The Malfoys WAS: Wizarding kids and their parents

[Mike]

No: HPFGUIDX 183965

> Carol responds:
> 
> <snip> Certainly, if her parents were in any danger (and they
> probably would have been once it was learned that Hermione was
> traveling with Harry), it would have been more sensible to ask
> the Order to protect them as it did the Dursleys.

Mike:
I do think you're right about the Grangers eventually being thought 
of as targets. We have the Dursleys and the rest of the Weasley clan 
as examples. According to canon, once it became known that Ron was 
hanging with Harry and not a Ghoul in pajamas, the rest of the 
Weasleys were in danger. After Malfoy Manor, surely Hermione's 
parents would have faced the same danger as the Dursleys.



> Carol:
> 
> We're also left to wonder what sort of charm Hermione performed
> on them. It wasn't a Memory Charm since she states in "A Place to
> Hide" that she's never performed one before. <snip>

Mike:
I'm guessing we weren't supposed to ponder to much on this because, 
quite frankly, I don't think Hermione could have performed such a 
charm or charms. I don't think Dumbledore could have either. 

To remove almost 18 years worth of memories of their daughter and 
replace them with something else so there weren't gaps in their 
memories? To make them think that they wanted to move to Australia 
and that they wanted to do it NOW - because Hermione couldn't afford 
to have them dawdle - and do it in a way that still didn't ruin their 
lives? Making sure that they didn't lose anything of their dentistry 
skills so they would be able to be gainfully employed? 

I don't know that a memory charm is able to do any of this 
satisfactorily, even if Hermione had been able to do one. Dumbledore 
*may* have been able to figure out how to do this given enough time 
to perform a series of complicated spells, but I'm not confident that 
he could have. Talented witch that she is, I'm just not buying that 
Hermione could have pulled it off in such a conflict neutral fashion 
that she insinuates happened.


> Carol:
> But you don't take it upon yourself to control your parents' lives
> and fates and rob them of their identity. That's utterly
> presumptuous and unnecessary. There has to be a better way.

Mike:
You do if it's needed for the plot. And I think Magpie said it best:

> > Magpie wrote:
> > 
> > In canon it seems like the only point to it is to drum up
> > sympathy for Hermione's "sacrifice" showing how hard this war
> > is on her. <snip>
> > Poor Hermione has to deal with: she will never get a chance
> > to undo the spell if she dies so they won't mourn her. <snip>

Mike:
I'm sorry to say that I find the treatment of the Grangers convenient 
for the exact plot purposes that Magpie describes. And as she said 
(and I snipped <veg>), the Grangers have always been cardboard cutout 
Muggle parents. We don't need to know what they think, how they fared 
in their new identities, or if they were upset when they discovered 
what their daughter did to them. They are non-entities, only slightly 
more important than all the nameless and faceless because of who 
their daughter is. That's the way I think JKR treated them, not my 
opinion of the Grangers, my opinion of their treatment.

Mike