It's something that's bugged me for awhile, since we found out about Sirius being Harry's Godfather and the Potters knowing that Voldemort would be after them.

If a crazed murderer, who seems to be killing all your friends and allies, is after you, you would think they would have a will. From canon we know that the Dursleys hated the Potters, and probably vice versa. Yet, while naming Sirius as Harry's Godfather, Harry was still sent to live with the Dursleys. But why? Even if Hagrid had a good excuse for not giving Harry to Sirius (presumably he didn't know Sirius was the Godfather, even though they were all in the OoTP) why didn't Remus or Pettigrew have custody? They were their closest friends, yet Remus disappears and we so no sign of him for 12 years. Even Dumbledore, the Weasleys, a million other families that the Potters were friends with should've had custody of Harry before the Dursleys got their hands on him.

Is this just a plot hole that will never be explained, like why the Potters didn't just make Dumbledore (or James or Lily themselves) their secret keeper and chose someone they knew could be a traitor?

 

Why they chose the Rat will forever remain a mystery, but I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that Dumbledore actually is a manipulative bastard where Harry's custody came into play. If the Dursleys didnt want him (and they clearly didnt) he should have either gone to an orphanage or to one of his parent's friends (technically Godfather first, then family, then friends but Hagrid is a bastard). Why were Harry and the Dursleys both forced into an untenable situation? The only logical explanation is that Dumbledore manipulated circumstances to keep him there.

Given how he has treated Snape and Malfoy in canon (including the Book-that-must-not-be-named), it was probably a desperate bid to rehabilitate the Dursleys into liking wizards. We see time and time again that he will throw away good men to redeem the wicked. Snape, Malfoy, Mundungus, Lockheart (no one is that blind), Crouch (my friend who I've known for fifty years has been replaced with an imposter who acts very differently and I don't notice? Check GoF Moody vs OoTP Moody...), Fudge... He's throwing aside the hundred dollar bills to grasp at pennies.

 

I would love to see this answered in the seventh book.
But I think we will see more "great" quiddich scenes instead.

 

No, we won't. She said in an interview Luna as commentator was the last Quidditch scene.

I'm sure the Potters had a will, but it might never have occurred to them to name a guardian with Sirius as Harry's godfather.

I don't even know the German laws but what about the UK-laws? Is a godfather technically the next guardian? Is it even possible to name a guardian for your kids in your last will? A trustee, yes, but a guardian?

 

You're going into a dangerous situation (like war), you always have a will. My eighteen year old cousin who's in Afghanistan right now has a will. I even have a will, and I'm not planning on dying for years yet.

The point is, they probably have a will. And Lily, knowing what treatment was like at the hands of her sister, would never have left Petunia as legal guardian of her child. Especially since she died for him.

Pettigrew was Secret Keeper, because hey? Who would expect some snivelling weakling like him to be holder of such important information? Not me, that's for sure. But Pettigrew himself should have stayed in a secure location concealed by the Fidelius as well. Why tempt fate?

Dumbledore, in his position as Speaker of the House (or Supreme Mugwump, Head Kahuna, Prime Minister of the Wizengamot and whatnot), would probably not have control on where to place a child. But Dumbledore, secret leader of the Order of the Phoenix militia, would. Still, the Ministry should have asked him 'where's Harry Potter?' the whole of the Wizarding world knew he was alive, so why would they not care where he was?

That's why he sent Hagrid, loyal slave - er, that is, trusted friend of Dumbledore to get Harry. Despite being a friend of Lily and James, I doubt very much that they'd tell every single one of their friends the Secret. Dumbledore, Remus, Sirius, Peter, Lily, and James would logically have been the only ones to know where the house was. Lily died, and therefore, the Fidelius fell, so Hagrid knew where Godric's Hollow was to find Harry.

Although, Hagrid must have been at the house in advance, as Dumbledore would not have given Hagrid one Portkey to get to Godric's Hollow, and told him to find his own way back, nor is Hagrid able to Apparate, having finished only his third(?) year of magical schooling. However, Hagrid may have been able to use the Knight Bus, as his wand has been placed in his umbrella.

Dumbledore also had to have used equipment to monitor Godric's Hollow, as he knew when the Fidelius fell. He knew the secret, but would not be able to know when exactly the wards fall, as the Secret by definition only allows you to know the location of something, not it's status.

Sirius should not have shown up either, but I'll come back to that. Him being at Godric's Hollow was unforeseen by Dumbledore, as Hagrid would have no contest to retrieve the child of prophecy. But since he was there, Sirius should have told Hagrid to FO, regardless what Dumbledore says. It was his responsibility to take care of the green-eyed orphan, and he knew it. It's not like it was a big surprise that he was the godfather.

Sirius shouldn't have showed up at all, though. Once again, the secret does not tell you whether or not the house is still intact, merely where it is. And you don't exactly go up to a random bloke on the street and go, "Hey, do you know where mmph, mmmmfph is?" to see if it worked. Therefore, Sirius was either in the neighbourhood coming to visit, or Sirius was going to visit Peter, and found him mysteriously absent.

So, to sum up, Lily: hot, Plot holes: o' plenty, Will: yes, Harry: should have grown up properly, Dumbledore: an asshole, and Books Six and Seven are completely retarded. And Seven isn't even out yet.

And that is my long-winded thing, which has gone pretty much off-topic. Sorry.

 

I would think the second they went into hiding they would have had wills made.

They had to know they were going to die no matter what. Sort of like someone that just finds out they have a disease they are going to set up a will.

I think Dumbledore just ignored it.

 

whats weird is that Harry in all the books especially in the sixth one never wonders if his parents had a will. I mean Dumbledore visits him in the summer and tells him they found Siruis's will. Harry should have asked then and there if his parents also had a will.

none of it makes sense. According to cannon, Lilly is a very smart witch. she should have known that there was a huge chance of them dieing, it would make sense for her to write a will. This shows Rowling's inability to write which is why the seventh book will suck shit. She never follows with the background information she has given about her characters.

 

If going by pure logic they had a will, but since this is jk's book.... I doubt they had a will, and if they had it said "Do whatever dumbledore says"

 

Let's say that James and Lily did have a will. While the story never explicity mentions that they did have a will, it never says that they didn't. My opinion is that the author thought that Harry's parents' will wasn't important enough to be mentioned in the story.

Getting back on topic: let's say they had a will. Who would they give Harry to?

Lupin: a werewolf

Sirius: in jail

Peter: assumed dead

Dumbledore: He gave Harry to the Dursleys.

The Order: None of them seem to be great friends of Harry's parents. And it's a military organization. In the army, you always obey your commander; therefore they would obey any decisions by Dumbledore.

Lily's or James's other parents/relatives/friends: None are mentioned in the books. Assuming that Rowling is smart, we can rationalize that they're all dead or unable to receive Harry for a variety of reasons (relatives don't know Harry's parents, friends are out of the country, James's parents are too old to take Harry, etc.). If Rowling suddenly mentions them, we must judge whether James or Lily trusted Dumbledore above these people. But Harry is the child of a prophecy. Dumbledore would undoubtedly have mentioned the prophecy to Harry's parents after hearing it to gain control over the hope of the light. He must be protected, and Dumbledore is the greatest wizard of his age and can presumably provide safety for Harry. Therefore, Lily and James would mention Dumbledore in the will after the Marauders.

You know, I'm very sure that I read a story that gave a will by Harry's parents, but where everybody who was named was unable to furfill its terms.

But there is also a very good reason for James and Lily not to mention Harry in a will. They're locked in a house under the Fidelius. If it's broken, four things can happen.

1st: They die. Then Harry is left defenseless and is killed, so there's no need for a will to mention him.

2nd: They escape with Harry. Well, his parents still alive so there isn't a will.

3rd: They escape with Harry but die from battle wounds. In the hospital, it's very likely that James or Lily would tell somebody to take care of Harry, once again making the need for a will null.

4th: They escape, but Harry dies. See the 1st contention for why a will's useless here.

In none of these circumstances is a will actually needed. In fact, what actually happened - James and Lily die but Harry survives - is unthinkable. The chance that a Death Eater will spare Harry or that a baby will somehow overcome a Death Eater is so tiny that there's no need to even talk about it.

 

But since he is the child of the prophecy wouldn't they know that he would survive?

I guess in book 7 we will find out more about Lily (right?) because she had to have her own friends and one of them could of taken Harry.

Guess we are looking at this as a real life situation rather than a story where to fill plot holes the author can just kill everyone off.

 

Potters have a will.

I've been in that situation, where you don't know that you've been named in an inheritance until the solictor or whoever is incharge of making sure the will is carried out contacts you. Turns out my great uncle left me some money and an old smith and wesson. I didn't know about it, my parents didn't know about it, NOBODY knew about it, This seems quite possible. And if it stated that they couldn't recieve the estate, as there would be one, if they owned Godric's hollow, (not nessarily a building, but land) it would be part of the estate.


I have a will, basically says my stuff goes to my parents or my brother. not entirely complecated, but it means that there are no costly legal battles about the bit of property i own and the money i control at the moment.

And I do at this point believe that Gringotts covers wills and estates as well. There doesn't seem to be any other organziation within canon that covers this part of society.

 

Err... I do know there are quite a lot of plot holes in the HP books, but this is not it.

Harry was given to the Dursleys because of the famous blood bond, which is supposed to protect him from Voldemort. Because of that 'old magic', Harry is safe in Privet Drive as long as he comes back there at least once a year. Petunia Dursley knew that.

JKR did say, several times, that the Dursleys were Harry's only living relatives.

That's going a bit far. All our fanfictions are based on the world and characters created by JKR. Even if you dislike HBP, even if you think JKR can't write romance to save her life (I would agree with you for that one), she had enough talent to create a bunch of characters, places and world that we all use in our fictions. But that's another discussion.

Back on topic:

Hagrid says in PS, "Do you think your parents didn't leave you anything?" (quoted from memory, and from the French translation). The Potters' belongings were passed on to Harry--Gringotts vault, anyone?... All their other belongings were probably destroyed in the attack.

Of course, I guess Harry would have inherited the money even if there hadn't been any will. That's not the point--apparently, everyone is rather wondering whether the Potters had named a tutor for Harry, in case anything should happen to them.

We know they did. In PoA, Sirius said he had been asked to take care of Harry if the Potters died. Thus there must have been a will naming Sirius as Harry's guardian--but it's easy to see why this will was overlooked.

First reason: Harry needed to be protected from Voldemort and his followers, by staying in Privet Drive where his mother's blood was still present. See OotP quotes above.

Second reason: if Dumbledore had had second thoughts about not giving Harry to Sirius, he would have quickly lost them when Sirius got arrested and sent to Azkaban (which happened after Harry was delivered to the Dursleys).



So, to sum it up--was there a will? Probably. Why didn't Harry hear about it? Because it wasn't important for the plot, so JKR just forgot about it. Why was the will not respected? Because of the necessity for Harry to live with Petunia Dursley.

 

There is also the possibility of a Potter Family Trust, which could be different then the school trust. I would imagine that since James was from a Pureblood family and seems to be an only child, that there *should* be some money there. This is all speculation, but it could be part of a time sensitive will.

One interesting thing, I don't ever recall Harry actually receiving the key to his vault. I could be wrong here.

 

Harry has enough money as it is in my opinion. Canon-speaking, I can't see why JKR would complicate his situation--to most fans, the fact he's rich because he inherited his family's fortune is enough, and it would be clumsy from JKR to embark upon a complication such as this one. Besides, I was under the impression that his inherited fortune wasn't quite the question here...

Hagrid had it in his pocket in PS, and it's very likely he gave it to Harry afterwards since Harry takes money from Gringotts in the following years, without Hagrid's help.

JKR probably didn't see the necessity to write a passage in which Hagrid gives Harry his key--and quite frankly, I can't blame her. It would have been a waste of words.

 

Not all purebloods are rich. Example: the Weasleys. I think it's very likely that what Harry has is all that there is.

I would say that there most likely is a will, but that the reason we never hear about it is the fact that it has already been executed: Harry has the vault, he was sent to his closest relatives by the Wizengamot...and that's pretty much all there is. All property has been destroyed, and along with it all possessions.

 

There is just the problem...
Hagrid told Harry in PS that "do you think that your parents left you nothing?" (it's translated as I have the first one only in German)

But: If they really were just 22 when they died, how did they have time to earn so much that it brings Harry through his education? I can't imagine that Hogwarts is for free...

I think there was most probably a will where they left him the money, but it was most probably from the Potter family.

Oh, I just had an idea:

What happens when there is no will? The money would most likely get split to all relatives still alive. So it goes to Harry anyway (for the most part) but Petunia would have gotten some of it too as she is the sister of Lily.
As we know that she has no idea that there is money I would say that there had to be a will where it was stated that everything has to go to harry

 

JKR said in an interview that James was very rich, and thus didn't need to have a lucrative job. So yes, Harry's money is from the Potter family, of which he is the last living representative.

If there hadn't been any will, I guess Harry would have inherited all the money anyway. Petunia was Lily's sister but she wasn't a Potter, so technically, there was no reason she should have received any money from the Potters' vault.

 

I'm no law expert, but when they marry the money belongs to both.

I don't think that in the wizarding world is an equivalent for our"separation of goods" (marriage contracts), where if you divorce you get only what you had already before and what you earned while being married. So the money would have belonged to Lily too.

Don't understand me wrong, it would not be much that Petunia gets, but say 1/20 or so... and she still would know that Harry has money.

 

Heh, I don't know much about inheritance. You must be right; but then I come back to my first conclusion: there probably was a will, and it was overlooked because of Harry's safety.