Wand allegiance

[Zara]

No: HPFGUIDX 182055

> Lealess:
> Essentially,
> Dumbledore seemed to be giving himself up to be killed by Draco, no
> matter what Dumbledore thought of his powers of persuasion or 
Draco's
> nerve. 

zgirnius:
Dumbledore cast an offensive spell, a curse, and then Draco disarmed 
him. I think at the moment Draco did so, the Elder Wand was his, and 
nothing that happened the rest of that evening had any further effect 
on the wand. So its new master did not wish to murder Albus? Why 
should the wand care? It does not have to pass with a killing, as its 
previous two transfers of loyalty, to Grindelwald and then to Albus, 
demonstrate.

> lealess:
> It's hard for me to see Draco as the more powerful wizard, in any
> event... he just had the element of surprise.

zgirnius:
In my opinion, arranging that element of surprise is an aspect of 
being a more powerful wizard. That evening, Dumbledore made a choice 
to protect Harry first, and then protect himself, but I think given 
more time or faster reflexes, he would have chosen to do both. The 
fact is that for whatever reason, he was not fast enough or prescient 
enough to handle Draco that night.

> lealess:
> Confusing the matter for me is that the Harry/Voldemort meeting in
> the forest was predicated on what Harry should have known were false
> premises, that Voldemort would spare others in exchange for Harry.

zgirnius:
Harry was not going to die in the sincere belief it would cause 
Voldemort to leave his friends alone. He was going to die because he  
believed it was the only way to destroy the bit of Voldemort's soul 
inside of him. 

> lealess:
> It seems the wand would have transferred its allegiance
to Voldemort the moment Harry gave himself up to be killed. Did it
then switch back?

zgirnius:
This I have problems with. You are suggesting the wand could detect 
Harry's intent to be killed, which I might buy. But if it is reading 
his intent, surely it should realize that Harry's decision is 
anything but a weak surrender? Harry was going to his death in 
furtherance of a plan to defeat Voldemort, a plan Harry believed was 
not possible while he lived.

It is my opinion that if Harry had truly and permanently died in the 
Forest, the Elder Wand would not have passed to anyone. For me, they 
key is the element of intent and mutual prearrangement. With all the 
facts as they stood regarding the soul bit, Harry and Dumbeldore had 
basically tricked Voldemort into believeing Voldemort should klill 
Harry. If Voldemort had done so, he would have been taking the bait 
just as surely as he did when he failed to kill Harry. Thus, no 
defeat of Harry, as I see it.

> lealess:
> Wand Lore obviously makes me go gaga. And as you say, the
> whole "plan" to have Snape possess the Elder Wand presents thorny
> questions.

zgirnius:
The only way in which I find wand lore thorny, is the dearth of 
evidence with which to beat people who disagree with be about it over 
the head. I personally find the whole "Snape killing Dumbledore to 
end the power of the Elder Wand" thing quite natural and satisfying.

To me what makes a clear difference between Snape's situation and 
Draco's, is (again) the prearrangement of the events by Snape and 
Dumbledore. Dumbledore asked Snape to kill him for a ogical reason 
(preferring a quick, clean AK to being mauled by Greyback). 
Dumbledore had further reasons for wanting it done, all very much 
focused on his long-laid plans to defeat the most powerful Dark 
Wizard to ever live.  If Snape had killed an armed and undefeated 
Dumbledore as they had agreed, why would this be a defeat? Snape 
would be fulfilling Dumbledore's will, and carrying out a plan of 
Dumbledore's to defeat Voldemort that would continue to unfold after 
Dumbeldore's death, through the agency of Harry and Snape. I do not 
see the defeat in that.