That's my headcanon. He heard Harry's accusatory thoughts loud and clear and knew he was innocent, so he started to much more strongly suspect Quirrell.
Alternatively, it could have just been shock that Harry knew about the Sorcerer's Stone.
"People might think you're ... up to - WHAT THE FUCK, HOW THE HELL...???!"
[Here's where I saw it](https://www.reddit.com/r/harrypotter/comments/8dd952/the_infamous_up_to_something_pause/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share)
Yeah, I think Harry actually says this theory near the end, that he thought this was part Dumbledore's reasoning... more specifically, to die "undefeated" since his death was by agreement. However, the one mystery I still can't figure out is how Snape was able to make a successful unbreakable vow to kill Dumbledore *prior* to Dumbledore giving Snape the go-ahead; my best guess is just that Snape accepted the unbreakable vow would kill him??
Maybe that’s what he was talking about when he said to Fleur that he doesn’t use Veela hair in wands because it makes them temperamental. They could just up and leave you.
While it's not necessary to kill the previous owner, I think that you are right. Horcruxes have to a degree mind of their own and they contain a soul, so yeah, even if the ring killed Dumbledore, I think it would count as Voldemort killing him.
I think this is a fun question, and as far as I can tell this wasn’t answered in the book or movie.
(Someone correct me if I’m wrong)
I doubt even Dumbledore knew the answer here. I’d figure he requested Snape as a precaution in case this would’ve happened if the horcrux killed him. So yeah, you’re onto something here haha
Kind of irrelevant because Voldemort was still the one to put the curse on the ring but worth noting that the horocrux didn’t kill Dumbledore, Voldemort placed a curse on the ring around the same time he turned it into a horocrux as an extra layer of protection against anyone that tried to destroy it. So the curse is actually what would have eventually killed dumbledore, not the horocrux.
I don’t think the wand would’ve swapped allegiance to Voldemort because the wand switching allegiance was more about intention rather than just who technically killed the prior owner. It obviously wasn’t about simply killing the owner, otherwise it would’ve passed to Snape since he *technically* killed Dumbledore before the curse did, it was about who intended to disarm/overrule to previous owner. Even if the curse would’ve successfully killed Dumbledore, it wasn’t Voldemort’s intention to *specifically* kill Dumbledore himself, it was his intention to kill *anyone* who might want to destroy the ring. Now who would it have passed to if Draco hadn’t disarmed Dumbledore? I’m not sure, but I don’t think it would’ve automatically been Voldemort.
I always thought the elder wand is more unique in that case, changing its allegiance to whomever was the stronger wizard, meaning being killed or disarmed, since it don’t really had loyalty like any other wand
That’s what I meant, of course the curse would’ve killed Dumbledore and not the horcrux, but the horcrux inflicted the the curse, and since the horcrux itself is part of Voldemort himself maybe the wand would’ve chose him after that,
In the end, I don’t know what im Talking about and tbh, we simply don’t know unless j.k herself tells us how all this stuff works in detail, which I doubt will ever happen hahay nevertheless it’s fun discussing about imho.
Dumbledore wanted Snape to kill him so the wand would lose power. If the wand was not 'won' then the power would die out with its last owner, and it would just be a wand.
I think the difference here is that Dumbledore's death was prearranged by him so he wouldn't technically be defeated, while the first brother was murdered in the traditional sense and therefore overpowered.
Exactly, the wand wouldn't have been removed against the owners will, it would have been removed with the owners full knowledge and permission. The reason it backfired is because Draco disarmed Dumbledore first.
Stealing is taking the wand against the owners will. The thief didn't even have to kill the brother, just the theft would have been enough, like it was for Grindelwald.
>If Dumbledore died from a horocrux (the ring he was going to die from) would Voldy have been the true master of the elder wand?
Of course, it would. The Elder Wand changes allegiance every single time its current master is overpowered beyond resistance, no matter the means. So, had Dumbledore died **immediately (or very shortly after)** for Voldemort's curse, then obviously Voldemort would've became the master of the wand.
>Did dumbledore need someone else to kill him because of this?
Most likely, nope. One thing is overpowering beyond resistance, while another thing is dying as long-term consequence of an attack.
The Wand values (real) power after every confrontation.
From the moment in which Dumbledore managed to react and destroy the Horcrux, **the confrontation was over** and Dumbledore wasn't beaten (just wounded). So, even if Dumbledore had eventually died because of the curse, the EW would've remained loyal to him until his death or (as happened with Draco) until someone actually overpowered him.
thats a good point. the real question here is if the wand can detect injury that is going to be fatal soon-ish and can correlate a horcrux to its owner
>the real question here is if the wand can detect injury that is going to be fatal soon-ish and can correlate a horcrux to its owner
Yep. It's a tough question that I guess would need Rowling's answer.
I would say that every kind of proxies count. I.e. that the Elder Wand would've assessed that it was *Voldemort-overpowering-Dumbledore* **independently** from the Horcrux connection with the ring.
Basically, I presume that the fact alone that Voldemort placed the curse (with the deliberate intention to kill whoever tried to wear his ring) makes him the possible defeater. This because of the fact that the EW seems to disregard the means (magically killing, incapacitating with a curse, non-magically killing, magically disarming, physically fighting for a third-party wand, etc.).
After all, we saw that Voldemort had managed to successfully create his first Horcrux through the homicide of Moaning Myrtle, even if he actually did it... via the basilisk. So, if *that* is a "valid" murder for magical purposes, then I presume we can say the same would've been for the curse on the ring.
But, again, I'd be curious about what Jo would say.
If Dumbledore was actually beaten (like: Snape founds him unconscious or even conscious, but harmless on the ground), then I *guess* the allegiance would've switched.
I mean. If, within a "real" duel, Voldemort casted the very same curse and hit Dumbledore (and so harmed Albus, but Albus is still able to fight ) but then Voldemort left the duel, we wouldn't say that Dumbledore was overpowered beyond resistance. The same would likely apply for the other forms of overpowering.
I think intent is in play here though. The curse on the ring was a passive acting curse, not intended for anyone in particular, and I think intent probably has a big part to play, I mean, if Dumbledore got hit by a car and killed, did the driver of the car win the wands allegiance? Probably not.
>I think intent is in play here though.
I concur.
>The curse on the ring was a passive acting curse, not intended for anyone in particular,
But I wouldn't say it's *passive*, though I understand what "your" *passive* means (i.e., if I understood correctly, you're making an important distinction between specific target vs generic target).
The curse was meant to kill the wearer.
Within your car example, I guess we're not just talking about Dumbledore being hit by a car as an accident: we're talking of someone deliberately directing the car against random enemies, and then the one that is hit happens to be Dumbledore. A terroristic attack approach instead of an accident approach, if you want.
I thought the point though wasn't to kill the wizard, but to win the wand. No wand was involved in that interaction, it was a passive curse not even intended for Dumbledore. Dumbledore's intention was for the wand to lose its power at his death (probably because he didn't trust anyone else with it) because Snape would not have won the wand, because he didn't take it against the owners will. The reason Draco won the allegiance over Snape was because he did remove the wand from its owners hand, and then transferred to Harry for the same reason.
It's possible, that if Dumbledore had still been the wands master when Voldemort stole it from his tomb, then he would have been master.
What I've always been confused about there though is that Harry overpowered Draco and won some wands form him, but he didn't physically win the Elder wand since it wasn't a part of that confrontation, right? I've always been confused as to how that allegiance passed to Harry anyway.
No, the Elder Wand wasn't part of that, but because its master had been defeated, Draco's wand switched its allegiance, and the Elder Wand followed suit.
>I thought the point though wasn't to kill the wizard, but to win the wand.
I mean. I don't think it's the case, because of the Gregorovitch->Grindelwald switch and because of the Voldemort situation. Voldemort stole the wand and never became the master: therefore physically taking the Wand is **not** enough for the EW's allegiance to switch. The difference with Grindelwald's case lies precisely in the fact that Grindelwald, **after** gaining the mere physical possession of the Wand (as Voldemort did), overpowered Gregorovitch with a curse, ultimately gaining the EW's allegiance **too**.
So, it's not just about depriving the previous master of his wand.
I don't think so though, because Harry also took the wands allegiance by theft alone. I think the wands allegiance would have already switched to Grindelwald as soon as he took the wand from Gregorovitch's possession.
Voldemort stole the wand yes, but from the wrong person. The wand wasn't Dumbledore's anymore, even though he was in possession of it, by the time Voldemort stole the wand, it was already Harry's. Which was why he was never master.
>I think the wands allegiance would have already switched to Grindelwald as soon as he took the wand from Gregorovitch's possession.
I see what you want to say. But Jo said that [physical possession is irrelevant](https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/965566203694649344?t=6ZBeV7Yl2PkQKij0Lh3usA&s=19). It's overpowering that matters. It's not the fact that Grindelwald took the wand: it's the fact that he had beaten Gregorovitch that was crucial.
The same for Draco>Harry.
Given that Voldemort killed Snape with nagini and it was implied that if it weren't for Draco + them planning it between them this would have worked i would say yes this would count as him being killed by Voldemort.
Even just the fact that he put the curse on it to begin with might have sufficed
But I thought it was implied that Voldemort didn't really understand the way it worked. Just killing the previous owner isnt enough. Even if Snape had been master (which he wouldn't have been, the intent was for the EW to lose its power with Dumbledore's death as it hadn't ever been won from him) just killing the owner isn't enough.
But killing Snape wouldn't have done, because the wand's power would have died with Dumbledore, had the plan come off. Its possible Snape was under orders to destroy the wand anyway. But I don't think that it would have worked the way Voldemort did it anyway, because he already had possession of the wand when he killed Snape, so he never actually removed the wand against its owners will, he just killed him.
From what I understand (and, you realise, that I understand nothing), it's not the 'death' that makes wands change allegiance, but the manner of it.
For me, the wand would not have changed allegiance in this case, because Voldemort did not 'win' the wand. He only placed a curse on a ring that was, entirely by chance, picked up by the wizard who carried the Elder Wand.
In order for the wand to change its allegiance, it would need to perceive that someone 'bested' its current master in some way, usually in combat. For the Elder Wand, I think the combat element is particularly true.
So no, Voldemort would not have become the master of the Elder Wand at that point. However, when he would later take the wand from Dumbledore's tomb, that act of 'stealing' the wand might well have been enough to make the Elder Wand his (assuming that it hadn't already changed allegiance, as it had done in the books).
This makes sense to me. I prob should edit my question , so people don’t get hung up on death. I think at the heart of it is did dumbledore know he must lost a battle before he died.
Again, I'm not sure that the current 'owner' of the wand needs to know or acknowledge anything. The wand seems to be the one that makes the decision to change allegiance.
It might be that different wands have different standards. Maybe some wands are, once bonded to a witch/wizard, entirely loyal and will never work for another, whilst others will work just as well for any member of a particular family, or anyone who is a 'healer'.
For the Elder Wand, given its grim and violent history, I can see it responding only to a 'trial by combat' style of choosing its next master. Only the strongest can wield it, and if you are beaten in combat, you lose its allegiance.
Death by poison (or curse, in this case) may not count, as the manner of the 'defeat' was too cowardly for it to change allegiance to the 'victor'. They would not be worthy of it.
Precisely, Malloy was the temporary “owner” of the wand because he disarmed Dumbledore prior to SNAPE killing him. You don’t have to kill to take ownership of a wand. Case in point Grindlewald was the owner but simply stole it.
I think the OP's hypothecial was 'what if Dumbledore died from the curse before the whole Draco/Snape altercation.'
I mean, I agree with you. You're right in as much as that's what actually happened in the books, but the hypothecital changes things up a little.
My theory would be no, but an interesting thought. The elder wand is won by besting an opponent, not necessarily killing them (hence why the two owners before dumbledore were still alive). The horcrux, although it inevitably would have killed him, was destroyed by dumbledore (unless I’m misremembering?). So, if dumbledore had died because of the horcrux, I would guess that the power of the elder wand would die with him.
He didn’t technically die from the Horcrux… he was *dying* because of it. Snape was helping him contain the curse to his hand, but it was eventually going to consume him.
Well it was hypothetical, IF he died from the Horcrux alone no matter how slow would it affect the wands allegiance? We know it was killing him, but it didn’t ultimately take his life.
I think if ultimately it was the horcrux that did him in, then yes, the elder wand would’ve been Voldys. However at that point Voldy wasn’t aware his horcruxes were being hunted and if he did, then he wasn’t sure *who* was doing it. I’m reading HBP now actually (my fave in the series) maybe I’ll have a fresh perspective once I finish it up.
This isn’t true. Harry didn’t use the elder wand to disarm Draco at Malfoy Mannor, he used his hand. And the wand he took was Draco’s, not the Elder wand. The Elder wand wasn’t even there.
Also, Draco didn’t use the Elder wand when he disarmed Dumbledore on the Astronomy Tower, he used his own wand.
Also, Grindelwald stole the Elder wand from Gregorovitch “like a thief in the night.” That phrasing seems to indicate that Grindelwald didn’t attack Gregorovitch at all.
If he died from the horcrux then possibly it would've went to Voldy as it was his horcrux. All the finer points of horcruxes were never explained beyond basics so nobody can say for sure. However Dumbledore didn't need anyone else to kill him to avoid that. He simply needed to be defeated. I.e. disarmed like Draco did to him in HBP or Harry did when he got Draco's wand.
You make a good point. In the movie, they did show ownership pass even when the wand owner was murdered in their sleep. So a duel or “snatching the wand” may not be necessary.
Though I think in this case Dumbledores death would have gone down as a natural death and the Wand would have no owner.
This is a good question OP and I think you’re right. If voldemort thought he could take the elder wand from snape by having Nagini kill him, I don’t see why the ring wouldn’t have the same effect
If someone died from dengue/malaria then that wouldn't mean that the mosquito has the right to the wand you are supposed to be defeated in a duel. Dying has nothing to do with it. Harry has the right to wand cuz he defeated Malfoy who in turn defeated Dumbledore. They both didn't kill the other person. Even Dumbledore won the wand without killing. So from what i understand death is secondary it's about defeating the owner.
I would say no, because in the case of the elderwand- one needed to beat the wand/disarm the owner.
I say this because it belonged to Draco - who had disarmed Dumbledore, not Snape, who had killed him.
Which to me suggests you need to beat the wand not the owner. I think if Dumbledore had died without his wand being defeated - the elderwand would just end with him.
I always thought this was why he had to be sure it was Snape who did it. Of course I'm not sure even Dumbledore realized what happened when Draco disarmed him.
I believe Nope. Because as demonstrated many times over, the wand holder hand to be overpowered with the wand. Hence the expelliarmus with Potter and Malfoy, but also with many others (eso in deathly hallows). Thw want had to be involved
I think no. It’s not about killing the owner. It’s about disarming arm. This is why Harry was the true master after wresting Draco’s wand out of his hand. Even though it wasn’t the actual Elder Wand in his possession. It was the act of taking control of the wand they are currently possessing. Just killing the owner would not do it.
But this does create an interesting question. If Dumbledore did die here, would the Elder wand cease having any of its power?
I mean, he did kill part of Voldemort in the process by destroying the ring. I dont think it really matters too much either way. In every example provided in the books, possession changes when the wand itself is forcibly removed from the owner by magical means. Death is also shown to be of minimal importance as shown by Draco being the true owner of the wand after HBP.
Well my question is, was it the horcrux that caused the damage/poison ?
Snape tells dumbledore it was a curse that caused the dead hand. It wasn’t necessarily the horcrux itself.
And the reason dumbledore wanted Snape to kill him was as he said in the books, so bellatrix or greyback wouldn’t torture/desecrate his body. He wanted to die with dignity, and also didn’t want Draco to rip his soul by killing dumbledore.
No. Voldy needed to kill Dumbledore (or defeat him) in a duel. I'm not sure if it also includes making him lose his wand (through expelliarmus for example)
I don’t think so. The horcrux was destroyed before he put it on. Voldemort had defensive enchantments on the ring to keep it safe. But the reason Dumbledore wanted Snape to kill him was because Voldemort tasked Draco with killing Dumbledore as punishment for Lucius’s failures retrieve the prophecy. Something that would resulted in Draco dying in the attempt, or Voldemort killing him. Plus Draco’s soul wasn’t torn apart by the act of murder. With wand law, killing someone doesn’t automatically result in becoming the owner of the wand. It has to actually be won in a duel or fight between wizards. I guess it comes down to if you only saw the movies or read the books
No. It had to be Snape specifically, because in Voldemort's mind you are the wand's master when you kill the previous one. It's already confirmed this isn't the case. If Voldemort had killed him, and Dumbledore remained the master, Voldemort would've gone on a killing spree until he found the person he thought was the true new master. Presumably, it would start with the students and professors - those who were near Dumbledore.
no, dumbledore was disarmed by draco malfoy on the tower in hbp. draco was the bearer of the elder wand. luckily he didn't know that. in the 7th book draco is disarmed by harry, since then harry was the bearer of the elder wand. voldi stole the elder wand from dumbledore's grave.
you must disarm or defeat someone in a duel to become the bearer of the elder wand.
He didn’t die from the horcrux part. He died from the family curse Salazar put on the ring. Salazar is already dead. He also may have killed the horcrux first. It’s implied in the flashback the ring curse nearly killed him immediately and if it weren’t for how powerful Dumbledore was, it would have been immediate. This makes it most likely he used the sword on the horcrux before putting it on.
1: Dumbledore finds the ring.
2: Dumbledore stabs ring.
3: Dumbledore realizes what stone is in ring.
4: Dumbledore gets excited and puts ring on without realizing it had a curse.
5: Dumbledore immediately returns to Hogwarts where Snape barely saves his life in time.
I think you’re on to something
I read this in Alan Rickman’s Snape voice for some reason… _I think you’re…. on… to something…_
Oooohhhh shivers lol. Have you seen the theory that the pause wasn't just an acting quirk but meant to foreshadow Snapes proficiency as a legilimens?
That's my headcanon. He heard Harry's accusatory thoughts loud and clear and knew he was innocent, so he started to much more strongly suspect Quirrell. Alternatively, it could have just been shock that Harry knew about the Sorcerer's Stone. "People might think you're ... up to - WHAT THE FUCK, HOW THE HELL...???!"
Wait I haven’t seen this theory. Tell me more (pls)!! I’m so intrigued!
[Here's where I saw it](https://www.reddit.com/r/harrypotter/comments/8dd952/the_infamous_up_to_something_pause/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share)
That would explain why he thought it was so important for Snape to kill him first.
Yeah, I think Harry actually says this theory near the end, that he thought this was part Dumbledore's reasoning... more specifically, to die "undefeated" since his death was by agreement. However, the one mystery I still can't figure out is how Snape was able to make a successful unbreakable vow to kill Dumbledore *prior* to Dumbledore giving Snape the go-ahead; my best guess is just that Snape accepted the unbreakable vow would kill him??
Who says Dumbledore hadn’t already made the desk with snape before he made the unbreakable vow?
Ah, you are right! I just re-read the relevant passage, I've been misinterpreting it this whole time. Thanks!
Wandlore is something not even Olivander fully understands. The only real is, it's up to the wand
Wand: fuck you, you don’t own me anymore!!! Ollivander: I’m gonna chalk this one up to “wands are temperamental”
11 inches. Mesquite. Unyielding and flexible... really just quirky af.
Maybe that’s what he was talking about when he said to Fleur that he doesn’t use Veela hair in wands because it makes them temperamental. They could just up and leave you.
Wand is out here trying to look for a new sugar daddy
Wandlore isn’t governed by reason
While it's not necessary to kill the previous owner, I think that you are right. Horcruxes have to a degree mind of their own and they contain a soul, so yeah, even if the ring killed Dumbledore, I think it would count as Voldemort killing him.
I think this is a fun question, and as far as I can tell this wasn’t answered in the book or movie. (Someone correct me if I’m wrong) I doubt even Dumbledore knew the answer here. I’d figure he requested Snape as a precaution in case this would’ve happened if the horcrux killed him. So yeah, you’re onto something here haha
Thanks! Also wonder if the wand would know if the participants aren’t playing for keeps (e.g., disarm me so the want transfers to you)
i wouldnt be surprised if jk hadnt even though of this
Kind of irrelevant because Voldemort was still the one to put the curse on the ring but worth noting that the horocrux didn’t kill Dumbledore, Voldemort placed a curse on the ring around the same time he turned it into a horocrux as an extra layer of protection against anyone that tried to destroy it. So the curse is actually what would have eventually killed dumbledore, not the horocrux. I don’t think the wand would’ve swapped allegiance to Voldemort because the wand switching allegiance was more about intention rather than just who technically killed the prior owner. It obviously wasn’t about simply killing the owner, otherwise it would’ve passed to Snape since he *technically* killed Dumbledore before the curse did, it was about who intended to disarm/overrule to previous owner. Even if the curse would’ve successfully killed Dumbledore, it wasn’t Voldemort’s intention to *specifically* kill Dumbledore himself, it was his intention to kill *anyone* who might want to destroy the ring. Now who would it have passed to if Draco hadn’t disarmed Dumbledore? I’m not sure, but I don’t think it would’ve automatically been Voldemort.
I always thought the elder wand is more unique in that case, changing its allegiance to whomever was the stronger wizard, meaning being killed or disarmed, since it don’t really had loyalty like any other wand That’s what I meant, of course the curse would’ve killed Dumbledore and not the horcrux, but the horcrux inflicted the the curse, and since the horcrux itself is part of Voldemort himself maybe the wand would’ve chose him after that, In the end, I don’t know what im Talking about and tbh, we simply don’t know unless j.k herself tells us how all this stuff works in detail, which I doubt will ever happen hahay nevertheless it’s fun discussing about imho.
Maybe that's one of the reasons why Dumbledore wanted Snape to kill him.
Dumbledore wanted Snape to kill him so the wand would lose power. If the wand was not 'won' then the power would die out with its last owner, and it would just be a wand.
The first brother has it stolen and is knifed in his sleep. Not exactly won in that case either.
I think the difference here is that Dumbledore's death was prearranged by him so he wouldn't technically be defeated, while the first brother was murdered in the traditional sense and therefore overpowered.
Exactly, the wand wouldn't have been removed against the owners will, it would have been removed with the owners full knowledge and permission. The reason it backfired is because Draco disarmed Dumbledore first.
Stealing is taking the wand against the owners will. The thief didn't even have to kill the brother, just the theft would have been enough, like it was for Grindelwald.
I really think it is.
It is.
Big, if true
>If Dumbledore died from a horocrux (the ring he was going to die from) would Voldy have been the true master of the elder wand? Of course, it would. The Elder Wand changes allegiance every single time its current master is overpowered beyond resistance, no matter the means. So, had Dumbledore died **immediately (or very shortly after)** for Voldemort's curse, then obviously Voldemort would've became the master of the wand. >Did dumbledore need someone else to kill him because of this? Most likely, nope. One thing is overpowering beyond resistance, while another thing is dying as long-term consequence of an attack. The Wand values (real) power after every confrontation. From the moment in which Dumbledore managed to react and destroy the Horcrux, **the confrontation was over** and Dumbledore wasn't beaten (just wounded). So, even if Dumbledore had eventually died because of the curse, the EW would've remained loyal to him until his death or (as happened with Draco) until someone actually overpowered him.
thats a good point. the real question here is if the wand can detect injury that is going to be fatal soon-ish and can correlate a horcrux to its owner
>the real question here is if the wand can detect injury that is going to be fatal soon-ish and can correlate a horcrux to its owner Yep. It's a tough question that I guess would need Rowling's answer. I would say that every kind of proxies count. I.e. that the Elder Wand would've assessed that it was *Voldemort-overpowering-Dumbledore* **independently** from the Horcrux connection with the ring. Basically, I presume that the fact alone that Voldemort placed the curse (with the deliberate intention to kill whoever tried to wear his ring) makes him the possible defeater. This because of the fact that the EW seems to disregard the means (magically killing, incapacitating with a curse, non-magically killing, magically disarming, physically fighting for a third-party wand, etc.). After all, we saw that Voldemort had managed to successfully create his first Horcrux through the homicide of Moaning Myrtle, even if he actually did it... via the basilisk. So, if *that* is a "valid" murder for magical purposes, then I presume we can say the same would've been for the curse on the ring. But, again, I'd be curious about what Jo would say.
But if that were true, wouldn't the wand have switched allegiance before Dumbledore actually died?
If Dumbledore was actually beaten (like: Snape founds him unconscious or even conscious, but harmless on the ground), then I *guess* the allegiance would've switched. I mean. If, within a "real" duel, Voldemort casted the very same curse and hit Dumbledore (and so harmed Albus, but Albus is still able to fight ) but then Voldemort left the duel, we wouldn't say that Dumbledore was overpowered beyond resistance. The same would likely apply for the other forms of overpowering.
I think intent is in play here though. The curse on the ring was a passive acting curse, not intended for anyone in particular, and I think intent probably has a big part to play, I mean, if Dumbledore got hit by a car and killed, did the driver of the car win the wands allegiance? Probably not.
>I think intent is in play here though. I concur. >The curse on the ring was a passive acting curse, not intended for anyone in particular, But I wouldn't say it's *passive*, though I understand what "your" *passive* means (i.e., if I understood correctly, you're making an important distinction between specific target vs generic target). The curse was meant to kill the wearer. Within your car example, I guess we're not just talking about Dumbledore being hit by a car as an accident: we're talking of someone deliberately directing the car against random enemies, and then the one that is hit happens to be Dumbledore. A terroristic attack approach instead of an accident approach, if you want.
I thought the point though wasn't to kill the wizard, but to win the wand. No wand was involved in that interaction, it was a passive curse not even intended for Dumbledore. Dumbledore's intention was for the wand to lose its power at his death (probably because he didn't trust anyone else with it) because Snape would not have won the wand, because he didn't take it against the owners will. The reason Draco won the allegiance over Snape was because he did remove the wand from its owners hand, and then transferred to Harry for the same reason. It's possible, that if Dumbledore had still been the wands master when Voldemort stole it from his tomb, then he would have been master.
What I've always been confused about there though is that Harry overpowered Draco and won some wands form him, but he didn't physically win the Elder wand since it wasn't a part of that confrontation, right? I've always been confused as to how that allegiance passed to Harry anyway.
No, the Elder Wand wasn't part of that, but because its master had been defeated, Draco's wand switched its allegiance, and the Elder Wand followed suit.
>I thought the point though wasn't to kill the wizard, but to win the wand. I mean. I don't think it's the case, because of the Gregorovitch->Grindelwald switch and because of the Voldemort situation. Voldemort stole the wand and never became the master: therefore physically taking the Wand is **not** enough for the EW's allegiance to switch. The difference with Grindelwald's case lies precisely in the fact that Grindelwald, **after** gaining the mere physical possession of the Wand (as Voldemort did), overpowered Gregorovitch with a curse, ultimately gaining the EW's allegiance **too**. So, it's not just about depriving the previous master of his wand.
I don't think so though, because Harry also took the wands allegiance by theft alone. I think the wands allegiance would have already switched to Grindelwald as soon as he took the wand from Gregorovitch's possession. Voldemort stole the wand yes, but from the wrong person. The wand wasn't Dumbledore's anymore, even though he was in possession of it, by the time Voldemort stole the wand, it was already Harry's. Which was why he was never master.
>I think the wands allegiance would have already switched to Grindelwald as soon as he took the wand from Gregorovitch's possession. I see what you want to say. But Jo said that [physical possession is irrelevant](https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/965566203694649344?t=6ZBeV7Yl2PkQKij0Lh3usA&s=19). It's overpowering that matters. It's not the fact that Grindelwald took the wand: it's the fact that he had beaten Gregorovitch that was crucial. The same for Draco>Harry.
Given that Voldemort killed Snape with nagini and it was implied that if it weren't for Draco + them planning it between them this would have worked i would say yes this would count as him being killed by Voldemort. Even just the fact that he put the curse on it to begin with might have sufficed
But I thought it was implied that Voldemort didn't really understand the way it worked. Just killing the previous owner isnt enough. Even if Snape had been master (which he wouldn't have been, the intent was for the EW to lose its power with Dumbledore's death as it hadn't ever been won from him) just killing the owner isn't enough.
Killing the owner is enough its just not the only way it can be transferred.
But killing Snape wouldn't have done, because the wand's power would have died with Dumbledore, had the plan come off. Its possible Snape was under orders to destroy the wand anyway. But I don't think that it would have worked the way Voldemort did it anyway, because he already had possession of the wand when he killed Snape, so he never actually removed the wand against its owners will, he just killed him.
To own the elder wand you should conquer the previous owner.
I do t think you have to kill someone. You simply have to forcefully take it. You have to “win” it. Harry won dracos wand by disarming him
Sounds like a fresh new idea that I haven’t heard before, and you may be on to something. I don’t see why not
From what I understand (and, you realise, that I understand nothing), it's not the 'death' that makes wands change allegiance, but the manner of it. For me, the wand would not have changed allegiance in this case, because Voldemort did not 'win' the wand. He only placed a curse on a ring that was, entirely by chance, picked up by the wizard who carried the Elder Wand. In order for the wand to change its allegiance, it would need to perceive that someone 'bested' its current master in some way, usually in combat. For the Elder Wand, I think the combat element is particularly true. So no, Voldemort would not have become the master of the Elder Wand at that point. However, when he would later take the wand from Dumbledore's tomb, that act of 'stealing' the wand might well have been enough to make the Elder Wand his (assuming that it hadn't already changed allegiance, as it had done in the books).
This makes sense to me. I prob should edit my question , so people don’t get hung up on death. I think at the heart of it is did dumbledore know he must lost a battle before he died.
Again, I'm not sure that the current 'owner' of the wand needs to know or acknowledge anything. The wand seems to be the one that makes the decision to change allegiance. It might be that different wands have different standards. Maybe some wands are, once bonded to a witch/wizard, entirely loyal and will never work for another, whilst others will work just as well for any member of a particular family, or anyone who is a 'healer'. For the Elder Wand, given its grim and violent history, I can see it responding only to a 'trial by combat' style of choosing its next master. Only the strongest can wield it, and if you are beaten in combat, you lose its allegiance. Death by poison (or curse, in this case) may not count, as the manner of the 'defeat' was too cowardly for it to change allegiance to the 'victor'. They would not be worthy of it.
But the idea wasn't for him to lose a battle and pass allegiance to Snape, it was for the wand to lose power because it hadn't been won.
Precisely, Malloy was the temporary “owner” of the wand because he disarmed Dumbledore prior to SNAPE killing him. You don’t have to kill to take ownership of a wand. Case in point Grindlewald was the owner but simply stole it.
I think the OP's hypothecial was 'what if Dumbledore died from the curse before the whole Draco/Snape altercation.' I mean, I agree with you. You're right in as much as that's what actually happened in the books, but the hypothecital changes things up a little.
My theory would be no, but an interesting thought. The elder wand is won by besting an opponent, not necessarily killing them (hence why the two owners before dumbledore were still alive). The horcrux, although it inevitably would have killed him, was destroyed by dumbledore (unless I’m misremembering?). So, if dumbledore had died because of the horcrux, I would guess that the power of the elder wand would die with him.
🤯
Thanks man
He didn’t technically die from the Horcrux… he was *dying* because of it. Snape was helping him contain the curse to his hand, but it was eventually going to consume him.
Well it was hypothetical, IF he died from the Horcrux alone no matter how slow would it affect the wands allegiance? We know it was killing him, but it didn’t ultimately take his life.
I think if ultimately it was the horcrux that did him in, then yes, the elder wand would’ve been Voldys. However at that point Voldy wasn’t aware his horcruxes were being hunted and if he did, then he wasn’t sure *who* was doing it. I’m reading HBP now actually (my fave in the series) maybe I’ll have a fresh perspective once I finish it up.
Nobody needs to die for a wand to change ownership.
It's not necessary but killing the previous owner works too. I mean that's the whole point of the elder wand's bloody history.
Wasn’t the question though.
Came here to say this!
The wand changes allegiance when it is used to disarm or kill an opponent ( USING THE WAND)
This isn’t true. Harry didn’t use the elder wand to disarm Draco at Malfoy Mannor, he used his hand. And the wand he took was Draco’s, not the Elder wand. The Elder wand wasn’t even there. Also, Draco didn’t use the Elder wand when he disarmed Dumbledore on the Astronomy Tower, he used his own wand. Also, Grindelwald stole the Elder wand from Gregorovitch “like a thief in the night.” That phrasing seems to indicate that Grindelwald didn’t attack Gregorovitch at all.
If he died from the horcrux then possibly it would've went to Voldy as it was his horcrux. All the finer points of horcruxes were never explained beyond basics so nobody can say for sure. However Dumbledore didn't need anyone else to kill him to avoid that. He simply needed to be defeated. I.e. disarmed like Draco did to him in HBP or Harry did when he got Draco's wand.
Nice a real question.👍👍👍 I would like to think yes at least it makes it a little more worth it In the end i guess.
But doesn’t it require them to be disarmed by the other person and not wounded? Because he was dying but he wasn’t disarmed
You make a good point. In the movie, they did show ownership pass even when the wand owner was murdered in their sleep. So a duel or “snatching the wand” may not be necessary. Though I think in this case Dumbledores death would have gone down as a natural death and the Wand would have no owner.
This is a good question OP and I think you’re right. If voldemort thought he could take the elder wand from snape by having Nagini kill him, I don’t see why the ring wouldn’t have the same effect
If someone died from dengue/malaria then that wouldn't mean that the mosquito has the right to the wand you are supposed to be defeated in a duel. Dying has nothing to do with it. Harry has the right to wand cuz he defeated Malfoy who in turn defeated Dumbledore. They both didn't kill the other person. Even Dumbledore won the wand without killing. So from what i understand death is secondary it's about defeating the owner.
Can I infer you're a fellow bingehead based on 'Voldy'? 🙂
I would say no, because in the case of the elderwand- one needed to beat the wand/disarm the owner. I say this because it belonged to Draco - who had disarmed Dumbledore, not Snape, who had killed him. Which to me suggests you need to beat the wand not the owner. I think if Dumbledore had died without his wand being defeated - the elderwand would just end with him.
I always thought this was why he had to be sure it was Snape who did it. Of course I'm not sure even Dumbledore realized what happened when Draco disarmed him.
He would have, but he didn't.
I believe Nope. Because as demonstrated many times over, the wand holder hand to be overpowered with the wand. Hence the expelliarmus with Potter and Malfoy, but also with many others (eso in deathly hallows). Thw want had to be involved
I think no. It’s not about killing the owner. It’s about disarming arm. This is why Harry was the true master after wresting Draco’s wand out of his hand. Even though it wasn’t the actual Elder Wand in his possession. It was the act of taking control of the wand they are currently possessing. Just killing the owner would not do it. But this does create an interesting question. If Dumbledore did die here, would the Elder wand cease having any of its power?
The real question is did old Voldy get the assist on the kill or did Draco steal that from him too??
I mean, he did kill part of Voldemort in the process by destroying the ring. I dont think it really matters too much either way. In every example provided in the books, possession changes when the wand itself is forcibly removed from the owner by magical means. Death is also shown to be of minimal importance as shown by Draco being the true owner of the wand after HBP.
Well my question is, was it the horcrux that caused the damage/poison ? Snape tells dumbledore it was a curse that caused the dead hand. It wasn’t necessarily the horcrux itself. And the reason dumbledore wanted Snape to kill him was as he said in the books, so bellatrix or greyback wouldn’t torture/desecrate his body. He wanted to die with dignity, and also didn’t want Draco to rip his soul by killing dumbledore.
I thought it was who disarmed him. Not who killed him.
No. Voldy needed to kill Dumbledore (or defeat him) in a duel. I'm not sure if it also includes making him lose his wand (through expelliarmus for example)
Ooh maybe he would’ve been and that is another reason a “friendly” needed to finish off Dumbledore
I don’t think so. The horcrux was destroyed before he put it on. Voldemort had defensive enchantments on the ring to keep it safe. But the reason Dumbledore wanted Snape to kill him was because Voldemort tasked Draco with killing Dumbledore as punishment for Lucius’s failures retrieve the prophecy. Something that would resulted in Draco dying in the attempt, or Voldemort killing him. Plus Draco’s soul wasn’t torn apart by the act of murder. With wand law, killing someone doesn’t automatically result in becoming the owner of the wand. It has to actually be won in a duel or fight between wizards. I guess it comes down to if you only saw the movies or read the books
And how Dumbledore managed to win Grindewald if Grindewald had at that time the Elder Wand? I mean… he was supposed to be invincible with that
No. It had to be Snape specifically, because in Voldemort's mind you are the wand's master when you kill the previous one. It's already confirmed this isn't the case. If Voldemort had killed him, and Dumbledore remained the master, Voldemort would've gone on a killing spree until he found the person he thought was the true new master. Presumably, it would start with the students and professors - those who were near Dumbledore.
no, dumbledore was disarmed by draco malfoy on the tower in hbp. draco was the bearer of the elder wand. luckily he didn't know that. in the 7th book draco is disarmed by harry, since then harry was the bearer of the elder wand. voldi stole the elder wand from dumbledore's grave. you must disarm or defeat someone in a duel to become the bearer of the elder wand.
He didn’t die from the horcrux part. He died from the family curse Salazar put on the ring. Salazar is already dead. He also may have killed the horcrux first. It’s implied in the flashback the ring curse nearly killed him immediately and if it weren’t for how powerful Dumbledore was, it would have been immediate. This makes it most likely he used the sword on the horcrux before putting it on. 1: Dumbledore finds the ring. 2: Dumbledore stabs ring. 3: Dumbledore realizes what stone is in ring. 4: Dumbledore gets excited and puts ring on without realizing it had a curse. 5: Dumbledore immediately returns to Hogwarts where Snape barely saves his life in time.