Question: A question that has been nagging me for so long: When the trio is chased by the Snatchers, why don't they just disapparate?
raywest
30th Oct 2023
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)
Answer: I've wondered the same thing. There's no explanation, but it could be argued they were just panicked when the Snatchers took them by surprise. For all their abilities, they are still kids and occasionally lack critical thinking and failed to have a fallback plan for such an event or if they somehow became separated. Of course, it serves the plot as the story needs for them to be transported to Malfoy Manor. You should submit this as a plot hole.
I think even adults can panic in scary situations and not think of something that seems like an obvious solution. I've read online "tips" for getting away from muggers/robbers, but when I was actually shot by one, none of those came to mind.
In one of the books, Mr. Weasley says that many adult wizards don't apparate. It needs to be precise and it feels uncomfortable. Some would rather use a Portkey or fly on a broomstick.
4th Nov 2019
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)
Question: This question might be more for the book, but Mad Eye said they would have to transport in ways the trace can't detect. But the trace would only detect magic used near an underage person. Harry is the only one who is underage. So they could have used a portkey. I understand that they need to cast a spell to make a portkey but they could have cast the spell before they were near Harry and then transported to the burrow. Or have I made a mistake?
Answer: The trace detects when an underaged wizard casts a magic spell whenever they are away from Hogwarts. It doesn't detect adult wizards using magic near a minor. If a portkey was used to transport Harry, it could have been detected when he touched it because he would be using magic. The safest and least detectable way to move him from point A to B, was to fly him there.
Answer: Two things. 1. You are not allowed to create an unauthorized portkey. The ministry must be aware of it. I think the incantation (portus) is traced. 2. Using a portkey is magical use, so the moment Harry touches it, the ministry would be alerted and possibly know where the portkey transported to.
Then how did Dumbledore get away with it in Order of the Phoenix when he made a portkey to get the children to Grimmauld Place?
Well he is an extremely powerful wizard and the headmaster of Hogwarts. I think he made it at Hogwarts yes? He could have had a trick up his sleeve to do it. Might be a bit more tricky for Mad-Eye and the rest whilst the Ministry is under control of deatheaters. Just too risky.
Also, using magic near an underage wizard isn't traced. Just when it is used by an underage wizard.
No, the trace is meant to detect magic used near an underaged wizard.
The wiki specifically says it's a trace of magic in the vicinity of an underage wizard, not the underage wizard him/herself. It's mentioned working like that by Alastair Moody in the books too.
When Harry used magic to repel the dementors that attacked him and Dudley in Order of the Phoenix, the Ministry of Magic instantly detected that he cast a patronus spell. He was immediately "charged" for using underage magic. What would happen when a young wizard was at home for the summer and holidays and is around adult wizards using magic all the time? The trace would be going off continually for every underaged magic person. It was mentioned in the books that if an underaged wizard did use magic at home, it could be confused with the adults who were casting spells.
Harry once got a warning from the "improper use of magic office" for casting a hover charm, even though it was Dobby who did it. I don't know where you get your information from, but it is wrong. The trace can only detect magic has been used, not who used it. This is explained by Alastair Moody in Deathly Hallows Chapter 4.
4th Jan 2023
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)
Question: How was Umbridge able to cast a patronus?
Answer: She casts it like any other witch or wizard by using her wand and saying "Expecto Patronum". It is considered advanced magic, but most magical people can learn how to do this. When Harry (disguised as Runcorn) entered her courtroom, she had already cast her cat patronus to keep the Dementors at a distance.
Casting a patronus requires a very happy memory, though. And considering that she seems to be very angry and never felt that she was given enough power, she must have never had a happy memory.
"Must" is total conjecture. Perfectly possible for an angry resentful person to have one happy memory to call on.
Villains still have personalities. Depending on what specifically makes Umbridge happy, she could easily have a lot of happy memories.
Umbridge seemed quite happy while torturing Harry with the punishment pen, when she was ejecting Trelawney from Hogwarts, when she ousted Dumbledore as Headmaster, happy in her devotion to Voldemort, and so on. Happiness is an individual thing. Her sense of happiness was quite perverse.
Only those who are pure of heart are capable of producing a Patronus. Those who aren't would be devoured by maggots that shoot out of the caster's wand. Umbridge wasn't pure of heart because of all of the horrible things she did, so shouldn't she have been eaten by maggots?
7th Oct 2019
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)
Question: When Harry is brought into Malfoy Manor, Draco is told to confirm that it's really him. Even though Harry's face is jinxed, Draco knows that it's him, so why did he lie and say it wasn't?
Answer: Because at his core and despite being an unpleasant person, Draco was a decent and humane person who never could step over the line into being evil. He could not bring himself to betray Harry, knowing he and the others would be killed, and he could not have lived with that guilt. Dumbledore and Snape understood this about Draco, and worked to help him keep his humanity.
That is the moment when Draco is now a good person.
29th Jul 2014
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)
Question: Is there any other way that Hermione could have possibly protected her Muggle parents from Voldemort and his followers besides erasing their memories, like casting a protection spell over them similar to what was done with Harry for the past 17 years or taken them to the Burrow to be protected, or even Grimmauld Place?
Chosen answer: Any of those options would provide some degree of protection, but, should Voldemort ultimately triumph, it's extremely likely that those measures would eventually be circumvented by his forces, leaving her parents entirely at his mercy. By erasing herself entirely from their memories, they cannot be used against her, as they cannot be linked to her (it's reasonable to assume that Hermione would also have arranged for any files linking her to them or that address to be destroyed or altered as well). Erasing their memories also has the side effect of sparing her parents from grief should she fall in the ensuing conflict.
In the book, in addition to erasing their memories, Hermione also sent her parents to live in Australia, further removing them from danger. She not only erased their memories to prevent them from being tortured and divulging any information, but if she was killed, they would not grieve the loss of their only child for the rest of their lives.
25th Mar 2018
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)
Question: I've heard that Lucius was right in Voldemort's inner circle so why is he treated even worse than Pettigrew?
Answer: In addition, Lucius is directly responsible for the destruction of his first horcrux, the diary, for the frivolous reason of trying to discredit Arthur Weasley.
Voldemort was angry with Lucius because he repeatedly failed him. Lucius smuggled the Diary Horcrux into Hogwarts via Ginny, the plan failed. Lucius also failed to retrieve the prophecy orb from the Ministry of Magic, resulting in a huge battle and certain Death Eaters being sent to Azkaban prison. Voldemort usually severely punished anyone who failed him.
Except Voldemort was still in hiding in Albania when Lucius did this. He never told Lucius to give it to Ginny.
Lucius took advantage of an opportunity to use Ginny to get the Diary into Hogwarts rather than as an act to discredit Arthur. He couldn't risk giving it to Draco, who he would not have trusted to carry out the mission.
Except that Lucius putting Tom Riddles' diary into Ginny's cauldron happened in "The Chamber Of Secrets." Not in this movie. The question was why Voldemort treated Lucius even worse then Pettigrew.
It might have happened in an earlier movie, but that doesn't mean Voldemort forgot.
Join the mailing list
Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.
Answer: Apparition is not an easy spell to use. Wizards are only allowed to apparate at age 17 and are given lessons from that age. Ron definitely has never apparated before, only Harry and Hermione. It's highly unlikely they would have been able to take Ron along with apparition (side-along apparition) in the stressful situation without danger. If you do it wrongly, you get what is called "splinching," meaning parts of your body won't arrive at the destination. Ron already has injuries because of that. So, in short, it's too dangerous for them to try to apparate out of the situation.
lionhead
Ron took the Apparating class at Hogwarts with Harry and Hermione. He failed his first license exam only because an overly-strict Ministry tester noticed he splinched some eyebrow hairs. Ron most certainly became practiced at it while hunting the Deathly Hallows. A hasty exit can be dangerous, however, as when Hermione hastily apparated herself, Harry, and Ron to escape the Ministry of Magic and is how Ron got his shoulder splinched.
raywest ★