Some Dumbledore ranting/ some Sirius WAS: Re: Harry as godfather

a_svirn a_svirn at yahoo.com
Tue Nov 20 00:32:53 UTC 2007


No: HPFGUIDX 179212

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" 
<dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:
>
> > Carol responds:
> > If appointing Sirius Black as Harry's godfather was the simple 
> matter
> > that naming Harry as Teddy Lupin's godfather is, with no ceremony 
> and
> > no certificates involved, I don't see how it could have any legal
> > significance at all. As for being named Harry's "guardian," we 
have
> > only one reference to that, from Black himself. It could be a 
slip 
> on
> > JKR's part (she's been known to do that).
> <SNIP>
> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> It could have a legal significance, absolutely, yes. Meaning if the 
> RL court of law would have something loosely similar to determine 
who 
> was indeed Harry's guardian IF no writings on the matter would be 
> present.
> 
> Then if credible witness would have testified that it was child's 
> parents wish to have Sirius as guardian, yes, it would have been 
> legally significant all right. It would have been nice exception 
from 
> hearsay rules, etc.
> 

a_svirn:
Exactly. If it is an ancient wizading ceremony, like, say, handfast 
marriages in real life they it is legal and binding, and no way out. 
Assuming that you could produce witnesses, of course. And Harry was 
names a godfather, not a guardian.  

Besides which, Black said clearly that he was "appointed", not named. 
Appointed has somewhat more official ring to it.

 "Well... your parents appointed me your guardian," said Black 
stiffly. "If anything happened to them..."

I'd say that the Potters didn't have the luxury of being carefree 
where their son's welfare was concerned. After all, they did know the 
risks. So it's safe to assume that they took necessary legal 
precautions. (The alternative is that they were irresponsible fools, 
but that's somehow doesn't look plausible.)






More information about the HPforGrownups archive