Harry blasted Greyback with 3 wands at Malfoy Manor. However they were all in one hand and there was never any evidence of one in each hand being used in the books.

 

Why would you use two wands? It's not like it would enable you to cast two different spells simultaneously. The wand is just a focus, and the moment you finish casting one spell you can cast another. Having a wand in each hand would be completely worthless.

 

That was less about Occlumency and more about Voldemort being repelled by love. Love and grief go hand in hand (as we saw in OotP in the possession scene), so Harry's grief prevented Voldemort from entering his mind.

 

I agree in general but there are a few instances where wielding two actually makes sense.

1. the shotgun - as with the canon incident cited, cast with three wands and you get three separate Stunning spells

2. the specialist - Ollivander was fond of pointing out that some wands were better for Charms, others for Transfiguration; if you save the fine work for the transfiguration wand in your primary hand, you can still cast a strong Shield charm in the off-hand, where finesse and careful targeting are less of an issue

3. O Brother, WTF - so you're the Chosen One and your wand tends to lock up in a battle of wills when you cast against the Dark groupie that won't leave you alone. Pull the backup, toss a rictusempra and your epic battle will be known as the one where you killed him with comedy

So no John Woo Gun Fu, but there are options to consider.

 

If there were anyone who could use two it'd be Riddle, but then I get this image of him dueling Dumbledore, who still uses a single wand, and being told that "thoughts divided between two wands can never equal the harmony of an organized mind using one."

But yes, the Shotgun and the Spare are both logical and acceptable.

 

Aekiel is correct.

The reason Harry could keep Voldemort out of his mind was because Voldemort wanted to stay out of his mind. After the possession of Harry at the end of OotP, Voldemort was expelled because of Harry's love and therefore pain of Sirius's death.

After that, any connection/nonconnection between the two of them has less to do with occlumency and more to do with Voldemort's denial of love as a deep magic.

 

Was it not because the Horcrux connection they had was growing stronger? Throughout DH, Harry continues to see Voldemort's thoughts despite the latter's attempt to Occlude his thoughts.

When Harry learns Occlumency, it's not to stop anyone from getting in, so much as to stop himself from going out.

 

Two wands?

Shotgun, cool. Three separate stunning spells hit like a fucking hammer. Cast with both hands provided you're casting the same spell with both wands.

Specialist, different wands for different stuff, why not. But if you're going to use them for different stuff, well, you have several problems to overcome. I could see that working... well, anywhere outside dueling, but in battle, is it really effective to switch between two wands all the time? Or if you firmly keep one wand in each hand, you'd have be ambidextrous. We all can replicate 'swish n flick' with our primary hand, but I dare you to pick up a stick and not struggle a bit.

Simultaneous casting: when Harry's locked in with Voldemort, it's not just pretty lights. I see it as still being in the process of casting a spell. Harry had to concentrate to push the orb of light or whatever towards Voldemort and the connection was easily broken. But, okay, let's say casting a continuous spell and throwing in a something quick might work. That's as far as I would go with two wands. You'd need split personalities to actually cast say, Sectumsempra and a stunner at the same time. Non-verbal casting means you don't have to say the incantations, but focusing on two different spells at once? Yeah, I can't imagine that being possible. That'd be multitasking on another level.

And what if you get hit with a disarming spell? If the nature of the spell is to disarm the opponent, I'd imagine both wands getting taken away from you. I would much prefer to have a backup hidden somewhere in case I lose the first one.

TLDR; Two wands? No.

 

Speaking of wands, is there any actual official way of gaining a wand's allegiance other than an outright Expeliarmus being used? And do wands stop functioning for their original owners once their allegiance shifts another way? Like you were disarmed, but still got your wand back.

The question's been probably asked before, and so if there's a thread, please do point me that way, no need to bother yourselves with writing elaborate answers.

 

Killing the owner works. It's a fairly significant part of the lore of the Elder Wand.

 

The Elder Wand is the only wand that we have explicit evidence of switching allegiances, and the only one where it is even mentioned as possible.

Maybe other wands do too, but that doesn't seem to be supported by canon.

 

From DH:

"If you took it -- then it may be yours. Of course, the manner of taking matters. Much also depends upon the wand itself. In general, however, where a wand has been won, its allegiance will change."

-Ollivander

 

Not really. Malfoy's wand was said by Ollivander to have switched allegiance in DH. Elder Wand was unique because it switched owners at the tiniest of things.

 

Did Umbridge get a portrait in the the Headmaster's office as a result of her temporary stay as Headmistress? I assume Snape did, but I don't know about her.

 

I doubt it. I actually think that the previous headmaster had to pass the torch so to speak so that you cold be accepted into Hogwarts. Not only that none of the staff acknowledged her.

 

The gargoyle also barred her entrance to the Headmasters' office, iirc.

 

For fuck's sake, just call him Snape; these immature insults have to sto-

Oh... an actual gargoyle. My bad.

 

Now that's downright insulting. To to the gargoyle. Especially once you remember this from "Goblet of Fire":

 

Portrait!Umbridge has crackfic potential.

 

I thought you had to be dead to have a "living" portrait?