Blood Protection

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 159113

> > a_svirn:
> <snip>I take it at face value that Harry can't be
> > harmed where his mother's blood dwells. But I am saying a) that 
he 
> can
> > be harmed elsewhere and could have been even during his first 
years
> > with the Dursleys; b) Voldemort was too preoccupied with his own
> > survival at the time to cause him harm – and that's canon too! 
c) as
> > soon, as Voldemort found himself a body, and I mean a body-
carrier
> > (Quirrel) he caused him harm elsewhere. 
> 
> Hickengruendler:
> 
> But I do not understand, what point c) has to do with the Dursley 
> blood protection. <snip>

a_svirn:
It has to do the same thing as point a) and point b) – it shows the 
limitations of the blood protection. Add to that the dubious 
legalities and Harry's stolen childhood, and the whole thing will 
look more than a little questionable.  


> Hickengruendler:
> 
><snip> Dumbledore said, that 
> the Death Eaters still at large were one of the reasons, why he 
gave 
> Harry to the Dursleys. Therefore I assume that they, being 
> Voldemort's servants, wouldn't be able to harm Harry at the 
Dursleys 
> either, even if they are not directly acting under his Orders but 
> where trying to find Voldemort, like the Lestranges did. Umbridge 
> however has nothing to do with Voldemort, therefore the protection 
> doesn't work against the Dementors sent by her.

a_svirn:
But they weren't anyone's servants at that point. They were cut 
loose after Voldemort's downfall (remember, their marks vanished) 
and might have ideas of their own. As Lucius did with the diary. 

> Hickengruendler
> But I want to add, that even if my reading is wrong, and Harry is 
> really only safe in the house, than it still is at least better 
than 
> nothing. At least it makes him safe during the nights.

a_svirn:
Sure, he's safe at nights. But he's also safe at the Grimauld place. 
And even at the Burrow, although the Weasleys aren't under the 
Fidelius charm.