LV's bigger plan / Trelawney at the funeral or not?

[Dana]

No: HPFGUIDX 166439

<big snip>
Carol responds:
> I agree. Even Harry, who is not the most psychologically astute
> person in the WW and was to some degree preoccupied by his own
> grief, would have understood that Trelawndy had a motive to come
> down from her room(her own prediction of calamity had come true)
> and realized that Trelawney owed more to DD than she knew. He
> certainly would have noticed her missing, and he would have noticed
> an empty chair in the staff section, as he does whenever a teacher
> is absent from the staff table at a feast.
<snip>

Dana:
But at the same time these arguments would validate him noticing her
presence but he doesn't.

There was no feast after the funeral.


Carol responds:
> Certainly, the Prophecy and Trelawney have a role left to play.
> Personally, I think that Prophecies are likely to come in threes,and
> we'll hear one last Prophecy. All Ceridwen and others are saying is
> that we have no hint that Trelawney has been kidnapped as of the end
> of HBP. As Ceridwen says, the funeral would have been the perfect
> opportunity to note her absence.
<snip>

Dana:
I agree that the funeral is a perfect opportunity for the reader to
notice she is missing by actively cutting her out of the scene. (I
know that is not what was meant to be said)
>From Harry PoV there isn't enough time and interaction with other
people to actively discuss her absence but it doesn't mean he didn't
notice it.
The hint is her not being mentioned at all while she had such a large
impact on Harry's life throughout the series.

Also Trelawney absence from the funeral might not alarmed anyone
specifically in thinking that she is missing from Hogwarts
completely. Just that it would be extremely rude of her to not attend
the funeral.

Carol responds:
> I would not be at all surprised if an attack on Hogwarts is in the
> works now that Dumbledore is dead, and kidnapping Trelawney would be
> one motive of many for such a plot. But to suggest that Trelawney,
> whowas denied her opportunity to speak with Dumbledore by Harry
> himself in OoP, was spirited away by Fawkes while the DEs (whom DD
> thought could not get into Hogwarts) were invading the castle is
> simply unsupported by evidence, as is kidnapping Trelawney as the
> primary objective of Voldemort's plot.
<snip>

Dana:
Why would LV wait until DD is dead and then come back later?
Draco is providing the access to Hogwarts and the distraction his task
has on DD and, in this case the Order members provides the perfect
opportunity while he doesn't know what the protection at Hogwarts
will be after DD's death. I am not saying that LV could not overrun
Hogwarts at any time after DD's death or that he will not have the
intention to do that, but why risk it?  It could be even more protected than when DD was there and losing the possibility to get his hands on the prophecy while he has been given access at that specific time?

There is no evidence that LV's plan was for Draco to kill DD either -
on the contrary it speaks highly against it. And Draco did not
surprise anyone by showing he was indeed a murderer after all.
Saying Draco was expected to die trying is also not true because we
never have seen evidence that any Order Member has ever killed anyone
and if LV never lost one of his minions at the "personal hand" of an
Order member then he was not expecting they were going to kill Draco
on the spot either. The ones LV lost through death were at the hand
of aurors under Barty Crouch Sr's supervision.

DD was prepared for the unimaginable, regardless of his own belief that it would not be possible to bring DEs in by having members of the Order patrol the castle in his absence, so it doesn't take much imagination that DD also planned some protection to the one thing LV was after the entire previous year  - and if so, Fawkes' delay in showing his grievance about DD death could be a hint of his absence during the attack itself. (Yes, speculation that is all it is but what else have we to do while we wait and although not canon proof it neither contradicting canon either ;)) Why would it take Fawkes half an hour or more to realize DD was dead? You would think he would sense it right away. But it could very well be that he only started singing after Hagrid brought DD's body to him and that it is nothing more than that.

DD knows Tom better then anyone and DD would also know that just
sending Draco to murder him would be OOC for Tom to do this just so he could take revenge on Lucius. He would know Tom would have an alternative motive for choosing Draco for the task.  But without any further information, like the absence of new data through Snape, this might have complicated him guessing what LV would be after if not his death or maybe DD really underestimated Snape and really believed with Snape's help he could hold LV off from whatever he was planning.

Carol responds:
> Surely, Dumbledore or Draco or the DEs would have mentioned
> Trelawney if she were involved in the matter, but all we see is
> Draco explaining his Vanishing Cabinet Plan, saying that he has no
> choice but to kill Dumbledore, and the DEs urging him to doit (and
> offering to do it themselves).
<snip>

No, they wouldn't because LV would not have shared this part of the
plan with them and risk DD using legillimens on Draco, just as DD
does not approach Draco for the same reason. DD would not discuss
such a thing with Draco or anyone else because it is not Draco's
concern. Draco only know his task as he has been ordered to do.  I believe that the DE's that were present do not know more more than he does.  Draco doesn't know who LV would send in to help him carry out his task, as is made clear when DD accuses him of endangering his friends by inviting Greyback but Draco said he didn't invite him. So even Draco isn't in the know about everything.


Carol:
> As Snape tells Harry in OoP, the staff and students are protected
> by a variety of ancient spells, and it's unlikely that a Death
> Eater could just climb up that rope ladder and kidnap Trelawney
> even if they knew where her office was (she wasn't teaching when
> they were students).
<snip>

Dana:
You forgetting one thing and that is:  Peter has been in Hogwarts
in the first three years of Harry's residency. (Although the last year he might have been busy with other things). He could have provided information even if Snape did not. He also knows the castle better than anyone.

Dana