Trelawney's prediction & end of HBP (Trelawney at the funeral or not?)

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 166516

Dana wrote:
> 
> I do not agree that just because he wants to avoid someone it
> therefore means he wouldn't think anything about them. We see
> that he wants to avoid Scrimgeour but he is nevertheless
> mentioned. He probably would want to avoid Umbridge with a
> vengeance but he nevertheless registers her presence. The
> events before the tower and her information about Snape being
> the one who relayed part of the prophecy to LV or even that it
> was her prediction that made him a marked man (besides her
> predicting the events on the tower themselves) would surely
> provoke some thoughts about her when he comes across her. Just
> because he wouldn't want to give her a hug or have a little
> chat doesn't mean his mind would stay empty at the sight of
> her. Especially because she would probably display herself
> in a very dramatic way if she were present.
<snip>
> So personally I still strongly believe that she was not
> present at the funeral because not noticing her, and just
> labelling her under the "staff" with the history between them,
> seems more odd than if Harry would just have thought about her
> for a second. Think about it. Her prediction and Snape hearing
> part of it are the cause of everything that happened in
> Harry's life. Don't you think that would leave an impression?

Carol responds:
I think that, for the reasons you mention, Harry would have noticed
her *absence* from the funeral, especially when she has every reason
to be there. As to displaying herself in a very dramatic way, perhaps
not. She might be very subdued given what she had read in the cards.
Surely, not even Trelawney would be going around shouting "I told him
so but he wouldn't listen" at Dumbledore's funeral. And if she appears
wearing buables, bangles, and beads, well, that's Trelawney. Nothing
to notice there.

There may be a reason, besides Harry's state of mind and a lot of
other things going on, for JKR to have the narrator neglect to mention
Trelawney. Or it may just be like the omission of Snape with regard to
the escaped fireworks. If the staff members (not counting Trelawney,
who has been fired) are requesting Umbridge's help to do what they
could easily do themselves, there's no reason to assume that Snape is
not among them. Similarly, if the staff (except the disgraced and
departed Snape) attend the funeral, there's no reason to assume that
Trelawney is not among them.

Harry routinely notices empty chairs at the staff table during meals
and banquets. Surely, he would have noticed an empty seat among the
staff members at the funeral. (I didn't mean, when I mentioned this
before, that there was a feast at the funeral. I'm simply making a
comparison. In almost every book, there's a mention of an empty seat,
and he or Hermione figures out who ought to be there.) If Harry didn't
notice that Trelawney was missing, the more observant Hermione
wouldn't have done so. She isn't crying and absorbed by her emotions
until well into the service.

Just because Harry's classes are barely mentioned in HBP doesn't mean
that he's no longer having them. Some things have to be taken for
granted. Trelawney's presence is, IMO, one of them. Her absence would
have been noticed.

Carol, who agrees with your earlier assessment that there would have
been a head count after Dumbledore's death and that Trelawney must
therefore still be at Hogwarts