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