another puzzle

[lapin-agile.livejournal.com]

Perhaps one of you pieced this together immediately. I haven't.

In the comments on alt_mcgonagall's 17 September Order Only post, Molly Weasley asks McGonagall if Lucius Malfoy asked to see "the book" during his visit to the castle. McGonagall responds: "As for the book - no, he did not. I believe we've duped him - at least this year."


Thoughts?




Aside: the question has been raised (on the previous thread) whether to start threads for each separate topic or whether this community risks developing too many simultaneous conversations. My vote is for making new posts for each separate topic (and for fresh rounds of speculation on old topics after they've lain dormant for a while). I find this helps me navigate the community if I want to find what someone said on a particular issue. For what it's worth (and in anticipation of the day when it becomes an issue for us), I also think it's helpful to keep threads from collapsing to outline by starting a new post to continue the ongoing conversation.

Comments

Re: I think you're right!

[longstrider.livejournal.com]

One other interpretation of Minerva's comment about Shah is that Shah is a wizard who acted as a changeling for the Swithins. The muggleborn child is stolen and replaced by a polyjuiced (or otherwise disguised wizard) who then 'dies' awhile later. Definitely a dark take on Order operations, but possible. That would explain why it didn't matter who the second person was, they've got more than one who does it.

Re: I think you're right!

[black-dog.livejournal.com]

The idea of an involuntary "changeling" would put a wonderful spin, here, on the whole wizard/faerie tradition. Under this theory, then, when McG says that Shah "replaced" the Swithin girl, you mean literally replaced, within the Swithin family? Rather than that she took the available Wizard-family opening originally intended for the Swithin girl.

My first thought was -- wait, the Swithins refused placement. But maybe the scenario is like this: first, a family of Muggles is approached about giving up their magical infant. Then, if they refuse, a non-voluntary "changeling" action takes place at some point. When McGonagall notes that the Swithin family "turned the offer of sanctuary . . . down," she's not just sadly regretting a missed opportunity; she's euphemistically alluding to the fact that things got more complicated and potentially uglier. And then a moment later, she and Molly recall who the "mudblood brat" that Lucius had "removed" actually was.

Would Shah be a wizard herself, though? A wizard family's child, yes, but I was speculating below (http://community.livejournal.com/alt_fen/3354.html?thread=31258#t31258) that older children might be involved in a Squib-for-Muggleborn sort of swap. Otherwise the child would grow up and be exposed when it started manifesting magic. Or else, consistent with the "changeling" theme, it could "die" and be taken back into a wizarding family, but that wouldn't solve the problem of an extra child in the records, and it doesn't seem to be the model in the Swithins' case. Still, some variation of all this seems like a tantalizing possibility here.

Re: I think you're right!

[black-dog.livejournal.com]

On second thought, of course, if Shah was the changeling who replaced the Swithins baby, she eventually did start manifesting magic; that's how she was caught. But I don't see why a wizarding family would place a magical baby into a muggle household where it was going to be exposed eventually. Could it have been a mistake -- maybe the sort of mistake that inevitably happens now and then, where they assume a child is a squib but it turns out to be magical after all? Or, the changeling theory could just be wrong, but I really really like it and want to save it! :)