Who is Harry's guardian?

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 158508

> > a_svirn:
> > Actually, I believe we are supposed to think of alternatives. I 
even 
> > believe that the whole thing was exactly the monumental mistake 
> > Dumbledore hinted about when he bragged about his brainpower.
> >
> Carol responds:
> That's possible, of course, but I don't think so. Dumbledore is
> confident that the blood protection is in place and will remain in
> place until Harry's seventeenth birthday.

a_svirn:
I never claimed that the blood protection thing isn't working. What 
I am saying is that it's not the only protection that could have 
worked. 

> Carol:
 Also, although he regrets
> Harry's mistreatment at the hands of the Dursleys, he sees that 
Harry
> has suffered no longterm psychological or physical damage from that
> treatment. In fact, though this was certainly no part of 
Dumbledore's
> plan, he has developed self-reliance and some degree of 
indifference
> to discomfort as the result of that treatment. He can certainly
> tolerate the dislike and suspicion of his schoolmates (in CoS and 
the
> first part of GoF, for example) better than Ron can, and, unlike 
Ron,
> he's not afraid of spiders. 

a_svirn:
Are you saying that it's thanks to Dumbledore's forethought Harry is 
so well adjusted? I'd say it is a miracle that he didn't end up 
damaged irreparably. After all, not only he wasn't loved like one 
Tom Riddle, he was also neglected and abused into the bargain. Could 
have gown up into quite a monster. 

> Carol:
> I do think that Dumbledore made the best choice available to him at
> the time, and I think it would have been irresponsible (or, even, 
to
> use, Lupinlore's favorite word, reprehensible) for him to risk 
letting
> Sirius Black get hold of Baby!Harry when, as far as Dumbledore 
knew,
> Black had just betrayed the Potters to their deaths. Not only 
Harry's
> fate but the fate of the Wizarding World lay in Dumbledore's hands 
at
> that moment, and he couldn't risk giving Harry to a man who might
> either murder him on the spot or turn him over to Voldemort. He 
had to
> come up with a plan that would guarantee Harry's safety, and giving
> him to Sirius certainly would not have done so.

a_svirn:
Of course it wouldn't. But having secured Harry's person shouldn't 
he at least try to establish the truth before making any long-term 
arrangements? I don't know about reprehensible, but it certainly 
doesn't do him any credit that he didn't.

> Carol: 
> We don't have the word of anyone other than Sirius himself that the
> Potters made him Harry's guardian. We know for a fact only that 
they
> made him Harry's godfather, which is not the same thing. 

a_svirn:
Well, we all of us selective when it comes to suspending disbelief, 
but between Dumbledore and Sirius I'd rather believe the latter. 
Dumbledore's "the whole truth is too dangerous thing" attitude is 
entirely too sneaky for my taste. 

> Carol: 
If the
> Potters made a will, their copy would certainly have been destroyed
> along with the house, and no other copy has been produced. 

a_svirn:
I don't see what is so "certain" about it. It could have been in 
their Gringotts vault. Or in Sirius's vault. For that matter it 
could have been in some secret drawer in the Headmaster's office. 
The same one that contained James's cloak and the key from the 
Potters' vault. But in the end it doesn't really matter. He sent 
Hagrid for Harry and dumped him at the Dursleys doorstep. All in 
all, not the actions of someone concerned about legalities. 

> Carol: 
> If Black hadn't gone after Pettigrew, if he had instead gone to
> Dumbledore and explained the situation, I could see his having a
> claim. As it is, I see nothing wrong with Dumbledore's actions. 

a_svirn:
Dumbledore did not make his decision *after* Sirius went after 
Pettigrew. He made his decision *before* Sirius had a chance to 
explain. That's why he went after Pettigrew – there wasn't anything 
left to him but his revenge.  
And if