In Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them, when Tina disarms Graves,      (Grindelwald)   does she then become the owner of the Elder Wand?
124204
We know that the movie Fantastic Beasts is set in 1926. From the movie, we learn that at this time, Dumbledore is a teacher at Hogwarts and Grindelwald is lose after escaping a previous arrest. In the movie we learn that      Mr Graves is in fact Grindelwald in disguise. Grindelwald is shown to be at least in his forties, maybe fifties so he should already be the owner of the wand since he stole it from Gregorovitch as a teen.   We know that Dumbledore won the wand from Grindelwald after defeating him in their historic duel. That duel is always described as being “the end of the dark wizard Grindelwald” so I’m assuming that it didn’t happen prior to the movie and that he didn’t escape after that duel, please correct me if you have cannon evidence stating the contrary.      In the movie, we see Graves’ wand a few time and it isn’t the (very recognizable) one used in DH as the Elder Wand. This could of course be a prop error but since David Yates was also the director on DH and a lot of the visuals are similar I’m assuming it wasn’t. Graves could of course be using another wand in the fear that someone could recognize it but he would still be the rightful master of the Elder Wand. At the end of the movie, Newt is the one that disarms Graves/Grindelwald.   In all logic, he should have been made the new owner of the wand, whether Grindelwald was actually using it or not. That would have made it impossible for Dumbledore to win it from Grindelwald later.  So my question is: What wand is that character using at that specific time? Is he already the owner of the Elder Wand?      And if so, why wasn’t Newt made the new owner of the wand?
107929
The map definitely shows people (humans) inside the castle But I remember reading Harry watching Peeves bouncing around in the trophy room and Peeves is not human And I don't remember if I had exactly read it or not, but  says that it shows the ghosts as well So what kind or creatures or beings come under the map's radar? Any living creature? Or humanoids? Or creatures with a significant size or intelligence? Would it show the house elves in the kitchen, centaurs in the forests and the merpeople in the lake as well? What about the giant squid and the thestrals or unicorns? Would it have shown the troll from the Philosopher's stone if they had the map then? What about Quirell/Voldemort? Would he have shown up on the map? And the basilisk from the chamber of secrets (the book)? May be the chamber itself was unplottable but if the map could show the basilisk he would have been visible when he was slithering around in the pipes.
91531
In Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, when Voldemort tries to kill Harry Potter and Harry Potter travel to the Deathly hallows, that is, Kings Cross Station and he later comes back. There it has been mentioned that Voldemort had also fallen down and Bellatrix tried to support him to stand up as if she has some affection towards him.  “My Lord . . . my Lord . . . ” It was Bellatrix’s voice, and she spoke as if to a lover.  Is it true that Bellatrix Lestrange had some affection towards Voldemort?
5600
The full prophecy by Trelawney, the part my question is about in bold:     "The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches ... born to those who  have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month dies ... and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he will have power the Dark Lord knows not ... and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives ... the one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord will be born as the seventh month dies ..."    – Sybill Trelawney (to Dumbledore)    I am interpreting      for neither can live while the other survives   as: Harry can't live while Voldemort survives and vice versa. But why? It clearly worked until the end of book 7. One could argue with Dumbledore's thery of the self-fulfilling prophecy. But clearly Voldemort was smart enough to see that there was no mechanism that would kill him just because Harry stayed alive.    and either must die at the hand of the other    Again: Why? If somebody else destroyed all Horcruxes and then killed Harry, Voldemort would be just as vulnerable and could be killed by anyone. On the other hand, Harry could have been killed by anyone - his mum's protection transferred to Voldemort by Harry's blood was only helping against Voldemort.  I guess that I am interpreting this part of the prophecy in the wrong way or maybe there is an alternate, less obvious and more tricky one. So my question is: What exactly does the highlighted part of Trelawney's prophecy state?
99015
A spin off of  wherein it's asked whether there are any canon examples of a witch or wizard owning more than one wand for practical reasons. As DVK's question doesn't specify regarding The wand chooses the wizard, I'm going to ask about that particular aspect.   Can a witch or wizard be chosen by more than one wand?  We've seen numerous examples in Harry Potter of individuals using wands that belong(ed) to someone else, or had a new wand made for them with Ollivander1 being under duress (Wormtail), but are there any examples in canon where a person is chosen by more than one wand?   Is a child's first purchase from Ollivander's the one and only time they can be "chosen" by a wand? Or, should they break their wand, want a second wand, or lose their wand, and need a replacement, would they be able to be chosen a second time by a totally new wand?  For reference if interested: ; ; ; ;  [Pottermore/Flickr] ETA:  and   1: I know there are other wandmakers in HP, but I am using Ollivander as my example because he is the best known in the series.
45430
The situation is my  has been enchanted with .  The creature has      when it dies, return it to his owner’s hand   The enchantment says     When enchanted creature dies, return that card to the battlefield under your control with a +1/+1 counter on it.   Who gets the creature? Me or my rival?  Does the creature ability trigger before or after enchantment?
31432
Moaning Myrtle said she made sure Olive Hornby was haunted by her memory of finding Myrtle's body until Olive's dying day. Olive had to seek help from the Ministry of Magic in an effort to be free of the spirit, so the Wizards there knew a witness (Myrtle's ghost) to the 1943 murder had become available. After the Ministry of Magic exorcised Myrtle, she was relegated to Hogwarts, generally haunting the same stall in the same lavatory she died in. The powers that be knew where she was  What does JKR say about why no one at the Ministry of Magic, or any of the Hogwarts Professor's, asked Moaning Myrtle about her death?
61802
In the movie, Newt reveals that the beast attacking New York was actually an Obscurus, which he explains is      a burst of dark power that manifests in witch or wizard that represses their magical power.   Now, he goes on to explain that      The oldest known Obscurial was 10 years old, but they're usually younger.   If this is true, why then      did Harry Potter or Hermione Granger not develop an Obscurus? They were not even aware magic existed until they were 11. My only thought would be that they didn't actively repress their magic, just didn't know what it was.   I don't know if there was any more detail given in a companion novel, Pottermore or the book itself, but on the wiki it made no mention of details other than was given in the movie. Are there any additional rules that would explain why this doesn't happen more often?
91707
This question:  just speculates on the transfer of ownership of the Elder Wand. But the Elder Wand is supposed to greatly enhance the powers of the wielder. Grindelwald knew he wasn't a match for Dumbledore on even terms:     Over the years, Grindelwald raised an army and began a reign of terror that spread through several European countries and murdered many wizards and Muggles, though he never attempted to take power in Britain for his fear of his former friend, Dumbledore, who was "a shade more skillful" than he was.    But the possession of the Elder Wand should have given him the edge to be able to defeat him. The Elder Wand is supposed to make a wizard nearly invincible, their spells should always be more powerful than the opposing wizard.   How was Dumbledore able to defeat Grindelwald when he was facing the most powerful wand ever made?
47748
Spoilers follow, and this is from the books (not the movies)...  In The Chamber of Secrets:      Harry retrieves Goderic Gryffindor's sword from the sorting hat during the confrontation with the basilisk. After this Dumbledore keeps hold of the sword in a glass case in his office.    Then in The Deathly Hallows:      Harry and Ron do a deal with Griphook to return Gryffindor's sword to the goblins after they have retrieved Hufflepuff's cup, planning to partially double cross him by holding on to it until all the horcruxes have been destroyed. However Griphook double crosses them first, and keeps hold of the sword.   Then, in the battle at the end of the book:      Voldemort puts the sorting hat on Neville Longbottom's head and sets him on fire. Instead of burning Neville pulls Gryffindor's sword out of the sorting hat and beheads Nagini, destroying Voldemort's last horcrux.   However, if the sword could always be pulled out of the hat by someone sufficiently heroic then why the need to:      Create a copy of the sword to fool Bellatrix Lestrange into thinking she had the real one in Gringott's vault? Why forge a copy and risk Snape placing it in the lake if it could always have been pulled from the sorting hat, regardless of where it was or how it was protected?   How was Gryffindor's sword pulled from the hat the second time? Surely it was beyond the reach of accio or any other charms once returned to its goblin creators?
41378
I know that when Lily sacrificed herself for Harry, Voldemort could no longer touch him and any attempted Avada Kedavra on Harry by Voldemort would rebound onto himself, until, of course, he took some of Harry's blood and put it into himself.   Now Harry and Voldemort share Lily's sacrifice and protection and also share Voldemort's soul since Harry is a Horcrux. When Voldemort tried to kill Harry in the Forbidden Forest, Harry was kept alive by his own blood which ran through Voldemort's veins. When Harry then challenged him a second time, Voldemort's killing curse rebounded onto him yet again since the Elder Wand won't kill its master.   But Voldemort shouldn't have been able to die since Lily's blood sacrifice lived in him and Harry should never be able to die either... shouldn't they both be immortal? I don't get it, someone help!
87349
I have seen few narrations and some fan made videos on the battle between Dumbledore and Grindelwald. There was some magic that killed Ariana when both Dumbledore and Grindelwald were duelling. What may have killed her? Does the magic bounce off?
45692
Before acquiring the Elder Wand, what kind of wand did Dumbledore have, and what kind of wood and core components went into it?   We know that he was buried with the Elder Wand.  Are there any references to what became of his original wand?
52921
Did the Thunderbird and rain and Obliviate spell at the end of Fantastic Beasts affect everyone in New York City? Or just those who were standing in the rain?  This video seems to imply anybody who was indoors was also affected, but I would prefer an explanation from a canon source.                                  If the Thunderbird's rainstorm was the key to spreading the Obliviate spell across the entire city, I don't see how that would affect people indoors. Or maybe not even those under an umbrella.  Hmmm, maybe that is why Queenie made a magical umbrella when she kissed Jacob as she obliviated his memories. Perhaps that's why he seems to remember some details.                                  An answer to a related question says,     The rain water contaminates the water in the pipelines and/or overhead storage tanks of the buildings in the city. As you mentioned, a guy in the shower loses his memory. There is also a shot of a woman drinking from a tap who also loses her memory. (emphasis mine)   So if the rainwater is the key to the forgetfulness, then what about all the people who were indoors and did not sip water that day?
18470
In the first book it seems that Voldemort has been reduced to nothing but a ghostly wisp. But IIRC by the fourth book he somehow has a body that is carried around by Wormtail. In the first book he needs someone to inhabit, by the fourth, he can't really move around, but he does have a body back which can hold a wand.  How did this transition happen?
59577
In the seventh book (and the 7th &amp; 8th movie) of Harry Potter, it shows that a wand doesn't belong to a person anymore, or loses its loyalty if another witch or wizard disarms or defeats them.  Given that, why don't more children from earlier films and novels have to buy new wands? It shows students being disarmed many times.  Why was the disarming wand rule only valid in the 7th book?
50520
I was just reading Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, and I was wondering, when Hermione Granger changed into Bellatrix Lestrange, she should've obtained the Dark Mark, temporarily.  Now, my question is: would the Dark Mark work if pressed?