Dumbledore's reason to trust Snape: my theory......

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 167049

---  "audreynstuff" <audreynstuff at ...> wrote:
>
> I was rereading Half Blood Prince last night and at 
> the very end of the book , just after Dumbledore gets
> killed, everybody had gathered in the hospital wing to
> discuss what had just happened. When the discussion 
> turned to how Dumbledore always had an ironclad reason
> for trusting Snape, I got an idea that maybe Snape had
> made an Unbreakable Vow with Dumbledore renouncing his
> loyalty to Voldemort and pledging to help the Order 
> from then on. Does anybody have any opinions?.
> 
> audreynstuff
>

bboyminn:

Let me talk about something that will seem only 
tangentally related, but trust me I will bring it back 
to your topic.

When ever this subject comes up, I always wonder who or 
what is the arbiter of Unbreakable Vows? Exactly when 
and how is the /failure/ of a Vow determined?

For example, in past discussions I have said that as long
as Snape maintained the /intent/ to kill Dumbledore, he
didn't necessarily have to kill him on the spot, referring
to the Tower here.

Snape could say, in the moment, too many distractions, 
I'll never get away with it, so instead of killing him
now, I will poison his morning juice. I'm not saying 
this is realistic, just illustrating that Snape has a 
clear plan and intent for fulfilling his Vow. Then the 
next morning, Snape is running late and says, I'll kill
him in his sleep tonight. Then later that night it rains
and Snape says, too gloomy and dreary, plus too messy 
to try and escape in the rain, I'll kill him tomorrow.

So, let us further say that this is a conscious plan on
Snape's part, to keep coming up with excuse after excuse
for not killing Dumbledore, but at the same time, 
maintaining a clear and willfull intent to do so /later/.
Under these circumstances, could Snape put off the 
consequences of the Vow for years, for decades? 

Now for your idea, first I wouldn't think much of 
Dumbledore if he was going around coercing people into 
making Unbreakable Vows of loyalty to him. Next, and 
again relating to who or what is the arbiter of the Vow, 
hasn't Snape already violated his Vow of loyalty by 
killing Dumbledore? How does the 'who or what - arbiter'
determine that Snape killing Dumbledore was an act of 
loyatly, and further accurately determine that Snape 
returning to Voldemort is /still/ an act of loyalty to
Dumbledore? 

Further, Snape harrassed Harry and tried, or at least 
threatened, to get Harry, the last and greatest hope of 
the wizard world, thrown out of school. That certainly 
can't be good for the cause? Why didn't the Vow kick 
in then and kill Snape? 

My point is that since the final determination of a Vow
is so grey and uncertain, I just don't see it enhancing
the story at all. Still if Snape is able to /play/ the 
Vow with willfull intent, then perhaps he really can 
delay the consequences indefinitely. Plus, when Snape
made the second Malfoy Vow, wouldn't that envoke the
first Loyalty Vow?

It just seem much too complicated for JKR to go there.

Just one man's opinion.

Steve/bboyminn