Harry Potter - Why did Dumbledore have James' cloak?

The Aftermath: We were all correct J.K. Rowling goes Beyond the Epilogue Severus Snape: Heel or Hero? Sinking our teeth into the character of Snape J.K.'s surprising revelation about Dumbledore The Repeating History of Dumbledore The next Harry Potter: Back to the future or the past? A forbidden peek at young James and Sirius

Wand Basics 101 Wands from a Muggle Perspective My Day with Oliver Wood The trials of the Hogwarts IT director Introduction to Arithmancy The Secrets of the Fidelius Charm Doing the Math: How many kids are at Hogwarts? The Five Principal Exceptions to Gamp's Law

International Quidditch Lessons Spot The Stuntman Foreshadowings in Prisoner of Azkaban Character changes in Goblet of Fire Mischief Managed... Not! Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Parts 1 and 2

Dumbledore Is Not Dead The Septology Mystery Book 7 Predictions

<	Latest Articles

	Comments Index
	Save Last On

Search Beyond Hogwarts:

Reference Desk:

• Beyond Hogwarts FAQ

• Wizard to Muggle Currency Converter

• Harry Potter Spelling Reference

Why did Dumbledore have James' cloak?

by David Haber

On a new post on her official web site, J.K. Rowling admitted she made a mistake in New York when she was asked, what question have you never been asked that you ought to have been asked? She now says the question should have been, Why did Dumbledore have James' invisibility cloak at the time of James' death, given that Dumbledore could make himself invisible without a cloak?

> Read the full article

Pages: << < 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 ... > >>

Reader Comments: (Page 58)

There's absolutely something special about Godric's Hollow. I'm thinking it may be some kind of shrine dedicated to Gryffindor. "Godric's Hollow" = "Godric's Hallow". Not because the words are similar, but they kind of connect. The place has some kind of hole in the ground (possibly even below their house), which is actually a holy shrine.
It sounds a little too much like Oblivion, maybe, but I kind of like it.

Posted by zetruz from Sweden on April 25, 2007 10:06 AM

Another tie-in with the Seer idea. Granted James was a Marauder and possibly used it for ill-purposes (the map, etc.) but at the same time, why not another object left for Harry? Why an INVISIBILITY cloak? I think the significance in this object is because its invisibility, i.e. lack of sight. Could this be a clue to a Seer? Trying to tell the reader that James was a Seer?

Posted by Ben on April 25, 2007 3:44 PM

read the note again. i think there's much more in that note. "james gave it to me before he d", rowling can say that "james gave it to me" but why add "before he d"? certainly a man cannot give something to someone because he's . so its redundant to put "before he d".

Posted by mark jaime from artesia, ca on April 26, 2007 4:27 PM

True, didn't think of that.
And by the way, why did he say "Use it Well"? Why the 'big letter' in well? I've never seen anyone write like that, but that may be because I'm from Sweden...

Posted by zetruz from Sweden on April 28, 2007 05:33 AM

The W only looks capitalized in the movie. But the UK and the US book have a small letter w.

Posted by Dave Haber from Los Angeles, CA on April 28, 2007 1:17 PM

Ron says in SS/PS that they are really rare, so isn't it possible for James to give it to Dumbledore for safe keeping? because in the same book (previously in the book)Hagrid says there's not a safer place then Gringotts except Hogwarts.

Posted by Taylor Turner from Hamilton, Ontario on April 29, 2007 12:32 PM

We are sure that Dumbledore commited at least one . We learn from the chocolate frogs that he ed the evil wizard Grindelwald. It might be an evil thing to create a horcrux but sometimes it can be nessesary don't you think so?

Posted by Prongs from Athens on April 30, 2007 09:19 AM

Without getting into the whole argument of the difference between causing the of someone and ing someone, we cannot say for sure that Dumbledore ed Grindelwald. The chocolate from says "Dumbledore defeated Grindelwald". JK was very specific in that wording, I believe, for important purpose.

Posted by Dave Haber from Los Angeles, CA on April 30, 2007 10:34 AM

When they said the Invisibility cloak might be a James Horcrux, Does that mean that James could be living through Harry when he wears the cloak?

Posted by Liam from Caledon Easr on May 2, 2007 04:34 AM

Why would James or Dumbledore want to use extremely dark magic under any circumstances?

Posted by Andres Sapp from Sebring, Florida on May 4, 2007 10:50 AM

Is there some sort of connection between GODRIC's Hollow and GODRIC Gryffindor? Could the horcrux from Gryffindor be at Godric's Hollow?

Posted by Aralyn from michigan on May 5, 2007 08:08 AM

Look, I have to put this Dumbledore's Horcrux theory to rest. In HBP he explicitly shares with us his opinion of horcruxes. He says, "Lord Voldemort has seemed to grow less human with the passing years, and the transformation he had undergone seemed to me to be only explicable if his soul was mutilated beyond the realms of what we might call 'usual evil'".

I can see no possible way in which Dumbledore would find it necessary to commit the atrocities he spoke of. He calls it mutilating your soul and we all know that Dumbledore is a man of high values. I'm sure that he would rather than make himself a horcrux, regardless of whether he had ed somebody. He, himself, has always been the character in the book claiming the powers of love. He would never stoop that low.

Posted by Dylan from America on May 5, 2007 1:19 PM

Pages: << < 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 ... > >>