Advertisement



Live a healthier and happier life today!




TheSnitch.co.uk :: Editorials ::




.: Horcruxes :.


Why I don't think Ron, Ginny, or Harry are horcruxes, and what I think are horcruxes and how they'll be found

I don't think that Ron will turn out to be a descendant of Gryffindor's, thereby being "the thing of Gryffindor's that is a horcrux," because I think that if anyone's going to turn out to be a descendent of Gryffindor's, then it's Harry-JKR has said that Harry is not an "heir" of Gryffindor's, but Harry could still be a "descendant"-if only because of the scarlet and gold sparks that have twice come out of his wand now, once in the first book when Harry purchases his wand and again in the beginning of the fifth book when he's arguing with Aunt Petunia and Uncle Vernon, not to mention Harry is also the one who pulls out Gryffindor's sword from the Sorting Hat, which is something only a "true Gryffindor" could do. There is also all of that gold in Harry's vault-where did it all come from, anyway?...Maybe we'll start to find out some interesting things about Harry's family in the last book, and maybe we'll start to find out when Harry goes to Godric's Hollow?...JKR has said in an interview once that Harry's parents were independently wealthy, because Harry's father had inherited a lot of money, and that it was more than enough so that neither of Harry's parents had to have real jobs-which would mean that they weren't Aurors-and could do "other things." I think we can now safely say that "other things" means working for the Order. I think JKR also said that we'd find out more about where all of Harry's money came from, so that makes me think that there might be more of a story there than just that Harry's parents were wealthy Aurors...it's also suspicious that it's only ever been mentioned that Harry's parents were members of the Order, but not that they were also Aurors, while we've been told more than once that Neville's parents, for example, were both Aurors and members of the Order...

I wouldn't be surprised if Harry turned out to be a "Half-Blood Prince" himself, because I've always thought of the four founders as being royalty. Helga Hufflepuff-a princess of Wales, Salazar Slytherin-a prince of England, Godric Gryffindor-a prince of Scotland, Rowena Ravenclaw-a princess of Ireland. And since we all know that Hogwarts is in Scotland, I've always thought that it was interesting that it's been stated in the books that Harry's father used to walk around Hogwarts castle as though he owned the place-my thinking being that Harry would be descended down from Gryffindor on his father's side, which is also where all that gold in the Potter's Gringott's vault would have come from and that has been inherited/passed down in the family on Harry's father's side. Also, near the end of Book 5 Professor Dumbledore says he's glad that Harry wasn't brought up to be a "pampered little prince" because of Harry's having to live with the Dursleys. "You were not a pampered little prince, but as normal a boy as I could have hoped under the circumstances." (HBP US ed., pg. 837/HBP UK ed., pg. 737). And in Book 6 Lupin tells Harry that Harry's father never asked anyone to call him a "Prince". He looked into Harry's face and then said quietly, "James was a pureblood, Harry, and I promise you, he never asked us to call him 'Prince.'" (HBP US ed., pg. 336/HBP UK ed., pg. 315). I also think it's sweet that Harry thinks of Hogwarts castle as one of his favorite buildings and like a home, because it really could be more his home than anyone else's.

So what that was all about was how I think that Harry, not Ron, would be more likely to be a descendent of Gryffindor's, and so Ron wouldn't be the thing of Gryffindor's that could be a horcrux because of that.

And even though it's possible that Harry and Ron might be distantly related because Harry's father was a pure-blood and Ron's family are pure-bloods-because we know that all pure-bloods are related, at least distantly-I don't think it would be a close enough relation to make Ron-or any of the Weasleys-a descendent of Gryffindor's, too. I also don't think it would be a close enough relation to make the H/G in HBP gross.

Also, I think that at the time of Ron's birth, Voldemort had only one last horcrux to make, and since Professor Dumbledore has said that Voldemort was probably going to use Harry's murder as the murder to make that last horcrux, and since there were no murders by Voldemort himself around the time of Ron's birth-and it has to be Voldemort who does the killing, not one of his Death Eaters, in order for Voldemort to be able to make a horcrux out of his soul-that that's another reason why Ron couldn't have been made a horcrux when he was a baby.

I think that if Voldemort were to use someone as a horcrux, then he would use someone that has some sort of a magical protection surrounding them, possibly one that will prolong their life to an unnatural length, because he would probably want that bit of his soul to live for as long as it can, so the magical protection being used could be something along the lines of the Elixir of Life-although the Elixir of Life isn't what I'm suggesting might be being used-but we've never had any hints that this is true of Ron. I think the way that Voldemort would overcome the obstacle of the living horcrux dying would be to "extract" his soul from the living Horcrux when it looks like that life just can't be prolonged any more, and that he would then put that bit of his soul into another, younger living thing/person and have that living thing/person take whatever potion or do whatever spell or whatever it might be that they've invented to prolong life. Also, I doubt if Voldemort ever did manage to achieve "true" immortality, that he would share that power with anyone, not even with a living thing/person that's harboring a bit of his soul. So, that living thing/person carrying his soul would have to carry on with that potion or spell or whatever it might be that simply prolongs life, but would never be able to be "truly" immortal, not in the way that Voldemort would be. And the night that Voldemort went to try to kill Harry was planned, wasn't it? It didn't seem like it was a rushed event to me, so Voldemort would probably have already chosen a living thing/person to use as the horcrux for Harry's death before he even went to try to kill Harry, and so Voldemort would probably also have had plenty of time to work out a way for that living thing/person to prolong their life, wouldn't he? In fact, it's possible that Voldemort had been intending for a long while to use a living thing/person as that last horcrux, and that for a long while he'd been looking for a way to prolong that living thing's/person's life, too, even before he'd heard the prophecy and had decided to try to kill Harry and use Harry's death to make that last horcrux. I think it might be possible, too, that Voldemort didn't make any of his earlier horcruxes with a living thing/person because he-or a Death Eater-hadn't yet worked out how to prolong life by a means other than the Elixir of Life, since that doesn't seem like it would be a very easy feat, nor one that could be accomplished in a day, and he didn't want to make a horcrux out a living thing/person until he had that means. So, it could still be possible that the living thing/person that's being used as one of Voldemort's Horcruxes really does have a magic about them that prolongs their life, and since Ron doesn't seem to have that, Ron can't be a horcrux.

Additionally, I think that Professor Dumbledore was right when he said in Book 6 that the only relic of Gryffindor's that would be used as a horcrux is Gryffindor's sword, and that it would be right to think that one of the horcruxes is only something of Ravenclaw's, and not of Ravenclaw's or of Gryffindor's. So that would mean that even if Ron does turn out to be a descendent of Gryffindor, then he still wouldn't be a horcrux.

Furthermore, we know that in Book 6 Voldemort was using Occlumency against Harry and that that's why Harry's scar never hurt him in that book, but if ever since he was a baby Ron had a piece of Voldemort's soul inside of him, because he was a horcrux, then Harry's scar would have hurt him every time he was around Ron before Book 6, wouldn't it? But this is not the case. And I think that Harry's scar didn't hurt him when he was around the diary horcrux because Harry's scar will hurt him whenever he's around a Voldemort that's a Voldemort from the second that Voldemort tried to kill Harry as a baby, when Harry's scar and the connection between Harry and Voldemort was formed, and not before. For example, Harry's scar never hurt him all those times that he went back into the pensieve with Professor Dumbledore in Book 6 and watched the young Tom Riddle. It's possible, too, that what Professor Dumbledore said in Book 6, about how Voldemort has been so detached for so long from those bits of his soul that he's turned into horcruxes that Voldemort no longer feels them any more and won't feel when a horcrux is being destroyed is another reason why Harry's scar doesn't hurt him whenever he's around a horcrux, because Voldemort's connection to his horcruxes is weakening, although I'd expect at least a tiny twinge of pain from Harry's scar whenever he's around a horcrux nevertheless, so it really is possible that Harry really only does feel pain from his scar whenever he's around a Voldemort that's a Voldemort from the second Voldemort tried to kill Harry as a baby, and not before.

And I've always taken the following quote to mean that JKR won't kill Ron, and Ron's death is something that would have to occur if he is, in fact, a horcrux and Voldemort is to be defeated, because Ron would die while Voldemort's bit of soul is extracted from him, wouldn't it?: JKR: "It's great to hear feedback from the kids. Mostly they are really worried about Ron. As if I'm going to kill Harry's best friend." (Time Magazine, 2000).

And even if that's true about Harry's scar not hurting him whenever he's around the diary horcrux, I think we can still know for sure that Ginny does not have a piece of Voldemort's soul inside of her and did not become a horcrux due to Book 2's diary incident even though Harry's scar never hurt him whenever he's around her after Book 2 and before Book 6 because in Book 6, Professor Dumbledore told Harry that Harry was successful in destroying that bit of Voldemort's soul that was put into the diary in Book 2, and JKR has said that in a 2005 interview, too. JKR has completely dismissed the idea of Ginny being a horcrux by stating that Ginny has-in no way-any piece of Voldemort left in her.

Additionally, I think that all but one of the horcruxes were created before Harry entered Hogwarts, and that no murders/horcruxes were made during the time of Ginny's possession, so that would be another reason why Ginny couldn't be a horcrux, because I think that Voldemort would have to have killed someone in order to be able to turn her into a horcrux, and not just transfer the diary horcrux into her through a possession.

I think, then, that the idea of Harry's scar hurting him whenever he's around a horcrux would really only apply to whether or not Harry himself is a horcrux. And so then he wouldn't be, would he, because he hasn't been in a constant state of pain since the second that Voldemort tried to kill him when he was a baby and his scar and the connection between himself and Voldemort was formed, which would also have been when Voldemort would have transferred a bit of his soul into Harry, turning Harry into an "accidental" horcrux. I don't think Voldemort willingly wanted to turn Harry into a horcrux the night he went to kill Harry, because, well, he went to kill Harry�and also, while I've always thought that Voldemort was intending to use his action of murdering baby Harry as the murder that would separate another piece of his soul, so that he could then pour that bit of his soul into his last horcrux, that it was not Harry's deceased body that Voldemort wanted to use as his last horcrux, but rather another living thing/person.

Also, I think that if Harry really did have a bit of Voldemort's soul inside of him, that he would actually be in a lot more pain than the times his scar hurts him, because of how much pain it caused him to be possessed by Voldemort at the end of Book 5. And since none of these things have happened, I think these are more reasons as to why Harry isn't a horcrux.

And here's my theory on what the horcruxes are and how and when they'll be found:

I think that three horcruxes were made when Voldemort was sixteen, with the murders of his three muggle family members, so they would be the diary, the Peverell ring and something else that's possibly something of Ravenclaw's or Gryffindor's. A fourth horcrux was made at the time of the original Order with Voldemort's murder of Dorcas Meadowes-possibly Slytherin's locket, if we think of RAB being Regulus Black, who would have been alive when Dorcas was in the original Order and was murdered by Voldemort. A fifth horcrux was made with Hepzibah Smith's murder, when Voldemort was just a few years out of Hogwarts and working at Borgin and Burkes-possibly Hufflepuff's cup. A sixth horcrux was made with Amelia Bones' recent murder-possibly a living thing/person. And the seventh horcrux is inside of Voldemort. So, that would mean that all but one of the horcruxes had been made before Harry had entered Hogwarts.

Around the time of Bill and Fleur's wedding, Ginny Weasley, as an after-effect of her possession by Tom Riddle-will have a memory of sixteen year-old Tom Riddle making three horcruxes with the murders of his three muggle family members-the diary, the Peverell ring, and either an artifact of Rowena Ravenclaw's-and she'll see the latter's exact location, that it is in Dijon, France. Ginny will tell Harry, Ron, and Hermione this, and the three friends will go there. Hermione's familiarity with Dijon because of her previous visit there in Book 3 and that was mentioned again in Book 5 ("Ooooh, Dijon?" said Hermione excitedly. "I've been there on holiday, did you see-?" OOTP US ed., pg. 426/OOTP UK ed., pg. 377) will come in handy, as will her "soon-to-revealed" knowledge that in 1742 in Dijon, France, Father Bertrand Guillaudot and five others were burned alive for using magic to divine the location of treasure. Tom Riddle will no doubt have learned about this either at Hogwarts in History of Magic or on his own, and he will have had no problem finding that location, and he will have used it to hide his horcrux, since it is such a good hiding place.

Another horcrux was made at the time of the original Order with Voldemort's murder of Dorcas Meadowes-Slytherin's locket, if we think of RAB as being Regulus Black, who would have been alive when Dorcas was in the original Order and was murdered by Voldemort-and this horcrux is with Kreacher. He was the one Regulus took to help retrieve the locket in the cave, so Kreacher knew what the heavy gold locket really was when everyone was cleaning out Grimmauld Place in Book 5, and so he snatched it and hid it. Harry will go back in time with a time turner-there is a secret stash because of Order members who are also Aurors and who've nicked a few time turners from the Ministry for Order use even before all of the time turners were destroyed in Book 5, because Kingsley Shacklebolt is able to do twice the amount of work than his muggle colleagues in the beginning of Book 6, just like Hermione was able to do two years of school in one in Book 3 ("I'm not getting rid of Kingsley Shacklebolt, if that's what you're suggesting!" said the Prime Minister hotly. "He's highly efficient, gets through twice the work the rest of them-" HBP US ed., pg. 17/HBP UK ed., pg. 22), and once Harry has gone back in time to that day when everyone was cleaning out Grimmauld Place and Kreacher took the locket and hid it, he can follow Kreacher and see where it was hidden and then take it and destroy it.

Another horcrux was made with Hepzibah Smith's murder, when Voldemort was just a few years out of Hogwarts and working at Borgin and Burkes-it was Hufflepuff's cup. It is hidden in the Room of Requirement/the Unknowable Room at Hogwarts. Voldemort put it there just after Hepzibah's murder when he was still working at Borgin and Burkes. Voldemort knew about the secret cupboard system that connects Hogwarts to Borgin and Burkes, because he was the one who designed and built it. The cup will be found because of Neville/Ginny. Romilda Vane, jealous of Ginny because she thinks Harry still likes her, will kidnap Ginny and hide her in the Room of Requirement/the Unknowable Room. Neville will wonder where Ginny is, and because he is a "remote viewer"-someone who is able to see/locate people and things that are out of view and is an ability that will also help Neville while he plays Seeker in Quidditch-will see Ginny in that room and rescue her, which helps the two of them get together romantically, and the cup will be found there then, too.

Another horcrux was made with Amelia Bones' recent murder-a living thing/person-and this is Snape. Snape is not a vampire, but he has learned how to extend his life by taking a potion that contains Dragon's Blood, because one of the twelve uses of Dragon's Blood that Dumbledore discovered is its ability to extend life, and Voldemort would not let just anyone, nor a body that isn't fortified against death in some way, contain a bit of his soul. Harry will kill Snape accidentally; in Egypt, Harry's glasses will be knocked off in battle and he won't be able to see clearly, which is something that was shown in the third film-the film that JKR said has very many clues to the outcome of the series-and also mentioned in the fifth book (He got into bed, yawning. With his glasses off, the occasional firework still passing the window became blurred,...(OOTP US ed., pg. 635/OOTP UK ed., pg. 559)), and Harry's wand will wind up being positioned so that it winds up stabbing Snape in the heart, just like a vampire dying with a wooden stake through the heart and a little like how Harry's wand went up the troll's nose in Book 1.

And the seventh horcrux is inside of Voldemort, which will be destroyed when Harry destroys him at the end of book seven.

***Raadhika***

raadhika@thesnitch.co.uk



.: Back to Editorial Main Menu :.


^0^


- Disclaimer -

Please note that TheSnitch does not necessarily agree with the comments, opinions and issues conveyed by the staff members of the editorial team. Each article is copyrighted under TheSnitch 2001-2007, and no content may be copied or borrowed without written consent from the Administrator.