Harry Potter Wiki
Register
Advertisement
Harry Potter Wiki
Forums: Index > The Wizengamot > Headmaster must die in office to have a portrait?



We've been having an interesting discussion over at Talk:Headmaster_portraits about whether or not Headmasters must stay in office until death in order to get a portrait in the headmaster's office. (lots of details already there to read) For a summary, this notion is from Snape and how his portrait did not automatically appear in the Headmaster's office after his death. When asked JKR has said ( 2007 Accio Quote! Bloomsbury Chat):

Laura Trego: Was the absence of snapes portrait in the headmasters office in the last scene innocent or deliberate
J.K. Rowling: It was deliberate. Snape had effectively abandoned his post before dying, so he had not merited inclusion in these august circles.

When asked again later that year (Leaky Cauldron transcript):

Q: Is Severus Snape’s portrait in the headmaster’s office?
JKR: Some have been asking why hasn’t the portrait appeared immediately. It doesn’t. The reason is that the perception in the castle itself and everyone who was in the castle, because Snape kept his secret so well was that he abandoned his post. So all the portraits you see in the headmaster’s study are all headmasters and mistresses who died, it’s like British royals. You only get good press if you die in office. Abdication is not acceptable, particularly if you marry and [sic] American. I’m kidding! [laughter] I digress. I know, because I thought this one through, because it was very important to me, I know Harry would have insisted that Snape’s portrait was on that wall, right beside Dumbledore’s. [Applause.]

My read on this is that you cannot abandon your post (that is betray it in your manner of leaving), but not that you actually have to die in it (as JKR was joking about what it takes to get good press and making a comparison to Edward VIII who abdicated the throne to marry an American).

Other examples of leaving office may include McGonagall who is no longer Headmistress by 2017 Today Interview (“McGonagall was really getting on a bit”) which seems to imply that she left office without dying raising the question if she has a portrait in the office or not.

I'd be interested in other people's interpretation of the text to see how people think about the notion of abandoning the post, and if any other means of departure other than death (such as retirement or the governors appointing a new headmaster) would not be abandoning the post and allow for a headmaster's portrait in the office. Thanks! --Ironyak1 (talk) 02:19, June 6, 2016 (UTC)

And my thoughts on it (given the official definition of "abandon" from both Google - "cease to support or look after" and "give up completely (a practice or a course of action)" - and The Cambridge English Dictionary - "to leave a place, thing, or person, usually for ever".) is that it states that if you leave the post in any way other than death, then you do not get a portrait on the wall because you have (by the definitions provided) "abandoned" your post. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 02:25, June 6, 2016 (UTC)

I think you have to die to get your picture put up in the Headmasters Office. On Pottermore, Jo wrote this:
“Traditionally, a headmaster or headmistress is painted before their death. Once the portrait is completed, the headmaster or headmistress in question keeps it under lock and key, regularly visiting it in its cupboard (if so desired) to teach it to act and behave exactly like themselves, and imparting all kinds of useful memories and pieces of knowledge that may then be shared through the centuries with their successors in office”
Now, if the headteacher in question was still living, there would be no need for a portrait because the main purpose of one is to give advice. If the headteacher was still living, wouldn’t their successors just send a letter to them or invite them over to talk? I also think it should be noted that Jo mentions they are “painted before their death” as though to imply the picture is only needed after death. The headteacher then has to keep it under lock and key. It seems they have to. Then they have the option to teach the portrait how to act and think like them, so it would make more sense if they kept it to teach it as much as they can until they are no longer around to teach anyone or anything anymore. And since she says they have to keep it under lock and key, I presume they keep it safe until they die.
I suppose the portrait could be put up earlier as a tribute, but it would make more sense if it was put up in memory of them after they have died and Jo’s wording seems to imply this is the case. Once they have died, their portrait is put up presumably by some kind of magic in the castle automatically, unless there is a good reason not too. Jo’s comments from the Leaky Cauldron transcript confirms this for me. She says,
“Some have been asking why hasn’t the portrait appeared immediately. It doesn’t. The reason is that the perception in the castle itself and everyone who was in the castle… was that he abandoned his post.”
Now abandoned does not mean the same as retire. Someone retires for a good reason, such as because they feel they are too old to continue at the pace they have work at. This is an honourable and therefore acceptable reason. But Snape appeared to run off without warning to go and help Lord Voldemort. This is not an honourable reason. Jo says “the perception of the castle itself” which seems to imply it has a mind of its own similar to the Sorting Hat. So to the castle and most of the people, Snape wasn’t worthy of having the honour of a portrait when he died so it did not appear. This is why Harry had to fight for him to get one put up.
As for the comment from Jo where she jokes she was “kidding”, I think she just trying to say that she wasn’t being serious when she said abdication is not acceptable. I think she was trying to say abdication, and therefore retirement, is actually okay if it was for an acceptable reason. So they can still have their portrait put up when they die. I believe she was simply trying to make a joke about Edward VIII.
So you have to die to get a picture put up, but you don’t have to die in office. You just need an acceptable and honourable reason for leaving. At least, that's what I have took from her comments. But time will tell if this is true! --EmilyMills22 (talk) 12:22, June 6, 2016 (UTC)
Rowling was clearly making a joke comparing Snape to Edward VIII in the Carnegie Hall quote. She wasn't literally saying that headmasters only get their portraits hung if they die while in office.
Edward VIII abdicated the throne in order to marry a twice-divorced American named Wallis Simpson. This ignited a firestorm of controversy, since the King/Queen of England serves as the nominal head of the Church of England, and, at the time, the Church did not allow divorced people to remarry if their ex-spouses were still alive. The fact Edward VIII was chummy with a certain German dictator didn't help his popularity either.
Thus, Rowling was stating that Hogwarts castle didn't consider Snape a true headmaster because he effectively abandoned his post during the Battle of Hogwarts, much like the court of public opinion doesn't consider Edward VIII a true king because he abdicated the throne. This is reaffirmed by her comments regarding Snape's portrait from the 2007 Bloomsbury web chat.
We know all the portraits at Hogwarts are of dead people from other statements by Rowling. It therefore stands to reason that headmasters who retire have their portraits installed upon their deaths. And, given that Dumbledore's portrait appeared immediately after his death, it seems the castle does the installing. Headmasters presumably sit portraits while still in office, and the finished product is presumably stored somewhere within the castle until they die, at which time the castle judges whether or not their portrait is worthy of being hung in the headmaster's office. This leads to an amusing image of a portrait of Umbridge moldering in some dusty closet for centuries to come. Starstuff (Owl me!) 17:55, June 6, 2016 (UTC)

While the idea of Umbridge's portrait sitting there does amuse me, I'm inclined differently. The definition of "abandon" from both Google - "cease to support or look after" and "give up completely (a practice or a course of action)" - and The Cambridge English Dictionary - "to leave a place, thing, or person, usually for ever" - implies that nothing but death is good enough, as you "give up completely" and "cease to support and look after" -- if you stop being a headmaster, then you no longer have the office... so how can you teach the portrait if you've quit? You physically can't as it's locked away in a cupboard "under lock and key"... so you only get a portrait if you die in office. If you retire, then die, you get nothing. You have to be found dead in the headmaster's chair -- knowing Dumbledore, he'd've gone in the most eccentric place possible. Maybe in a match box or something? --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:53, June 8, 2016 (UTC)

In looking this over again, I'm surprised we never discussed Armando Dippet's possible appearance on the cover on the Evening Daily Prophet in 1992. If that is the same Armando Dippet, then he served as headmaster, left to poorly fly broomsticks, and then died and received a portrait (Note that this article needs some work - it both dismisses the Prophet article as non-canon and uses it to calculate his birthdate ?!) I really think we just don't know enough to state clearly the requirements for having a portrait and suggest we make this uncertainty clear as I have on Headmaster#Behind the scenes. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:18, June 17, 2016 (UTC)

We use and ignore it because there's canon evidence that Dippett was not alive in 1992 as he already has a portrait in 1991, I believe and J.K. Rowling confirms they only get one when they're dead... so that makes the article non-canon in that respect. However, apart from the article, nothing else suggests he was not born on the date it gives. So, it fits to canon. --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 02:04, June 18, 2016 (UTC)

When do we see Dippet's portrait in 1991 (Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone)? No version of PS is in Dippet's Appearances section. We don't go into the headmaster's office in the films until 1992 so if his portrait appears then it is after the Prophet article on 1 Sep 1992 so he may have died in the interim. Either the article is canon, and therefore he left Hogwarts before dying, or it is not canon, and we have no evidence of his extreme age (it does not give a birth date - just an age of 355 in 1992 - see Ancient_age_flying_test). I don't think you can have it both ways --Ironyak1 (talk) 03:07, June 18, 2016 (UTC)

We see Dumbledore's office in Snape's memories of Philosopher's Stone (where Dumbledore asks him to keep an eye on Quirrel (c.1991)) and I believe Dippett's portrait is mentioned then.--HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 12:30, June 18, 2016 (UTC)

In rewatching the Prince's Tale and deleted scenes, I don't think that 1991 scene appears in the film version of DH (but would be interested to see an image or have a time stamp that says otherwise). In the DH book, Dippet is only mentioned by name as part of Rita Skeeter's author's note on Umbridge's copy of Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore, and in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 33 (The Prince's Tale) there are no headmaster portraits described in the couple brief paragraphs when Snape complains of Harry and Dumbledore asks Snape to "keep an eye on Quirrell." I'm not a big fan of the Dippet article as evidence (given the mess of the full text if you read it), but there doesn't seem to be a portrait of Dippet that pre-dates it to make it non-canon. --Ironyak1 (talk) 16:37, June 18, 2016 (UTC)
I just looked through my Harry Potter ebooks, and the first time Dippet's portrait is mentioned is in The OOTP, Chapter 22, Page 473. Arthur Weasley had just been attacked at the Ministry and Dumbledore had asked the portrait of Phineas Nigellus to go to his other post to deliver a message and he refuses because he is too tired. The other "portraits on the surrounding walls broke into a storm of protest" and Dippet is mentioned:
We are honor-bound to give service to the present Headmaster of Hogwarts!” cried a frail-looking old wizard whom Harry recognized as Dumbledore’s predecessor, Armando Dippet. “Shame on you, Phineas!”
So, Dippet had a portrait in the headmaster's office by Christmas 1996. He is mentioned sparingly over the next 2 books but he does not appear in Snape's memories so we can rule that and him being on the wall in 1991 out as a source. Now the newspaper was probably something invented mainly for the film. We don't know if Jo was part of the newspaper's invention. But nothing in book canon tells us when Dippet died. We know he was no longer headmaster by the end of 1957. So Dippet cannot tell us whether someone has to die in office to get a portrait. Personally, I think it makes more sense that you have to die with a good enough name to get a portrait. But until Jo says anything else, we can't definitively prove anything. --User:EmilyMills22 17:53, June 18 2016
Does anyone have the COS DVD Disc 2 with the Tour of Dumbledore's Office special feature? This walkthrough video shows that you can look around the Headmaster's office and there are hints of some novel headmaster portraits on display. Might be the easiest way to find a Dippet portrait from 1992 (although it could still be after the 1 Sep Prophet article so doesn't really resolve that issue, just establishes first portrait appearance). (The OOTP book appearance is Christmas 1995 yes?)
I agree that the COS Daily Prophet Prop was never meant to be read up close - the subject of the article changes about half way through and the text becomes disjointed sentence fragments. I think MinaLima learned their lesson and only made headlines legible for later Prophet props, but we're still left with this oddity to sort out.
Clearly Armando Dippet needs some rewrites - let's discuss here:Armando_Dippet#Biography --Ironyak1 (talk) 19:24, June 18, 2016 (UTC)
Yes sorry! I did mean 1995. I looked at my COS DVD Disk 2 and toured the office but did not see a portrait which looks like Armando's. I searched on the internet to see if I could find a better video of the tour and I did! Here is a link to a tour which explores the entire office in more detail than the one you posted. Skip forward to minute 6 and the tour starts. However, strangely enough at 9:21 in the back room of the office, there is what appears to be a portrait of Dumbledore so this maybe supports Jo's comment that a headteacher gets their portrait made while in office and then "keeps it under lock and key, regularly visiting it in its cupboard (if so desired) to teach it to act and behave exactly like themselves, and imparting all kinds of useful memories and pieces of knowledge that may then be shared through the centuries with their successors in office” I will move my thoughts on any possible Armando Dippet rewrites to the page you mentioned but I don't remember Armando being in any of the films and his first portrait appearance in the book is in the OOTP. There is no canon mention of his death so we have no way to prove whether he died to get his portrait up. EmilyMills22 19:57 June 18, 2016 (UTC)
Nice find on the youtube walk-through! On the DVD, can you wingardium leviosa up to the portraits on the wall one more turn to the right than the one shown there? At The Making of Harry Potter, Dippet's portrait is on the left of the headmaster's desk when facing in, to the right of the Sword of Gryffindor and above Unidentified Sleeping Headmaster in Blue. See this image. There is also a brief look at this wall when coming down the stairs (see first walkthough at 3:35. I'm away from my copies of the films, so I am not sure where Dippet's portrait appears in COS and figured it must have been part of the tour feature. Thanks so much for looking into this! --Ironyak1 (talk) 20:34, June 18, 2016 (UTC)
No problem! Sorry it took so long to get back to you :)
No, I do not see Dippet’s portrait up on the DVD Tour when I “wingardium leviosa” to the top right either! I think it is worth noting that there are other portraits in your picture which are not on the DVD either. There are even portraits on the DVD which do not appear in your picture. If that makes sense! Although strangely, The Sleeping Headmaster in Blue is in the same place.
But for example, on the DVD there are portraits up on alongside the cabient on the right but there are no portraits alongside it in your picture. So, the layout on the DVD is different from the layout at the Studio Tour. There are some similarities but unfortunately still no Dippet!
So it appears Armando’s portrait was at least not made by the time of the Chamber of Secrets film production. Whether Jo envisions it to have been up by the 1992-1993 school year remains to be said.
But I may be able to shed at least some light on the death date of Armando. Jo gave an interview about her books in August 2004. She answers a question about how “All the paintings we have seen at Hogwarts are of dead people.” And she says: “They are all of dead people” and that "The place where you see them really talk is in Dumbledore’s office, primarily; the idea is that the previous headmasters and headmistresses leave behind a faint imprint of themselves. They leave their aura, almost, in the office and they can give some counsel to the present occupant, but it is not like being a ghost". The Order of the Phoenix book was released in 2003 which was obviously before Jo gave the interview. So Armando Dippet was certainly dead by Christmas 1995. I think this also further proves you have to die to get a portrait put up because the idea of having a portrait is so they can leave their aura behind to help future headteachers. If they were still alive, there wouldn't be much need for a portrait - you can send an owl or visit them in person. And since the headteachers have to teach the portrait and they keep it under lock and key and can feach it for as long as they like to think like them, they may well keep teaching it for as a long as they can. –User:EmilyMills22 21:50, June 18 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for double-checking! I know it's a lot of work, but if you ever have some time and can screen capture/print screen the portraits seen there and post them in the wiki I would be extremely grateful! From what I've seen on the youtube videos, the layout and some of the portraits are unique to that source and would be extremely helpful in the quest to capture images of all known headmasters (I have just a handful left to post from the 48 portraits seen at The Making of Harry Potter).
I will watch the Dumbledore's Office scenes from COS/POA/GOF/OOTP in slow-mo (once again) when I get home to see when Dippet's portrait shows up just to establish first appearance. ETA: That didn't take long - found it in COS - 2 above Antonia Creaseworthy. I'll add a note to Armando Dippet as well.
As for your other points, all the evidence you gave reinforces the notion that all the portraits at Hogwarts are of dead people, and that headmasters spend time imprinting themselves on their portrait that are kept in a cabinet until the time of their death, at which point the portraits magically appear in the headmaster's office - unless they had (like Snape) "abandoned" their post (however you interpret that word). Thanks again! --Ironyak1 (talk) 03:01, June 19, 2016 (UTC)
Wow - well done for noticing him! I will screen capture everything on the DVD tour over the next week and then brighten the screen captures up a bit so we can see them properly. I think I can kind of make Armando out now so when I get to my computer and brighten up the screen capture I will let you know if it is him. So since Jo's comments point to portraits being of dead people only then Dippet must have died by late May 1993. The same goes to the others - their first portrait appearance on the wall is after they have died. -- EmilysMills22 (talk) 10:24, June 19, 2016 (UTC)
Cool - thanks! Really look forward to the DVD portrait screenshots. From the vids I can see at least 2 new headmaster portraits and the DVD may have a better angle than The Making of Harry Potter on several others. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 19:11, June 19, 2016 (UTC)
Advertisement