Who is Harry's guardian? WAS: Re: Identifying with Muggles -

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 158360

> a_svirn:
> It is stated quite clearly in canon that Sirius is Harry's 
appointed 
> guardian. 
> 
>  "Yes...," said Black. "But I'm also -- I don't know if anyone ever 
> told you -- I'm your godfather." 
>  "Yeah, I knew that," said Harry. 
>  "Well... your parents appointed me your guardian," said Black 
> stiffly. "If anything happened to them..."
>

Alla:

Oh,my. I am pretty shocked actually. You just shattered my perception 
of Dumbledore's character very nicely with this quote I completely 
forgot. Yes, this is a canon fact which I cannot argue with and 
Sirius **is** the guardian not the Dursleys, so the only thing that 
can excuse Dumbledore in my book is if he somehow knew that Sirius 
will be arrested or if as I say below he had some additional 
knowledge we are not aware of, otherwise the word manipulative would 
be waaaay too kind for him.

As I said I never perceived Dumbledore as fairy grandfather and was 
quite angry at him sometimes, but I was of rather firm opinion that 
he makes mistakes out of different motivations than just use people 
as chess. And that his love for Harry is true and that he is not a 
weapon for him, but person whom Dumbledore wants to see alive, etc, 
etc.

I do think that the main reason for DD to give Harry to Dursleys is 
plot related and JKR did not intend for him to come up as 
manipulative bastard if he had no other motivations to override 
Potters expressed wishes, but oy oy he does come out as one to me at 
the moment.

> Orna:
> As far as DD knew at the time - Sirius was the secret keeper for 
the 
> fidelius charm on the Potters house, and therefore could be the 
> traitor. So even if he could not know Sirius would be arrested, and 
> even if the Potters had named Sirius the guardian, godparent or 
> whatever - he had the duty IMO to secure Harry – away from Sirius.  
> And see later what the exact position is. Since later it seemed 
> proved that Sirius was a mass-killer – it seemed settled. When in 
> PoA things changed – Sirius wasn't an option for Harry to live 
with –
>  he was on the run, in the OotP Sirius died. 
> 
> Perhaps I missed something -  did you think DD knew by then that PP 
> was the traitor?


Alla:

That's the thing for me - we don't know  IMO how much Dumbledore knew 
at the time of the tragedy and especially in light of invisibility 
cloak what he was aware of.

The bottom line is that for me Sirius is secret keeper does not equal 
Dumbledore has a duty to secure Harry away from him.

Dumbledore having some additional knowledge which I am not aware of, 
well maybe, but not just this piece of information.

Dumbledore being misinformed by somebody who was sure that Sirius was 
there with voldemort or something like that - maybe ( speculating 
here ;))

What I am saying is that IMO Dumbledore had no right to take Harry 
away based **only** on the fact that Sirius was secret keeper.

At the very least he had to investigate more IMO as I mentioned 
before maybe go there himself and not just rely on hearsay.

JMO,

Alla