Harry as godfather (Was: Sirius Black's role in DH -- why?)

[Carol]

No: HPFGUIDX 179251

Dana wrote:
><snip>
> The argument, at least not from my point of view, is not about DD
saving Sirius from being innocently locked up in Azkaban but about if
Sirius recklessness was at fault of him losing Harry as Carol stated 
in the post I replied to. <snip>

Carol responds:

That's twice you've stated that I made this claim. However, as you
didn't actually quote me, I had to go back to see what I actually
said. To quote my own post:

"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). At any rate, in RL, there's
no connection between being selected as a godparent, which is entirely
a religious matter and essentially an honorary position (a really good
godparent might be a role model and spiritual guide, as well as giving
the child presents on birthdays or Christmas), whereas being a
guardian is a legal and moral responsibility, in loco parentis. And in
the absence of a will stating that the Potters wanted Sirius Black as
their child's guardian, I doubt that even the MoM would take the child
away from his nearest relatives (especially if DD had explained the
protections he was putting on the Dursley home, and Fudge seems to
know about them in PoA.) Moreover, once Sirius Black was "known" to be
the Secret Keeper who betrayed the Potters to their deaths, no one was
going to support his claim to Harry even if it were in the Potters'
will, any more than the U.S. courts would grant custody of a child to
the parents' chosen guardian if that person had a criminal record and
might be a danger to the child.

"When Hagrid tells DD that he got the motorcycle from "young Sirius
Black," DD asks: "No trouble, was there?" He hasn't told Hagrid about
Black's supposedly being SK, but he knows it himself, and took
measures to prevent Harry's being turned over to anyone by telling
Hagrid that Harry was to go to the Dursleys no matter what. I don't
think that Black knew anything about Petunia beyond her bad taste in
vases (mentioned in the letter in DH). He certainly could not have
known how differently the Dursleys would treat Harry and his cousin
Dudley. He may have realized that DD knew best, or he may simply have
taken out his frustration by going after Peter Pettigrew (an action he
must have known would land him in Azkaban--"I won't be needing it [the
motorcycle] anymore"). Rather than fighting Hagrid for his own right
to take the child, maybe he actually considered that Harry might be
better off in a Muggle household, away from renegade DEs, rather than
with him, a single wizard on the run from both DEs and the MoM. (Of
course, he could have gone to DD and explained the situation or
pleaded his case, but, being Sirius Black, he seems not to have
thought of that.) At any rate, I agree with zgirnius that leaving
Harry with Hagrid was sensible, much more sensible and much less
selfish than taking Harry with him into danger. Going after Peter
Pettigrew, however, was just plain reckless. I suppose in his remorse
and despair, his only comfort was revenge. "I'll go down, but I'll
take Wormtail with me." "

IOW, I do not think nor am I claiming that Black lost guardianship by
going after Peter Pettigrew. His *legal* guardianship has never been
established. It may be a mistake for "godfather," for all we know, and
being made a godfather evidently involves only being named by the
parents without even any knid of ceremony. Obviously, he could not
have lost his godfathership, so to speak. What he did, however, was
forfeit any right to claim Harry by foolishly going after PP.

To reiterate my original argument, Dumbledore believed that Black had
betrayed the Potters to their deaths. The last thing he was about to
do, or should have done, was to turn over a baby to the man
responsible for his parents' murders. I didn't say this originally,
but I'll say it now. It would be like handing Harry over to Peter
Pettigrew, who would, of course, be a most unsafe guardian even if he,
rather than Black, had been named godfather. Instead, DD took what
precautions he could to insure Harry's safety.

Black *could* have maintained his rights as godfather, not the
hypothetical rights as guardian, by going to Dumbledore and telling
him the truth. Instead, he forfeited all chance to see Harry for the
entire time he was in Azkaban by going after Peter Pettigrew. He could
have been returned to Azkaban or been soul-sucked had he succeeded in
killing Pettigrew in PoA. As it is, all he had were two years as
Harry's acknowledged godfather, most of that time spent either in
exile far away, living in a cave, or living most unhappily in 12 GP.
Had he not gone after Pettigrew, none of that would have happened.

Again, I'm not talking about forfeiting the right of guardianship,
which we don't even know he had. He would have forfeited *that* right,
if it existed, in the eyes of the MoM and DD by betraying the Potters.
So it was incumbent on him, not to attack Hagrid and seize his godson,
as Alla suggested, nor to go after Peter Pettigrew, presumably to kill
him, as he actually did, but to reveal the truth about the SK switch,
PP's treachery, and PP's Animagus abilities (which would enable him to
escape). Instead, he took the worst possible action in terms of his
relationship with Harry. Had he not escaped to commit the murder he
was arrested for, he'd have had no relationship with Harry at all.

Carol, hoping that you understand my argument more clearly now and
trying once again to bow out of this thread