Beyond Hogwarts

Search Beyond Hogwarts:

Reference Desk:
Beyond Hogwarts FAQ
Wizard to Muggle Currency Converter
Harry Potter Spelling Reference

Is Harry the last horcrux?

by David Haber

In Harry Potter and the Half-blood Prince, we learned that, to make himself immortal, Lord Voldemort ripped his soul into seven pieces, and created six horcruxes (the seventh piece of his soul still residing in his body). We know or suspect about five of the horcruxes. Is it possible that Harry is the sixth horcrux? There are clues to suggest that he is.

> Read the full article

Pages:  <<  <  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ...  >  >>

Reader Comments: (Page 10)

WAIT A MINUTE! Can a Dementor a Horcrux?! After all 'a dementor's kiss' 'sucks the soul' out of a person, leaving a 'hollow body' left.

A Horcrux is nothing more or less than a Dementor hors d'ourve!

In the end might it not be possible (and I don't think the story is going in this direction) to simply have a Dementor examine objects with the idea that if they find anything they can eat it? Couldn't Harry (who may not know how to destroy a Horcrux.. ie the Ring is not 'destroyed' really) Couldn't Harry arrange to have some of the objects left where dementors would find them?

If a dementor can 'eat' a horcrux Harry could have his scar (if indeed it were a Horcrux) 'munched upon' by a Dementor?

And, as the 'kiss' leaves a body undestroyed but souless it should be possible to have Harry whole at the end missing only the Horcrux fragment at the end of the series. (if indeed, he is a Horcrux, or his Scar is one)

I only wish it were possible to consult proper Wizards literally 'beyond Hogwarts' to see if this would work.

Posted by Charlie Tarbox from Gettysburg, Pa on January 13, 2007 1:32 PM

WOW! That was a really good theory Dave! It does seem a bit fishy, but makes sense! Jk has the most suprising conclusions, most of which we can't guess until we actually read the book! I'm not sure if it's possible but it might!

Posted by Harini from California on January 13, 2007 2:15 PM

When the body s the soul is released, not destroyed.
Normally, the soul would "move on", but a Horcrux keeps the soul earth bound until it can be placed in another body.
If the Horcrux is destroyed, the fragment of soul is released soul, and no longer of use to the witch or wizard that encased it in a Horcrux.
You need a Horcrux to not , but it does nothing to help you get, or get in a new body.

I know I'm not do a very good job of explaining it...

Posted by Kevin from Wisconsin on January 13, 2007 2:58 PM

when voldemort d the night at godrics hollow, he must have used a first horcrux to come back the first time in the first book...?

Posted by Jan on January 13, 2007 3:41 PM

Ok, Priori Incantatem theory is good, and it gives me hopes cause, personally, I don't like the idea of Harry being a horcrux or having him at the end of DH.
I have been reading lots of comments and what I can say about Harry being a Horcrux is that Harry could actually BE the last horcrux and that wouldn't make any trouble with the ing of Voldy. Why is this? Because everybody is assuming that in order to finish Voldy, Harry is the one to do it. Why? Because the prophecy says so? The prophecy doesn't specifies what Harry has to do in order to finish Voldy. The only thing it says is that �none can live while the other survives� and that he is the one to finish him...but maybe he is the only one BECAUSE he is the horcrux. Since no other living person is a horcrux of Voldemort, Harry IS the only one who, in the end, can destroy him. Then some other can finish the job. So in orden to finish Voldy, Harry must , sacrifice himself or what ever but some other can him, lets say anybody that could be with Harry at the moment of the final battle (could it be Neville?).
Ok, is not as thrilling as the other idea of an ending with Harry ing Voldy and this one coming out of Harry�s scar all over again, but it could be just another idea for those who support the theory of "Harry being a Horcrux".

Posted by Ana from Buenos Aires, Argentina on January 13, 2007 4:21 PM

first off i like what jan just said a lot. wouldnt he have had to already use one of the horcruxs to come back to life? nagini was present at his reincarnation. but it never comes up. petigrew does give part of himself however and there was supposed to be another person present that night at godrics hollow. also, why would voldemort make a human a horcrux unless he was intending for harry to stay alive. otherwise he would just be carrying around a baby with a little piece of his soul in it. thatd would be pretty strange.
even if the fact that he was a horcrux had protected him from the AK wouldnt that spell have been placed after the . he couldnt have had the spell protecting him if it hadnt already been placed on him. it seems like that part of the spell would occur after the but theres no way to know that i guess. also, the fact that because his mother protected him is the reason he survived the AK doesnt add up. would she really be the first person in the history of magic to ever sacrifice herself for another person? that has bothered me for a long time. surely someone would have done that at some other point in history. i guess the idea that its in his scar is pretty interesting but i just dont see why voldemort would make a human a horcrux. i think there is something in this equation that we are just completely unaware of. one of those things we cant deduct from the other books just because rowling doesnt want us to. i dont know, im just throwing a couple things out there

Posted by Johnny Rowland on January 13, 2007 9:10 PM

Kevin, for what it's worth, yes you are.

Posted by tracy on January 13, 2007 9:17 PM

Tracy, I agree that Kevin is doing a tremendous job, explaining how Horcruxes work.In fairness, so do many of you, thanks.

Jan and Johnny, made very significant comments "Has Voldemort already used a Horcrux" so he could stay alive? I have been asking this myself. So far we know for SURE that TWO pieces of his soul are destroyed:

1.The Diary (CoS) > destroyed by Harry
2.The Ring (HBP) > destroyed by Dumbledore
3.The Locket (?) > destroyed? by R.A.B.

Is loosing piece after piece of his soul, crucial to Voldemort? We know that he is already accurately described as "inhuman" due to his splitting of the soul. Will he be getting "weaker" after each of his Horcruxes are getting destroyed?

Our notorious R.A.B. writes in his note he left in the fake locket: "I face in the hope that when you meet your match, you be mortal once more".

Am I correct in assuming that LV knows only of one Horcrux not existing anymore,this being the Diary? When Harry asks Dumbledore in HBP if Voldemort knows when a Horcrux is destroyed, this is what AD says: "A very interesting question,Harry, I believe not".

Could not the effect of "loosing" his Horcruxes be like having the soul sucked out by Dementors - or at least make him less the "All-powerful" Dark Wizard he is? Giving Harry another chance to defeat him?

Posted by Mistral from Z�rich, Switzerland on January 14, 2007 02:46 AM

I must admit that the quote:

"Voldemort put a bit of himself in me?" Harry said, thunderstruck. "It certainly seems so."

really raises some eyebrows. As you read it, you realize that saying that phrase is basicly like saying:

"So Voldemort put a Horcrux inside me?"

but with a younger tone. And it fits!

Book one is a childrens book and it's written as such. An 11 year old can really relate to the way Harry thinks and does certain things (although Harry is marginably braver than the common eleven year old). And in the suceeding books, Joanne style of writing seems to age as Harry does. As a 16 year old, Harry thinks and does things alot different than he did when he was 11.

My point of all this rubbish is, did Joanne tell us that he had a Horcrux within him, but with a younger tone? A tone that a twelve year old would understand better?

Posted by Rane on January 14, 2007 04:34 AM

I had the exact same thought when I read the passage where Dumbledore and Harry talk about the horcruxes some hours ago ( got the last three books over christmas, just finished HBP few hours ago ) when the possibility to make living creatures a horcrux.
Plus, he had just ed James And Lilly Potter,
now the question remains 'why would he make a horcrux of Harry, while he is set on destroying him?'
To that question I have no answer, though to comment on something mentioned in this little talk that Voldemort might have decided not to Harry after the realisations of their mental connection in Order of the Phoenix:
Wrong, he means to do Harry and probably would have had Dumbledore not come to save the day?:)

About Harry not being able to Voldemort, without first destorying the last Horcrux ( himself ):

Not sure this has already been mentioned, but Dumbledore spends quite some time making it clear to Harry, that prophecies are 'air' ( as a sort of speaking ), that the only reason the first part of it came true is because Voldemort believed it to be true and set out to make it true.

Hence, we shouldn't put much belief in 'one can not live while the other lives' ( or summit ).

It is also hinted throughout the books that Divination is bollocks, backed up by the Centaurs to boot.

Posted by Dennis from Belgium on January 14, 2007 04:48 AM

This just hit me,

I read in rumours about the next book, which JKR confirmed that the reason of Harry having his mother's GREEN eyes would be a part of the plot.

Charlie said:
"As to which curse... it is not only Moody who puts the AK forward. The films clearly use bright green light... Harry Remembers the green light from through his eyelids (this I wonder at as most light through eyelids is red) however... I concede that other curses do use green light spectrum effects but the classic AK is with green light.."

And this made me think, we've been discussing the possibility that Voldemort didn't use AK on little Harry, but maybe this is something of a hint that he did?
Not sure, just a thought I had; green eyes, green spell, everlasting imprint made by Voldemort:)

Posted by Dennis from Belgium on January 14, 2007 04:59 AM

Well, at first I thought this could be imposible, because of the fact that voldi wanted to harry very often, so this could just be posible if this really happend unintentionally...

now I had the idea, that Harry doesnt have to commit suicide, because, Hocrux have the function to save their "owner"...

so, when Voldi was ed from the bounced of AK curse, then HIS part of soul, which was inside was destroyed, so he was soulless for a short moment, but as he HAD KEPT his other parts of his soul in the hocrux, I think then one hocrux led the part free to let it come back to Voldi, and this let us draw 2 conclusions:

1. This means that one hocrux was "destroyed" or lets more say it was dissolved by voldemort hisself, so that there are just 3 Hocrux left which have to destroyed

1.) the diary - destroyed (by harry)
2.) the Ring - destroyed (by) Dumbi
3.) the Locket - probably destroyed (by regulus)
4.) the goblet - not destroyed or rather gone back to Voldi
5.) tha snake- not destroyed or rather gone back to Voldi
6.) Harry- not destroyed
7.) Voldemort hisself-destroyed by the AK

the left thre hocruxes are now harry, the goblet or the snake, and the one which went back to Voldi and is now in Voldi body

2. the other fact is, that Harry wouldn't have to commit suicide, if Hocruxes went back to her owner, when the part in the owner got destroyed..

then Harry would have to destroy the Hocrux, which whether is in him nor in Voldi, then he had to Voldi (and voldis part of the soul)but Voldi wouldn't as Harry part of voldis souls would leave harry to go back to his owner (voldi) and then Harry would just have to Voldi again..

Posted by Franzi from Germany on January 14, 2007 06:01 AM

Pages:  <<  <  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ...  >  >>

Featured Discussions | The Septology | Harry's World | Harry Potter Movies | Dumbeldore Is Not Dead | FAQ is not affiliated with or approved by
Scholastic Books, Bloomsbury, Warner Bros., or J.K. Rowling
Original Content Copyright © 2006-2010 David Haber, All Rights Reserved