Ownership - Harry/Deathly Hallows (Formerly: Re: Dumbledore's Plan/Deaths in

[gary_braithwaite]

No: HPFGUIDX 177674

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> 
wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
> Harry, of course, does not wear the cloak all the time, and even 
if he did, it alone would not make him Master of Death. The Master 
of Death is the rightful owner of all three Hallows, and Harry holds 
that role only briefly, if at all, when he is wearing the 
Invisibility Cloak and using the Resurrection Stone to bring back 
the shades of his loved ones (who are still dead and cannot return 
to the world) only so that he can join them. He is not using the 
Hallows to make himself immortal, only to give himself the courage 
to sacrifice himself as his mother did and join his beloved dead. He 
deliberately gives up the Resurrection Stone instead of keeping it, 
and later deliberately refuses to use the Elder Wand except to 
repair his own. IOW, Harry is as mortal as anyone else at the end of 
the book and has relinquished  whatever claim he might have had to 
immortality, assuming that being Master of Death would make that 
possible, rather than simply allowing him to choose his time like 
the third brother in the fairy tale. 
> 
> <SNIP>

Gary B:

A question about ownership vs. physical possession of magical 
objects.   Despite his dropping of the resurrection stone 
and 'renouncing' it, isn't Harry still the owner of the object until 
a rock collector happens upon it in the woods or someone with more 
serious designs?  The ownership 'string' is still not broken.

I was thinking that owhership is different than possession -- 
examples, the Elder Wand knew its owner in the final confrontation, 
even though Harry did not have it in his possession (or had ever 
touched it before this scene) until after the duel was essentially 
over.   Also, the sword of Gryffindor apparently leaves the 
possession of the goblins to return to its "owner" Neville -- this 
works for to any Gryffindor who needs it in the performance of a 
noble deed and fits into the plot requirement at the moment.   
Confusingly, where is it when Harry needs it earlier to destroy the 
horclux -- why does Snape need to 'plant' it in the pond in the 
woods?  Magic and plot in conflict?  Connection between the Sorting 
Hat and the appearance of the sword (two times, I believe in the 
canon)?

So following this logic, Harry is still the owner of the three 
deadly hallows and is the 'master of death' at the end DH -- 
although that may mean nothing given the differences between the 
legend of the 'tale' and effects of the three objects in the story.  
This does not reduce power of Harry's offer to sacrifice himself 
given that he cannot be sure of what this might mean ('master of 
death') or whether it actually works as advertised.

Gary B.