On Dumbledore's extralegal actions. WAS Re: Who is Harry's guardian?

[Jordan Abel]

No: HPFGUIDX 158340

Sorry for another reply; I thought of this while I was eating lunch.

> Alla:
> If something happens with the parents, is it automatically assumed
> that child goes to godparents?

As I said before, regardless of whether 'godparent' is synonymous with
'guardian-designee' in the WW, Sirius was both.

> Because if it **does** assumed so in RL, then I would guess that as
> much as it is possible, that should also apply to the story, I
> absolutely agree with a_svirn that Dumbledore had no right whatsoever
> to bring the child to Dursleys when it went against the direct wishes
> of his parents.

I believe what happened was that Dumbledore had already convicted
Sirius in his mind, and chose what was (in his estimation) right over
what was legal. It is a choice we have seen him make numerous times in
the books. I think that he at this point came up with the blood ward
idea and used that to justify to himself the placement of Harry with
the Dursleys, who I suspect weren't anywhere near the top of the list
of potential guardians.

I'd actually bet the second choice was Wormtail (Remus being
ineligible, and at that point IIRC also a suspected spy). Though that
depends on if they rewrote their will after going into hiding, as it's
doubtful that they'd have included the secret-keeper in their will at
all if they gave it even a moment's thought, since, if they were found
and killed, _clearly_ they were betrayed. Possibly another choice
might have been the Longbottoms.

> Then it would means that Sirius was indeed the guardian and **not**
> Dursleys, but I am not sure about that.
>
> And Dumbledore, unless he has psychic powers could **not** have known
> that Sirius would be arrested, so he had no right to direct Hagrid to
> take Harry from Sirius IMO.

Dumbledore has a history of doing what is "right" over what is legal.
The fact that he runs a vigilante organization is one example. Also,
giving Harry and Hermione the time turners is a part of this. Having
Aurors on the OOP payroll (assuming there's actual money involved - if
not it wouldn't be bribery) could be considered bribery or corruption.

The idea that he can do no wrong, and the idea that he does everything
as part of some evil plot, seem equally wrongheaded to me. I think
that it's clear that he's very human. He "knows" that Sirius was
secret-keeper, therefore Sirius  _must_ be guilty of betraying the
Potters and CANNOT be allowed to take baby Harry. He "knows" that if
he lets Sirius take Harry, he'll either take him on the run or give
him to his fellow death eaters. Then he comes up with the blood ward
idea and since Harry _must_ be protected at all costs, clearly he has
to go to Petunia, even though the will didn't mention her at all. Or
even if it said he was not to go to her, clearly the will was written
without the knowledge that it would be _necessary_ for his protection
and _obviously_ they would have made her guardian if only they'd
known.

It seems apparent throughout the books that, first, Dumbledore doesn't
have a lot of respect for the law. This may even be justified, from
what we've seen of how the ministry operates. And, second, he has a
"protecting people thing" in the same sense that Harry can be said to
have a "saving people thing". This is evident not only with Harry but
also with his decision to imprision Sirius in his own home "for his
own good".

-- 
Random832