Harry Potter - Dursleys taking in Harry - Compelling Spell?

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 190846



--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, June Ewing <doctorwhofan02 at ...> wrote:
>
> > Nerona:
> > 1- In your opinion why did Petunia accept taking Harry in the
> > first place?
> >...
> 
> > June:
> > ...
> > But I expect that the magic that protected Harry had something
> > in it that meant the Dursleys had to take him for their own 
> > safety.
>  
> June:
> ... Maybe Dumbledore had placed a spell that once taken inside 
> the house, the Dursleys would have to keep Harry. If they didn't
> maybe their lives would have been in danger.
>

Steve:

I'm curious about precisely what you mean by "...HAVE to keep Harry"? 

Are you implying that some spell FORCED them to keep Harry. Because That doesn't seem right, either morally or logically. If the spell compels them, then they have no choice. And if they have no choice then they didn't really choose to allow Harry to stay. 

That seems counter to what I believe JRK's moral codes are. I think the Dursley's has to make a choice of their own free will in order to activate Dumbledore ENHANCED Blood Protection. And the protection at the Dursley is not the protection Lily gave Harry, but instead, it is an enhancement of that protection provided by Dumbledore, that hinges on the condition that the Dursleys freely, even if begrudgingly, take Harry in. 

It seems counter to all that is good and right for some spell to compel or force the Dursleys to act in a certain way. I believe, as should be clear, that it must be an act of free will. 

Or perhaps I misinterpreted what you intended to say?

Steve/bboyminn