Was it ever confirmed if Harry flew or apparated to the top of his school or w/e? I like to think he apparated to the roof.

 

Never mentioned after book 1.

 

Hmm. Are there any stories where instead of apparating to the roof he ends up somewhere else? I just had like this image of him apparating to like Godric's Hallow and bumping into Bathilda Bagshot.

 

Why would he go there? :/ he's got no memory of anything before age 4 or so anyways, not conscious memory at least.

 

Like I said, No conscious memories... That only surfaces when the Dementors pull it out of his psyche I think, not as something he ever thinks about before then.

 

Im pretty sure he remembers in a vague way the motorcycle ride wirh Hagrid and his parents murder in the firsf book. Cbf to open my copy when I get home though.

 

He remembers it in a dream, but didn't believe it was true because he hadn't found out about magic at that time.

 

He's always remembered flashes of green light and he "dreams" about Sirius' flying motorcycle. Wouldn't be that much of a stretch to remember it. And that scene in Deathly Hallows after his wand breaks...was that Voldemort reliving the murders or Harry "remembering" them?

 

It was definitely Voldemort reliving them and not Harry remembering them. We clearly saw him murder James, which Harry wasn't there for, as well as seeing him think of killing a random muggle Harry could not have possibly known about.

 

If Harry saw his parents die, then he'd have been able to see thestrals from the beginning.

 

Seeing thestrals isn't so much about seeing death in the sense of "death occurs in my field of vision" as much as comprehending the idea of death.

That said, in this particular case baby Harry neither saw his parents' deaths nor comprehended them:

http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2004/0804-ebf.htm

 

Why does Alastor Moody have a peg leg? Are there any other similarly scarred or handicapped wizards?

I'm probably confusing fanon and canon but it seems like wizards can easily regrow legs\bones\skin\etc. Yet George loses an ear that can't be regrown. Is that canon inconsistency or does it make sense why Lockhart could vanish Harry's arm bones and they were regrown but Moody couldn't get his nose regrown or his leg (maybe even the eye although that might be an upgrade for him or a badge of honor).



Unrelated but when Dumbledore put on the cursed Gaunt ring, would cutting his hand off prevent the curse from causing his slow death?

 

I think it depends how the appendage was lost. Like, George's ear was sliced with a dark curse, so couldn't be healed. Moody hunted dark wizards for a long time, so it would make sense that most of his injuries were sustained via dark curses. Also, like if maybe say your leg was bitten off and eaten, or you couldn't get it reattached before it started getting funky.

As for the ring's curse, it's hard to know how that really worked. You're imagining it working like venom, slowly working its way up his arm? But maybe even cutting off the physical limb wouldn't have negated the curse; it was a magical malady after all. What sense amputating when it would continue to spread anyway?

 

@ring - it is also possible that only obvious manifestation of curse was limited to the hand, and it was almost immediately spread to entire body.

Random theory: maybe Dumbledore decided to not hide this problem (or even pretended that there is obvious manifestation of curse) so his death will be not so unexpected.

 

It is hard to say really, given what we are actually shown from the HPverse either way would make sense, the fact that Dumbledore wanted to die only makes it less clear so I figure whoever is writing can make the decision.

Though I suppose that is just personal opinion since I am not too fond on how people tend to go from "everything in canon has a reason" to "everyone in canon is stupid". Is it hard to understand that there are things that were thought out, things that are genuine plotholes and things that simply don't matter for the story?

 

This may very well deserve its own thread, but just to be safe...

I've seen multiple stories that claim most Purebloods are only children. This bothers me, for the simple fact that there aren't that many characters we know well enough to say with 100% that they don't have any siblings.

And of those we do know that well, their parents are usually either dead (like Harry) or otherwise incapable of having more kids (like James, considering how his parents had him when they were old).

So while we know for a fact Draco is an only child, can we be just as sure that Crabbe, for example, doesn't have an older brother or younger sister?

As proof that they can have more than one kid, Bellatrix, Narcissa, and Andromeda are all sisters, Sirius and Regulas were brothers, and Daphne and Astoria are sisters. For the latter, keep in mind the only reason we know Astoria exists is because Rowling mentioned outside of the Books that she married Draco.

And if you look at the Weasley family tree, all of Arthur and Molly's kids (besides Fred, obviously) married and had two or three kids. While Arthur and Molly themselves are obviously the extreme end of kid-having, why should their children be unusual for having two or three kids?

Again, this topic could easily deserve its own thread, or ignored since it was already touched upon repeatedly. But I just thought I should mention it.

 

It might have something to do with the way pureblood children act. When you're a kid with siblings, they're kind of your first friends and you provide each other with conditioning for later when you start introducing other kids to the mix. The few purebloods we've gotten to see any amount of behavior from behave abnormally in social settings, and show some of the negative hallmarks of single children (not to say that single children as a rule turn out bad :b ).

Obviously this can be explained another way--that Rowling just wanted some mean-ass kids for Harry to clash with, but realistically for a child to act that way, they wouldn't have other siblings at home to help wear off those sharp edges.

So you're right, we don't have very much information to know about most pureblood families, but from the ones we can see, their behavior just kind of suggests that to be the case.

 

What about siblings that hate each others guts? I wouldn't say they're only children because they're mean. My older brothers were some of the meanest people I knew.

In fact, I'd say only children feel a greater need to form intense, lasting (sibling-like) bonds and friendships.

Draco's not a shit because he's an only child. He's a shit because that's what his dad raised him to be.

 

Nah, it's just a Malfoy thing. Since their parents know that they'd kill each other in order to get the family inheritance, they just encourage the behavior to weed out the weak early on. So the siblings have to end each other before Hogwarts age. There can only be one.

Also, they put down any girls at birth. Like the Chinese.




In all seriousness, I do find it odd that there aren't more Weasleys at Hogwarts. With such a small population in the Wizarding World, I feel that a family known for having large numbers of children would have a larger extended family. Unless the Weasley's reputation for propogation is one for just Arthur's family, and not the Weasley line as a whole.