Fidelius Charm for Voldemort?

[Mike]

No: HPFGUIDX 179316

> > Mike said:
> > You want a Fidelius plot hole? How about asking why Voldemort 
> > didn't hide at least one of his Horcruxes with a Fidelius? 
> 
> 
> Fliss responds:
> I like the idea that Bboymminn suggested, which is that you can't
> cast a Fidelius charm on yourself. The heart of the charm seems to
> be that one casts it in order to protect something or someone from
> harm *other than yourself*. This suggests to me that although the
> horcruxes are objects, physically separate from Voldemort, 
> Voldemort can't cast a Fidelius on them because he would 
> essentially be casting it upon himself.

Mike:
>> Editorial comment: This was a wonderful first post, Fliss! And, 
>> yes, you did everything right. :D <<

How about casting the Fidelius over the Gaunt hovel? In previous 
posts, I speculated that one must have propriety over the object 
being hidden to cast the Fidelius Charm on it. Well, Tom Riddle was 
the last of the Gaunts. Doesn't that make him the owner of the shack,
even if Marvolo and/or Morfin died intestate? So what would stop 
Riddle from hiding the ring in the hovel and putting the same type of
Fidelius on the hovel that Dumbledore put on 12 GP? After all, Harry 
became the owner of 12 GP *after* the Fidelius and the charm still 
held. In fact, it still held even though it was no longer the Order 
HQ, the thing that the Fidelius was supposedly hiding.



> Fliss:
> There is another reason why I don't think Voldemort would use the
Fidelius Charm - I suspect it is another of those branches of "Old
Magic" that DD assumes he will despise and underestimate.

Mike:
I can't quite agree with this. It may have been "Old Magic", we don't
know. But I see no reason why magic that kept a secret would be a 
branch that LV would ignore or despise. On the contrary, I would have
thought this type of magic would have tremendous appeal to someone 
like Voldemort.


> Fliss:
> Voldemort, who knows nothing of "love, loyalty and house elves" 
has no understanding and appreciation of magic like this, which has 
a key purpose only to protect but not harm. Even the nature of the 
name has loyalty and protection at its heart, values of which his
comprehension is limited.

Mike:
I can see this one. The loyalty aspect would seem antithetical to 
Voldemort's value system. However, if Voldemort is casting a spell 
that requires only loyalty to himself? This one could go either way.
I could definitely see this reason as a plot hole filler. ;)


> DA Jones (Sandy)
> Voldemort could never have cast a Fidelius charm because he was 
not capable I think of trusting anyone. -<snip>- 
> To cast a Fidelius you need to trust that the person will protect 
your secret.

Mike:
Except I was proposing that Voldemort cast the Fidelius over an 
object and make himself the Secret Keeper. This would not involve 
another person to trust.

*****
Just to add to the confusion, here's another property that I think 
came with the Fidelius. I don't think anyone not in on the secret 
knew that a Fidelius was cast. That is, Voldemort could stick his 
nose up to the window of the GH cottage and not only not see the 
Potters, but not realize that they are in there and hidden by a 
Fidelius. (This is before Peter betrayed the secret, of course)

Now someone asks, 'What about Bella's question at Spinner's End?'
Did Bella know there was a Fidelius? I don't think so. She asked 
Snape: "And, while we are on the subject of the Order, you still 
claim you cannot reveal the whereabouts of their headquarters, don't 
you?" (HBP p. 29, US Ed.) Whereupon Snape tells her he is not the SK.

If Bella knew there was a Fidelius on the HQ and understood how the 
enchantment worked (Snape thinks she does), this becomes a ridiculous
charge to make against Snape. Not that this is beneath Bella, but 
would she really make herself look (more) stupid if she knew there 
was a Fidelius and that it would naturally preclude Snape from 
revealing the secret location?

Mike