Hermione and her parents Redux WAS: Re: Wizarding Top Ten

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 188183



--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> wrote:
>
> Carol:
> And the simple expedient of asking them to move to Australia (or anywhere out of reach of the Death Eaters) would surely be sufficient to get them (voluntarily) out of harm's way. 
> 
> Pippin:
> That didn't save Sirius. 

Carol responds:
The situations aren't comparable. Sirius Black was trapped, partly through his own rashness in appearing in dog form on Platform 9 3/4 and partly through DD's orders, in a home that he hated. He chose to leave that hated safe place to save Harry.

The Grangers, in my scenario, would be in Australia (with their memories intact), safe from DEs and free to move wherever they liked. They would have no knowledge of what was happening to Hermione and certainly wouldn't rush home to save her as Sirius rushed to the MoM to save Harry (and vice versa) because they'd have no way of knowing that she was in danger or where she was or how to rescue her.

I've already pointed out that DEs couldn't make a video and show it on Muggle news, but even if they did, how are the Grangers supposed to find Azkaban and rescue her? The whole uncanonical scenario is absurd.

Hermione seems to think that the DEs might go after the Grangers *if they remained in England* for information about Harry (even though the most ignorant DE probably knows as much about Harry as the Grangers do) or information about Hermione herself if it's known that she's with Harry. All she needs to do to prevent that is to persuade them to go to a place with no DEs and where the extant DEs would be unlikely to go for a minor matter like torturing Hermione's Muggle parents for outdated information. There's no need for memory modification.

Yes, they'll be worried about their daughter, but parents of American soldiers in Afghanistan worry about their children, too, and no one places a memory charm (or whatever form of magic she performed on them). They endure the fear and anxiety resulting from their child's choice of joining the army because they must, and they sometimes endure the anguish of that child's death because they must. It's part of being a parent. But they also have the memory of that child, along with the photographs and other memorabilia, to comfort and console them. The child is still part of them and lives in their hearts and memories. It would be wrong and cruel to rob the Diggorys of their memories of Cedric. How is it right to rob the Grangers of their memories of Hermione? 

Pippin:
And unlike Harry at the MoM, Hermione going into danger is not a mistake that she can avoid.
> 
> If the Grangers know all this, then they realize that just disappearing or finding refuge in an Order safe house will not be enough. And the consequences would be worse, because they probably know things about Harry that no one but Hermione knows,  things that would put both Hermione and Harry in danger -- because anything that endangers Harry will endanger Hermione too. Voldemort would very much like to know, for example, that Harry's feelings for Ginny are  more serious than anyone suspects. 

Carol responds:
No one would know that they were in a safe house. Besides, the Dursleys know more about Harry than the Grangers would, and there's no indication that the DEs are going after them once the Order has protected them. The Weasleys, too, resort to safe houses protected by a Fidelius Charm (which Bill can somehow talk about to HRH even though he's not the Secret Keeper for Auntie Muriels' house).

Besides, I'm suggesting that they go to Australia on their own. True, she could put a Fidelius Charm on the Grangers' house in England, but they couldn't leave it and they'd starve to death. Australia, minus any modified memories or magical coercion, is better. And if the DEs do find them, which is extremely unlikely, modified memories won't protect them.

Pippin:

> Of course it would be cruel to lose the memories of a child. But how much crueller to live on, knowing that you might have done something to save that child and didn't do it? I think people are assuming that it wouldn't happen, since once Voldemort got the information he wanted the Grangers would be dead anyway. But what if he only captured one?

Carol responds:
There's no indication that the Grangers could have done something to save Hermione. She's ostensibly saving *them.* And if they *chose* to go to Australia, that's better than being coerced.

Imagine Hermione finding the Wilkinses or whatever their name is now in Australia and pointing a wand at them. Suddenly, they recognize her. "Hermione, what are you doing here? Where are we?"

"Oh, hi, Mum and Dad. Well, you see, you're in Australia because I made you think that you wanted to go here and I modified your memories. Check your IDs. You're Wendell and Monica Wilkins now."

"You did what?"

"I modified your memories and changed your identity to protect you."

"You didn't even consult us? What about our house? What about our dental practice? And what about our memories? What if you had died and we didn't even know it?"

"Oh, well, I thought it would be less painful for you that way."

"Well, let me tell you something, young lady. *We are your parents and we are capable of making our own decisions. You do not run our lives. Do you understand?"

Anyway, I don't think they'd be happy with their dear daughter. Nor would I be happy with her in their shoes.

And, yes, of course, I'm fully aware that this conversation is the product of my imagination and completely uncanonical. But so is speculation about DEs arranging a fake kidnapping to get the unimportant Grangers to come home and be tortured for nonexistant information.

Pippin:
> 
> It's not only Hermione who's weirdly selfish in the scenario we're discussing. It's the Grangers, who are made to care more about their memories of Hermione than about Hermione herself.  I can understand running into the burning house to save the baby pictures. But I can't understand why you'd save the pictures and leave the child inside. 

Carol:
I don't understand this argument. We don't see the Grangers, only Hermione's imagined reactions. Of course, they care more about Hermione herself than they do about their memories of her. But retaining their memories won't hurt her and having their memories wiped won't help her. They don't know anything useful about either her or Harry. Not even Hermione yet knows where they're going to be, and she certainly hasn't told them that she, Ron, and Harry are going Horcrux hunting. For all they know--or knew--she's going back to Hogwarts.

Pippin: 
> Also, I think people are overlooking the difficulty people who aren't used to a life of crime or subterfuge would have living in a foreign country under an assumed name. Illegal immigration and using false papers are serious crimes, you know. Voldemort's people will be saved quite a bit of work if Australia deports the Grangers for them.

Carol:
Whether that's true or not, and there's no indication that Hermione's magic would be detected by Muggle authorities whether or not they had their memories, it doesn't justify stealing their identities and memories. Why not put them under an Imperius Curse, robbed of their will and forced to do Hermione's bidding? I see no difference. 
> 
> 
> Carol:
>  And suppose that Hermione has overestimated her magical abilities? Suppose that she can't put them right even if she finds them? And even if she succeeds, if she didn't tell them what she was doing, how is she going to explain that she sent them to Australia "for their own good"? 
> 
> Pippin:
> Is that likely? Hermione apparently never learned riddikulus, but has she ever said she could do a spell and then not been able to do it? The only one that ever goes wrong for her is the polyjuice, and even then the magic worked just fine, though not with the results that Hermione intended.

Carol:
You forgot that she has trouble with the Patronus Charm. But this particular piece of magic is complicated and would be disastrous to get wrong. 

Pippin: 
> But I agree, it would be ridiculous for Hermione to think that she could ship her parents off to Australia, possibly for years, and then reinstate them in their old lives without their ever realizing that something had happened to them. Even if she could, it would change their relationship forever. Why would she risk that when there are perfectly logical reasons for them to do as she asks?

Carol:
Exactly. I'm glad we agree on that point.

Pippin: 
> These aren't students in the DA that she doesn't know very well, (if she had known them all, she wouldn't have needed a spell to tell her which ones might be disloyal). They aren't House Elves whose plight moves her not because she sees them suffer in their situation but because she is overwhelmed by guilt for profiting from it. 
> 
> These are her parents. She trusted them enough to tell them all those things about herself and Harry in the first place. The best thing about being a prefect is that it's something her parents can understand.  Their wishes meant enough to her that she  kept on with her braces even after she was sure she could do a tooth shrinking charm instead. Why put in those details, if JKR wants us to think their feelings aren't important to her? 

Carol:
I'm losing track of your argument. She was wrong, IMO, to curse the parchment without informing the DA members that she'd done so. She was wrong (and I think she finally realizes it) to try to free the House Elves against their will. She would be even more wrong to in essence brainwash and control her parents, actually modifying their minds in a way that's at least as great a violation as a prolonged Imperius Curse. If she understands and trusts them, she ought to discuss the matter with them, tell them that she'll be in greater danger than ever as a friend of Harry Potter and a Muggle-born and persuade them to go to Australia on their own, keeping their own minds and memories. They could discuss whether to keep their own names or have her magically (and undetectably) forge documents in assumed names.

It wouldn't be that hard to learn to call each other Monica and Wendell. It would be much harder to forgive their daughter for controlling their lives and destinies, treating them as mere Muggles unable to think for themselves.

If she trusts and respects her parents, she should let them choose to go or stay, to keep their own names or use an assumed one. She has no right to think for them or to perform magic on them, especially not magic that violates their minds and identities, without their consent. And no one in their right minds would consent to such magic.

Carol, who thinks that neither JKR nor Hermione considered the consequences of this unnecessary plot device