Okay, new here, hoping I'm not breaking any rules, but this just occurred to me.

In canon we know that children born into wizarding families are basically free to do magic if their parents choose not to discipline them for it. For Muggle-borns and those who live with Muggles, it's a bit different. If there's magical activities occurring in your neighborhood, and no other wizards or witches live nearby, the Ministry's going to assume that you did it. This is why Harry is punished for Dobby's magic in Book 2.

But say, what if an underage witch or wizard performs magic outside of their home/neighborhood? Say that Harry grabs his wand, walks into a random crowded apartment store in London, and performs a levitation charm in the washroom where no Muggle can see it. The Ministry receives an alert, but without any witnesses and no proof suggesting that there weren't other magical persons nearby, will they be able to punish Harry for it or even assert that he did it at all?

Furthermore, when Harry lived in the Burrow, his Trace must have been tipped all the time, but the Ministry sees that it's at the Burrow, and says nothing. Well, what about in Diagon Alley? At the start of Book 3, Harry lived for a period of time at the Leaky Cauldron, where many other wizards resided as well. If he did any magic in his rooms then, the Ministry wouldn't have cared, would it?

So, theoretically, if one lived in London and went on an outing to Diagon Alley daily, one could have done anything there as an underage wizard, everyday, and wouldn't have received any warnings? If one constantly travels in crowded areas, who's to say that they performed the magic, not some other wizard/witch who happened to pass by?

Does this hold up at all? Anything I'm missing? Thoughts?

 

So long there is adult witch or wizard yes nothing happen.
But if say harry use magic in place where there is no other witch or wizard then the alarm that have harry name would light up so to speak because there isn't any adult witch or wizard over there.

 

My impression from the books has been that the Trace tips off the Ministry all the time, no matter if there is an adult witch or wizard around or not. If they see that it's a Wealsey, they basically ignore it, since young Weasleys live with their magical parents. But if they see Granger, a known Muggle-born, and it happened at her home, then they're like, "hah, you're in trouble now, Ms. Granger!"

If I remember correctly, the presence of an adult witch/wizard had nothing to do with the activation of the Trace or lack thereof. That's what I remembered, though.

What I'm meaning to ask is that, in a crowded place where there is no evidence suggesting that other adult wizards weren't around, can an underage, Muggle-raised wizard get away with a few spells here and there?

(Now that I think about it, in Diagon Alley, probably yes. But what about on a street in Muggle London, without witnesses?)

 

The trace is a charm, placed upon an underage witch or wizard. You're right that it doesn't tell the Ministry who used the magic in question, but that doesn't mean you'll be fine if you use magic outside your neighborhood - as long as there aren't any other wizards or witches in your vicinity, they'll know it was you.

 

That's all you need, really. Just don't make the Trace be on the wand (and easily removable or bypassed by getting a custom wand :facepalm) and you can play with the interpretation however you want. That's what I choose to do anyway.

 

The trace actually seems like a great way to spy on all it's magical citizens. The ministry can use the information to at the very least detect all the magic that is being used around the kids. Parents that use questionable non ministry approved spells could theoretically get punished.

 

Then we must reason that the only reason the Trace was invented is to monitor muggleborns.

 

That would actually make a lot of sense. Seeing as the only threat to the statute of secrecy would be those who live outside the Wizard World.

 

Factor in a bunch of anti-muggleborn sentiment ("Stealing our jobs... err magic" anybody?) and it does appear to be the most "reasonable" conclusion. Of course, this then begs the question of how this happened, etc...

I think I liked it better when the explanation was just "a wizard did it" instead of "The Trace".

 

Those are exactly my thoughts, as well.

 

I'm not sure there needs to be any anti-muggleborn sentiment to justify the trace and the trace probably wouldn't be in its present form, applicable to all wizarding children, if anti-muggleborn sentiment was involved.

 

Perhaps it's like an enchantment over the whole Magical Britain. Kinda like how Hogwarts finds new students?

 

I agree, there doesn't have to be.

But I do believe that it helps make The Trace more justifiable since I can't think of any reasons why you should deny people the ability to cast magic until they're 17. (Barring cheap plot devices of course) Now I'll admit to not being 100% conversant on all the sources so there's probably some obscure essay on Pottermore I've missed that explains why underaged Witches and Wizards can't use magic, but I still maintain that bigotry makes more of a sense as an origin point than most any other reasoning I can come up with at this point.

 

Magic is dangerous and can cause unpredictable damage, especially so if you're an untrained teenager. It's basically like playing with bombs at home. At Hogwarts, they have teachers and mediwizards to fix the damage, but at Muggle homes they don't, and the damage can be fatal, both for the well-being of the residents and for the statute of secrecy. The Muggle parents would have no idea what to do if their son suddenly turns himself into a gerbil at home. Wizard parents would know and would be able to fix most damage, which is why the Trace is less important in wizarding households. It sucks not being able to do magic for two months, but it's understandable.

I generally think the Trace is a bullshit plot device though.

 

The fact that we don't even get a name for it until the last book of the series is a pretty solid indication that Rowling was making things up as she went with the Trace, which does put it rather safely in the plot device zone.

That said, I do like the explanation for why it's applied more strictly in muggle homes than wizarding ones. Hogwarts certainly has no shortage of messy magical accidents and problems, and that's (theoretically) in a controlled environment with experienced educators. A muggleborn trying to practice on their own with no adult wizards present to fix any problems that might crop up, and parents who might not even be able to contact the wizarding authorities in a timely fashion seems like a disaster waiting to happen.

 

This certainly makes more sense than just "lol trace!", but I still maintain that there has to be something more to it... I cant really argue much beyond "it feels wrong" so I'll let it drop, but I am firmly of the opinion that it's a lot easier to justify The Trace when you bring up the anti-muggleborn sentiments that a lot of the wizarding world seems to share.

Either way, I just think JK realized that Moody was too competent for the clusterfuck of a book and decided that the trace was a great way to justify killing him off since it's supposed to be grimdark now.

 

pureblood kids could do magic all the time at home as their houses were highly warded/ unplotable, meaning the ministry didnt know they were doing magic

 

It was introduced at the end of Book 1. The fact that we didn't get the name of the actual charm doesn't mean anything as there are plenty of charms or curses without any names (the Taboo, the curse upon the DADA post, Conjuring, etc.)