Beyond Hogwarts

<Latest Articles
Comments Index
Save Last On

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:  <<  <  26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 ...  >  >>

Reader Comments: (Page 36)

The soul has no conection to magical ability. Dumbledore himself pointed out that even though Morty had mutilated his soul, it had not diminished his power. Harry having abilities similar to Morty's is not evidence of Harry being in possesion of a piece of Morty's soul.

Posted by Kevin from Wisconsin on March 19, 2007 09:42 AM

Elizabeth, first time I nearly believed in the Harry is a Horcrux story. But then I remembered (and just reread part of the chapter 'Horcruxes' in HBP):
Dumbledore to Harry: "I am forced to conclude that he [Voldemort] never fulfilled his ambition of collecting four founders' objects. He definitely had two - he may have found three - that is the best we can do for now." (Remember they already talked about Hufflepuff's cup, Slytherin's ring and locket and the diary, and Dumbledore thinks about Nagini.

So there's not the slightest hint that Dumbledore thinks Harry is a horcrux, no even the contrary: Dumbledore does not know what the fifth horcrux is (he supposes something of Ravenclaw or Gryffindor) and thinks that Nagini is the sixth. If he would suppose that Harry is a horcrux he would just have been flatly lying to Harry - a thing he promised, he would never do.

Posted by Jens from freiburg, germany on March 19, 2007 1:11 PM

So we all know what horcruxes harry needs to find and destroy in book 7 as listed by our friends earlier i.e. four founder's artefacts, nagini, etc. But I read JO's interview somewhere where she said that the real sleuths can easily point out one horcrux from the sixth book. That one I think is the 'Goblin-made Tiara' mentioned by Molly in the hospital wing at the end of HBP. The mention of the Tiara itself is very out of the place at that sad moment. So, I am sure that's the first horcrux harry and co. come across at the wedding.
And I hope my friends you excuse me from differing but I think the relics of the Hogwarts founders might just not be the ONLY horcruxes. It's just a thought. It's put very obviously for us to list down the horcruxes and read the books expecting them to come along the way and destroyed. Let's think what could be possibly more powerful than the relics of the founders. If we go back to book5 in the ministry of magic where there're golden statues of a wizard, a witch, a centaur, an elf and a goblin. These statues represents the magical world. What if voldemort created a horcrux out of something significant to each magical race than just the founders in order to dominate the whole magical world? It serves a broader purpose. If this theory is to be believed than it can easily accommodate two Hogwarts founders too. Slytherin and Hufflepuff can represent the wizard and the witch. And then remains the elf & the centaur relics. And we all have noticed that Harry has friends apart from wizards too e.g. dobby (elf) & firenze (centaur). He doesnt need a goblin friend as the horcrux is already available (Tiara). So, he obviously has to find the cup & the locket and for the elf and centaur relics he get abundant support.

Posted by noor from india on March 20, 2007 05:56 AM

I was struck by the comment above that parts of the soul do not carry powers with them. This seems to be the logical answer to this topic's question. The Author herself gives us a substantial clue which agrees with Harry having Voldemort's abilities without an Horcrux being created when she says in her website:

Section: F.A.Q.
When the Marauder's Map is insulting Snape, how did Prongs write his insult as he's ?
Wizards have ways of making sure their voices are heard after their - think of... the Sorting Hat continuing to spout the wisdom of the Founders hundreds of years after their s,... the portraits of headmasters and mistresses in Dumbledore's office,... there are other examples, too, of which the Marauder's Map is merely one. It is not really Prongs writing the insult to Snape, it is as though he left a magical recording of his voice within the map.

The portraits and Marauder's map are not Horcruxes and yet they maintain personalities and other facets of those no longer alive. It then, as suggested, may be as simple as the uniqueness of the rebounding of the A.K. curse caused a rather unique result--the scar and the transfer of some powers and abilities.

Posted by Charlie Tarbox from Gettysburg, Pa on March 20, 2007 08:43 AM

In the very first book it is mentioned that scars can sometimes be the one Dumbledore had on his left knee which was a perfect map of the london underground...
Can it be a posibility that Harry's scar serves as a map to the whereabouts of last horcrux...?

Posted by Manish from India on March 20, 2007 11:02 AM

Noor: I don't think so; Voldemort doesn't care at all about other magic creatures. If they can serve him, like the giants or the dementors, that's OK for him, but he despises them. He wouldn't make any Horcrux in reference to a magic creature. Nice thought though.

Charlie: the scar also carries Voldemort's memories (everytime he is emotional); those memories are not echos of what he was fifteen years ago.

Posted by herve from strasbourg on March 20, 2007 11:24 AM

Voldemort's words in the graveyard in GOF have also made me wonder. He talks about his "experiments", plural, but the horcruxes appear to be secret. At least R.A.B. says in his note that he has discovered Voldemort's secret. So what "experiments" have there been, and why haven't they been shared with Voldemort's group? They are the " Eaters" after all.

Then you compare " Eaters" to the "Order of the Phoenix" and one would imply immortality and the other resurrection. eaters could just be an aggressive name showing they aren't afraid of ? but it just doesn't seem to fit. I am very hopeful that the name "Order of the Phoenix" does imply some type of resurrection - maybe of the spirit to fight, or of the souls of the former members to aid the group, kind of like the portraits, or something we can't know yet. It seems like the naming of the groups should be very significant, but isn't yet?

Posted by Raow from Petaluma, CA, USA on March 20, 2007 11:45 AM

Hi Herve,
Well I know the thoughts are too far-fetched but can be plausible. Isn't Voldemort's primary motive is to rule the magical world? Make everyone his slave? Even if we rule out the possibility of elf & centaur relic horcruxes. What would you say about the Goblin-made Tiara? JO wouldn't mention it just like that, Rite? If you read the part where the Tiara is mentioned, it just doesn't suit the plot at all. Like why would you talk about a Tiara when DD is and Bill is severely injured. It's such a serious and sad moment and you are already planning a wedding in hospital. There's something JO wants us to figure there and I think the Tiara is the Horcrux for sure.
If you can come up with something to explain this.

P.S.: Do we know anything about Aunty Muriel? Her history? It could be relevant. She could be related to some founders too.

Posted by noor from india on March 20, 2007 11:34 PM

But couldn't the Goblin made Tiara be part of a clue which makes Harry remember that he placed a tiara on the statue in the room of requirement to mark where he hid his potion's book? There are, after all, suddenly 2 tiaras which appear. And, the mention of the tiara was made by Molly to comfort Fleur and to signify that she, after seeing Fleur's devotion to Bill, finally accepts and supports the marriage. I always thought that it is the fact that suddenly a second tiara appears in the plot to be significant myself. Trouble is, which one is the critical one!?!

Posted by Charlie Tarbox from Gettysburg, Pa on March 21, 2007 09:23 AM

I don't think the Tiara is anything. One thing you should know about Mother-in-Laws is that they do NOT apologize.

The Tiara was just a peace offering from Mrs. Weasley. It was to say "I'm sorry, please forgive me, and welcome to the family."

Now, what about all the things in the Black family's house? Didn't the Black family's house-elf, Creature, steal things from around the house that reminded him of his past mistress (who was a very much a supporter of Voldemort)?

And what about Mundungus? Didn't Harry catch him stealing all kinds of "cups" and things from Number 13? What if that is where, at least, the cup and the locket are?

Posted by illyria from mississippi on March 21, 2007 09:27 AM

I don't think the tiara is a Horcrux, but it might make sense in book 7.

For a long time, I thought that Harry's scar was a Horcrux, but I have to admit that it doesn't really behaves like a Horcrux.

For instance, it seems that Horcruxes are passive things including a torn part of the soul that has been disconnected from the initial body. We know for sure that Harry's scar can acquire bits of Voldemort's memory.

The scar also seems to give Harry special abilities, like speaking Parseltongue or being recognized as a Slytherin by the Sorting Hat. But to me, it's not a torn part of Voldemort's soul, merely a shared part.

And I still think that Harry's scar was intentionaly made by Voldemort, and not the consequence of a curse rebounding.

Posted by herve from strasbourg on March 21, 2007 3:57 PM

Voldemorts wand is made of yew and there is a yew tree in the graveyard.

Posted by Oatmeal from chapel hill on March 22, 2007 5:15 PM

Pages:  <<  <  26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 ...  >  >>

Latest Discussions | Comments | The Septology | Harry's World | Harry Potter Movies | FAQ is not affiliated with or approved by
Scholastic Books, Bloomsbury, Warner Bros., or J.K. Rowling
Original Content Copyright © 2006-2009 David Haber, All Rights Reserved