In defense of DD WAS musings on Dumbledore - Even Longer

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 158755

Tonks wrote:
> <snip> In my mind a Godparent and a guardian are two different
things.  But as I remember now I guess Sirius was able to sign Harry's
permission slip, which in itself is a bit odd because Petunia and
Vernon were still his legal guardians at the time. So did he have 3? 
Or did Sirius sign in his duties as Godparent?  It all seems a bit
confusing. ,snip>
> I wish JKR would explain all of this to us, as to just what roll 
> does Sirius have? 
> 
> Lets say that a Godparent is a legal guardian. If that be the case, 
> I think the fact that Hagrid had the kid and the guardian's 
> motorcycle that Sirius must have somehow given his consent to Harry 
> being with his aunt. I know that this isn't canon either, but the 
> bike and Hagrid and the kid all together is. I think that is as good 
> a piece of evidence as any. Instead of blaming DD, maybe you should 
> blame Sirius.

Carol responds:
As I posted a few weeks ago (IIRC), a godparent's obligations, in the
RL, at least, are purely religious and moral. A godparent is not a
legal guardian.

As for Sirius Black being Harry's guardian, we have one statement to
that effect, by Black himself, and no corroborating evidence--no will
or other legal document, nothing at all except Dumbledore's acceptance
of Black's permission to allow Harry to go to Hogsmeade with the other
 students his age, which could be regarded as Dumbledore bending the
rules a little (as he also did when he allowed McGonagall to buy Harry
a broom so he could play Quidditch as a first-year.) IIRC, correct me
if I'm wrong, Black's note reads something like, "I, Sirius Black,
Harry Potter's *godfther*, give him permission to go to Hogsmeade."
Not a word about his being Harry's guardian, legally appointed or
otherwise.

So, yes, I wish JKR would clear up Black's role, but as he's dead, I
don't think that's likely.

As for DD thinking him guilty, of course he did. He took preemptive
action when it became clear that the Potters' Secret Keeper had
betrayed them by placing him with Petunia. It was clear that the spy
and the SK were the same person, quite possibly a secret DE, who was
responsible for the deaths of Harry's parents and that Harry was not
safe from that person. And of course he though the SK was Black.

If Sirius Black wanted to protest those arrangements, to tell
Dumbledore that he was the rightful guardian and could somehow keep
Harry safer (in his opinion) than Dumbldeore's magical protections,
the time to do so was when he left Harry (and the flying motorcycle)
with Hagrid. He could have explained everything, and Dumbledore, being
a Legilimens (and a believer in second chances) would have believed
him. Instead, he went after Peter Pettigrew, either intending to kill
him or expecting to bring him to justice all by himself. He completely
blew whatever chance he may have had to take Harry threw his own
characteristically reckless actions. (I personally think that DD would
have believed him and protected him, as he did Snape and Hagrid, but
he would have persuaded him that he, Black, could not keep Harry safe
and Petunia, Lily's blood relative, could. But DD never had that
chance because Black never gave it to him. Instead, he proved DD's
judgment partially correct by immediately engaging in dangerous and
reckless action. IMO, it would have been a *serious* mistake to give
Harry to Black under any circumstances--though, of course, if he'd
shown DD legal documents and hadn't sent himself to Azkaban by going
after Pettigrew, DD might not have had any choice. We have yet to see
any such documents, however. And I would hope that Black's affection
for Harry would have led him to realize that he was a most unsafe
guardian. Any remaining unarrested loyal DEs would pursue him till
they killed both him and Harry. The idea that he could have given up
his reckless ways and hidden somewhere safely with Harry, providing
him a normal, loving home and protection from the DEs strikes me as
too unbelievable even to be considered. 

Once Black had gone after Pettigrew, however, that option, poor as it
was,  was no longer available. He "proved" himself "guilty" (in DD's
view and the Ministry's) by not behaving like an innocent man (as we
see again in PoA). His maniacal laughter and refusal to defend himself
probably resulted from the knowledge that he *couldn't* prove himself
innocent because PP had escaped and was to all appearances dead. Black
had no proof that Pettigrew was a rat Animagus, and revealing that he
himself was an Animagus would only be, as someone else has pointed
out, one more reason to send him to Azkaban. It wouldn't prove that
the supposedly untalented Pettigrew was an Animagus, too.

Given these circumstances, exactly how was Dumbledore supposed to know
that Black was innocent, or even suspect that he was? And if he
listened to and believed Black after Pettigrew blew up the street, how
was he supposed to prove Black's innocence to Crouch or Fudge or
anyone who had interviewed the witnesses? Their memories,
unfortunately, had been obliterated. He could only prove that Black
wasn't the SK and therefore the traitor *before* that happened, and
only if Black had gone to him with the true story rather than rashly
taking things into his own hands.

And BTW, AFAIK, he didn't go after Pettigrew in PoA because Pettigrew
presented a danger to Harry, as someone recently stated. He went there
to commit the murder he'd been arrested for--a reckless and dangerous
act of vengeance that would not have helped Harry and would have led
to his having his soul sucked by the Dementors. If Black hadn't come
after Pettigrew with the intent to murder him, Pettigrew would have
had no motivation to escape his comfortable role as Weasley family pet
and escape to the Dark Lord.

Carol, firmly believing that Dumbledore did what was right to the best
of his knowledge and that Sirius Black would have been a most unwise
choice for a guardian under any circumstances, regardless of the
(young) Potters' preferences