Dumbledore said that Harry must die, and Voldemort himself must do it. If that were to happen, and Harry was to actually permanently die, how would Voldemort be killed?
26476
‘So the boy ... the boy must die?’ asked Snape, quite calmly.   ‘And Voldemort himself must do it, Severus. That is essential.’   Deathly Hallows - page 551 - UK Hardcover - chapter 33, The Prince's Tale   Dumbledore tells Snape it is 'essential' that Voldemort be the one to kill Harry, I'm assuming in order for the piece of Voldemort's soul in Harry to be properly killed as well.  But why?   Hermione destroyed the Hufflepuff cup; Ron destroyed the Slytherin locket; Neville killed Nagini; Harry destroyed the diadem and Tom Riddle's diary. So the Horcruxes were not immune to destruction at the hand of someone other than Voldemort. And as it ended up, Harry himself wasn't even a Horcrux, but rather just an unknowing host to a parasitic bit of Voldemort's soul.   Why was it 'essential' that Voldemort be the one to kill Harry in order for the piece of Voldemort's soul to die?
6315
Harry was never a Horcrux of Voldemort     I have heard this line on SE a lot &amp; also vaguely read about that discussion.     My question is if Harry was not Voldemort's Horcrux &amp; if all the other 6 (5 inanimate objects &amp; Nagini) were destroyed beyond repair &amp; Harry tries to Avada Kedavra Voldemort, would he die? What would happen to Voldemort's soul inside Harry.  I've asked this question keeping in mind Harry isn't a technical Horcrux but only a part of Voldemort's soul is in him. So can Voldemort resurrect from this soul?    If its a duplicate, please mention the relevant discussion link in the comments
51803
So has JKR ever mentioned, or is it indicated anywhere in canon why Fawkes did not come to save Dumbledore when he was confronted by Draco and the four other Death Eaters on the Astronomy Tower on that fateful night in Chapter 27 of the Half-Blood Prince?  There are several instances where Fawkes was timely in saving his master and Harry.  I know there's an out-of-universe answer to every question on books (Dumbledore had to die so that Harry can continue on this path alone, albeit aided by Ron and Hermione). I'm not looking for any of that please.  Was Dumbledore simply prepared to die that night?
33507
There are, of course, an incredible amount of theories on how Harry Potter survived. Problem is that the most important one, the one that is canon, is the one I don't get: how Harry's blood inside Voldemort saves him?  Because all that I have read so far, leaves me with questions. I understand why Voldemort wanted Harry's blood, but why does it save Harry? Why is that necessary to keep the sacrifice alive, while it's still inside Harry? And if Harry lost it at 17 (I have seen some different ideas on this as well), why does Voldemort still have it at 69 (give or take a few)?  To clafiry, the parts I'm talking about:     "For a fleeting instant, Harry thought he saw a gleam of something like triumph in Dumbledore's eyes"    (GoF, right after Harry tells Dumbledore that his blood now goes through Voldemort.)  And:     "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"   (Albus Dumbledore in DH)  I just don't get why the blood transfusion thing suddenly gave Harry the chance to survive the whole thing, and it's never really been satisfyingly answered, not to my knowledge at least, as every answer I've read raises more questions.
55092
Based on the following interchange between Harry and Dumbledore in the pivotal &quot;King's Cross&quot; chapter of Deathly Hallows, I was wondering when exactly Dumbledore put together that Harry would have to die in order to bring about Voldemort's ultimate demise:  &quot;And you knew this? You knew--all along?&quot; &quot;I guessed. But my guesses have usually been good,&quot; said Dumbledore (Deathly Hallows, 599, hardcover).  The conversation that spurred Harry's question includes material dating back to Halloween '81, but also specifically mentions the events of the graveyard from GoF. So, &quot;knowing all along&quot; could refer to everything (i.e., Harry must die, Voldemort ignorantly tethered him to life, etc.) or just that Voldemort tethered him to life. Other important information pertaining to this question can be found in OOTP, when Dumbledore confirms (if he didn't already know) that Harry contains part of Voldemort's soul. He uses the silver instrument to find out that Harry is just like Nagini, having the ability to share mind and soul with Voldemort. He also says the following:  &quot;I guessed, nearly fifteen years ago,&quot; said Dumbledore, &quot;when I saw the scar upon your forehead, what it might mean. I guessed that it might be the sign of a connection forged between you and Voldemort&quot; (Order of the Phoenix, 826-827, hardcover).  While confirming that he guessed that Harry might share a connection with Voldemort from the very beginning, Dumbledore does not confirm with this statement that he knew Harry would ultimately have to give up his life. In Philosopher's Stone, when Dumbledore drops off Harry on the Dursley's doorstep, we know he is not entirely truthful with McGonagall.  McGonagall asks: &quot;How in the name of heaven did Harry survive?&quot; &quot;We can only guess,&quot; said Dumbledore (Philosopher's Stone, 12, hardcover).  Of course, this was a lie. Dumbledore already knew how Harry survived, otherwise he wouldn't be delivering Harry to Lily's sister to extend the blood sacrifice. By proxy, he also knows that Voldemort will return b/c of Horcruxes, otherwise he wouldn't be so worried about Harry. Finally, when asked in the same scene if he could remove the scar, Dumbledore says:  &quot;Even if I could, I wouldn't. Scars can come in handy&quot; (Philosopher's Stone, 15, hardcover).  So, did Dumbledore know at this very moment that Harry would have to die? Did he at least guess it to be true during this scene? We know he gains perfect confirmation in OOTP, but did he know it &quot;all along,&quot; as a particular reading of the King's Cross interchange in DH would have us believe?
42493
A more general question is: Can a witch or wizard die a natural death as long as her/his horcruxes exist?  Looking for canonical answer only. Rowling's interviews etc are welcome, too.
53309
When someone makes a Horcrux, part of their soul is stored in it, and when the Horcrux is destroyed, so is part of their soul.  In the case of Voldemort, he had split his soul into so many parts that he had irreparably damaged it, so when the 2nd to last part of his soul was released, it appeared in limbo, where Harry saw it.  J. K. Rowling has said that after Voldemort was killed, that was all that remained of him.  But what about a person that isn't as twisted as Voldemort.  If someone creates a single Horcrux, so they have split their soul, but not to the point that Voldemort has, and then the Horcrux is destroyed, what happens when that person dies?  Will their incomplete soul be as damaged as Voldemort's, or will they be able to cross over to the afterlife?  Or is there a chance they'll be either trapped in limbo or be trapped on this side, as a ghost?
47780
Voldemort has gained "immortality" via his horcruxes, but was his body immortal to age? Looking at all the questions about Voldemort and his horcruxes what was his plan to keep his body alive. We know his first Horcux was created at age 16, yet we see him age still so it seems like eventually his body would die of old age and his soul would be left in the half dead state he was in after his spell rebounded off Harry. What was his plan here, why would he not want something such as the elixir of life to keep his vitality?     While the Elixir of Life does indeed extend life, it must be drunk regularly, for all eternity, if the drinker is to maintain his immortality. Therefore, Voldemort would be entirely dependent on the Elixir, and if it ran out, or was contaminated, or if the Stone was stolen, he would die just like any other man. Thereafter, I am convinced, he intended to continue to rely on his Horcruxes: he would need nothing more, if only he could regain a human form. He was already immortal, you see ... or as close to immortal as any man can be.' (Albus Dumbledore)   Horcruxes seem to fail at something important, keeping you alive, they stop you from dying truly yes, but they don't keep you alive. Harry is shown over and over again to be able to beat better wizards because hes has faster reflexes both because of youth and his genetics, but presumably by 50 harry will not be as fast as his 16 year old self even considering their longer life expectancy. Why operate in a body of a 50 year old?
113704
After the Avada Kedavra curse rebounded from Harry onto Voldemort, Voldemort disappeared. I'm curious as to why so many key players believed Voldemort was still "alive" somewhere, his powers decimated, but, under the right circumstances, able to return to full power. It seems the witches and wizards in chapter one of Philosopher's Stone, The Boy Who Lived, were happy to believe that Voldemort was gone forever. Why didn't everyone believe Voldemort had died, rather than just disappeared? Was it the lack of a body? Or were there other reasons?  Here's a couple of quotes from Philosopher's Stone if anyone wants to review them. Otherwise, just disregard.     ‘A fine thing it would be if, on the very day You- Know-Who seems to have disappeared at last, the Muggles found out about us all. I suppose he really has gone, Dumbledore?’   ‘It certainly seems so,’ said Dumbledore. ‘We have much to be thankful for.’   Philosopher's Stone - page 13 - Bloomsbury - chapter 1, The Boy Who Lived   ‘But what happened to Vol– sorry – I mean, You-Know-Who?’   ‘Good question, Harry. Disappeared. Vanished. Same night he tried ter kill you. Makes yeh even more famous. That’s the biggest myst’ry, see ... he was gettin’ more an’ more powerful – why’d he go?   ‘Some say he died. Codswallop, in my opinion. Dunno if he had enough human left in him to die. Some say he’s still out there, bidin’ his time, like, but I don’ believe it. People who was on his side came back ter ours. Some of ’em came outta kinda trances. Don’ reckon they could’ve done if he was comin’ back.   ‘Most of us reckon he’s still out there somewhere but lost his powers. Too weak to carry on. ’Cause somethin’ about you finished him, Harry. There was somethin’ goin’ on that night he   hadn’t counted on – I dunno what it was, no one does – but somethin’ about you stumped him, all right.’   Philosopher's Stone - pages 46-47 - Bloomsbury - chapter 4, The Keeper of the Keys
109479
Right from The Philosopher's Stone to The Goblet of Fire, as far as the magical community was concerned, "The Boy who Lived" had lived while Voldemort had been defeated.  It's understandable that Voldemort had created for himself quite a reputation as a evil wizard whose very name made people shudder.  But once he was "dead and gone" , why worry? Surely, his name wasn't "taboo" at that time. The Death Eaters couldn't track the people who said his name openly.
120825
I just re-watched the scene of Voldemort's death in the Deathly Hallows Part 2 movie. Voldemort and Harry's wands were locked with each other and then Neville killed Nagini. Suddenly, the green and red lights from Harry and Voldemort's spells disappeared. Both Voldemort and Harry noticed that the last Horcrux was no more.  Seeing that, why didn't Voldemort simply escape? He could have later returned with a new set of Horcruxes.
23441
I do believe that Severus knew he was in danger in the Shrieking Shack. Harry even wondered if he sensed danger. Voldemort said to him,     I have thought long and hard, Severus… do you know why I have called you back from the battle?   If you put two and two together, Snape must have known that he was in danger. He must have known that the fight was almost over, because Dumbledore told him to tell Harry (indirectly) that he was a horcrux. He had orders, so why couldn’t he just disapparate into the castle?
9020
In the Harry Potter series is it clear that magically-inclined individuals (witches/wizards) will live to be considerably older than their Muggle counterparts? From the question , it is given that Dumbledore was roughly 115 years old when he died, and at that age he hardly seemed ready to kick the bucket naturally.  With that in mind, how old will a wizard typically live to be, barring accidents or murder?
11737
At the very end of Deathly Hallows, after Harry repaired his own wand with the Elder Wand, he tells Dumbledore's Portrait in the office:     “I’m putting the Elder Wand,” he told Dumbledore, who was watching him with    enormous affection and admiration, “back where it came from. It can stay there. If I die a    natural death like Ignotus, its power will be broken, won’t it? The previous master will    never have been defeated. That’ll be the end of it.   Now, this seems incredibly foolish to me.  "The previous master will never have been defeated" would only have been assuredely true if Harry had died right after depositing the Elder Wand back into Dumbledore's Tomb.   If not, Harry (the Wand owner) would still be alive, and at the risk of being Disarmed (as was shown with Harry and Draco Malfoy, it doesn't matter if the Elder Wand's owner is defeated by death or simple disarming, AND it's not even required that the Disarming would involve the Elder Wand!).  So, if Harry merely put the Elder Wand back into the Tomb, and some years later, someone would disarm him (or, even worse, kill him) - then that someone would become the Elder Wand owner, either by accident or by design:    By accident - Harry is likely to get into plenty of magical duels in the future. Even discounting friendly one (teaching people the Expelliramus), he plans on becoming an Auror!  By design - plenty of people have been in the Great Hall hearing Harry explaining to Voldemort that he, Harry, was now the owner of the Elder Wand, so the fact of his ownership would most assuredly NOT remain a secret, inviting countless people tempted by owning the Deathstick to hunt Harry down. Oh, and the location is now also known!   So "its power will be broken" is quite unlikely to come true!  Is Harry hopelessly wrong? Or am I missing something in the above logic? Was this addressed in canon/JKR info?
81386
I have seen many discussions here about locations where Voldemort hid his Horcruxes. The fans settle down with this: Voldemort chose those locations where he himself could easily reach.  Why didn't Voldemort just vanish his Horcruxes using Fidelius Charm and became Secret Keeper himself? This way only and only he could reach it (making him 100% immortal). And, there's no flaw to it.
90722
Harry noted to Dumbledore that he had a number of things in common with Voldemort. And it was later revealed that some of Voldemort's power was transferred to Harry when Voldemort tried to kill him. So, what powers did Harry get from Voldemort (i.e. Parseltongue and others) and did they all leave him when he stopped being a horcrux?    Update In the Chamber of Secrets Dumbledore states that Harry has many qualities that Salazar Slytherin values in his hand picked students. Parseltongue - resourcefulness - determination - a certain disregard for rules.    So, does anyone know what specific powers Harry got from Voldemort and is there anyway to tell if he lost anything else besides Parseltongue?
7423
OK so the scene where Harry sees Voldemort making Draco tutur Rowel brings a few questions to my mind.      he felt the rage that did not belong to him posses his soul, saw a long room, only light by fire light, and the grate blond Death Eater on the floor,screaming and writhing, and a slighter figure standing over him, wand outstretched, while Harry spoke in a high, cold, merciless voice.   "More, Rowel, or shall we end it and feed you to Nagini? Lord Voldemort is not sure he will forgive you this time...You called me back for this, to tell me Harry Potter has escaped again? Draco, give Rowel another taste of our displeasure... do it, or feel, my wrath yourself!"   A log fell in the fire: flames reared, their light darting across a terrified, pointed white face-   I remember in the Order of the Phoenix Harry tries to do the cruciatus curse on Bellatrix, it doesn't work. She say this is because Harry doesn't mean it, he doesn't want to hurt he enough. If she's right about that (I'm sure she is) I don't see how Draco is managing to make to make Rowel writhe and scream, because it is clear he doesn't want to be doing it.   Also Harry was actually angry at Bellatrix and if his anger at her killing his godfather won't work... well you get my drift.   I know Draco is probably better at magic, but I feel Bellatrix is right, you really have to want them to hurt for it to work.  Next thing, Voldemort's having Draco do it why? Is he doing to upset Lucius, because that and lot of effort to go to, seeing as Voldemort is angry and he'd probably do a better job himself. Or is he trying to train himself a new soldier, I mean the other ones are getting old.