Fees for Harry

[lizzyben04]

No: HPFGUIDX 179392

> 
> Pippin:
> There's no reason that the financial guardian and the custodial 
guardian
> have to be the same person, especially when great sums or esoteric
> assets that need special management skills (a pile of wizard gold 
would 
> certainly qualify!) are involved. The irony in this case is that 
the Dursleys
> would probably have been much better custodians of gold  than they
> were of  Harry! 

lizzyben:

Well, IMO it's pretty clear that the Dursleys weren't paid for 
raising Harry, so let's just move past that. I guess it's *possible* 
that DD was named as the guardian of the estate, while Sirius was 
named Harry's guardian. But I don't buy it, for many reasons. First 
of all, it'd make more sense for the child's guardian to also manage 
the estate for the child. That way, the guardian can easily get 
money out for the child's expenses. Second, it seems like the 
Potters were trying to cut DD out of their affairs. DD offered to be 
SK, but the Potters chose Peter instead. Lily wrote a letter 
expressing surprise that DD was best friends with Grindewald. I 
think there's a lot of indication that the Potters were starting to 
have doubts about DD. So after naming Peter as SK, naming Sirius as 
Harry's guardian, why would they give DD their entire estate? It 
doesn't make sense. Finally, since when does DD do things the legal 
way? He didn't have a legal right to take Harry, but that didn't 
stop him. 

Pippin:
> 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. 

lizzyben:

Actually they just let DD borrow the Cloak after he asked to examine 
it - conveniently this happened shortly before their murders. Thus, 
DD ends up as the new owner of the Cloak, even though it should have 
gone directly to Harry as the Potters' heir. Kinda like how DD ends 
up as the new owner of the Potters' bank vault key, even though that 
should've gone to Harry as well. And how DD ends up taking Harry, 
even though Sirius was the appointed guardian. 

After the Godric's Hallow murders, DD ends up with the "Boy Who 
Lived", the Hallow, and the key to the Potters' estate - even though 
he apparantly didn't have a legal right to any of that. It all works 
out very well for DD. A little *too* well, if you ask me. *shifts 
eyes suspiciously.*

I can just see it - "oh, James, why don't you lend me the Cloak for 
a few days so I can examine it? You won't need it once you're under 
my super-safe Fidelius Charm. Oh, also, why don't you give me the 
Potter bank vault key as well? You won't be able to go to Gringotts 
while you're under my super-safe Fidelius Charm, so this way I can 
withdraw money for you if you need it." Dumbledore twinkles, cackles 
evilly.

And why did DD want the Invisibility Cloak at that time anyway? He 
always knew James had it, & mentions that James used to hide under 
it to steal food. Why ask for it while the Potters' are being 
threatened by a psychotic wizard who's after their son? Isn't this 
the exact *worst* time to borrow the Cloak? 

Except we know that DD was obsessed with the Deathly Hallows, and he 
already owned the Elder Wand. He just needed two more to complete 
his collection. And if the Potters' happen to die while DD 
is "borrowing" the Cloak, well then DD just got a new shiny Hallow. 
If he hadn't borrowed it at that time, the Hallow would've gone 
straight to Harry & DD would lose it forever. Just one of those 
things that make you go hmmmm. I think DD knew the Potters would 
soon be killed, and arranged things so that everything would go as 
smoothly as possible after their demise. This way, right after their 
murders, DD can take the baby, the Hallow, and the money. Nicely 
done, DD. So yeah, I believe that DD somehow set up/knew about the 
Godric's Hollow attack before it happened. Maybe he even tipped LV 
off to Peter in the first place. But, it's one of those things I 
suspect, but can't prove.


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. 

lizzyben:

I'm trying to imagine the Dursleys at a wizarding guardianship 
hearing in the MOM, and failing. Yeah, maybe we can construct more 
facts that could possibly make this totally legal & aboveboard, but 
w/the facts we've got it is not. Sirius was the appointed guardian & 
godfather, full stop. And again, it's not like DD to bother. If 
Harry's at the Durselys', Sirius is in Azkaban & no one is there to 
complain, why bother going through all the official routes?

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.

lizzyben:

I see so, so many reasons not to take DD at his word!