likely other Order members, would have started to wonder why Bella 
wasn't wreaking havoc with all the secrets she learned from 
Kreacher.  Not an insurmountable situation for Dumbledore, though 
yet *another* lie to Harry!  I hope if Regulus is alive Dumbledore 
was not the one who hid him since I'll have to deal with all this 
lying he's doing <g>.

> Julie:
<snipping>
> In other words,  she's had a couple of opportunities to say that 
> Regulus is dead PERIOD, as she's done with Sirius and Dumbledore.
> Yet she hasn't.

Jen:  I could see her playing around with the idea of 'dead these 
days' because she knows Regulus will still play a role and therefore 
while he is dead now, he was very much alive when he stole the 
locket Horcrux and left the note.  Meaning it could be another case 
of not shutting down a fan theory because she likes them and knows 
Regulus is not a *complete* dead end (hehe).

Julie:  
> About Dumbledore drinking the poison to retrieve a worthless 
> locket, very good point! I actually meant to bring up this one, 
> but it had slipped my mind by the time I got to that point in my 
> lengthy post ;-) It is  a problem, but it could be worked around.
> There could be some reason Regulus never told Dumbledore about
> getting the locket. 

Jen: This is a good point by Magpie and difficult to get around.  
That would mean Regulus was OK with Voldemort still being alive and 
possibly tracking him down when he could ensure his safety more 
thoroughly by revealing the Horcrux to Dumbledore.  This would sure 
makes Regulus look like the idiot Sirius said he was!  What could he 
gain by holding onto the Horcrux information, did he think if 
Voldemort came after him he could use the Horcrux as bait to stay 
alive?  That doesn't seem like a strategy a DE would try, Regulus 
should know Voldemort would rather AK him and use his onw immense 
skills to find the Horcrux himself rather than dink around with some 
petty former DE.

Julie:
> I can't quite get past Dumbledore's "We can hide you more 
> completely than you can imagine" jibing with him *not* knowing
> about Regulus being hidden. This would be the obvious reference,
> though I suppose there could be other hidden Voldemort defectors.

Jen:  If this comment is foreshadowing, there are only a handful of 
other characters who could fill the role and none would have the 
impact of finding out Regulus is alive.  Susan Bones might be able 
to offer information, but what?  She wouldn't know about the 
Horcruxes.  She could be an asset to the Order with her intellect 
and power (ho hum).  Emmeline Vance strikes me as a more interesting 
contender, she wanted to be part of the Advance Guard in OOTP--why?  
Was she a friend of Lily's and wanted to see her son? If so she 
would have a place in book 7 since we are to learn more about Lily.

I expected there to be more about Caradoc Dearborn after OOTP, he of 
missing body fame according to Moody. I can't see him showing up now 
though, with no mention in HBP.  Who am I missing, any mysterious 
deaths or lost bodies out there <g>?

Julie:
> As for Harry telling no one about the Horcruxes, I don't think
> that touches on who already knows about them. Snape knows
> about them (I'm convinced he does, anyway). Dumbledore 
> doesn't want anyone who *doesn't* know to find out, perhaps
> because he's not certain of loyalties, not even among those who
> belong to the Order. It's not so much about Harry as it is about 
> keeping those not in the circle out of the circle. (Which is of
> course keeping Harry and everyone else safe, but anyway...)

Jen: Ah, see I *don't* think Snape knows about the Horcruxes.  Or I 
don't think Dumbledore told him, he may suspect something dark after 
the ring incident and possibly could have deduced it himself.  I'm 
pretty sure when JKR said Dumbledore had no confidante, no equal, 
that meant there were no adults to whom Dumbledore had told the full 
Prophecy or the Horcrux mystery.  Those pieces of information were 
for Harry alone to know, the one person Dumbledore is certain can 
defeat Voldemort given his unique situation and the friends he has 
around him.  

As an aside, that would probably mean Snape didn't hide Regulus  
unless Regulus chose not to tell him about the Horcrux.  Because 
that would be hard to justify if Snape knew and didn't tell 
Dumbledore, hard to justify DDM, I mean.  Ack, now my head is 
spinning!!!  Too many 'ifs' to sort through.

Jen R.