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

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 179213

> Carol:
> My point is that, while we have numerous references to Black as
> Harry's godfather, we have only one reference to him as Harry's
> guardian. 

a_svirn:
Because although he was "appointed" he was denied his appointment. By 
Dumbledore. We have references to Vernon Dursley as Harry's guardian, 
even though he wasn't appointed at all. Unless you regard 
Dumbledore's letter as an "appointment". Sirius should have been a 
guardian, but de facto he wasn't. Therefore a "godfather" was a more 
convenient term to emphasise a bond between them. 

> Carol:
And McGonagall's acceptance of his permission to allow Harry
> to go to Hogsmeade says as much about her as it does about him. 

a_svirn:
Actually, I don't think McGonagall had any say in this at all. Harry 
was going to show the form to Dumbledore:

"That'll be good enough for Dumbledore!" said Harry happily. He 
looked back at Sirius's letter.

Carol:
 But we still
> have no evidence that he had any sort of legal claim to Harry, 
<snip>

a_svirn:
Except that it is stated in black and white by someone who never lied 
to Harry (unlike Dumbledore). 

Carol:
whereas
> the Dursleys' claim as his nearest relatives is indisputable. 

a_svirn:
Then how is it they knew nothing whatsoever about their ward's 
financial situation? If they had been Harry's legal guardians surely 
they have had an access to his gold? Or at least determined the size 
of allowance? Or at the very least knew the terms of the Potters' 
will?

Carol:
And I
> won't repeat DD's excellent reasons for believing that Harry would 
be
> safer under blood protection than he would with the man DD thought
> responsible for Lily's and James's deaths.

a_svirn:
The point is, however excellent Dumbledore's reasons might have been 
it wasn't his place to have them. It is the parents' prerogative to 
name a guardian for their child. Dumbledore had no right to meddle.