5 Harry Potter Theories Too Good Not To Be True
Vložit
- čas přidán 18. 01. 2017
- This video is sponsored by Dollar Shave Club! Go to www.dollarshaveclub.com/thewhy and get a one month membership of ANY razor for $1. Free shipping, no commitments, cancel anytime!
So like many of you, I have very fond memories of reading the Harry Potter books while I was growing up. That is why I'm bringing you 5 Harry Potter Theories Too Good Not To Be True!
Leave a comment telling me if you agree with these theories!
Song used - Into the Abyss (Jon Adamich) - Krátké a kreslené filmy
Most magical thing about Harry Potter; No acne.
The actors actually did have acne. They just used a lot of make-up.
potocatepetl He wasn't talking about Daniel Radcliffe
Did you ever read about Eloise Midgen?
Eloise Midgen was a girl from Gryffindor, she had a bad case of acne and at one point when the trio are talking about the Yule Ball, Ron says "I'd rather go alone than with- with Eloise Midgen!" to which Hermione responds "Her acne's loads better lately - and she's really nice."
Don't forget about Stan Shunpike, he had a big acne problem too
With number 2 Voldemort killed the horcrux in harry and harry didn't die because the elder wand couldn't kill its master
Cameron Field Ikr 😆
Finaly someone.
ithe only thing that can die is the horcrux inside him
+ -SSB- + Cameron Field The basic rule about killing a Horcrux is that its container must be damaged beyond repair. If the wand choose not to kill Harry as per the common explanation, the part of Voldermort within Harry would not have been destroyed. Since the horcrux was destroyed , Harry must have ACTUALLY died at one point. Therefore, the elder wand actually succeeded in killing Harry and his eventual Resurrection was caused by an unforeseen factor. This channel theorized that it was the reunited deathly hollows.
EXACTLY IT'S EXPLAINED THAT THE ELDER WAND COULDN'T KILL IT'S MASTER AND THAT SNAPE DIED BECAUSE VOLDEMORT THOUGHT THAT SNAPE WAS THE MASTER BUT DRACO WAS AND WHEN HARRY DISARMED DRACO HARRY BECAME THE MASTER THEREFORE VOLDEMORT COULD NOT KILL HIM
Immortal Harry theory is depressing!
Ikr 😢
It can't be true. He miunderstood the prophecy. It meant neither can live while the other survives. Now that the horcrux within hary is destroyed,harey can live a normal life. This is clear from the fact that harry has aged 19 years later in the prologue so clearly he is as mortal as the next person.
@@isikhayatim Immortal means that you can't die, not that you can't age. That fact was determined in the case of Nicholas Flamel and his Philosopher's Stone - he was physically a 600+ year old man holding back death - not a young man who could never grow older (NB: he's in the second "Fantastic Beasts" movie). If this theory were true, Harry would just keep getting older and older, not remain an ageless boy all his life.
MarcusBritish I thought Nicholas Flamel was already old when he created the philosophers stone? I’m pretty sure he and Dumbledore were not contemporaries when they became friends.
I know I sort of hope it isn't true! Could you imagine like 400 years later him watching his great X a lot grandchildren going off to Hogwarts and just missing Ginny, Ron, Hermonie and everyone he grew up with! I'd have gone back for the resurrection stone as soon as I realised if I was him!
It’s said that there was a war between muggles and wizards like thousands times in the books
Really? Where? I don’t remember anything like that.
@@arjunagarwal1534 its mentioned in the first book as one of the reasons wizards and muggles dont mix
Very interesting how the muggles won and continue to remain on the 'top' of the hierarchy. If they did indeed win, and wizards are a minority, then is it really evil for Voldemort to want to destroy them and have wizards rule the world as once before?
Voldemort is evil, but his goals for the war against the muggles sounds pretty justified and pretty righteous. I wish that had been a point in the books; it would have made Voldemort so complex. Voldemort had such strong reasons to hate muggles, it makes sense that he'd take it upon himself to dominate the muggle world.
@@TheMikster95 the muggles didnt "win" the wizards simply didnt have the numbers to kill all the muggles, magical blood is rare...
the contentions between wizardkind and muggles is to show a stalemate, neither has the power to thwart the other
@@TheMikster95 "is it really evil for Voldemort to want to destroy them and have wizards rule the world as once before? "
you seem to be forgetting that voldy has killed more wizards than muggles
I just want to say that you explicitly said that Voldemort killed Harry. Therefore Harry died at the hand of Voldemort and Voldemort died at the hand of Harry. That means technically the Prophecy has been fulfilled.
He isn't saying that the prophecy hasn't been fulfilled. He's simply theorizing about this single line; "Either must die at the hand of the other". He's theorizing that the only way either Harry or Tom can ever achieve death is if one kills the other. So with Tom, the force that can kill Harry outright, permanently out of the picture, Harry has become immortal.
true
wrong
I scrolled through the comments hoping that someone would point that out so I could thank them, thank u
Val You genious!
of course he's gay! that's why they call him the headmaster
DasMouse117 did you just
DasMouse117 my God hahaha
DasMouse117 did that just
i cant even
did u really
im just so
wow
You deserve everyones like omg XDDDDDD
I'd like your comment, but there are currently 69 likes on it. No way I'm ruining it.
This is a happy face :-)
This is a sad face :-(
This is Voldemort :)
Potato Gal ._. OMG LOLOLOL
XDXDXD
You post this on every Harry potter video, don't you
😠
🥼
👖 this is Voldemort’s uncle, see the resemblances? I’ll give you a hint
#1 he got no nose
(=:
these theories are like an english teacher is finding a deeper meaning to a meaningless sentence.
i cant even.....
Worse than that imho.
@@Swaymus what?! you egg.
I was under the impression that the elder wand didn't kill harry because it was harry's wand and not voldemort's
Sorry in advance for the long comment but I had to. Your impression that harry didn't die is right. Its' clearly stated at the seventh book (when harry "met" Dumbledore at king's cross) that harry wasn't dead (‘Then ... I’m dead too?’ ‘Ah,’ said Dumbledore, smiling still more broadly. ‘That is the question, isn’t it? On the whole, dear boy, I think not.’ - ‘Your soul is whole, and completely your own, Harry.’ pg 567). Dumbledore said that he isn't dead because Voldemort took his blood (‘He took your blood believing it would strengthen him. He took into his body a tiny part of the enchantment your mother laid upon you when she died for you. His body keeps her sacrifice alive, and while that enchantment survives, so do you and so does Voldemort’s one last hope for himself.’ pg 568). also later, this is written: ‘He killed me with your wand.’ ‘He
failed to kill you with my wand,’ Dumbledore corrected Harry. Finally, the book gives the ultimate confirmation that harry not only lives but that all that happened at king's cross was more like a dream with these lines: 1) ‘Well, where do you think we are?’ asked Harry, a little defensively. ‘My dear boy, I have no idea. This is, as they say,
your party.’ and 2) ‘Tell me one last thing,’ said Harry. ‘Is this real? Or has this been happening inside my head?’ ‘Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?’. All these points along with the fact that even in JK's world there is NO way for the dead to return to life show to us clearly that harry never died.
Jonathan Schoenbachler you’re right, people often become misguided by this theory when they say “when Harry died in the 7th book”.However he never died in the first place. Putting this in place disproves the deathly hallow resurrection theory as he never died in the first place. I suppose you could argue that this disproves the theory that dumbledore is death because in the books death seems to like taking people under his wing however dumbledore says he doesn’t have to die. This implies that Dumbledore is guvungnharry an option which isn’t something Death in the Peverell brother story would have done.
Jonathan Schoenbachler THATS TRUE
Jonathan Schoenbachler you are correct. Harry says at the end of the movie that Harry defeated Draco who unarmed Dumbledore so when Voldemort killed Snape he was not the true owner of the wand, Draco was. But then Harry disarmed Draco which meant the wand was Harry’s. But Voldemort thought Snape was the owner because he killed Dumbledore.
I doubt it actually killed him. I had to think a bit to understand this, but I realized that he was then in possession of all of the deathly hallows, and was ever since taking Draco’s wand. The thing that sealed it was him walking towards death and sacrificing himself for the world. The hallows and him willing to die gave him a choice whether he would die or not, so I would say he was kinda like half dead.
Theories videos always have this scary vibe or is that just me?
Anushka Gupta I feel it too
Anushka Gupta they also anger me half of the time
Anushka Gupta cause they have creepy music playing in the background....
Anushka Gupta its meh too im so spooked rn and it 11:34 at night help
Just you
I know I am 2 years late, but this guy just said that Dumbledore is pretty weak
Well, he is no Merlin.
Still, Dumbledore is one of the strongest wizards in modern history so we have no way to compare *shrugs*
Sapir Shahar I wish they’d talked more about Merlin. Did he even use a wand? I know he didn’t in King Arthur stories but maybe he did in the Harry Potter universe
@@Will-gq6gn true, it would be something I would like to know lol. Still, can't argue that wand or no wand, the guy was powerful enough to be remembered all those years later
Dumbledore is by far the most wizard we have seen so far in this current story but it is hard to know what went down before the books
@@sapirshahar5516 MERLINNN
The length of the books is a really dumb theory
The books got longer because each time every character develops more and Harry learns more about his past and Voldemort
Agreed. Books are longer because there’s more world building and more aspects to the story. Stories within stories.
The whole "muggles pacified the wizards" thing puts the death eaters in a really interesting light. In some ways, they're essentially fighting for their rights back, and it puts a very different and more complex spin on things - in this sense, Harry & co are actually going out of their way to defend the status quo, with wizards having minimal power and influence in the wider world, whereas the death eaters are fighting to break free of muggles and live openly without having to hide away in fear of being found out and the retribution they may face. It means that potentially, the story isn't quite as clear cut, good vs. evil as it seems on first glance. Very interesting!
Absolutely - I think that the movement clearly attracted a certain type of megalomaniac/sadistic/power hungry person and that their influence probably overpowered the initial goal. But it's more understandable why people joined the cause in the first place, if there was some substance behind what they were doing - you don't get a legion of devout followers JUST through fear, there has to be some sense of standing up for what you truly believe to be right even when no one else is. (That doesn't mean it is right, or that their methods are at all ethical.) Obviously Voldemort's tactics were more appealing to a ruthless, sadistic type of person, but not everyone on his side can just be an evil person out for supremacy/scared for their life, right? Not to stay loyal for so long.
also death eaters were a huge metaphor for the KKK and Nazis.
WOW! I never even considered that possibility! It's like how they say wars stories are told by the victors... really make you wonder about perspective when it comes to storytelling, huh?
Yes, but the theory of the muggle Ministry controlling the Ministry of magic doesen´t fit with the way the meetings between the muggle Prime minister and the Minister of Magic (that was actually in the books!) went... It is mentioned that the magical people went into hiding in the sense of going undercover, pretending to be muggles, though this was initiated by the magical people in power! They naturally wanted to protect their own people at a time when the muggles were VERY hateful towards magic, because of religion!
mad265 I think it can be either good or evil. the death eaters mercilessly killed muggles and other innocent wizards. that immediately makes them evil
Dumbledore could also represent the three brothers at three stages in his life. He listed after power in his youth, was horribly haunted with his loved ones' deaths and the loss of his friendship (*cough* love affair) with Grindlewald, and he willingly died at the hands of Severus Snape. And he had all three hallows.
Tall Geek that's actually a great thepry
Yeah that deserves a spot on the next video!
Too true! RIP Dumbledore!
draco was in possession of the elderly wand before snape killed him
Tall Geek Great theory
About the theory about the books getting more and more complex, I don't get how it's a theory and not just the authors intent.
john gun It’s a theory because I don’t believe J.K Rowling ever confirmed that it was her intention, however is merely character development like in any book series
@@jakeregan7255 I think that learning how to write better and developing your characters naturally will encourage you to write a greater number of words. It's not a theory, it's how writers operate. It's no more her intent for the books to be longer than it is an artist's intent for his portraits and drawings to get better and feature more drawn lines. I don't see where the confusion is coming from.
wasn't it like there was a plot point that she had to write over in GoF so she made the book really long and then she probably just made the other books alot longer aswell
Harry was not saved by the hallows
Voldemort ACCIDENTALLY turned harry into a hocrux
And when he ATTEMPTED to kill harry he failed and killed his own part of his soul.
Animation Purple exactly.
both were killed and sent to limbo (kings cross) the horcrux was the crying baby under the bench
@Stealth Mobile Gaming If you rewatch you will see that he dropped it before getting (killed)
The elder wand refuses to kill its master, so it couldn’t have killed Harry. But Voldemort wasn’t its master so there was nothing to protect the piece of Voldemort that lived in Harry
but he had to die to go to the afterlife and to protect his friends from the death eaters spells.
length of book is dumb theory - it's called character development
well its not even really a theory its just fact... The books became longer, because there was more going on in the peoples heads and with their relationships, that jk rowling had to describe and write about it more...
its not something you should put in a video that explains really good theories, because its not really a theory
I was happy to see it
No no no, you aren't reading unnecessarily deep enough into it.
Yup
And jk got more confident and engaged more with the plot lines
"I would stay up late immersed in the Harry Potter universe." yeah, my sister once stayed up reading harry potter and the goblet of fire. She finished the book in one night.
Elizabeth Cosham
That's impressive! If you don't mind sharing it, how old was she?
Greya Wolff i read the order of the Phoenix in one day. that was such an amazing day 😂
I was fifteen years old and my father gave me Chamber of secrets. I didn't like to read books, but that book made me crazy and in just five Days, I've read that book Three times.
I read the Philosophers stones and couldn't stop Reading. I began to read lat and stopped at the morning Three o'clock.
After that, every time I got a new Harry Potter book, I decided to read each book on the same day. You don't know the planning I had: when to eat, how much need I go out, cancell all things of the day. And more insane, Before I read a new book, I read early books again.
So Before the Deathly Hollows, It took me a month to read all the books, and the last book took 15 hours to read, and I woke up early at five o'clock to start Reading.
So good memories with those books.
Not that impressive. I can read the entire Harry Potter series in one day.
nice joke
problem.
"either" cannot mean both. it is an exclusive or. if the prophecy said "neither can die, except by the hand of the other" than yes, harry killing voldemort was a sacrifice of his only means of death. But because it said "either", this then translates, in layman's terms to mean: one must (read as: "will/shall") kill the other.
If you really want to get nit picky, if there was an either in place of where you wrote neither, then it would mean that they could both be killed but not by each other
Stop stop stop you’re going to take someone’s eye out besides your saying it wrong it’s the philosophers stone not the sorcerers stone
Lol😂
Best comment ever!
haha! good one x)
That's what Hermione would say!!!!
Thx
In America it is sorverer's stone lol
I feel like people forget the cloak was Harry's dad's before it was given to Harry
Also the fact the Harry is a descendent of the third brother and Voldemort is the decent of the second brother. So they are related
Logic so James is the brother not Harry
Harry is the 3rd brother's son
Thank you it’s not just me who thought that then
@@romeblanchard3419 No the third brother resembled Harry mainly because the cloak was passed on through his family. Harry wasn't the actual third brother he is related to the third brother (so he is related to all three of the brothers) and Voldemort is a descendant of the second brother therefore he and Harry are related. Harry's dad (James Potter) wasn't the third brother either, he is a descendant as well.
The reason Harry Potter came back to life was because he was in control of the elder wand. After taking malfoy's wand the elder wand realized that it's master had been overpowered meaning it now belonged to Harry. Voldemort thought the elder wand belonged to him because he thought Snape took the wand from Dumbledore. But he didn't know that Draco actually took the wand. Meaning Voldemort is in possession of the elder wand but is not in control of it. Harry is the one who is actually in control of the wand. So when Voldemort shot the killing curse at Harry he did not realize that Harry was in full control of that curse. Meaning that Harry got to decide what he wanted the curse to do. Harry was in the middle of this decision. He did not know what he wanted so since he didn't make his decision quick enough the curse did hit him but only killed the physical side of Harry not his magical side. Since Harry had not made up his mind the curse was still waiting on what Harry was going to tell it to do. Eventually Harry came up with his decision. He decided to go back so the curse undid what it previously had allowing Harry to return to his body. The reason the horocrux didn't survive was because Harry's body had actually been dead. Even if it was only temporarily dead the horocrux needed the body to always be alive because the horocrux couldn't survive without it not even for a second. That is what actually went down in that scene that's how Harry actually returned and that's why the horocrux didn't return with him. I don't know why people are so confused with this part in the story if you break it down this is the only answer. The hallows didn't actually allow you to never die it just meant the user understood death and could see it for what it really was. Which was the whole symbolic part of the story. Harry was the only one who understood death completely so he was the only one who could ever be allowed to have the decision to live or die.
Riley M best comment!!!
Wow, beautiful written.
Not to mention Voldemort thought that the only way to master a wand was to kill it's previous owner, which is not the case.
+Riley M : Actually, the reason Harry came back to life is because Harry had the allegiance (ownership) of all three hallows. Owning all 3 hallows gave Harry the unique power to choose his own fate at the time of his death (seen in the movie). This newfound power is why he could choose to return. I believe that was also why Dumbledore was seeking to own all three hallows. However, Dumbledore couldn't gain the invisibility cloak's allegiance because it had been bestowed to Harry by James.
+bigguitar The books are the institution you should value the most, not the movies. Still, there is all this confusion because the movie is quite cryptic in that scene, and only people who have not read the books got confused...Riley M is right.
The only theory that wasn't totally crazy was the one about the increasing length of the books as Harry grows older and wiser.
what about the theory that voldemort went to Godric's hollow, not only to kill Harry and James but also to make a horcrux with the sword of Gryffindor (which was with the Potters).
Voldemort created a horcrux with Slytherin's locket, Helga's cup and Ravenclaw's diadem... the sword is the only missing artifact from the founders he hadn't used yet and knowing how powerful he wanted to perceived, it makes sense that he'd want Gryffindor's sword as well...
So supposedly he did the horcrux ritual prior arriving at the Potters knowing his soul will split when he kills James (he had no intention of killing Lily because snape asked him to spare her)...
but the sword disappeared (as it does like when griphook dies holding it) and since he had already performed the horcrux ritual, his soul latched on Harry...
I think this theory came from the Super Carlin Brothers (check out their channel).. it's one of the few theories I actually believe...
Dumbledore's explanation didn't make sense to me.. because from his explanation, anyone who kills automatically splits their soul and creates a horcrux??? so does that mean all those death eaters have horcruxes out there?? also when snape killed Dumbledore, did he split his soul? cos he had no horcrux (he died when voldemort killed him, nothing had to be destroyed first before fully killing him)
Good theory I think that a might of happend too
in the book it says you have to do a spell to make a horcrux 🤦🏽♀️
@@travisj9422 Yeah, the only one instance the spell isn't needed is wen a part of Voldemort's soul possesses Harry. I'ts even stated that his soul was divided so many times that it was so frail that wen the killing curse rebounded what was left of his soul inside his body split and stayed with Harry.
Good theory
I think when you kill someone, it "splits" your soul - meaning it damages your soul. It breaks your heart.
I don't think you can use the example of the Weasleys to suggest all wizards tend to have big families. Off the top of my head we know Draco Malfoy and James Potter were only children. Sirius Black also only had one sibling and, while I'm not an expert of the very detailed Black family history, I'm pretty sure none of them had 7+ children. The Weasleys being a large family is down to them being poorer, reflecting how such trends happen in real life too. Not a standard of the wizarding world as a whole.
Er... They're poorer BECAUSE they have seven kids, not the obverse. Based on Draco's comments on the Hogwarts Express in Book 1, having more kids than you can afford to provide for is viewed negatively by Wizarding Society.Wind you, there could be some sour grapes involved in that judgment. There are hints of widespread fertility problems in the Magical world. Harry's father, James, was the only child of an older couple who'd nearly given up hope of having kids. Scorpius Malfoy's mother Astoria was afflicted by a Blood Curse, which meant that she risked a premature death by having a child. Then there are all those Pureblood families that have gone "extinct in the male line". From that perspective, you can imagine that a lot of Pureblood families struggling to produce a heir would be secretly envious of Molly Weasley's incredible fecundity!
didn't hagrid mention that if wizards did not breed with muggles they would have been extinct a long time ago? Maybe the weasly are a exception not a norm and wizards are really more fertile with muggles than with there own.
i think because they either died, didn't reproduce because at that time dark lord was in power, or they left it could be all three
floooooooooooooooood that's exactly what I was thinking.
The only other siblings I can remember their beong is the twins amd the collin brothers
The last theory is silly. With all these spells at their disposal, there's no way for a muggle to defeat a wizzard.
Sheer numbers and guns.Thats the muggles advantage
Try.to.make.a.kripperino.acoount.but.no.one.likes.itirino Kripperino wizards can cast spells that make muggles forget what they were doing and wander away. Muggles can't defeat the wizards.
Arc Kocsog nuke,ft wizards
Rowling confirmed that a normal muggle with a handgun could beat a wizard.
Brainwashed muggleborns used by Inquisiton? As actual soldiers or enchanters?
“My theory is that sometime in the distant past, the wizards had a war with the muggles and lost.”
Actually, this theory makes sense to me. I was just re-reading the chamber of secrets and when Malfoy calls Hermione a mudblood and the term is introduced for the first time, Ron has to explain it to Harry and Hermione later in Hagrid’s hut. He tells them that there are hardly any purebloods anymore anyway, because the wizard population would have died out if they hadn’t started marrying muggles. When I saw that I thought, why would the wizarding world ever die out if they are so powerful?
"My theory is..."
Except they're not really your theories are they? You're just repeating them.
he is reading it of the original post. He is simply narrating. Each theory is presented from the original theorists point of view, not the youtubers
@@stefanos7724 except he hasn't given credit, so it's plagiarism.
THANK YOU.
Generalized theories
@@AC8X fair use, plus he may not know the original owners.
@@cattanimationz6524 Fair use allows someone to replicate or quote *excerpts* of protected material for commentary, reporting, research, or teaching purposes without permission from the owner/originator. The use must be transformative, which means that it expands upon the material in some way. The original work still needs to be cited. Fair use explicitly does not cover use of a copyrighted work for the purpose of passing it off as one's own and making money off it.
And, if he couldn't remember where he'd seen the theory, he should've either done some research or not included it in the video. Or, better yet, not made the video at all.
If Dumbledore is gay then he is not Ron LoL
lmfaoo
hmm... but u could say that ron isnt gay, but why was he then *so* obsessed with viktor krum? you can't convince me it's only cuz he likes quidditch 🙃
Shiva L it is because he only liked quidditch though
@@shival3761 And even at most he would be bi or pan, not gay
I'm from Sweden and the 5th book translated has 1001 pages
Malva Andersson i was just looking for a comment like yours! my german version has 1021 pages 😂
Dutch has something like 600 i believe
yeah i think 655 exactly but not sure.
german books use also bigger fonts and a bigger line pitch --> more pages
Malva Andersson yeah, I have copy that's 891
Richard Harris is the perfect Dumbledore
When I read the books I hear Richard Harris's voice as Dumbledore
The theory about Harry now being immortal is based on a faulty understanding of grammar in the English language.
"Either must die at the hands of the other." That is simply saying that one of them, either one of them, must die at the hands of the other. There is nothing about the prophecy that would indicate he won't be able to die now that Voldemort is dead.
Also, Harry was "killed" by Voldemort too
@@mill15u Nop. harry was never killed. if you read the chapter in the book there are many evidences and confirmations that harry is alive and that the whole scene was in his head, like a dream or so. Also it's confirmed in book 4 that even in JK's world there is absolutely NO way for the dead to come back. This is said when Dumbledore explains to harry about Prior Incantatem. He says that Voldemort's wand was forced to regurgitate "echoes" of the most recent spells it had cast, in reverse order. Harry's parents didn't come back to the living for a single moment.
Eric Killian for one of them to die the other has to kill him. Right? Please don’t be rude I’m just trying to understand
@@Mia-hw2wv yes and no. I don't think that's exactly what it means or says. I think what it is saying is that one of them has to kill the other one. "Either must die at the hands of the other." I think that essentially means, "one has to be killed by the other." I don't think it means that the remaining one cannot die.
Eric Killian ohhh thank you so much for answering I understand now
I do think Harry genuinely died, else the horcrux inside him could not have been destroyed. That's the only way it makes sense that his sacrifice protected everyone from Voldemort the same way his mother's sacrifice protected him. I think he was resurrected because he was the true master of all three Deathly Hallows at the same time. The resurrection stone was activated, he wore the cloak to meet his death, and he was the true master of the Elder wand all at the same time, and he was willing to die. It was why he was given the choice to go back.
I love that these books are so detailed and complex that we can still debate what happened years later.
One problem with that. We know from Ollivander that a wand will refuse to work against its master (he never says "unless the master wants to be harmed/killed"). Harry was the master of the Elder Wand from the moment he overpowered Draco (who overpowered Dumbledore). That means the Killing Curse wouldn't have worked in the Forbidden Forest either - unless it specifically targeted the soul fragment that wasn't Harry (AKA the horcrux). But that would still mean that Harry wasn't the target of the Killing Curse and didn't actually die. Harry's willingness to die in that situation doesn't matter one bit - the rules of wand ownership state specifically that Voldemort would be incapable of killing him with that specific wand, the Elder Wand.
Additionally, we know from Nearly-Headless-Nick that all wizards are presented with a choice when they die - move on or go back. If they go back, they become ghosts. The resurrection stone allows the holder to recall a spirit from the afterlife as a ghost - which is why the Grey Lady is a ghost, her lover called her back from the dead. Harry did not come back as a ghost, thus his "resurrection" doesn't fit with any of the established rules regarding the dead returning to the land of the living - even with the resurrection stone. That combined with the rules of wand ownership only lends more credibility to "Harry never actually died." For all we know, the entire scene in the crossroads between life and death was a hallucination/dream - after all, Dumbledore never tells Harry anything he didn't already know.
The protection scene itself is nonsensical - Harry didn't know all of the ppl there in the Great Hall, but they were somehow all protected by his "love" for them. And that protection was also much more powerful than Lily's protection of Harry - Quirrell could cast spells at Harry, he just couldn't physically touch him. Voldemort's spells just fizzle and don't have any effect at all.
Basically, we have a very poorly written wrap-up to a very good series - which is part of why these events are so hotly debated. Especially when you go back and re-read it as an adult. Wand ownership is a giant mess (everyone at Hogwarts must own each others' wands by now), we never receive any answers for why Harry's wand acts of its own accord and attacks Voldemort with an unknown spell in the Seven Harrys chapter, and of course there's the Hallows - which are their own special problem (they introduce a deity and then make said deity a slave to whoever owns 3 special magical items at once - according to legend anyway). And that's without even going into the problems with the "love shield" that plays such a major role at the beginning of the series and returns at the end - the end sequence being the one that absolutely destroys the claim that Lily's love for Harry was somehow special as Harry didn't even know everyone that was protected by his version of the "love shield" and certainly didn't feel anything like a mother's love for her son towards them. And he was definitely not the only person to have decided to sacrifice himself to buy time for another group of ppl that Voldemort wanted to kill. The whole thing just falls apart once you start to critically think about it.
Don't get me wrong, I love the series. And it is my love for the series that leads me to criticize it so harshly. I just got the feeling that by the time Rowling got to the 7th book, she was ready to be done with the series and it made her sloppy. Especially when you consider how very anti-climatic that Final Showdown between Harry and Voldemort was. It's no wonder they changed it in the movies - I felt unsatisfied reading it as a 19 yr old that had been eagerly waiting for the library to finally have a copy I could check out (I was still living with my parents and my mother had banned Harry Potter from the house, so buying it wasn't really an option). Imagine how a movie audience would have felt. Yeah, the producers made the right call in that change.
Well that's jackshit, because if you want the wand to kill you, it's really not working against you when it does so. You would certainly agree, that you could cast a curse against yourself too. Considering that with the protection lily gave harry Voldemord actually killed himself I wouldn't say the protection in the 5th book is stronger eather.
I was talking about the 7th book. I've no idea what protection might be in the 5th book that you're talking about, other than *maybe* Voldemort's seeming inability to possess Harry (which is odd because possession is indicated to be a voluntary in the 1st book when Dumbledore was explaining Quirrell's possession by Voldemort, besides Lily's protection had been negated in the 4th book).
It's not that you can't cast a curse on yourself, because you can. It's that someone can't use your wand to cast a curse on you (without becoming the master of your wand first). It doesn't matter at that point whether or not you want the curse to succeed, because how would the wand know that? Is it psychic? Can it read your mind even when you aren't holding it? The entire wand ownership lore is messed up to begin with - half the school are now owners of their classmate's wands through bullying and classroom practicing of spells. But there are some things that Rowling lays out very clearly for us - and one of those is that if you own a wand, it will not work against you. No exceptions are given, even in matters of intent.
If it helps, think of the wand like a smart gun. You have the bracelet that allows the gun to fire. Someone takes your gun from you, but you still have the bracelet. So the gun won't fire. It doesn't matter how often the other person pulls the trigger, that gun isn't going off. Furthermore, the entire reason Voldemort killed Snape was because he believed Snape was the owner of the Elder Wand - the wand wasn't working for Voldemort up until that point. Why would it suddenly start working?
Tensai55 Correct me if I’m wrong but I do recall that in the movie (or/and perhaps in the book), Voldemort killed snape because he believed that the wand wasn’t working to its full potential cuz everyone knows that you are only the official owner of the wand IF you beat the previous owner. For my understanding if you steal a wand and use it to cast a spell it WILL work but the spell may be weaker. The wand will only NOT work if you use it to harm the actual owner. But anyways I agree that the wand ownership is a mess and the whole love protection thing bothered me from the beginning
You're correct. The Elder Wand wasn't working for Voldemort (similar to the problems Neville had when trying to use his father's wand), so he killed the person he believed to be the owner of the Elder Wand - Snape. In reality, Harry was actually the owner of the Elder Wand as he had overpowered Draco who became the owner when he overpowered Dumbledore.
But Harry actually already died at the hand of Voldemort then came back to life so he would be able to die.
He was faking that he was dead and then so he could kill Voldemort
Sophie Hunt
Actually he did die but because he had a piece of Voldemort soul in him he was able to come back to life
it was the resurrection stone wasn't it?
Sush not becuase of he had a peice of voldemort he could come back, he was the master of death, the invisible cloak, the stone and wand all was his.
William Sønsteby
Well that's one of the theories yes but I was just saying another
I’m curious, you mentioned that wizard families are generally larger than muggle families, but the only abnormally large wizard family I can think of is the Weasley’s.
Examples:
Malfoy’s: Draco, Lucius, Narcissa
Blacks 1: Narcissa, Bellatrix, Andromeda, parents
Blacks 2: Sirius, Regulous, parents
Patil: Padma, Pavarti, parents
Potter’s: Harry, parents
Dumbledore’s: Albus, Aberforth, Ariana
Harry ends up only having 3 children, Hermione only has 2.
All in all, this doesn’t seem abnormal, in fact, it seems very regular. So I’m unsure why one of the theories says that wizard families are larger than muggle families. This is not to be rude, I’m just genuinely wondering. If I have forgotten about any large Wizarding families, feel free to let me know.
And they’re all technically related to each other😂
Most wizarding families marry into each other hence most of them are relatives.
Jungle Book they would have to, to ensure pure blood lines.
for the Patil family, it was also mentioned in the books (I don't remember which) that they had a little brother who was killed by a werewolf
@The Wind Spirit I don't think Neville has any siblings
I’VE MISSED SO MUCH OF HARRY POTTER IN THE LAST FEW YEARS😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😤😭😭😤😤😤😤😤😤I MISS HARRY POTTER😭😤😫🥰🤗
I hope #1 Isn't true.
I would rather die than live forever.
I would rather live like the Dunadain. Be blessed with long life.
Sarah Mellin That isn't too bad but even Aragorn had to see so many he loved die before his end.
That is the curse of a long life in a sinful world, seeing everything you love and most of what you are die.
If the world was perfect as it was meant to be and sin and death didn't consume us and this universe then eternal life would be a blessed blessing as it is for Christians who will live forever in Gods embrace.
But living forever in this world is like dying forever without release.
The only thing I fear more than living forever is burning forever or those I love burning forever.
Have you ever seen the movie "Tuck Everlasting?" There is a quote in there that I think might do you some good. The Tuck father said it to Winnie on the lake in the boat.
Sarah Mellin Yea that's a very old one.
Read the book and saw it when I was a kid.
Immortality is a curse ain't it?
At least they all had each other for eternity, if you were alone though that would be quite another matter.
I would love to live forever. I'm fascinated by history, the changing of the times. Changes through humanity, and ancient mysteries. Imagine if you lived forever, and held that knowledge. You'd know where Atlantis is, if it ever existed. You could know where lost civilizations are long buried. You could walk the ports of Venice, and Rome, and think back when the boats set sail for the middle east during the Crusades, and have seen it. You could explain how and why stonehedge was made, and settle the dispute of how the pyramids were made.. You could have seen it all, and then some. Things today we don't even know existed, or are lost forever, that you may know.
It's a wondrous thing to me, and if you were to never die, or be able to die, then you'd have all the time in the world to make those travels, because you wouldn't be limited by human limitations of being forced to work for money, slave away for a few trinkets, and then die old, and that's that. No, you would have time to master painting, learn how to play the violin, piano, and other instruments of your desires to a master level. Master astronomy, math, physics, biology, and anything else you wished too.
But that's why humans can't live forever. Humans are dangerous enough with our limited lives. If humans could live forever, it'd be the end of all things.
HAllows. HALLOWS. FUCKING HALLOWWWWWWWSSSS!!!!! NOT "hOllows"
Ok. I'm better now :3
That was triggering my OCD so bad that I had to take a quick break from the video lmfao.
Thank fuck it wasn't just me. I liked the video well enough, but every time he said "hollows" I wanted to scream.
Holo! :D
At least he didn't pronounce "Rowling" as "rOWWling". When people say that I'm just like... NO. YOU'RE SAYING IT WRONG. it's pronounced rOHling not rOWling! it's O not OW!
It's leviOsa, not leviosaaa
And Rowling reveals: You were gay all along!
Muggle/Wizard war doesn’t fit in my opinion. For one, there is a very blasé quote (almost mockery) in one of the books which describes guns as ‘a type of wand Muggles use to kill each other’. Find it hard to believe a weapon which changed the discourse of their society would be talked of in such a way.
It also makes no sense for Muggles to socially evolve to the point they are able to wipe out the Wizarding community if said community is so much more biologically dominant.
It’s also simply not true that Wizarding families are usually large, the Weasley’s are the exception to this rule. The books speak at length about dwindling magical bloodlines through Wizards/Witches pairing with Muggles and the existence of Squibs (which suggests the magic gene isn’t totally dominant).
So yeah, I’m not buying into that theory any time soon.
Well, he explained it based on human history. And as JKR has an own story to tell, she surely also has people who KNOW exactly about any war in rl humanity's history. It's just... highly logical to say there is balance in all of that telling- if you only can imagine.
Well I'm going by the fantastic beasts being the same universe muggles were finding out. One muggle being hurt in an accident with family in high places or government becoming frightened could have started a war. New guns and technology meaning you can kill a wizard from a hidden place without them drawing a wand seems plausible I guess
I'm glad somebody pointed out that wizarding families arent all as big as the Weasleys! They are the exception. When you look at the students at Hogwarts, most of them are either a single child or have only one sibling.
Ummm... I'm pretty sure that the Wizards were already involved in the World Wars due to Grindlewald, which would cut down a lot of the European and American Wizards just like it did to the mundane population. The Purebloods are already mentioned as being inbred which does cause lower fertility rates over generations (among other issues if its consistent) (you just have to look at the worst examples such as the Gaunts), so it's why the Weasleys are said to be an exception and not the rule in terms of size of household (and mental stability).
Dude, there aren't many wizards because of Voldemort
:-/
MeganLPS yeah did you forget about the great wizarding war between the ministry and the death eater and voldemort
there was about 30 death eaters total an that was enough to bring the entirety of the wizarding britain to their knees, they don't have an army or military efforts, only cops(aurors). Most families only have one child therefore the community is already decreasing and muggleborn entries are extremely small. Son no, while voldemort contributed to the decrease he was not a mayor cause for their low numbers. They where already extremely low
True! The Weasleys are the only really large Wizarding family portrayed, whereas there are a lot of only children mentioned.
And then there's Grindelwald and his war in the beginning of the century
If the muggle/wizard war happened, this also actually makes it understandable why some would see Voldemort as a hero--a wizard bent on revolution against an oppressive government that nearly eradicated his people. He's more like Sitting Bull than Darth Vader.
The thing is, is that Harry didn't kill Voldemort, Voldemort's killing curse rebounded and hit him so technically Voldemort killed himself and Harry isn't immortal.
omg SOMEONE understood the books
Thanks! i love harry potter its the best!
Yeah! Your right! His theory is incorrect
And the prophecy, "either must die at the hand of the other", was fulfilled when Harry died to Voldemort. So the prophecy may no longer bind him.
Absolutely right. Harry never used the third unforgivable curse. He used the first, the Imperius curse once, when they were breaking into Gringott's in the seventh book, and he used the second, the Cruciatus curse once on Bellatrix in the end of the fifth book. But he never used the Death curse, everytime he fights Voldemort, he uses Expelliarmus.
The fifth book is 870 pages long I am reading the book right now
Your right
In finland 1050
It depends on the copy of the book. The one I own is 870 as well. By the way, (if you were reading it for the first time) do you like it? I hope you do lol Harry Potter is my favorite book series
@@tonyfierro4931 and you aren't right
*you're
Anna Rupp it depends on what version you’re reading
Nicholas Flamel didn't live to be 755 naturally, he did it through the Philosophers Stone's elixir life. He died right after seizing to take the elixir in the first book.
We know there was a wizard war it happened after World War Two and the reason why there aren't so many wizards around in England is because during Voldemorts first reign there was some kind of baby drought. J.K Rowling confirmed this in a 2014 interview
still 3000:20 000 is a pretty tall order. and btw, a lot of muggles were killed too during the wizarding war
It's 1:20 000 or 3000: 64 million
86upsmaya yeah but I think that there isn't 70000000000 wizards or witches
too true. I completely agree with you on that one
Who else here is just a huge Harry Potter nerd
Kiera Dorn me
Kiera Dorn Obviously me :)
Mosskit of StarClan me too
Kiera Dorn yus
Kiera Dorn me
I'm 18
When I was 14 one of my friend issued chamber of secrets from my library card .I was like yuck why u want this book ,she just replied it's awesome then when she returned me the book one week later I began to read it and I loved it so much that I re issued it and completed it in 2 days
From that day I became obsessive to read harry potter and now I can't live without reading it again and again
I've read all its parts 6 times
By the way I'm indian that's why didn't had much knowledge about
harry potter but now I know everything about it
That last theory is a nice one and I can def get behind it. Makes a lot of sense now that I'm thinking about it
I'm sure this is not a popular opinion, but it hurts me a little whenever I hear "the sorcerer's stone"
Seems a bit weird to me too, but half the readers experienced the books this way so it is what it is.
They did this for America because American publishers thought Americans would get aneurisms trying to comprehend a philosopher who was a wizard instead of as someone who questions the meaning of life. Bit stupid really, America would have been fine. Just go with it is like a national slogan.
In truth, the Philosophers Stone is the name given to the legendary substance that alchemists strived to create; JK Rowling didn't make up the name, but borrowed it from lore. And so Philosopher's Stone will forever be the correct name to use.
Juan G jk Rowling is a British, that's mean the name of the book (Harry potter and the philosopher's stone) and finish it please
AMR MASKOUN, What?
And I feel it too
What about J.K being Rita Skeeter??
Always thought it was a fun theory.
Jirou Lierge na shr woildmt of made her self that bad
But if the wizarding world was actually real and Rowling was a witch, she'd be the Skeeter. She made up a story and put in little bits of magic that could be true.
Jirou Lierge yeah it was and its possible but rita was kinda annoying
Jirou Lierge well it could be true
Jirou Lierge. It seems strange that Rowling should paint herself in such an unpleasant light.
After everything that happened. After harry defeted Voldermort, he wakes up in his room under the stairs.
Well, that will certainly put most potterheads into craziness. LOL.
Omfg
"MY THEORY."
All of these, especially the theory about a war between wizards and muggles, are common theories that have been around for years. It's pretty uncool to try to pass them off as your own. You should've either given direct credit to the OPs or threads where you discovered them, or, if you didn't keep track, at least acknowledged that this wasn't your IP.
Any other grown ass adults obsessed with HP 😅😅😅🤩❤️
Mz Kitten im only 24 but yeah im pretty sure most harry potter fans are my age or older than me. i grew up on the movies! fell in love with the entire idea and it’s endless connections with the plot and it’s characters!
I'm 36 and just watched all 8 movies. Now I'm moving on to the books.
🙋 grown ass adult with children lmao 😂
I'm 28 and I grew up reading Harry potter. I'm a part of Harry Potter generation 😍
The first book was writen in 1997.. that is 21 years ago... so anyone who started reading them then would be adults today and huge fans cause they just didnt read them.. they lived them.. waiting for the next book and then somehow getting ur hands on it and finishing it as quickly as u can... and then going crazy in anticipation till the next one comes out...
Wizards are real, Harry helped her write the books. That is now confirmed. I might go to Hogwarts soon!
Well I'd say that Harry has a pretty big ego in that case
Phenry 4 i just finished y first year and in April i was 12 now im going onto my second year
Nathanael Culver 🙄🙄🙄🙄
Well, 1997 the first Harry Potter book was published, but the battle of Hogwarts was in May 1998. But if everything occurred not in the 90s but in the 80s, it fits. 2007 the last book was published, the epilog scene is in 2017 in the books, so 2007 in the real life. Well, Hogwarts here we go!
I might go to hogwarts this year!!!!
One thing I thought a lot while reading the books was definitely, "wouldn't this all be easier if Harry had a gun?" So I think I agree that the revolutionization of military weapons having something to do with the lack of magic folk makes sense. Maybe thanks war took place during one of the world wars since it seems that other countries have similar government structures in place to control the wizarding world. I think it would also explain a lot better why Mrs. Weasley, Snape and other adults make such a big deal about being seen doing magic by muggles. They're not just scared of their children getting in trouble, they're scared of what the muggles might do if their memories aren't wiped immediately.
Wait I thought James was the last brother, and he gave his invisibility cloak to Harry?
Clíodhna Monaghan
No that was Harry Potter’s ancestors that was in the story of the three brothers
I think
James was an only child.
I don't buy the harry-is-immortal thing, because I think even if they meant that line literally, technically Voldemort did already kill harry once. both his soul and the part of voldemorts soul that lived in him went to the "in-between" bit where he had the choice to move on or go back to life. he's already basically died. regardless i thinkthe entire idea is too much of a stretch, interesting idea though
Lemon Ste But isn't that maybe the point? He has the choice to die but realistically he never has to because if he chooses to be, he can be immortal?
But the prophecy only refers to Harry and Voldemort killing each other - it doesn't mention any other way of them dying, so even though Harry ultimately killed Voldemort, he could still die from disease or old age or something.
And how would he be immortal anyway because I bet you can kill Harry using a knife or a gun which has me thinking,
What if Voldemort shot Harry with a gun at his head in the last movie, would that mean Harry would have died?
When Harry came back to life, his soul came back from the "in-between" though, and entered Harry's body.
Possession of all three hallows gives the owner mastery over their own death. Harry can choose to live or die each time he's put in that position. Technically, that's not immortality. Typically immortality means you have no choice and can never die. Because Harry can choose life or death, he's in a unique position to choose his fate. The final movie showed us this.
Harry didn't die because it was the Elder Wand who "killed him" - his own wand. So the wand wouldn't turn against its own master because Voldy never disarmed Harry and never earned it properly. So the Avada Kedavra just exploded the horcrux inside of him and knocked Harry unconscious.
Boni Neto nice theory
Please be patient and hear me out. I promise it'll be worth your time. The basic rule about killing a Horcrux is that its container must be damaged beyond repair. If the wand choose not to kill Harry as per the common explanation, the part of Voldermort within Harry would not have been destroyed. Since the horcrux was destroyed , Harry must have ACTUALLY died at one point. Therefore, the elder wand actually succeeded in killing Harry and his eventual Resurrection was caused by an unforeseen factor. This channel theorized that it was the reunited deathly hollows.
Yik Long Tay I agree, but The wand was Harry's master, and in order for the Horcrux to be destroyed, the container must be damaged beyond repair. Harry did die. But Since the wand was HIS master, not Voldemort's, the wand didn't kill him fully. it still killed him. BUT because it didn't kill him fully, and it couldn't kill him fully, the wand still killed the part of Voldemort inside of Harry, and enough of Harry to render the Container, Too damaged.
And anyways, killing Horcruxs could be under completely different rules when the container is living.
Harry didn't die cos Voldemort took his blood
I love these theories! They are absolutely plausible and do not interfere with the storylines, but they add richness to them. I enjoy that you put them out.
The last fact about wizards and muggles being at war at some point in the past really intrigued me, it actually made a lot of sense
Seriously? Wizards don't necessarily have bigger families than Muggles! Draco Malfoy, James Potter, Luna Lovegood, Cedric Diggory, the Patil Twins... I could go on! Dean Thomas on the other hand has a bunch of half-siblings, all of them muggles. The Weasleys are known as an unusually large family - with Draco constantly cracking jokes about it and Aunt Muriel commenting on Harry, disguised as a Weasley-relative as "another Weasley"... (in Deathly Hallows) Dude, I enjoy fan theories, to some extent, if they are reasonable and canon-compliant, but stuff like this... sorry for the rant but I'm a huge Potterhead and this really bugged me ;)
It's actually canon-compliant that in the dark times when it was Voldemort's first reing a lot of wizzards engaged in very young age marriages and procreation.
Hey here's a joke
How did harry go down the hill?
Walking
Jk rolling
Edit:omg I've gotten so many likes thank you so much
Kawaii squishy Bunnies
XD
Lisa Pekkari thanks
Kawaii squishy Bunnies boo
Kawaii squishy Bunnies r
heh thats funny :)
I've heard most of these theories, but the one about muggles and wizards got my attention!
Snape is literally the definition of a nice guy. The fact that he had feelings for Lilly somehow made him feel entitled to her, disregarding whether she ever felt anything more for him or not, and when she chose James over him, he lashed out at her and called her what is basically a racial slur in the magical community. And then he still kept pining after her til she died, even if they haven't met past hogwarts, he was still obsessed with her and when her son entered hogwarts, he definitely enjoyed using Harry as a verbal punching bag, simply for things that James has done.
Snape might've saved the day in some ways and came in clutch, but he was still a toxic person.
As a non book reader I may be missing details. But from the movies, Snape was a lonely kid that found a friend in Lilly who he fell for. They grew apart slowly after they joined Hogwarts, where he was bullied and fell into the bad habits and traditions of house Slytherin. He was a double agent against Voldemort, twice. In the end I'd say he was a great guy, just not perfect.
Also, he's was watching Harry's back from the start. In the first movie he was trying to save him from Professor Quirrell.
@@Micheal93k in the books he's actually really cruel to his students, he almost always called Neville a dumbass any chance he got and Harry, he basically called him a little shit 😅 I love him in the movies but in the books, not so much
@@marykay8587 And the reason for that is because he was hoping it would be Neville and not Harry. But Neville was not the prophecy kid so Snape got pissed at the boy for something that was not his fault.
Let’s not forget he allied himself with the death eaters willingly...he believed muggles should “know their place” He was all for their murder and torture, he only cared about Lily. Him making an exception for one person does not exempt him from being evil. And he did not even want to care for Harry, he couldn’t even look at him because Harry resembled James.
@@smo8924 but in the book he became upset with Dumbledore when he found out why Dumbledore is keeping Harry alive
Number four really is not a theory, I think it is fact. The beauty of the books is that it not only grew with the audience, but grew with Harry as he grew older, so we saw the mind of an eleven year old, all the way up to the mind of a 17 year old. It is meant to grow just as his mind grows. I honestly believe that this is a fact, not theory.
Yeah.. I didn't realise it was a theory. It's the natural progression of books when the protagonist starts off young. In the beginning there mind and the story is simple because they are a child but as they age and the world is greyer, more complicated, the stories are longer. I found it odd that it was included
YES. it's character development for the love of god not some secret theory. In series such as these, where you get to experience the characters throughout years, it's only logical the characters would grow. plus, the events taking place are more coomplex too
also simply shows that JK Rowling grew as a writer through the books. which makes sense lol
AnnaliseMarieG my mom knew this fact and she doesn't watch Harry Potter CZcams videos
Actually the facts about this theory are a bit less beautiful and magical. The first few books were also ment to be way longer but the editors forced J.K. Rowling to cut the books short or else they wouldn't have printed them. It was only after the first three books that she was popular enough to write on her own desire
The only reason why dumbledore is gay is because basically every franchise these days wants to add gay characters just to keep the audience happy and shocked
Or bevause J.K envisioned him gay from the beginning but it's been inappropriate to reveal until later (When the audience matures) - It would be retarded if there WERENT any gay people, just sayin'
Come on, in the last book, it is quite clear his "friendship" with Grindelwald is more than that. They connect, those two ambitious, brilliant wizards, stuck in a little village, and they kind of plan to take over the world together. Then, when Grindelwald does, Dumbledore doesn't stop him, even though the guy may be the one to have killed his sister, has abandoned him with her corpse - and is waging war on Europe. He waits to be begged by the magic community, and then he doesn't even kill the guy, he sends him to prison.
I really don't understand why everybody makes such a fuzz about him being gay. It doesn't change anything that is important to the story. I personally would have preferred if they didn't talk about his sexuality at all.
Jo envisioned Dumbledore as gay from the beginning, he was even in love with Grindelwald at one point, until he found out who he really was. I think Dumbledore is gay because it makes him more unique in the movie. (Since it took place in the 90s)
You can tell this man didn’t recently read the books
i've had shivers all throughout this video
A very popular theory is that Dumbledore is a manipulative chessmaster who kept Harry with the Dursleys to turn him into an abused child who wouldn't ask questions or rely on adults, but would willingly martyr himself. He actually set up the Philosopher's Stone protections in the first book to test Harry and his friends (His announcement that the third floor corridor was forbidden couldn't have been better bait for curious kids. Then the door was unlabeled, and the castle led them there. The tests were all solvable for first years and suspiciously tailored to the Trio's abilities; Neville was probably supposed to join them, but Dumbles didn't bank on Hermione's skill with Petrificus Totalus. The tests shouldn't have been solvable at all! For all we know the Stone wasn't even real), and set up other tests that could have been avoided (such as the Dementors and the Triwizard Tournament) for the same reason. We know from the Mirror of Erised that Dumbledore sneaks around invisibly spying on people, so how many of Harry's other adventures has he actually been there for? There are numerous times when he clearly was there and could have done something to help, like taking Hermione's Time Turner and fixing the whole situation himself, but instead lets two traumatized kids meddle with time and put themselves into mortal peril again.
He's the Chief Warlock and Supreme Mugwump who could easily have given Sirius the second chance (or even a trial) that he gave Snape, but didn't because Sirius wasn't as useful. He could actually do something legal about magical creature oppression, but instead gives special exceptions to useful individuals so that they will be in his debt. Example: Hagrid, Remus Lupin, even Dobby. He often talks about how brilliant he is and seems to think that this entitles him to make moral judgments for everyone. He's the king of a castle who sits on an actual golden throne and has been in charge of at least four generations of magical children, but spouts nonsense words to make people think he's harmless. There are even theories that his eye twinkle and the candies he hands out contain magic to make people trust and underestimate him.
Rebekah Fletcher wow this one is really intereseting
That's probably the longest comment I've seen with actual words! XD
Are you Rita Sketeer??? Lol
question... do you read dumbledore bashing fanfics? because your comment is what most of them are based off. p.s i mean no hate what-so-ever infact i agree with your comment
It's not really bashing, more like perception. This is one way to look at things. If you give it thought, it really does seem like old Dumbles is really a bad guy, on the other hand, if you look at it another way but in the same light, he's forced to be a war general in essence at least twice in his life, and is given a boon in the form a child that can be a weapon. And the needs of the many out way the needs of one. Cold, harsh but true. It's the same concept that has a lot of people saying that canon Ron/Hermione are a good thing. Personally my perception is that Hermione would probably kill Ron if all this was real life, before a decade was over. To me it never made any sense that the smartest most driven and ambitious witch of her age would end up with the guy that never apologized for the troll, the broom, the cat/rat, the goblet (to her for staying by Harry's side), and then finally leaving them high and dry on the hunt. Ron's not stupid, but he's very lazy, she's not, she's anything but. I cant see opposites attract but for JKR that worked. Its all perception.
Fun fact guys! Tonks was a Hufflepuff! Let me know if you knew this!
I thought that was common knowledge?
I didn't know...But she just looks like someone from Hufflepuff lmao..If you had asked me that would have probably been my answer
TheMinarus ? She could easily be griffindor or even raveclaw. I didn't know about hufflepuff
come on, that's common knowledge,,,
Come on, look at how she treated Remus Lupin.
"You might belong in Hufflepuff, where those are loyal and just. Those patient Hufflepuffs are true and unafraid of toil."
And yes, she was bright and rather brave, but it looks like the sorting hat puts them in houses depending on what qualities they have, and value most. If this weren't true, then Hermione would be in Ravenclaw, not Gryffindor. She even said herself that she values bravery over brains in the first book:
"Me! Books and cleverness! There are more important things - like friendship and bravery."
So by this logic, Tonks values kindness and loyal over her wits and bravery.
Loved it dude!
I think theory about immortal Harry can be true especially when we know that j.k.rowling made an alternative ending in which Harry is very old and Ginny is not a person but a phoenix. Honestly I love that because I always felt like there is another meaning of prophecy
Not all Wizarding families are large. There's also the fact that a lot of family lines die out to Squibs. As for the Minister to the Prime Minister. I found it closer to the Prime Minister's work with the Queen. The Minister of Magic has to inform the Muggle Prime Minister of events that might affect the Muggle world, like the escape of Sirius Black.
That being said, I found the sequence rather strange.
i think its more like the prime minister is still the prime minister to the witches and wizards who live in England/Scotland and as leader of the country the wizards/witches need to inform him of major events. but the minister of magic is in charge of the wizards and wizards and that government dictate the rules for the wizards/witches. like technically if witches and wizards were living amongst the muggle world they'd have to abide by their rules, but considering most dont, its the minister of magic who is their leader. so like muggle-borns would have to still abide by the laws of the country still but if they did something related to magic, then they'd have the ministry of magic to abide by... if that makes sense. lol
That's a more eloquent way of putting my point across. I just find it unusual that Fudge doesn't just send a secretary or something for the further talks. I understand Scrimageour sending him, but not going himself. It seems really out of context too. Maybe if we'd seen it during the actual events. It just seems like a pointless way to introduce the new Minister of Magic.
I believe they way Harry survived in the Forbidden Forest was because he was the master of death. Harry had his invisibility cloak and Dumbledore gifted him with the resurrection stone, and at the Astronomy tower in the Half-Blood Prince Draco bested Dumbledore making the wand his own, and when Harry bested Draco in the Room of Requirement the wand became his. Harry was the master of Death which caused Harry to not die because the wand refused to kill its owner.
Abby Simon he never died in the first place, it was just the horcrux in him that got destroyed
@@sarahm3486 Exactly! Harry couldn't die as long as Voldemort was alive. The second kept alive the first because of Harry's blood. I think this was the only exception in the way that horcruxes are destroyed (both the piece of soul and the container have to be destroyed) because of the very complicated and unique circumstances. There is no master of death. That part of the tale is just this, a tale. Just like the part that Death created the 3 hallows. Death isn't a person. obviously the Peverel brothers were the brothers of the tale and their magical powers were far beyond anything we see in the harry potter world because they lived so so long ago. If we think of the founders of Hogwarts we can clearly see how stronger wizards were back in the day by how their charms and magical powers still exist after so many centuries.
Modest Reshiram Not to mention that Voldemort wasn’t the master of the wand at the time, and the fact that Harry still had the protection in his blood
@Modest Reshiram but Harry could die if voldemort was alive. He didn't create a horcrux or drink the elixir of life. Of course he coukdn't die by magic spells but he could die by old age or bleeding to death
@@jakeregan7255 the fact that voldemort kept harry alive is mentioned. just check again :P :P
This was awesome. Great mind on you, man.
And....a wizard can’t die by their own wand. Voldemort used Harry’s wand ( the elderwand), although Voldemort didn’t realize it belonged to him
6:50 Harry survived because he was a horcrux not because of his blood. This isn’t even a theory it’s literally in the books and films.
Yeah, the video is a little confused I think.
The horcrux is what saved Harry from Voldemort's curse, Voldemort's blood is what would have saved Harry from anyone else, which has been confirmed by JK in an interview with Potterverse. The line "either must die at the hand of the other" is literally true because they tie each other to life.
No, it's because of the blood. It's literally said on the book seven. The book four also drop a tip: The Gleam of Thrumph in Dumbledore's eyes when Harry told him Riddle used his blood to return.
Harry is protected from Riddle, but the piece of soul isn't.
It's also because he was "killed" with the Elder Wand, which he was the master of, and the wand can't kill its owner.
@@meaningofsky1578,
But Dumbledore doesn't predicted that, though. Something I thought is the spells and curses are unable to be permanent because of the sacrifice. So I think Harry actually died but wasn't permanent, so went to the limbo and decided to return.
We see Riddle uses magic against the Hogwarts defenders but is unable to last.
Just a question: why does Voldemort always stick his Tounge out when he casts charm and stuff it makes me cringe every time I watch the movies
both died at the hand of the other... voldemort killed harry, but he came back, and then harry killed voldemort, so yeah, harry can die
but the theory is he can only die by being killed by voldemort. Since voldemort is dead, he's got no way to die
But that was only because of the prophesy. Since the prophesy had been played through and broken, you're both right. Harry can die, but because his body has been through so much, and he is now the rightful owner of all three of the deathly hallows, he has been granted to be in an immortal like state, giving him the ability to out live a lot of people, but will die for real eventually in his old age. This immortal like state would also give his body the ability to self heal within seconds, and pop out any bullets. Oh, and in case you're wondering, poison wouldn't work either.
NinjaKED12 Have you seen that first fnaf theory by game theory? One of the guys survived a shotgun to the head so ya
I am not fully supporting this theory. However, your reasoning is flawed. The prophecy states that one can only die by the other one's hand. This mean that both are capable of dying, but only specifically when being killed by the other. Harry can kill Voldermort, Voldermort can kill Harry. But if anyone else tries, it would not work.
That moment when you are so excited about learning something new but it turns out you already know everything 😶😶.
Really great points and video
Drarry AU
Draco: Roses are RED
Violets are Blue
Hey Harry guess what
My beds got room for two
Man Dumbledore Was Gay For Grindlewald
Bow chicka wow wow
Bow chicka wow wow
Well in the books that's pretty straight forward
DragonGamer so if dumbledore is gay does that make Ron Weasley gay? And if so it's kinda weird that he kissed hermione
What?
9:03 oh mad so this is how Neville was able to break free of VOLDEMORT’S body-binding curse, because the spells were temporary
You mentioned that wizard's family are larger than muggles family, however the only big family i can think of is the weasley's. I think jk rolling did this because she compared the poor and the rich, since Africans and all the poor ethnicities (not counting the rich families ones) has abnormally large families (because in their point of view, they want their family members to succeed in life, so having more people in the family, means its more positive that one of them will succeed). That shows that jk in fact did compare, as result of the weasleys being a poor and big family.
You can see in the movies and in the books that all the rich families like de malfoys, the blacks, potters... they all have small families.
I might be talking nonsense but this is just what i think
Anyone else bothered by his use of "hollows"?
ME.
Fucking American accent basically ruins everything when it comes to Harry Potter. They literally call him Hairy Parter.
Possibly a reflection of a poor grasp of proper pronounciation, or being a poser that just scavenged content for a video with established fandom to fish easy views and doesnt know anything about the series really (which on youtube is a pretty common view fishing method - and given the advert for dollar club in the video description, you can tell this channel is all about making money not original content).
There is no single American accent. My Brooklyn accent with Puerto Rican notes sounds different than my husband's Pennsylvanian accent with Pennsylvania Dutch notes, even though we're both from the same region of the US (northeast). Just like other places (like England) the US has different regional accents that can sometimes become it's own dialect.
The first theory is just horse shit.
She was referring to him as a horcrux. As long as Harry lives Voldemort lives. Neither can be killed by normal means as Harry WAS a horcrux and only strong magical items can destroy a horcrux (or the horcrux creator).
Once Harry was "killed" his horcrux status ended and he is now mortal and no longer a horcrux.
Thank you. 😢 i needed to read that
Plus they MUST die by the other's hand it states that very clearly
That could very likely be the case, but prophecy can be hard to interpret. Like when Voldamort heard the prophecy about himself he went straight after Harry, but Nevel fit the prophecy as well.
Prophecy is just a possibility of a future outcome, it is up to the person who gets it to figure out what it pertains to.
@@account8644 A killing curse is potent enough to rend a soul piece from the horcrux body. If there are two souls present in a body, I expect the killing curse to detach only one of them at random, unless there is a master-of-death around to decide.
The prophecy was made before harry was made into a horcrux, so your theory is also wrong
It was interesting and it made a whole lot of sense. Thank you for the video 🙂
I freaking loved your theories!
who cares if Dumbledore is gay? it has nothing to do with the story.
BUT THEN HOW DO I WRITE MYSELF INTO THE FANTASY AS DUMBLEDORE'S LONG LOST GREAT GRANDSON WITH AMAZING MAGICAL POWERS?! I NEED TO BE RELATED BY BLOOOOOD!!! GAY ADOPTION DOESN'T WORK TO EXPLAIN MY POWER!!!
lol jk... no seriously though; he's not gay. Fuck you. I need this.
T Hunter or just use his brothers offsprings they're related by blood same potential not the same brain
It doesn't directly change the story, but it does add complexity to his background. He potentially developed a relationship with Grindelwald, which might have been the reason he was so reluctant to face Grindelwald when he was in power. It also makes his defeat of Grindelwald more amazing, as he had to battle a wizard with seemingly as much talent as him who possessed a legendary, unbeatable wand who may have been responsible for his sister's death AND possibly his ex. It potentially adds another emotional punch to Dumbledore during his face-off with Grindelwald.
Kyle De'Larouche WW2? Is there a new book or something?
anon anon what does having one of your character be gay have anything to do with being an SJW?
hard to take the theory seriously considering Imperio curse memory charms and a whole lot of spells that could let wizards take over in a second if indeed they were muggles under control.
you don't even need great wizards, take a group of Aurors and in minutes you can blow up every parliament in the world if push comes to shove.
Yea, the thought that muggles have had defeated the wizards is ridiculous. They even learned in magical history class how wizards, who have been acused of witchcraft, acted along burning on the stake, whilst protecting themselves with a spell. Wizards always avoided open conflicts witch muggles, but in the case of, they would surely be the superiors.
Yeah they would make excellent terrorists. They could beat any soldier 1 on 1. Go against an army of musketeers and you'll end up dying. Quickly. Imagine a village of wizards and witches holding out against a barrage of cannon fire. Take into account most of the wizards aren't trained to fight at all. A war between us and them would have been awfully one-sided. Especially if you take into account how badly they tried and failed to contain multiple goblin rebellions even though those creatures are far weaker than them. Wizards just don't make good armies because they're only strong in small groups and striking from the shadows. They're like a bunch of pistol users against an army of muggles. They shoot some amazing bullets before they end up as a pile of bones and flesh.
the image you're portraying is misleading, I mean if all the wizards stand on 1 side and all muggles at the other for a ww1 kind of battle then maybe the result will be as you said. but that is not the case, wizards will be a bad army as you define an army, namely a muggle army, but why would they all come together to fight the army. how could they even find a wizards village when magical charms make all people that come across of a village to "not see it" like the leaky cauldron or remember other things they have to do like in WC final. how would they spot a wizard in the first place if he really wanted to hide.
Seriously, let's say we muggles are controlling all the wizards, we have documents and lists and backups. take 10 aurors, they apparate to the British PM's office, mind control everyone there (confudos, or Imperio charm), then use veritaserum to find out all they need to do and erase their memory from the face of the earth. everyone who just thinks of stopping them will eventually help them via Imperio spell. if they wanted to kill all muggles maybe you would have a point, but they don't, they are just trying to be forgotten.
And if that's not enough, just read the first chapter of the sixth book it clearly sais that the British PM is afraid of the wizards, knows absolutely nothing about them and is the only one aware of their existence. probably should have been my first argument come to think about it.
those spells could have been relatively new. or they maybe could not work on muggles
In open combat, the wizards would be slaughtered by a muggle civilization with firearms. Let alone a modern culture with nukes. They'd be the ultimate terrorist force but that's about it. In addition, if we're talking about British magical society as it is portrayed in Harry Potter's time, 98% of them are inbred cocksure idiots who probably have never heard of a gun and think muggles are still using bows and arrows. As such, their arrogance would lead many of them to abandon their single largest advantage, that being their stealth, and simply stroll down a street hurling blasting curses, not expecting to be pumped full of hot lead. In addition, spellfire is very clearly shown in both the books and the movies to be absolutely pathetic in terms of both range and accuracy as compared to that of modern firearms. If you've got a sniper rifle and a clear shot and the target doesn't know you're there, even someone on the order of Dumbledore or Voldemort will find their head suffering critical existence failure.
I am CHEROKEE- I knew this in my soul- but YOU ARE A FREAKIN GENIUS- YOU ARE NOT A MUGGLE!! THANK YOU. I am stealing this. Please write a book about this- I will buy it. #TakeMyMoney
That last theory is a good one. I was also wondering why there were so few wizards. Hogwarts always seemed small for what it was too, like the size of a couple big high schools as the biggest. You know, like high schools that exist in every city, not one per country.
I always thought Dumbledore likes McGonnagal
i thought Dumbledore was the greatest wizard of all time
nope, it was Merlin. remember that people always swearing like "Merlin's beard", "by Merlin" etc
Donald Monroe he was definitely ONE of the greatest. up there with Merlin and the founders
People saying 'Merlin' are deluded. There are no feats to go off whatsoever, only speculation. Moreover magic likely advances, as is the way of progression with most things, just look to sports or academia, as time goes on we get better, mainly due to better education and training. Merlin is up there no doubt, but Voldemort is described as being the most powerful dark wizard of all time, followed by Grindelwald, both modern wizards.
If you ask me Voldemort is the most powerful of all time, closely followed by Dumbledore, followed by Grindelwald THEN we get onto Merlin and then the Hogwarts founders who likely are as powerful as someone like Snape, but Snape has far more experience and knowledge and I would wager that Snape trumps even Merlin on most things, with perhaps the exception of raw power, where I would put Merlin just behind Grindelwald.
Going off he films Voldemort is most powerful, books probably Dumbledore and Voldemort as equals, but in neither is there any reason to believe that Merlin was as powerful as say Dumbledore.
Eh either way I put Dumbledore way over Voldemort. Voldemort is definitely second behind Dumbledore, but still less than.
to answer everybody no dumbledore or voldermort is not the greatest wizard of all time you see voldemort's only target was to be immortal but he couldn't do that without ripping his soul apart meantime Nicholas otherfucking Flamel was immortal because he was powerful enough to creat immortalism and i dont say that he is the g.o.a.t but he was powerful than all of modern wizards. yeah
The duel at the Ministry in the movie version was great, however I wish they had Voldermort cast avadacadavra and Dumbledore charm the statues to block like the books. In the books you come away from that chapter knowing 10,000 percent the Albus Dumbledore is the master of Transfiguration, Charms, and Defense Against the Dark Arts.
‘He met death like an old friend’
My two favorite characters are Sirius Black, and Serveres Snape
They both were misunderstood, and both died trying to protect the people they love and helping the world knowing they would die, pushing Harry Potter to go further into fighting.
Also, the last in makes sense, but there is more behind that, if they fought against the mughkes then, then why don't they now about magic now.
Also a lot of wizards have been killed in the past, for example the triwizard tournament, the battle of Hogwarts, and more attacks from death eaters, and dying in Azkaban, and the baskalis attacks.
Some words are spelt wrong, sorry for that, please ignore, I hope you get the point.
Klassy Jazz Studios Snape is an ass, he didn't care about Harry, he is just obsesed with the memory of Lilly, and that it isn't even love, is obsesion. Snape is a complex brilliantly developed character, but he is not a hero, a good person in core or something like that
Klassy Jazz Studios I love your comment you have a good heart
The muggle leaders agreed to obliviate the muggles that didn't need to know about magic. That is why the general population has no idea.
Muggles DO know about magic, but my theory is they want to forget magic exists and live a normal life because the magic would overload their brains and they would faint somehow.
A good example is Petunia Dursley. Petunia seemed like a normal muggle, but she was the sister of Lily potter (a.k.a Harry's mother) and seems to want to forget about it because the loss of her sister was tragic. That's why she treats harry badly, because she is mourning the loss of her sister.
At the end of fantastic beasts it rains and suddenly all memory of magic is obliviated from the muggles brains.. Maybe there was some kind of rainstorm all over the country that caused the muggles to forget all about the war.
I think Number 2 is reading a bit too much into it. There already is a perfectly valid reason for Harry surviving and it's the blood thing literally explained in the book. The key pieces of evidence against this theory can easily be explained otherwise:
1. The killing curse didn't rebound, because Lily's protection works different here. In Goblet of Fire Voldemort used Harry's blood to come back to life in order to avoid this protection. Before that, Voldemort couldn't touch or hurt Harry, afterwards he could. Therefore the protection would no longer protect Harry against Voldemort's killing curses. I mean: Voldemort trying to kill Harry again at the end of GoF wouldn't make much sense otherwise. He clearly knew, that he wouldn't fail again. But since he has Lily's protection in his veins now, he basically acts like a love-based horcrux for Harry and keeps him alive.
2. Harry didn't get an other scar, because of the same reason: He wasn't shielded against the curse, therefore it just hit him normally. And since the killing curse usually doesn't leave any physical marks, Harry doesn't get an other scar.
3. To destroy the Horcrux, the container must die. And Harry did die. He simply had the option to come back.
4. The whole "master of death" aspect of the hallows is an overexagerated fairy tale. It is mentioned at the end, that the hallows were likely created by some pretty powerful wizards, but are nowhere near as godly (or deathly) as the tale suggests. The elder wand is a slightly more powerful wand. The invisibility cloak is a slightly better invisibility cloak. And the stone isn't all that impressive in a world where ghosts are an actual thing. Even the fairy tale doesn't make that much sense, as there is no personified death running around in the Harry Potter world talking to wizards (that's more of a Terry Pratchett thing). The hallows are powerful, but they don't grand you power of death or anything similar.
"I told a reader once. I thought she was gonna slap me." LOL xD
I loved this video. Thank you for it