Fidelius Confundus

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 183449

---  Lee Kaiwen <leekaiwen at ...> wrote:
>
> kennyg1864:
> IIRC the prevailing guesswork is that DD knew of the breaking
> of the Fidelius Charm as soon as LV broke it (thanks to 
> Wormtail's betrayal), since he had cast the Charm.
> 
> Ceridwen:
> DD couldn't have cast the charm or he would have known that
> Peter was the SK.
> 
> CJ:
> Good point about DD.
> 
> However, based on what, other than LV's own use of the word 
> in DH ..., do we assume LV "broke" the Charm? Surely 
> Pettigrew's revelation to LV was entirely consistent with 
> the normal duties and perogatives of a SK, and could not 
> have broken it as such. Conversely, had LV the ability to 
> break the Charm, he would not have needed Pettigrew to reveal
> the Secret.
> 

bboyminn:

The Charm was broken, but I don't think Voldemort personally
broke it.

In becoming the Secret Keeper, Peter is metaphorically, or
possibly really, swearing Fidelity or Faithfulness to the
Secret and to the Subjects of the Secret. The Potters are 
specifically hiding from Voldemort, consequently, Peter 
telling Sirius is not a breach of Faith. However, very much so,
Peter telling Voldemort was a colossal breach of Faith and 
Fidelity. 

Since this is the Faithfulness or Fidelity Charm, a breach of
faithfulness or fidelity would logically ruin the charm. 

Certainly you must see the logic in that, even if you don't 
agree. 


> bboyminn:
> you are rationalizing; meaning creating a path of logic that
> fits the facts as you see them.
> 
> CJ:
> Well, I am *attempting* to rationalize the facts as I see 
> them. But you make that sound like a bad thing :-)
> 

bboyminn:

Actually, I meant to add a side note that, to an extent, we
are all rationalizing. But some are rationalizing with logical
consistency while other are rationalizing with emotional
consistency. The two not necessarily producing the same
result. 

> ...
>
> 
> bboyminn:
> In the case of the Potters, was the secret 'The Potters' or
> was the secret the location of the House in Godrics Hollow?
> 
> CJ:
> ...
> 
> JKR makes statements indicating that it was the Potters, not
> the house, whose location was Charmed. From her website 
> (http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_poll.cfm):
> 
> "Even if one of the Potters had been captured ... they would
> not have been able to give away the whereabouts of the other 
> two. The only people who ever knew their precise location..."
> 
> Her words here clearly indication it is the location of the 
> Potters, not the house, which is Charmed. But perhaps we can
> just chalk that up to imprecision.
> 

bboyminn:

Well, not that's not a logical conclusion. What JKR is saying
is that if the Potter parents were captured, they would not
be able to utter the location of Harry. In otherwords, not
even the subjects of the Charm can speak the secret. Nor
can those to whom the secret was revealed speak the secret.
Only the Secret Keeper is capable of relaying that information
to anyone. 

As I see it, JKR is simply saying the NO ONE can speak or 
relay the secret except the Secret Keeper. I don't see her
making a statement about the nature of the Subject of the
Secret Keeper Charm; ie: the house or the people. 


> bboyminn:
> 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.
> 
> CJ (now):
> Hmm, I deny I'm right about that point :-) because I don't 
> think I was making the point so much as asking the question.
> 

bboyminn:

Whether stated or /asked/, you implied the possibility and
I agreed.

> CJ:
>
> But as to the *question*: what if I one day decide to FC 
> information which had hitherto been common knowledge -- say,
> the location of Buckingham Palace? Would every tourist who 
> ever passed through the gates suddenly forget where it is? 
> Would it suddenly disappear from every map of London ever 
> produced? Would the Queen suddenly forget where she lives?
> 

bboyminn:

Well, the first flaw is the no one would reasonably try to 
hide such a well known place as Buckinghan Palace. But it
still serves as a workable hypothetical.

Those who were aware of the existence of Buckingham Palace
would vaguely retain that knowledge, but would be unable
to communicate that knowledge to other people. 

As to Buckingham Palace and maps, that is a little more
difficult to explain away. Perhaps, the maps wouldn't change
but people's perception of them would. Perhaps, the physical
map would continue to show Buckingham Palace, but people
reading the map would not be able to perceive that aspect
of it.

As to the Palace itself, remember that the Palace is one 
small part of much larger parkland. To the far west, though
not really attached, is Hyde Park. To the immediate west and
attached is Buckingham Gardens. To the north and attached is
Green Park. To the east and somewhat attached is St. James
Park. Within these park spaces is a plot of ground immediately
surrounding the Palace which would certainly be considered
part of it. 

So, the building and immediate ground space could disappear
and there would still be a substantial body of land at that
place including Buckingham Gardens. This would still give 
a sense of 'place' to the place. One could assume that 
Buckinghan Palace Gardens are all that remain of the original
place. 

So, when people thought of Buckingham Palace, they would still
have a place they could go and identify with (the gardens)
even though the actual palace itself would be invisible, and
not just invisible but imperceptible. Just as you walk in 
a single physical step from the boundary of #11 Grimmauld
Place to the boundary of #13 Grimmauld Place with no 
perception of more than that one single step. So to you
would walk from the palace gardens to St. James Park in 
the few short steps it takes to cross the street with no
perception that the Palace exists in between. 

In other words, it's magic.

Now certainly there are certain unexplained aspects of it all.
For example, are people's eyes deceived when the look at a map?
Are people's minds clouded by the charm, not making it impossible
to remember Buckingham Palace, just making it more difficult 
and less likely that they will do so, and more forgetful when
they do?


> CJ:
> ...
> 
> Since the Potters were holed up in their own home, were all 
> the old friends who used to visit still free to drop by, or 
> were they suddenly, inexplicably unable to remember where 
> their friends live?
> 
> CJ (now):
> (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)
> 
> bboyminn:
> 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.
> 
> CJ:
> No, I'm not. JKR's statement is not just incomplete, it's 
> contradictory. 
>  From her website again:
> 
> "When a Secret-Keeper dies, their secret dies with them, or, 
> to put it another way, the status of their secret will remain
> as it was at the moment of their death. Everybody in whom they 
> confided will continue to know the hidden information, but 
> nobody else."
> 
> This clearly implies that the people in whom the (now-defunct)
> SK confided remain unable to confide their knowledge to others. 

bbboyminn:

I don't think those two statement contradict each other. One
is an extension of the other. In the quoted statement, JKR
is making a qualified statements. It exists only under the
circumstances defined. AT THE MOMENT OF DEATH, what she says
is true. But after the death, there is more truth to be 
known, which at the moment, for plot reasons, she is not
telling us. 


> CJ:
> 
> Yet that contradicts canonical statements such as the PoA 
> description or Moody's statement that all who knew the 
> location of Grimauld Place became SKs in turn when DD died.
> 

bboyminn:

I say they don't contradict but merely expand on different 
aspects that come into play at different times.

> bboyminn:
> Bill goes to warn the others... It is while he is gone that
> the Fidelius spells are cast.
> 
> CJ:
> Since Bill was SK for Shell Cottage, the Charm could not have
> been cast while he was away.
> 

bboyminn:

What does Bill's location have to do with anything. Why can't
Mr. Weasley and Bill cast the Charms protecting the various
places at whatever location they happen to be at? 


> 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.... It was the Betrayal of Fidelity that
> broke the Fidelius Charm.
> 
> 
> CJ:
> Now who's making uncanonical assumptions? :-) Chapter and 
> verse please. From everything I've been told of the Fidelius
> Charm, there is nothing to indicate either that a SK is not 
> free to reveal the Secret to whomever he chooses or that a 
> betrayal breaks the Charm.
> 
> 

bboyminn:

Well, it's not clearly defined or stated, or we wouldn't be
discussing it, but I think it is sufficiently implied in the 
books.

First is the name of the Charm, it is the Fidelius, or Fidelity
or Faithfulness Charm. It's existence depends on the Fidelity
of the Secret Keeper. 

Next, as I've already said, the Potters are being specifically
protected against Voldemort. Sirius, Dumbledore, Hagrid, etc...
do not represent a threat to them. However, Voldemort does.
That makes revealing the Secret to Sirius very different than
revealing the Secret to Voldemort. Certainly, you can see that?

To reveal the Secret to Voldemort unquestionably brakes faith
with the 'oath' of Fidelity. 


> CJ: 
> 
> But I've another question. Is there anything in canon or 
> interview that specifically says the object of a Fidelius 
> Charm can't be his or her own Secret Keeper? I mean, what 
> better way to prevent access to someplace than to lock the 
> key inside? Why not simply make James and Lily their  own (or 
> mutual) SKs? It would become impossible for LV to discover 
> their location because the SKs were protected by the very 
> Charm for which they were the Keepers of the Secret.
> 
> CJ
>

bboyminn: 

Interesting concept, and a tricky one. From one perspective,
one would assume that the subject of the secret could not
also be the Secret Keeper. Though we have no proof. However,
if I remember right, Bill is the Secret Keeper for Shell
cottage. So, in that sense, is he part of the object as
well as the keeper of the secret? 

Again, we don't know the specific nature of the various
Secrets. In the case of the Potters, it might have been a
compound secret including the Potters and their location.
When Peter 'broke faith' he broke the faith of the entire
compound secret.

In the case of Shell Cottage and Grimmauld Place, because
there were so many people involved, it may not have been
possible to have a similar compound secret, and so it was
simply the building and associated grounds.

steve/bboyminn