I'd expect them to Imperio others to do it for them, probably close relatives, for trauma, or family pets, for hilarity.

 

What happens in servitude...

 

Stays in servitude?

 

...causes sexual perversions for life.

 

Why does everyone thnk Harry would be abolutely stunning in green? He's a wizard, not a leprechaun.

 

And his money.


Oh, wait...

 

Snape is a Half-Blood. And he'd wanted to fuck Lily since he was 11 years old. Give him a chance.

 

Because the reason Molly Weasley gave when she bought Harry dark green dress robes early in GoF was "They bring out your eyes, dear."

Or something along those lines. Quite frankly, I'm more concerned that she bought what seemed to be a dress. Maybe the "Mysterious Curse of the Girl-Who-Lived" actually exists in canon. :awesome

 

The only person she gave questionable clothing to was her own son. Having grown up a wizard, he could most likely see something inherently masculine in Harry's robes, and something inherently feminine in his - hence his disgust.

Which leads me to another thing that bothers me: fanon writers getting a hard-on over pointing out "inconsistencies" in canon, that make out Dumbledore to be this great manipulator. A common element used is the fact that Molly Weasley didn't know where Platform 9 3/4 was, despite having sent five kids to Hogwarts already. Naturally, she staged that whole scene to make sure her Ronnikins befriended Harry, and to get on Dumbledore's payroll (via Harry's Merlin/Gryffindor/Holocaust vaults. Or whatever). The Weasleys later being able to access his vault to buy his supplies adds further proof, of course.

If one takes this to be true...then why would she buy her own son a set of outdated faggy robes?

Right. So:

LXII.​

The Weasleys are poor. Always. No one stole their family's wealth, and they never had a seat on the Wizengamut. When the Weasley family was telling their kids bedtime stories about Harry Potter and the Three Brothers, other pureblood families were telling bedtime stories about the Weasleys - and how being muggle- and mudblood-lovers would lead to dressing in rags and getting raped by werewolves.

WWW Clarification: The twins aren't wealthy. Their lack of children means more disposable income to spend at the Wizarding equivalent of Armani Exchange.

​

Manipulative Headmaster Amendment: Dumbledore being gay doesn't mean he's also fiscally irresponsible enough to give the Weasley's control of large sums of money (i.e. Harry's vault). Edit: if he wanted gold that badly, he could've used the Philosopher's Stone that Flamel just handed over to him.​

 

Yup, he's only phallically irresponsible.

-badam bish-

 

Blaise, your law makes sense, but I don't think your first paragraph does.

You're making the huge assumption yourself that if the Weasleys and/or Albus had a plan to make Ron and Harry friends that automatically means that they also are stealing his money.

It doesn't seem that unlikely that Molly and Arthur were asked to see if they could get Ron to befriend Harry. The scenes before and on the train seem to support it.

Them being poor is a different tale entirely.

 

-_______-

Nah, it's not my assumption. It's terribad authors who normally group the two together. Whenever the Weasleys are portrayed as "in" on the manipulation, they're also portrayed as stealing money from the Potter Vaults. I have no idea who started the trend, but that person needs to be punched in the ovaries.

To be fair, making sure Harry has a friend while on the train makes a load of sense...but so does making sure Harry is properly introduced to the wizarding world, especially given his celebrity status. Dumbledore didn'g care about the latter (which was more important), so I doubt he gave that much thought to the former.

 

I would ask you to take another look at:

You are enlightened - no need to thank me.

 

Potter Law (Insert whatever number we're on here):
There are NO spells in modern languages. There are no spells in Spanish or French. Spells are in dead languages such as Latin, Mayan/Aztec/Tolmec, Old English, Ancient Egyptian, etc.

 

Why not?

Taken from some HP encyclopedia of spells

"Point Me"

"Four-Point Spell" A simple spell, performed with the wand laying flat on the open palm of the caster. When the words are spoken, the wand rotates to point north.

• Harry used this spell to good advantage in the Triwizard maze, keeping himself walking in more or less the right direction (GF31)."

 

"Pack" - packing spell, used by Tonks in OotP

"Eat slugs" - slug-spewing spell, used by and backfired on Ron in CoS. Possibly invented by Bill or Charlie Weasley.

 

Pack was probably just a verbal assistant. I imagine Tonks knew silent spellcasting, but felt like not being a showoff. If saying pack while holding a wand made pack up, I imagine the word pack would fall out of use.

'Eat slugs' didn't really seem like an incantation; more like a wish, especially coming from Ron, who just a year ago thought that limericks made spells.

 

It's no wingardium leviosa, but it's used AS a spell. You're probably right, however.

As far as Ron goes, I thought the same, but read elsewhere that it was an actual spell, scribbled in the margins of an older brother's textbook, much like Harry learning sectumsempra from Snape's old textbook. My google-fu will find out which soon enough.

According to the internetz, that's true. I assume that I'm confusing fanfiction with canon again. Whoops.

 

Forgot about point me.

It just didnt seem right. We've got this entire spell-casting system based on a language that, apart from the Roman Catholic Church, nobody uses in actual conversation. I know that wand movements are part of the spell-casting process, but it seems that there'd be a safety issue almost. Miscast spells and such. If you use a language that is far separate from your normal, everyday speech, then the odds of accidentally setting off a curse in a conversation disappears.