Fees for Harry

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 179383

> Pippin:
<SNIP>
> The Potters trusted DD with the Invisibility Cloak, which is 
doubtless
> worth more than everything in their vault, so why not trust him 
with the
> key? They could have made DD the trustee of their estate and the
> executor of their will, and  given him discretion to appont another
> guardian if Sirius was unable to serve. 

Alla:

Eh, the opposite question is true I think. Why **trust** him with the 
key? Why trust him with the possibility of appointing another 
guardian, especially if one was already appointed?

Oh, and I do not remember Potters **trusting** Dumbledore with the 
cloak that much. I mean, I do not think they **DIS** trusted him to 
that extent that they would hide cloak from him, but to give him to 
examine something is way different to me than to give something for 
safe keeping.

I did not get the impression that James was leaving cloak with 
Dumbledore for a long term - just for a couple days to take a look at.

And I thought Harry was WAY too kind telling Dumbledore that if they 
had cloak it would be no difference. I think they would have some 
chance to hide ( at least one of them) and maybe even with Harry and 
run.

I am afraid I remain very convinced that Potters wanted Dumbledore to 
stay as far away from their son's future.

They rejected him as secret keeper, so I find it highly implausible 
that they would decide, oh you know, we won't appoint him as Harry's 
guardian either, but hey, we will go ahead and give him financial 
powers over his money AND we will give him powers to appoint legal 
guardian.

Pippin: 
> If it takes thirty days for a wizarding will to go into effect, then
> possibly Sirius never became legally Harry's guardian, and Vernon 
and
> Petunia were appointed quite legitimately. 

Alla:

You mean in that period of time Dumbledore exercised those 
hypothetical powers? I question the possibility that he HAD those 
powers in the first place. IMO of course.
 
Pippin:
> I see no reason not to take Dumbledore at his word that the blood
> protection was the main reason for choosing the Dursleys as 
guardians.
> The blood protection would keep working even if Dumbledore was
> killed or the ministry fell, and those were quite reasonable 
concerns.

Alla:

It is Dumbledore's authority to **MAKE** those decisions I question, 
not his reasons.

Although to keep Harry's alive to make sure he is dead later does not 
strike me as very reasonable and in Harry's best interests either.

Oh and even at the end of DH we did not see blood protection working, 
no?

So for all I know, blood protection or not Harry may not have ever 
need it either.

JMO,

Alla