Fidelius Confundus (was: Re: Question #3)

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 183412

---  Lee Kaiwen <leekaiwen at ...> wrote:

bboyminn:

First, you are assume a lot of facts not in evidence. Next, to
a degree you are rationalizing; meaning creating a path of 
logic that fits the facts as you see them. What is rationalized
is not always rational; in general.


>
> CJ:
> Can a Fidelius actually be broken? <snip>
> 
> Jen:
> from LV's memory of the night in DH: "And along a new and 
> darker street he moved, and now his destination in sight at
> last, the Fidelius Charm broken, though they did not know 
> it yet..."
> 
> CJ:
> OK, I'll give you the word :-). But since we already know is
> the was Secrete Keeper's betrayal that allowed LV to enter, 
> I don't think we need understand "broken" in its usual sense 
> here.
> 
> Jen:
> That makes sense to me because Peter telling the location 
> was 'broken faith' so to speak.
> 
> ... through traitorous act of the Secret Keeper.
> 
> Jen:
> Sirius was there as well, ... why (is) it' a commonly held 
> belief that no one else was around that night?
> 
> CJ?:
>
> ... But at this point the descriptions we're given of the 
> Fidelius Charm become very confusing.
> 
> "As long as the Secret-Keeper refused to speak, You-Know-Who
> could search the village where Lily and James were staying 
> for years and never find them, not even if he had his nose 
> pressed against their sitting room window!" (PoA chap. 10)
> 

bboyminn:

This is not the absolute all-inclusive definitions of the 
Fidelius Charm. It is a general conversation description 
using the Potters as a illustration. 

> CJ:
>
> [A] .... The only people who ever knew their precise location
> were those whom Wormtail had told directly, but none of them 
> would have been able to pass on the information." (JKR 
> interview)
> 

bboyminn:

Right, but how do you define 'directly'. Remember Dumbledore
conveyed the secret of Grimmauld Place to Harry via a NOTE.

>CJ:
>
> On the one hand, JKR's description suggests it is merely 
> information that is hidden by the Fidelius, not the object 
> itself. But that would imply it would still be possible to 
> discover the information through ordinary means. Yet Grimmauld
> Place itself -- not just knowledge of its location -- was 
> effectively rendered invisible by the Fidelius ...
> 

bboyminn:

But you are assuming that all Fidelius Charms are constructed
the same. Each charm has a subject or object of the charm as
well as the recipient of the secret (the Secret Keeper).

In the case of the Potters, was the secret 'The Potters' or
was the secret the location of the House in Godrics Hollow?

If seems the bulk of the evidence is that it was the house
that was hidden, as Voldemort being able to see the house 
indicates to him that the charm was broken. 

In the case of Grimmauld Place, it is certainly the House
that is hidden, but remember that the Secret Keeper Charm
is only the last of a great many charms protecting the house.

However, you are right about one point, it would be possible
for individuals in their own minds to realize that the house
at Grimmauld Place belonged to Sirius Black's family and now
belonged to Sirius Black. But while they could resolve this
in their own minds, the Fidelius Charm would prevent them
from saying it out loud, or by other means, to anyone else.

But, even if they personally realized that the house had once
existed and belonged to the Blacks, how would that help them.
They still couldn't find it, and they still couldn't get in
without help.

> CJ:
>
>... And yet, contrary to this, Hermione -- who is not even the 
> SK (or wait! is she? according to Mr. Weasley in DH, after 
> the death of the SK, everyone to whom he revealed the Secret
>  became a SK in turn; but that differs from what JKR herself 
> had >said) -- accidentally, not willfully, reveals the 
> location of Grimmauld Place when Yaxley manages to side-along 
> apparate.
> 

bboyminn:

In the first point in parenthesis, you are assuming that JKR
made absolute complete all-inclusive statements. She is 
personally honor bound to tell the truth, but she is not 
bound to tell the WHOLE truth.

In as far as she went, JKR's statements are the truth. But
that doesn't mean there can't be more to the truth. JKR's
later amendments to the Fidelius are merely the rest of 
the story.

As to Hermione bringing Yaxley inside the bounds of the 
Fidelius, how is that a conflict. Where willful of not,
she still brought someone inside the bound and thereby
revealed the secret. Although, this is never really proven.
Hermione suspects she has revealed the secret, and tells
Harry as much, but do we ever see any evidence that it was
true? I don't think so. 

Once again, it is a matter of taking everyone's statements as
absolute truth, when 'absolute truth' is extremely unlikely.

>CJ:
>
> But it gets even worse. Shell Cottage was also protected by
> the Fidelius Charm. But when was the Charm cast? Look at Dobby 
> disapparating back and forth between Shell Cottage and the
> Malfoys' dungeon. 

bboyminn:

Shell cottage was not protected at the time of Harry and
Dobby's arrival. In fact, it was protected because of their
arrival. But that doesn't make much difference because 
Dobby doesn't bring everyone TO Shell Cottage, he brings
everyone NEAR Shell Cottage.

Just as the DE are able to stand watch outside Grimmauld Place
because they know that 12 Grimmauld Place, the long-time
house of the Black family, exists. They are not able to 
actualy find or see the house itself, and as such are not
able to enter.

> CJ:
>
> .... So the Charm apparently was cast somewhere after Harry's
> first arrival at the cottage, but before his return after 
> Dobby's burial. But Harry was able to find his way back 
> notwithstanding. 
> 

bboyminn:

Upon Harry's arrival, Bill goes to warn the others Weasleys
and the Order of what has happened. It is while he is gone 
that the Fidelius spells are cast.

As far as Harry returning, I think he is already in the house
when the spell is cast and Bill returns to inform them. So,
he isn't finding his way to anywhere that he is not already 
aware of. 

> Now what of Sirius and Godric's Hollow? I'm presuming the 
> Fidelius was still in place (the necessity of Wormtail's 
> betrayal suggests even LV was unable to "break" the FC, 
> despite the wording in DH) which would mean, according to the
> PoA passage, that anyone else in the neighborhood would remain 
>unaware of the Potters' presence even after their deaths.
>

bboyminn:

Well, you first flaw is in assuming the Fidelius was still in
place even in the face of evidence that it was not. Wormtail
revealing the secret is very very different that Wormtail
BETRAYING the secret. He is perfectly free to tell Sirius and
others of the location, that is revealing, not betraying. 

However, when he revealed the secret to Voldemort he not only
betrayed his friend, he betrayed the secret, and he betrayed
his (real or implied) Magical Oath of Fidelity. It was the
Betrayal of Fidelity that broke the Fidelius Charm.  


> CJ:
>
> But how did Sirius know they were there? 

bboyminn:

Presumably Sirius was in on the conception and creation of
the Fidelius Charm related to the Potters. We know people
dropped by to see them, as Lily indicates in her letter. So,
there is no reason to assume that Sirius, by what ever means,
was not in on the secret. Logically, the Potters would need
some support -food, etc.... So, Sirius logically provided 
some of that support. Also note, that I believe Lily mentions
hanging around with Bathilda Bagshot, an old friend of 
Dumbledore's. So, some trusted people certainly knew the
secret; Sirius, Bathilda, Hagrid, Dumbledore, etc....


> CJ:
> 
> ... 
> However, was it the Potter house, or merely their presence 
> inside it that was protected at GH? Could neighbors see the 
> house at all? The PoA passage suggests yes, but LV would not
> have been able to see the Potters inside.
> 
> --CJ
>

bboyminn:

The above is only a true supposition if you first assume all
Fidelius Charms are the same. That the subject of the Charm is
always and consistently either only the people or only the
place, and that there aren't other variations of it. It is also
only true if you take Flitwick explanation to be an absolute 
all-inclusive all-defining thorough and complete definition. 
I say it was not; it merely illustrates the nature of the 
Fidelius to  someone who has no knowledge of it. That is a very
different thing. 

Steve.bboyminn