Identifying with Muggles - The Dursley and 'Terrifying' Abuse

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 158328

> BAW:
> Perhaps a better way of putting it is 'presumptive' or 'default' 
> guardian. Normally, an orphan's guardianship falls to his/her 
> nearest bloodkin unless there is good reason.

a_svirn:
For one thing it does not "fall" to them. It's offered to them and 
may be refused. More importantly, there *was* a very good reason not 
to involve the Durlseys – the Potters' Will where they appointed 
Sirius their son's guardian. 

> BAW:
> Which of the Dursleys' children were sent to Hogwarts against 
> their will?  Harry was NOT their child.  

a_svirn:
A guardian has the same rights as a parent. 

> BAW:
If his parents had put 
> him down for Hogwarts before they died, his guardians should 
> honor that wish.  

a_svirn:
And Harry's parents appointed Sirius as his guardian, yet nobody 
bothered to honour their wish, least of all Dumbledore. Which only 
goes to show that he observes the law only if it suits him. 

> a_svirn:
> "We don't know about ministry officials. As for Hogwarts professors
> we've seen how they go about explaining things to muggles, haven't 
> we?  Hugrid hunted them to the end of the earth and intimidated 
> them, to say nothing of inflicting bodily harm on their son. He 
> did explain some things to Harry, but he certainly didn't explain 
> anything to the Dursleys, much less offered them a choice. As for 
> Dumbledore, he simply used magic on the orphanage's matron to 
> confuse her. That hardly sounds like offering a choice, I'd say."
> 
> BAW:
> On her website, JKR says that ministry officials sometimes do 
that.  

a_svirn:
OK then. Let's hope that they do their job better than members 
Hogwarts faculty.

> BAW:
> Hagrid was a special case; Harry's parents had put him down for 
> Hogwarts, and Hagrid (and probably everyone in the WW who was 
> involved) had assumed that the Dursleys had told him.  

a_svirn:
But I didn't say that Hagrid neglected to explain things to Harry. I 
said that he didn't treat the Dursleys with common courtesy, much 
less explained them about Hogwarts and such. 

> BAW:
I think that 
> Tom Riddle's case was special, too, as the orphanage matron wasn't 
> Tom's parent--and wanted to get rid of him in the first place, so
> DD was just easing matters.  

a_svirn:
Yes, there is something to be said about magic when it comes to 
easing matters. But what is easy is not necessarily what is right, 
isn't it? Or what is legal as the case may be.