This article is faulty.
Voldemort doesn't die due to the elder wand protecting Harry and reflecting the spell back, he dies as Harry died protecting Hogwarts school. It is the same kind of situation that protected Harry when Voldemort tried to kill Harry the first time (when Lily dies for Harry). However, when this occured Voldemort was not killed as he had the Horcruxes protecting him and keeping him alive. The next time this event occurs (battle of Hogwarts) Voldemort has no Horcruxes protecting him and thus, as Harry died for Hogwarts,the spell is reflected and Voldemort dies. I know this wasn't put very well but this is the gist of it. N.B- I always wondered how Dumbledore won the wand of Grindewald in the first place. If it happened in a duel which is stated in the books, then how did he beat Grindewald as Grindewald had the Elder wand and therefore would have won every duel?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs).
- First, the Elder Wand did not recognize Voldemort as its master, it knew Harry was its true master. If you will read the duel sequence again, you'll see a line that says something like "flying towards the master it would not kill". The fact that Harry was willing to die for Hogwarts is irrelevant, related to something totally different, namely that none of Voldemort's curses would bind on the students and teachers of Hogwarts because he (Harry) had died to protect them. Second, the incidences of the spell reflection in the Harry/Voldy duel and the murder and attempted murder of Lily and Baby Harry are different in that the one thing protecting Harry as a baby was his mother's love, a.k.a. "deep magic". We have no evidence that this deep magic acted in the same way when Harry sacrificed himself, and even then, if it did, Harry should have died and someone else (e.g. Neville) should have reflected the spell. That's the way the magic works: someone dies for someone else, the murderer goes for the someone else, and is killed because of the earlier sacrifice. And we only know this to work for family. On the other hand, we are certain that, having won the Elder Wand from Draco Malfoy (note that all those instances since Grindelwald when the Wand changes hands are technicalities), Harry was protected by it in the sense that it would never attempt to harm or kill him - hence the ineffectiveness of the Cruciatus Curse Voldy used on him. Third, the belief that the Elder Wand would grant the possessor total invulnerability is just that - a belief and a myth. The fact is that the Wand is so tremendously powerful that in the right hands, it will definitely serve to protect the owner from all manner of attack. Yet we know that Dumbledore and Grindelwald were equals, and even that Grindelwald was frightened by the prospect of being attacked by Dumbledore. Since magic and wizardry is so heavily influenced by psychology, it could be that the Wand sensed Grindelwald's fear, and failed to act as it should have during that climactic duel. Or it could simply be that Dumbledore was more powerful, and thus won the duel by sheer skill and talent. The Chosen One (Choose me!) 12:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe that Voldemort died because of both the facts that Harry was the true master of the Elder Wand and the fact that Harry willingly sacrificed himself for the good of the others. There is a line when these two circle each other in the Great Hall that goes like this: "If it's not love that will save you this time, sail Voldemort, you must believe that you have magic that I do not, or else a weapon more powerful than mine? -I believe both, said Harry". The magic that Voldemort doesn't have is the power of sacrifice and the weapon is the Elder wand, or at least, that is what I think. Perhaps this quote would be useful in the actual article.--Ohmbun 16:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I noticed a few spelling errors in this and fixed them. KellyLeighC 15:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
"In general wizards seem to eschew elder wands, favoring wands made from various other woods" Isn't it that "the wand chooses the wizard - therefore you cannot relly avoid elder wands? --Malhelo 21:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- 2 possible scenarios: 1. wandmakers don't use elder wood due to the superstition ( I expect they don't use yew either anymore) 2. whop says only one wand can choose a wizard? in other words, wizards only buy non-elder wands. --Sstabeler 18:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- In the case of the wand belonging to Antioch, "Elder" means "oldest" or "most senior." However I think that what Ron is referring to in "Wand of elder, never prosper" is a wand made of wood from the Elder tree. It's a type of tree. Judas, from the New Testament, is thought to have hanged himself from an Elder tree and in the Middle Ages people had superstition about that type of tree because of that. That superstition is probably the reasoning behind that phrase. I don't believe that Willow is in the same family as Elder.Mafalda Hopkirk 19:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that "wizards seem to eschew elder wands" means that wizards do not try elder wands out often (trying them being the only way to know if a wand chooses you, with the exception of vine, which can choose you just by being in the same room—Green Zubat (owl me!). 05:56, September 12, 2011 (UTC)
Grindelwald stole the wand right? so it shouldn't be his but should remain Gregorovitch's. and voldemort killed Gregorovitch so it should be his. so basically voldemort should have won. does anyone here have an explanation for that? it just really bugs me. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darth Admony (talk • contribs).
- Please sign your name on all talk pages. As to your question - the Elder Wand, like other wands, doesn't transfer its allegiance by the death alone. Grindelwald stole the wand, in effect beating Gregorvitch (albeit sneakily). It's the same principal as Draco become master of the wand after simply disarming Dumbledore. - Cavalier One(Wizarding Wireless Network) 21:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- But then that leads to yet another plot hole, doesn't it? I mean, if Grindelwald was the true master of the Elder Wand and used it in his duel with Dumbledore in 1945, shouldn't Grindelwald have won? If the Elder Wand is unbeatable in a duel when used by its true master, how could Grindelwald have lost to Dumbledore? I've been looking all over for a Rowling quote or something in the books to explain this loophole, and I've found nothing. 220.127.116.11 23:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC) Steven117
- The Elder Wand does not give its owner invulnerability. Note the way that the Elder Wand's allegiance changes - its current master must be defeated (commonly by murder or stealth). Also, remember the number of people who are said to have wielded the Elder Wand - they must have lost the wand sometime in their lives for the Wand's power to remain intact.John of Gaunt 11:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with john and cavalier. the elder wand doesn't give you 100% chance of defeating someone. You have to have skill. The elder wand would only grant you power beyond any other wand.
The Elder Wand isn't invincible. According to Dumbledore's theory, the Peverell brothers were very talented wizards who invented very powerful items, and the fact that they actually tricked and defetead Death itself it's just a legend grown around the Deathly Hallows. So the fact that the Elder Wand is indeed very powerful does not mean it is down right unbeatable.--Ohmbun 16:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I have noticed that people seem to think that whoever possesses the Elder Wand, should be guaranteed victories in duels. This is not the case. Duels are determined by casting proficiently, intelligence, and swift decisiveness. The Elder Wand drastically increases spell power. So, in a collision of magic, it will typically be superior. It also probably would increase the duration of a spell, and its area of effect. However, that is it. Not all duels, are a constant display of one spell directly opposing another. There is footwork involved. If a one hundred year old man wielded the wand, that's not as fit as Dumbledore, and he faced an eighteen year old boy, he could be bested just because he couldn't move out of harms way fast enough. So, to sum this up, in a contest of spell power, the Elder Wand is superior to everything else. However, wits, dueling capability, and correct response to situations are determined by the measure of the wizard, not the wand. ~The Immortal Entity
I've always wondered, though, if all one's needs to do to obtain the Elder Wand is steal it, then how is Voldemort not its master? Draco is the master after disarming Dumbledore - that makes sense. Then, when the wand is in the tomb, Voldemort stole the wand (from Draco). Now, it could be said that Voldemort would have had Draco's consent to take it if he had been asked, but I highly doubt he was. So then, the only explanation I can come up with is that because Draco would have consented to give the wand to Voldemort had he been consulted the wand understood a sort of implicit consent and thus the wand was not taken against his will. At the same time, however, Draco did not know that he had the wand was his, so it could be argued that the wand could not be taken against his will at all. So, it seems that there is a bit of a plot hole, unless someone would care to explain this. 18.104.22.168 21:12, January 5, 2012 (UTC)
The wandlore rule is that if a person wishes to take another's wand, he must disarm, stun or kill the owner. Stealing does not count as defeating. I quote from another page in this website: "...one night when Gregorovitch heard someone break into his workshop. He promptly ran inside and saw a blonde-haired young man had taken the wand, who then promptly shot a Stunning Spell at Gregorovitch, before leaping out the window..." This means that the wand DID change its allegiance to Grindelwald that night because he had stunned the original owner. And according to the order of events, if I am correct, the Elder Wand belonged to Harry at the time Voldemort took it out of Dumbledore's grave. And Harry would have never willingly surrendered the wand to Voldy. So in effect, Voldy stole the wand from Harry and, thus, the wand never belonged to him. Plot hole solved!
The article states that Thestral hair was used in the wand core, but where was this stated? It was never mentioned in the books and I don't recall it ever being mentioned in an interview. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs).
- JK Rowling's official website - here is the page link. - Cavalier One(Wizarding Wireless Network) 23:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- That must be supplemental information given by Rowling on the internet.John of Gaunt 11:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Harry's mastery of the elder wand
So, at the end of the book, Harry says that if he doesn't get killed, the EW's power will die when he dies a natural death. But doesn't all someone have to do is Disarm him?
Come to think of it, did Harry really become the master of the EW at the Malfoy Manner? The EW was in the tomb at that time. How did the EW "know" what was going on at the Manor. I think it may have only switched sides when it "saw" that Harry was using Malfoy's wand much later - which had been previously used to disarm Dumbledore. Therefore, it associated Harry with Malfoy's wand.
Anyone else see this? MisterRandom2 15:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
the elder wand would know what happened because draco had the wand's allegiance. when harry disarmed him, he had the wands allegiance. THE WAND DOESN'T NEED TO SEE THEIR MASTER DISARMED! THIS IS MAGIC!! --SEATTLE♥WIZARD 03:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Dude, there's no need to shout. MisterRandom2 16:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I think that a wand wouldn't change allegiance unless the battle were for real. As you remember there was plenty of dissarming in the Room of Requirement without any of them mentioning that their wands stopped listening to them. In a real life duel, when the wand carriers are most concentrated and at the top of their skills, then is when a defeated wand may choose another master. So I believe it is out of the question that Harry would lose the mastering of the Elder Wand accidentally, and as far as losing it in a battle..well, Voldemort himself couldn't defeat him so that has to count for something.--Ohmbun 16:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
So, if I understand this correctly, Harry was the True Master of the Elder Wand after he stole Draco’s wand. The reason why the Killing Curse from the Elder Wand didn’t rebound on Voldemort in the forest was because Harry didn’t intend to fight back - just like Dumbledore planned his death with Snape. However, because Voldemort took Harry’s blood, the only part of Harry that was destroyed was fragment of Voldemort’s soul. After Harry woke up, he intended to keep himself alive, thus the Killing Curse rebounded on the Voldemort the second time around. Had the Curse rebounded on Voldemort in the forest, Voldemort would not have been destroyed because he still had two Horcruxes left. The question now is after 19 years, is Harry still the master of the EW?
-- MisterRandom2 17:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
As far as we know, yes! "All was well".--Ohmbun 18:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps this still doesn't answer the question of: "What happens if Harry is disarmed by an enemy wizard in a real battle? i.e No side remaining passive (like Harry in the forest or Dumbledore with Snape). Both sides actively fighting?" Can we safely assume that the wand will change allegiance to the enemy wizard?" 126.96.36.199 06:52, December 23, 2010 (UTC) N.K.
- Yes, but the user is likely never to claim the wand, and therefore exert their mastery over it. --JKoch(Owl Me!) 07:08, December 23, 2010 (UTC)
I think this point is important enough to be added to the "Behind the scenes" section. Harry has been shown to take this responsibility very seriously (by considering how to break its power), and so when faced in an open duel that he wasn't certain of winning (or one where the intention of the aggressor was to gain mastery of the Elder Wand) he would presumably lose intentionally in order to retain mastery of the wand. J Koch has a good point, and in fact if Harry was ever defeated unwittingly the mastery of the Elder Wand would become harder and harder to trace if they were defeated in their turn, in effect becoming almost impossible for a dark wizard to track down—one of its masters would die undefeated sooner rather than later. Harry's job as an Auror and his high profile would act against him, so this would perhaps be a more certain end to the wand's power. --xensyriaT 14:30, July 10, 2012 (UTC)
In the last book J.K. Rowling saids that Harry was the Master of the Elder wand, and then he repared his wand of holly and Phoenix Core, so than means that you can be the master of not only one wand? Thanks if you Answer me. FenixRiver 16:36, November 28, 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. Each wand has only one master, but a wizard can be the master of many wands. PhilippeAuguste 11:49, July 20, 2011 (UTC)
Mastery vs. Possession
Since this has been nominated for Featured Article. Anyone editing this page: Mastery of the Wand does not require possession and possession does NOT mean you are the wands master. --Hcoknhoj 21:50, January 10, 2010 (UTC)
On JKR´s homepage.--Rodolphus 18:41, February 7, 2010 (UTC)
- I have deleted the following from the section "power":
- "As The Elder Wand was the only wand in existence that has Thestral tail hair as its core, it was also immune from the Priori Incantatem effect, adding to its power."
The citation 9 was simply "it says so on JKRs website". I've looked, and it doesn't. Unless a direct link is provided to this statement, it can't be considered true. The latter statement is arrived at via deduction from the former and therefore is also suspect.
Indeed, it is worth noting that Gregorovich is said to have experimented to try to replicate the Elder wand's power. While we are not told that this involved other wands using Thestral hair, it is possible.188.8.131.52 10:47, May 13, 2011 (UTC)
Killing the user
Ok, so in the book it says that the Elder Wand is passed on by killing the previous owner. Neither Dumbledore, Draco, or Harry killed its previous owner. But then how did they gain control of the wand? Or is that just the legend created about the Death;y Hallows?--Qim1 22:20, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
- They had to defeat the previous owner. It wasn't necessary to kill them. In each of their cases, the previous owner was either overpowered or disarmed. 184.108.40.206 22:29, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
- I see. Hmm... Strange, I thought I read somewhere that the user had to be killed though...--Qim1 22:36, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
- Harry actually does ask Ollivander that after they rescue him, but he says he's not certain, and that previous owners killing each other may have more to do with their own desires to claim it rather than a requirement for mastery. 220.127.116.11 22:41, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
- Can someone answer something for me? In the last movie Voldemort cut Snape's throat with the Elder Wand, but the wand is not supposed to physicaly harm the owner if the owner wants to remain unharmed. If Voldemort's so smart wouldn't he have guessed that since he was able to do that to Snape with the wand that Snape wasn't it's owner?
- Voldemort slashing Snape's throat is non-canon, as it contradicts the book. At any rate, Voldemort shows himself to be extremely ignorant in matters of wandlore. He still attacked Harry with the Elder Wand after Harry declared himself the wand's master, so it's likely that Voldemort was simply unaware of that particular trait. Jayden Matthews 12:27, September 17, 2011 (UTC)
Appearance in Prisoner of Azkaban
Unless if I'm missing something, the Elder Wand never appeared in the Prisoner of Azkaban film. The first appearance of the Wand in the films was in The Goblet of Fire in many different scenes. Sorry if I'm way off on this matter. --Black Pearl, HMS Interceptor, Queen Anne's Revenge 08:41, July 13, 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the above statement. I don't recall anywhere in the third film that the Elder Wand appeared. AlastorMoody 19:42, July 21, 2011 (UTC)
Was Dumbledoor killed by the Elder wand or was he disarmed by malfoy and then killed by snapes own wand? I'm cofused by some of the comments on here. Anyone know? At the end the Elder Wand does not hurt its master (harry), yet Voldemort uses the Elder Wand in the forbiden forest to kill him and it sends him to "harry potter heaven", why did it not backfire on voldemort at that time and leave harry unscathed as happened later?
And as to answer the user above; Dumbledore was not killed by the Elder Wand. Draco Malfoy Disarmed Dumbledore, thus becoming the master of the Wand, and then Snape killed Dumbledore with his own wand. And as to the second part: The Elder Wand was able to kill Harry because he willingly sacrificed himself to Voldemort, much like how Harry's mother sacrificed her life for her son, and then Harry went to Limbo, or what you call "Harry Potter heaven". Later when they duelled for the final time in the Great Hall, Harry had no intention on dying and because of that, the Elder Wand refused to kill its true master and rebounded Voldemort's Killing Curse back to the caster.... And by the way, it says all of this on the page itself... all you had to do was look. AlastorMoody 19:55, July 21, 2011 (UTC)
Would You Consider the Part 2 of Deathly Hollows as Canon?
- Oops! Sorry. I didn't realize the pointlessness of the question. Since the Deathly Hallows film is an imperfect derivative based on the book, it cannot truly be canon. Let me rephrase the question: is the possibility of the Elder Wand being broken canonical? PhilippeAuguste 14:01, July 20, 2011 (UTC)
The only thing I don't like about this is the ending about the wands. Harry's old Phoenix wand is not repaired. Worse, Harry was able to break the Elder Wand. Is this possible? According to the theory of book-version Harry Potter, the power of the Elder Wand would remain intact, unless he dies undefeated, at which point its power would be broken. The Elder Wand is an unbreakable wand. How could Harry just snap it like that? All that magical power in the greatest wand of all time could be broken just by Harry's physical strength? Not possible, people. If that was possible, portrait-Dumbledore could just have instructed Snape to break it. PhilippeAuguste 11:58, July 20, 2011 (UTC)
As far as I understand the policy, the fact that it can be broken is canon. It's highly unlikely that it is unbreakable, given it's just a piece of wood filled with a horse hair.
Rodolphus 12:06, July 20, 2011 (UTC)
- It's only "highly unlikely" if we are talking about real-world wands, made of a piece of wood. Ordinary magical wands in the Harry Potter world can be broken physically, but I believe the Elder Wand deserves some special treatment. Though the Master of the Elder Wand is "beatable", the Wand itself is not. As one of the three Deathly Hallows, and the most powerful of the three, it is unbeatable and unbreakable. The vast amount of magical power stored within it should probably protect it from such an ignominious end. In the end of the seventh book, the fate of the Elder Wand is Harry and Dumbledore's primary concern. After repairing his Phoenix wand, Harry was no longer interested in the Elder Wand, since it's "more trouble than its worth." Book-Harry and film-Harry had the same intention - to end the terrible power of the Elder Wand. Book-Harry believes he could accomplish this by dying undefeated, taking the same path as Dumbledore. At no point in time did Harry, or his friends, or Dumbledore, contemplate destroying the Elder Wand - either physically or magically - it's simply because the Elder Wand cannot yet be destroyed. What Harry and Dumbledore were hoping for was that, if the last master dies undefeated, the wand's power will be broken. Yet Film-Harry easily accomplished something that would take Book-Harry a lifetime to accomplish - he simply broke the Wand. Now, if that is canonical, shouldn't Book-Harry just have done the same? He had announced to the world that he is the Master of the Elder Wand. He is a folk hero and all, but he made himself a target for the future generation of Dark Wizards. If Book-Harry (canonical Harry), could break the wand, then he should have broken it right after repairing his Phoenix wand, just as Film-Harry, had done. PhilippeAuguste 13:45, July 20, 2011 (UTC)
Of course the wand can be broken. In the series the wands have never been depicted as indestructible (look at Harry and Ron's wands). The elder wand might be more powerful than most wands, but that doesn't change the fact that it is just a piece of wood. Of course, it is still not canon that Harry broke the wand, since it conflicts with the books, but with or without the new movie it would always have been a safe assumption that one could break the elder wand.Icecreamdif 16:09, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
The fact of the matter is that film canon is "real" canon unless it coflicts with a higher source (the books). Harry breaking it in the film cannot be considered its canon end according to the wiki's canon policiy. According to the Policy, books win, so the Elder Wand was buried with Dumbledore.
HOWEVER, no one gave evidence in the book that the wand cannot be broken in the books, just no one ever tried it. The only evidence of its indestructibility (or lack thereof) is the films, which show that it is possible.
- Hmm, my interpretation is that according to this wiki's heirarchy of canonicities the complete episode of the wand being broken in the final film is overruled by the last book, and that specific characteristics of the wand from that episode (such as the wand's breakability) would also be overruled. As a result, the possibility of the wand being broken remains unknown by this wiki's definition of canon. --xensyriaT 14:04, July 10, 2012 (UTC)
while going through "the half-blood prince" i noticed something. when draco disarmed dumbledore, the elder wand went flying and fell out of the tower. now this might just be my bad understanding of physics and mass, but shouldnt such a fall have shattered a thin tree stick to pieces? unless of course one of its abilitys is extreme durability, and if so, should we add it?--18.104.22.168 14:39, January 3, 2012 (UTC
Reply 1: I don't know if you are talking about the movie or the book. I have not read the book but I have watched the movie. And in the movie, it is not shown that the Elder Wand falls out of the tower, it just falls onto the ground (you can hear the sound of it falling on the ground/floor). And even if the book version says that the wand falls off the tower, it shouldn't technically cause damage to the wand since it is a very thin long piece of stick. It is like dropping a pencil from a great height (though a bit longer and slightly thicker).
Can someone tell me when and where is it stated that Gregorovitch was one of the masters of the Elder Wand, please? I perfectly know that he was one of his owners but I didn't find that he was his master.
- But why wouldn't he be the master if he was the owner? Your English is fine, by the way :) --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 19:54, May 29, 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe to study it in order to make similar wands? But I know that's a strange reflection because if Gregorovitch wasn't the master of the wand, Grindelwald wouldn't be it too.
- Thank you :) We are magic (talk) 20:06, May 29, 2013 (UTC)
Elder Wand Killing Harry
The moment Voldemort uses the Elder Wand to try to kill Harry, the Elder Wand's Master, a lot of things take effect at the same time.
- The Elder Wand cannot kill its own master, resulting in Harry only getting uncouncious and dream the part of "Harry's Heaven"
- The Curse backfires off Harry onto Voldemort's Horcux inside Harry(or something like that), thus destroying the Horcux effect in Harry, making Voldemort killable as Harry was the last Horcux available for Voldemort.
- Harry gets defeated by Voldemort, but defeats Voldemort right back due to the Horcux effect, and thus stays the master of the Elder Wand
I think this explains everything, any comments are appreciated.