mm... Grindwald prolly got murdered by Tom Riddle wanting to take the throne of Dark Lord and Dumbledore took the credit of the killing when he showed up there to defend the various muggles, him being the 1st there took the credit of it and the press bought it.


Tom Riddle wanting to become a Dark Lord could possilbly not come out and say he killed him.


Which therefore explains why DD wont kill Voldemort. Hes still to soft to actually kill someone.


heh there is prolly holes in my explaination, but its what I think.

/Myst

 

Who says there can't be more than one at a time? And all I really consider Tom Riddle is a revolutionary with a revolutionary organization. What are you talking about Dumbledore showing up to protect muggles..... :?

 

Grindwald shows up to do some muggle killing, Tom happens to kill him to take the "throne" and DD shows up to protect the survivers as he does with Voldemort in the books.



as with having 2 Dark Lords at once, it doesnt work, kind of like having 2 kings of France at once, they would wage a civil war against each other. No Dark Lord would share power.

 

you have no evidence what so ever of this....and I frankly don't see how you jumped to that conclusion.

Hmm.....Why are you taking the term Dark Lord in a literal sense? Voldermort is a revolutionary, that's all he is there isn't any more. He uses dark magic yes. He calls himself the Dark Lord but does that mean he is actually lord of all dark creatures/wizards? Do they all follow him? Not necassarily. He's just a revolutionary, it's not like he is the king of the nation of darkness declaring war on the light. In the books have you ever heard anyone reffered to as a light lord?

 

Harry wasn't believed because the Ministry and Daily Prophet were both working against him, because they didn't want to believe it to be true that Voldemort was back. I also don't think Harry's popularity at the end of GOF would be anywhere near that of the man who defeated Grindelwald and ended a wizarding war that (most believe) turned into world war two. Maybe right when LV died, but 14 years later when everybody believed he was dead and nobody wanted to suffer through another war (knowing LV was alive and growing in power again). That's a far cry from DD killing an evil looking man like TR, whose wand happened to have AK as the last curse, a year after DD defeated Grindelwald.

A more proper parallel would be the Ministry (and seemingly everybody else) taking DD's word for it that Snape was one of the "good guys" even though they had no proof but DD's support of Snape.

Edit: Another note on the Veritaserum after watching GOF..LV would have to KNOW about the potion, otherwise DD could've just one what Snape threatened to do and have an elf pour a couple drops in LV's drink.

 

A year after Dumbledore defeated Grindlewald? Was this mentioned in HBP[I genuinely don't remember]?

How do you know Dumbledore never gave evidence to support his statements about Snape?

What drink? And why wouldn't Voldemort suspect?