I need the expertise of those of you that know more than me.

I had a discussion with a friend of mine about apparition, and it inevitably came down to whether or not a wizard or witch needed their wand to apparate.

The only canon evidence I can think of for this is when Harry's wand broke in DH and Hermione side-alonged him away. But then again, its been so long since I read that book, I might be imagining things.

It also might have been that Harry was so crushed by the loss of his wand, Hermione didnt want to risk Harry splinching.

Any help?

 

Excellent. Thanks much!

 

I thought there was a something mentioning apperating using a wand to apperate when they were fleeing from the death eaters after Bill's wedding.

 

Sesc is deliberately ignoring DH. When the trio is captured at Malfoy manor Ron comments that he can't apparate because he doesn't have his wand. This seems to be pretty stong evidence that the wand is involved.

My personal theory is that you merely need the wand on your person, but you don't actually actively use it (as in HBP lessons it isn't mentioned). We know from OotP that you can use your wand for magic without it being in your hand (Harry's Lumos).

 

I think Sesc is right on this one. Ron might have mentioned it for anything Taure. They were running for their lives and hiding(involved in a secret hunt of Horcruxes) so he might have thought that they would need a wand if they are to stay alive. Wandering without a wand amidst a war is not a fascinating thing it seems.

Also note that wands are of major importance in wizard/witch's life(With Bellatrix's stolen wand they opened her vault). As you could see there are countless reasons for why Luna said so.

 

I was actually refering to the bit you tactically didn't quote

Note how it was worth mentioning that he was trying without a wand - indicating that this is normally not the case. And then the next sentence it is said that it is fruitless.

 

Now try this:
Ron was trying to disapparate, without (even) a wand.

 

Anti-Disapparation ward? A fairly simple solution.

 

^^ It would be a really bad cell if you could apparate in or out. The anti-disapparation jinx would stop any apparation with or without wands. I always assumed Ron needed a wand to overcome the wards or something.

 

If this were the case then he would be unable to apparate whether he had his wand or not; there would be no reason to explicitly state that he was trying to apparate without a wand.

 

Maybe the wand is like the extra wheels for the bike you had when you were still inexperienced. You can do it without a wand but it is easier with one.

 

See? THIS is why Im confused. On the one hand, nothing during the apparition lessons hints toward needing a wand, but then in Deathly Hallows, we see that you may need one!

*is frustrated*

Should I just go with artistic license on this one?

 

I actually agree with Sesc when it comes to fanfic purposes. I always write apparation as wandless, as I prefer it that way.

However, I do still think that that section of DH means you need a wand. If I said something like "Jim was trying to drive without his glasses" I think we'd all assume that Jim normally uses his glasses to drive.

 

I don't remember if it was Arthur or Persy Weasley, but one of them used a wand in GoF to apparate. It was also mentioned that Arthur raised his wand in preparation to apparate.

May have something to do with the distance. When they practiced apparition in Hogwarts they could see where they were going. Pretty much any other time they use apparition to appear miles away from their starting point.

Just throwing that little info in there. You seem to focus too much on the last two books. Ignoring the previous ones.

 

We can only hope, though I wouldn't be surprised if she didn't have a conclusive answer.

 

When did she ever have a conclusive answer? Not Never!