Timeline of Snape's 'return', account of the prophecy, wand allegiance

[Zara]

No: HPFGUIDX 173290

ciraarana wrote:
> Q: Snape wasn't yet teaching at Hogwarts when he approached 
Dumbledore
> with the plea to keep Lily safe (otherwise they wouldn't have met at
> the hilltop). So, when did that interview take place? And why did it
> take Voldemort so long to find the Potters? They only went into 
hiding
> a week before they were murdered. 

zgirnius:
You are assuming that the Potters made no effort to hide using other 
means before resorting to the Fidelius Charm. On the other hand, 
Cornelius Fudge makes the statement that Dumbledore suspected a spy 
was passing on information to Voldemort about the Potters' movements, 
and Sirius Black accuses Peter of having been Voldemort's for a year. 
WE also know Hasrry';s christening was a hurried affair because the 
Potters were going into hiding.

I have always put this all together in my brain as follows, and 
nothing I learned from DH contradicts it - rather, that Dumbledore 
was adversarial to Snape as a DE at the first meeting tends to 
support it, since as you say this clearly indicates he was not yet 
teaching.

Snape warned Dumbledore, and the Potters went in to hiding, not too 
long after Harry's birth, certainly before his first birthday. This 
makes sense in tewrms of when christenings usually happen (earlier 
rather than later in a baby's life), and with Sirius's statement that 
Peter was a spy for a year. This hiding went badly because Peter was 
leaking information, but the Potters did manage to keep from getting 
killed. Eventually they realized simple hiding ewas not doing it, and 
decided to use the Fiidelius Charm, only they picked Peter as their 
SK. Oops.

To me this also makes sense of Dumbledore's Pensieve testimony about 
Snape switching sides and spying at 'great personal risk'. I think 
that would require some length of time, as would a decision by 
Dumbledore to hire Snape. Snape seemed sincere anough about Lily in 
the first meeting, but I don't think Dumbledore trusted him much back 
then, he would have wanted to see Snape live up to his promise to 
do 'anything' before hiring him.

> Q: Snape approached Voldemort with the plea to not kill Lily? And
> Voldemort agreed? He agreed to not kill a "Mudblood"?? (And he did
> agree, didn't he, because he gave Lily the choice to step away.)
> Looking at Voldemort's policy ... Are we supposed to accept that?

zgirnius:
Sure, why not? If Snape was useful, granting such a request would 
make Snape beholden to Voldemort, and give Voldemort leverage over 
him as long as Lily remained alive, or at least until Snape lost 
interest. I figure Snape retained the sense not to bring phrases 
like 'true love' into that conversation...

> Q: The prophesy business. What a mess. Dumbledore's and Trelawney's
> accounts clashed – if what Dumbledore said was true about the 
evening
> of the Prophesy, there was no way Trelawney could have known the
> eavesdropper was Snape. But she knew. And Snape still only reported
> the first part. How does that all fit??

zgirnius:
There were explanation of this onlist before DH, I assume we must now 
suppose that's how it works, since the alternative proposed, that 
Snape heard it all, is not supporetd by any new canon in DH. Here is 
what happened:

1) Snape started listeining.
2) Trelawney started the prophecy.
3) Aberforth saaw Snape and dragged him from the door.

(this way, he only heard part of it).

4) A scuffle or discussion ensued between Snape and Aberforth, during 
which Trelawney completeed the prophecy.
5) Aberforth got the upper hand and dragged Snape in to be seen by 
Albus and Trelawney.

(This is where Trelawney sees Snape, after her 'funny spell', she is 
not aware that was the moment she prophesied).

6) Snape was thrown form the building.

Dumbledore does not mention 5). This does not mean it did not happen, 
he could have simply chosen not to memtion it, in order not to 
emphasize that he knew who the eavesdropper was.

> Q: If Expelliarmus changes the wand's allegiance 
 then nobody from
> the DA is still using their own wand. No wizard or witch who has 
ever
> been taught that spell at Hogwarts would be using their own wand
> (although considering the DADA teacher problem 
) But wouldn't Harry
> have won Voldemort's wand in the graveyard scene in GoF?

zgirnius:
Harry did not disarm Voldemort. He cast his spell simultaneously with 
Voldemort's AK, and neither spell succeeded. Instead we got the 
Priori Incantatem effect because of the wand cores.

As far as the point about defeating someone in a class or other 
setting, I assume that the victor allowing the vanquished to retrieve 
his or her wand must nullify that effect. So for example if Snape had 
refused to kill Dumbeldore and Dumbledore had somehow survived, if he 
had retrieved the Elder Wand, he would still be its master. Unless 
Draco got to the wand first and claimed it. But Dumbledore died, 
leaving the wand to consider Draco's action definitive despite 
Draco's failure to claim it, and Draco its master.