At the end of Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them Gellert Grindelwald is overpowered by Newt Scamander and taken to prison. Why does he still posses the Elder Wand?
123688
In Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them, when Tina disarms Graves,      (Grindelwald)   does she then become the owner of the Elder Wand?
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?
100377
As the answer to  question ponders, Dumbledore seems to have left a lot of information out when giving Harry, Ron and Hermione their Horcrux assignment. Let's consider the following points.    Harry didn't know how to destroy Horcruxes.     "I wonder how Dumbledore destroyed the ring?" said Harry. "Why didn't I ask him? I never really..."      His voice trailed away: he was thinking of all the things he should have asked Dumbledore, and of how, since the Headmaster had died, it seemed to Harry that he had wasted so many opportunities, when Dumbledore had been alive, to find out more...to find out everything...      (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 6, "The Ghoul in Pyjamas")  Dumbledore made no plans to inform Harry of how to destroy Horcruxes.  It was only sheer, dumb luck/quick thinking on Hermione's part that meant that the trio knew the theory of Horcrux-destruction. Dumbledore just left the Hogwarts library books lying around in his office and made no attempt to bequeath them to Harry. At the start of their quest they had no practical means of destroying them. Harry felt hurt and betrayed that Dumbledore knew but didn't tell him.     He could not hide it from himself: Ron had been right. Dumbledore had left him with virtually nothing. They had discovered one Horcrux, but they had no means of destroying it: the others were as unattainable as they had ever been.      (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 16, "Godric's Hollow")  Dumbledore had no reason not to tell Harry.  Knowing how to destroy Horcruxes is clearly an integral part of any mission to destroy Horcruxes! With the Hallows, Dumbledore later says that he had intended to be cryptic in an attempt to let Hermione's natural caution prevent Harry from going too power-hungry. This is not the case with the Horcruxes. Dumbledore knew his official will would be subject to Ministry of Magic intrusion.  Regardless of whether the Ministry's motives were kind or cruel Dumbledore clearly knew that the bylaw about the Ministry having the right to search will items could provide difficulties in terms of giving things to the trio. This is evident from the care he took to hide the true meaning of Beedle's book and the elaborate magic surrounding the Snitch he gave Harry. Dumbledore must've known that the Ministry may not allow Harry to receive the Sword of Gryffindor. Trying to give it to Harry gave him a hint but this is as close as Harry gets to finding out how to destroy Horcruxes. Dumbledore had other methods of giving things to Harry.  Even though he knew that he was dying, Dumbledore obviously took care to tailor his will to helping Harry. Yet he could've simply given things to someone he trusted at Hogwarts like McGonagall to pass onto Harry. Dumbledore knew basilisk fangs would be supremely useful to Harry.  Dumbledore knew that, if Harry didn't get hold of the sword, basilisk fangs remained the main key tool Harry needed for Horcrux-destruction. Ron and Hermione ended up going down to the Chamber anyway so Dumbledore could've saved them the hassle.   Why didn't Dumbledore give Harry more of a head-start by telling him about the Basilisk fangs? And why didn't he put the fangs, the sword, the Beedle book, the Deluminator and the snitch in a box for McGonagall to give away after he died?     "From all that I've read, what Harry did to Riddle's diary was one of the few really foolproof ways of destroying a Horcrux."      "What, stabbing it with a Basilisk fang?" asked Harry.      "Oh, well, lucky we've got a large supply of Basilisk fangs, then," said Ron. "I was wondering what we were going to do with them."      (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 6, "The Ghoul in Pyjamas")
31925
Many students used magic on the train. In Goblet of Fire, Hermione used "Reparo" on the train; In Half-Blood Prince, Ginny used "Scourgify" in the train when there was "Stinksap" all over the compartment. Why didn't the Ministry of Magic consider this as underage magic when students are constantly reminded that they cannot use magic outside SCHOOL?
49872
There's a lot of emphasis on Harry becoming the master of the Elder Wand after he defeats Draco. But what constitutes a “defeat”?  It seems that Harry wins a wrestling match with Draco, so now he’s the master of the Elder Wand.  But lots of other stuff happens to Harry: Nagini almost kills him, and he escapes just in time, but his wand breaks. The Snatchers chase him through the forest. He and his friends practically surrender (and Hermione even tries to disguise Harry). Voldemort almost kills Harry in the Forbidden Forest (or actually does, depending on how you look at it).  Why are none of these considered to be “defeats”?
42241
We know that wands choose their owners, more so than the other way around. We also know that to master the Elder Wand, you need to win it, or defeat the current owner.  From the Harry Potter books so far, pretty much everyone who has defeated the previous owner has become the new master.  My question is:  If someone defeats the owner of the Elder Wand, could the Elder Wand still not choose its new owner?  Could it have seen Voldemort as somehow not worthy or something?
87376
Spoilers Ahead. If you haven't watched Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald yet, please do not read further.  According to  and many other such fan pages, Minerva McGonagall, Harry's Transfiguration teacher was born in 1935 (although Pottermore , and no year). Now, in The Crimes of Grindelwald, we see a "Professor McGonagall" when the Aurors come to question Dumbledore about the whereabouts of Newt Scamander, which must have happened at least in the late 1920s if not exactly in 1927, if we follow the timeline shown in Fantastic Beasts. The same professor is also seen in a flashback which may have happened around ten years before this incident, when Dumbledore is teaching Newt and Leta's class. This would have happened in the 1910s then?  I even conjectured that maybe this is a different McGonagall teaching at the time Newt was a student, but the credits show Minerva McGonagall! If she was born in 1935 and these events occurred in 1927 or so (and earlier in the flashback), she wouldn't even have been born yet. How come she is fully grown and teaching in 1927? Was this some Minerva McGonagall senior? An ancestor to our beloved Transfiguration teacher and headmistress?
13344
After the downfall of Voldemort, what happened to the Death Eaters?  They committed many crimes, including mass murder and torture. Nothing in the books made mention of their punishments. What happened?
108858
Thinking about it while I was writing up my other question about Dudley's pig's tail, it occurred to me that I cannot think of a single instance in which the Dursleys -- Verrnon, Petunia, and Dudley -- had their memories modified, even though they have witnessed numerous incidents of a witch or wizard performing magic.   They witnessed Hagrid giving Dudley the pig's tail. They've witnessed numerous owl post deliveries. They've noticed that wherever they go, or Harry goes, they can always be found. They witness Dobby dropping the pudding on Mrs Mason in CoS (they think Harry did it, though) and of course there's the incident with Aunt Marge. Marge seems to be the only Dursley whose had her memory modified by the Accidential Magic Reversal Squad; meanwhile, the Ministry allows Vernon, Petunia, and Dudley to keep their memories of what happened to Marge. They're allowed to keep their memories of the Dementor attack, and when George, Fred, Ron, and Arthur come to Privet Drive to collect Harry in, I believe, GoF, and one of the twins feeds Dudley Ton-Tongue Taffy and Dudder's tongue grows about six feet long, there is no consequence from the Ministry, it seems. There are plenty of other examples.  Why doesn't the Ministry ever modify the Dursleys' memories?  &#9733; I don't prefer an answer from the HP Wikia or the Wikipedia.   ETA: I really do get what people are saying about Muggle families with witches in wizards in them, and how they cannot be Obliviated for every little thing. That makes sense now that people have explained it. But I still wonder about Dudley's piggy tail because that would have essentially been introducing a magical pig's tail into the Muggle world via a Muggle hospital, to Muggles doctors who have no familial connection to the Dursleys. Would the Ministry want that happening? It truly surprises me that no one had their memory modified as a result of the pig's tail incident.
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?
30082
I had always assumed that it was a struggle to capture Mad-Eye Moody, one of the most powerful and paranoid ex-Aurors in the history of the Ministry.  Following on from this  it seems like Mad-Eye was overwhelmed quickly and quietly:     Wormtail and I did it. We had prepared the Polyjuice Potion beforehand. We journeyed to his house. Moody put up a struggle. There was a commotion.... I was ready to face Arthur Weasley when he arrived to sort out the Muggles who had heard a disturbance. I made the dustbins move around the yard.   To my knowledge, the dustbins moving were the only thing that alerted Arthur, or anyone else, to the commotion. Unless I'm misunderstanding, Wormtail and Crouch Jr incapacitated Moody without any noise, and then set off the bins... But this doesn't make sense.  What am I missing?
70735
It states in  that each one is to make the trip to the Threshold,      Since Covu "The Transcended" discovered the gate to The Underverse, called "The Threshold", each successive Lord Marshal has made a pilgrimage to The Underverse. His trip to The Underverse grants him a plethora of greater inhuman powers. All The Lord Marshals are extremely long lived, perhaps even immortal.   In the next section it states that Zhylaw "The Last" finds an artifact, but it does not imply that this artifact shows the way to The Threshold, only its secrets.      Zhylaw "The Last" discovered a great ancient artifact on Helion Prime, within the secrets of The Threshold were written, after studying and destroying the artifact so that nobody could ever find it, he would use it in his great crusade. With this knowledge he could use more of the Soulpower than any other Lord Marshal making him the most powerful Lord Marshal in history.   In  , Riddick does not display any of the powers of a lord Marshal, so it would be safe to assume that he did not go?
25994
During Goblet of Fire, Voldemort lured Harry away from Hogwarts and into a Muggle cemetery. This was done during the Triwizard tournament to make Harry’s death look like an accident.  Harry was supposed to have a Trace on him, so why couldn’t the Ministry tell an underage wizard was performing magic (Expelliarmus) in a Muggle cemetery? Or (as the Trace seems to pick up ANY magic used near a young wizard/witch) magic used by the Death Eaters?
39061
As the title asks, why didn't the basilisk bite received in the Chamber of Secrets destroy the Horcrux inside the bitten person?   Yes, I know Fawkes quite quickly healed the bite wound with his phoenix tears, but when Harry used the basilisk fang to destroy Tom Riddle's diary the destruction of that Horcrux was immediate. When Ron hit the locket with the Sword of Gryffindor, it was destroyed immediately. Although the destruction of the ring occurred off-page, Dumbledore used the Sword of Gryffindor to destroy it, so presumably, like the locket, it was gone right away. Nagini died straightaway when Neville decapitated her. The destruction of the Hufflepuff cup happens off-page. The diadem seems to have been destroyed by Fiendfyre immediately as well, as when Harry examined it outside the Room of Requirement it was already leaking a blood-like substance, and then it cracked in half. When Voldemort hit Harry with Avada Kedavra in the forest, Harry woke up in limbo with the last fragment of Voldemort's soul - that awful flayed baby-like being - separated from him immediately.   Is there a logical/canon-based explanation for why the fragment of Voldemort's soul residing in Harry wasn't destroyed upon Harry being bitten by the basilisk?  NOTE: I've read the HP Wiki's entry on Horcruxes; however, I find the HP Wiki to be inconsistent in its accuracy, so I'm hesitant to accept the Wiki's explanation on the matter. I'd prefer an explanation constructed from information in the books or a statement by JKR, or the like.
44834
In Half Blood Prince, Dumbledore tells Harry that:     "The seventh part of his soul, however maimed, resides inside his   regenerated body. That was the part of him that lived a spectral   existence for so many years during his exile; without that, he has no   self at all. That seventh piece of soul will be the last that anybody   wishing to kill Voldemort must attack — the piece that lives in his   body.”      — Half Blood Prince, Chapter 23, Horcruxes.   Why does the master piece that lives in Voldemort have to be the last?  If Voldemort was killed*  in the usual way (as he was in 1981), i.e., this master piece was ripped of his body and then all his Horcruxes were destroyed, would he not be finished for ever, and meet the same fate in eternal limbo as he did at the end of Deathly Hallows?  The natural answer seems to be affirmative, if not for the fact that Dumbledore explicitly uses the word 'last'.  If no, what would happen in the alternate scenario described above?  I vaguely remember some mention of this problem in this site, but it could have been in the comments.  *I must clarify that 'kill' here must refer to ripping the (part of his) soul in his body, allowing for the possibility that he might regenerate, as opposed to the ordinary usage of the word 'kill', which leads to death for unhorcruxed people.
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?
60415
In Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (film), why were Ron and Hermione kept from entering the Three Broomsticks by the shrunken heads for being underage, when Hogwarts students went in there all the time?