DH reread CH 6-7

[Carol]

No: HPFGUIDX 186314

Alla wrote:

> > Zara:
> > I think he was planning to [give Harry the Sword of Gryffindor], until Draco messed up all his plans. What would, after all, be the logical conclusion of a night spent retrieving  Horcrux, if not showing Harry how to destroy one?
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Yes, absolutely that would be **logical** conclusion :-). The thing is though he made his will before going after Horcruxes, no? I am just thinking that he already planned to leave it to Harry after his death and I am not sure if he would have decided to change his plans.
> 
> But oh believe me I would love for you to be right.
>
Carol responds:
I think there's one very good reason why Dumbledore didn't give the Sword of Gryffindor to Harry. As Scrimgeour tells the Trio in "The Will of Albus Dumbledore," it wasn't Dumbledore's to give away. (Presumably, that's why Scrimgeour didn't hand it over to Harry along with the Snitch. It was still, as far as we know, right there in DD's old office where he could have taken it from its case). 

He *did* will it to Harry (obviously, a clue to Harry that he was going to need the sword at some point), but he must have known that Scrimgeour would prove the will and would be unlikely to just hand over the sword as he did Dumbledore's personal artifacts (after examining them and failing to find any hidden powers). That being the case, Harry would have to earn the Sword of Gryffindor in some way (or Ron would. <smile>)

For the same reason, I don't think it would have done any good just to hand the sword to Harry after they returned from the Horcrux hunt (assuming that it was a real Horcrux and Draco hadn't let the DEs into the castle that night). As Scrimgeour also says, the sword belongs to any worthy Gryffindor, not specifically to Harry, and it might have magically deserted him as it did Griphook, who had no claim on it. (Yes, I know that Harry once pulled it from the Sorting Hat, but I think that was a one-time use, like Neville's killing Nagini. Even Ron, who retrieved it and consequently earned it, got to use it only once, to destroy the Horcrux. After that, it was ready to go to the next worthy Gryffindor--who happened to be Neville.) It's not, IMO, the sort of artifact that can be passed down father to son or owner to owner or just given away. Godric Gryffindor must have put a spell on it before he died to make it the Sword of Gryffindor *House* rather than just the sword of Godric Gryffindor. (I don't think that the Death Eaters could have held onto it, either, even if Snape hadn't fooled them with a fake sword, which I'm guessing he created using  the same spell Hermione used to create a fake locket for Umbridge.)

Why have Scrimgeour tell the Trio all these things if they're not true? And why have Snape set up a test in which Harry (actually, Ron) has to retrieve the sword under circumstances of "need and valor"? Harry, recognizing it as a test, thinks before he dives into the icy water of the "valor, nerve, and chivalry" that "set Gryffindor apart" and wonders where chivalry comes in. (It comes in later, with Ron, who has to rescue the helpless Harry as well as retrieve the sword.) 

Apparently, you can't just keep the sword to use it when you need it and give it to someone else when you're done. Ron uses it once and, essentially, gives it to Harry, who promptly loses it to the Snatchers and only gets it back because Griphook (who wants it himself) convinces Bellatrix that it's a fake and because Dobby arrives to rescue them all. He does not, however, get to use it as anything except a bargaining chip. Griphook snatches it away, viewing it as his rightful reward, only to have it magically called away to serve Neville's need.

Carol, assuming that Neville gave the sword back to the school after the Battle of Hogwarts, knowing that it didn't belong to him any more than it had to Harry