Maby I was to fast to make this. But I think we need it :). I did see the Love page with information about the feeling, this is more about the love that protects Harry but I don´t know :/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs).
- Love is intended to cover all the ways that feeling effects magic, from sacrificial protection, to Patronuses. ★ Starstuff (Owl me!) 11:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- I concur, the content here needs to be added to "Love" and the page redirected.Green Zubat 02:43, July 2, 2011 (UTC)
Why are we considering the effects of Harry's sacrifice as not confirmed? The entire "your spells are not binding" seemed to have confirmed it. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 20:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
As I understand it may had been a lie in order to make Voldemort think i had lost. :) But it is a subjekt to discuss! =)
--220.127.116.11 19:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Not really. Harry himself says, I've done what my mother did, we need no more than that. Jayden Matthews 19:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah you right. Could you change that? But I have one question. I have only read the Swedish versions of the books but did not Harry say Haven´t you noticed Voldemort? You can´t touch them.? So should not that proof that the Life sacrifice protects from all spells? --Kraftword 08:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Bloomsbury edition, page 591, lines 29 to 32: I've done what my mother did. They're protected from you. Haven't you noticed how come none of spells you put on them are binding? You can't torture them. You can't touch them. Yup, he said that. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 15:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
The fact that Harry's sacrifice conferred protection on his allies is further confirmed by the fact that we actually see the spells Voldemort casts on them wear off. ★ Starstuff (Owl me!) 11:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
So The Sacrificial protection protects from all major hexes and curses? And is it effective only against one caster or everyone? --Kraftword 23:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
What about the fact that while Harry was under the invisibility cloak, he was casting shield charms between Voldemort and anyone he was casting spells at. I realize what Harry actually said to Voldemort as quoted above, but I also don't remember (and i just finished reading book 7 for the 100th time), any actual instances of voldemort's spells hitting their mark and not effecting the person as the spell should have. --BachLynn23 17:13, July 28, 2010 (UTC)
- When Voldemort was addressing the crowd of Hogwarts defenders while showing Harry's "corpse", they yelled at him, and he cast a Silencing Charm over them. But then they yelled again, and he had to cast the spell again. Then Neville was able to break free of the Full Body-Bind Curse moments after it was put on him. None of the spells he cast on the defenders held for very long. (Scholastic ed., ch.36, p.730-733) - Nick O'Demus 17:17, July 28, 2010 (UTC)
Extent of protection/inconsistency
When Harry's sacrifice protects the people at Hogwarts, it seems to extend to spells other than Avada Kedavra. However, Harry's mother's protection doesn't seem to protect Harry/reduce the effectiveness of spells used on him throughout the years. --Stevehim 17:47, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
- I can't remember where, maybe it was Dumbledore that said it, but Harry's Mother's protection only protected him against Lord Voldemort, and only while he had a home at Petunia's house. As to how exactly Harry's sacrifice protected everyone at Hogwarts, except it only protected them from Voldemort. Then again Harry's mother only died for Harry, where as Harry died literally for everyone, so I'm sure that shaped the protection in a different way then his mother's did for him. Just a theory. --BachLynn23 18:40, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
J.K Rowling said this:
"Harry receives magical protection from his mother's sacrifice as long as he remains close to her blood. In other words, Aunt Petunia. That protection won't continue to hold once he is a man, once he turns 17 - he is no longer given that protective aura by his mother, so Dumbledore wants him to go back one more time to ensure the protection continues to his 17th birthday and after that he really is on his own."
Now, There are some things i dont get, and there are some things that creates paradox.
1. What Dumbeldore's charm actually did?
2. The Hogwarts Warriors are alredy 17!!! How do they get protecion?
3. If Dumbeldore wasn't casting nothing on Private drive 4, Was Harry still being protected from Voldemort?
- 1. Presumably Dumbledore ALLOWED for that "blood relative-thing" to actually take place. If Dumbledore had done nothing, probably Lily's protection would have worn off after a while and Harry would have been vulnerable again. Dumbledore made it so that the protection lingered.
- 2. My opinion? Lily's protection was used to protect an infant Harry and, as stated, this WOULD have diminished after a fairly short amount of time. Dumbledore's charm extended the time, but only so far as Harry legally became of age, and thus was "his own man" at 17. Thus the motherly protection of a child wouldn't function anymore. Harry was able to protect the Hogwarts Army because he was protecting them IN THAT MOMENT. Again, presumably after some time, Voldemort defeated or not, that protection would have worn off.
- 3. I don't understand this question. Harry was protected from Voldemort so long as he called Private Drive home and visited it (AS a home) at least once a year. This is one of the "clauses," as it were, of Dumbledore's charm. 18.104.22.168 01:05, August 22, 2011 (UTC)
I think I have some information that could improve this article:
In the "Behind the Scenes" section, the first bullet point says "It would seem that the protection can take effect even if the opportunity for self preservation is presented only by circumstance." I believe the circumstance you are looking for is not Voldemort's one-hour warning, but the prophecy itself which states that "either must die at the hand of the other, for neither can live while the other survives."
Dumbledore explains this in HBP, Chapter 23. He tells Harry that since the prophecy is subject to free will, it allows him the option to walk away from his destiny:
- "You see, the prophecy does not mean you have to do anything! But the prophecy caused Lord Voldemort to mark you as his equal... In other words, you are free to choose your way, quite free to turn your back on the prophecy! But Voldemort continues to set store by the prophecy. He will continue to hunt you... which makes it certain, really, that --"
- "That one of us is going to end up killing the other," said Harry.
So he was free to walk away from Voldemort's one-hour warning, because he had always been free from the beginning to walk away from his destiny. To further support this idea, in The Prince's Tale, Dumbledore gives special instructions to Snape about the way Harry must die:
- "So the boy... the boy must die?" asked Snape quite calmly.
- "And Voldemort himself must do it, Severus. That is essential."
This is because Dumbledore has correctly interpreted the part of the prophecy stating "either must die at the hand of the other". He is trying to ensure that Harry "dies at the hand of the other" not only to destroy the soul-fragment, but to confer magical protection upon his companions as well.
Also, in The Forest Again, we see Harry reflecting on the words of the prophecy (underlined & bolded), because he finally understands what really happened to him when he was "marked" as a baby; he became a horcrux, and he had to die at Voldemort's hand in order to destroy it, and make him mortal again:
- "...Harry understood at last that he was not supposed to survive, His job was to walk calmly into Death's welcoming arms. Along the way, he was to dispose of Voldemort's remaining links to life, so that when he last flung himself across Voldemort's path, and did not raise a wand to defend himself, the end would be clean, and the job that ought to have been done in Godric's Hollow would be finished. Neither would live, neither could survive."
So that's why his sacrifice worked: He knew since 6th year that he had the choice to walk away, but only after finding out that he was a horcrux did he realize how that choice would affect not only everyone he loved, but the entire wizarding & muggle worlds as well. He refused to let anyone else suffer for him, and so he chose to face his destiny and die at Voldemort's hand. Since he didn't know there was a chance of surviving AK, he believed he was dying for his friends and the betterment of the world, and his sacrifice conferred magical protection onto them.
Essentially, he did do what his mother did. The main difference in the charms cast by each sacrifice is that Lily's was able to rebound Voldemort's curse, while Harry's only made Voldemort's spells weaker/non-biding to his victims. This may have to do with Lily's option to live being extended by the same person who killed her vs. Harry's true option to walk away being afforded to him through the prophecy.
Maybe I have it all wrong tho (I'm a latecomer to the series).
Feedback is welcome :)
Okay, can someone explain this to me? There was no incantation we heard and no one actually gave us a straight answer what Lily did to protect Harry, in the books anyway. Well, besides the "power of love." Is Lily Evans honestly the first witch to ever die for her child? I never saw or read she cast a spell. Maybe a ritual several months earlier or something, but how do we know this is an actual spell?
In Harry's speech the 'you can't touch them' thing, I kinda thought that was figutarive. Like an older brother saying that bullies couldn't touch you while he was around. If someone could clear this up for me, thanks!
- As I have understood, Lily has not used a spell. It happened because Voldemort gave her the chance to step away but she refused. Then he killed her.
- Normally a killer would not give the parents any chance. Voldemort hadn't given this chance to James, only to Lily because of Snapes request. After she had the chance and refused, the killing of her built the protection. That was, how I understood this.
- 14:34, October 2, 2014 (UTC)