if this theory holds true, then dumbledore using fawkes to block the killing curse is him testing to see if the living vessel of a horcrux can survive a killing curse whilst the soul inside is killed. Proving to him that harry could survive.
@@DracoRubi Harry is a hororcrux though. That’s cannon. That’s why he can see into Voldemort’s mind and speak parseltongue and such. After he dies and sees the baby Voldemort in Kings Cross, then comes back through his blood running through Voldemort, he looses the connection. That’s why he can’t speak parseltongue after he dies.
@@DracoRubi but that's what a horcrux is, an object/person/animal that has a hidden piece of a dark witch/wizard's soul that was placed there by the witch/wizard
@@thexreaderspeaks Your definition is correct. And precisely because of that, Harry isn't a Horcrux. Voldemort didn't perform the spell, he didn't take his piece of soul and placed it anywhere with Dark magic.
Haha true when you said Horcrux vs. Horcrux. I just realized the irony of fawkes saving Harry from the Basilisk. So it's really a Horcrux saving a Horcrux from a Horcrux.
@Leah Chiaravalloti I didn't say the basilisk was a Horcrux. I'm talking about the diary, not the basilisk. I'm saying Fawkes (the Horcux, even though JK Rowling says it's not) saving Harry (the Horcux) from the diary (a Horcux.
I'm sold. Given Rowling's response, I'd venture to speculate that Dumbledore created a horcrux without her knowledge. Strange to say, but that is the magic of storytelling.
This is something I very much dislike about Rowling. Most author and story tellers have the belief that any theory could be true. Rowling has the inset that she can decide for things to be canon with a simple tweet.
The 2 wands represent the two sides of Dumbledore. Voldemort's wand represents his thirst for power in his early years and Harry's wand is the nice helping side of Dumbledore
I was gonna say that and also add in that Dumbledore was the man who in a sense brought them into the wizarding world and was a sense of a father figure too
Nah voldi was already evil since year 0. He was born without love his moter used love potion on his dad who eventually left after she decided to test him if he loves her without potion.
Theories like these make me feel as if the readers actually understand the world and story of Harry Potter better than the author herself. It's a very strange feeling.
theyll never know it more than her. she is obviously the utmost authority. just because she hasnt touched on it doesnt mean she hasnt thought about it.
You can argue the same about any author who constructs a fantasy world. It is one of the appeals of fictional writing. GRRM has equally said that he has heard theories he wish he had thought of an incorporated into his work.
JK's writing is filled with more plot holes than Hagrid has hair, so it's pretty normal that fans try to fill these holes and in turn have more knowledge than the actual author. Good thing death of the author is a thing.
I’ve always assumed that dumbledore know that nagini was a horcrux because Harry can see inside nagini’s mind (in book five when nagini attacks Arthur weasley). Dumbledore already thinks that Harry is one of Voldemort’s horcruxes, so he theorizes that Harry can see inside nagini’s mind because they both share a part of Voldemort’s soul
@@ShadowDaNet yeah. Dumbledore gives more explicit reasons for the snake. and it's implied in Order of the Phoenix very heavily. This channel produces a lot of great theories, but it seems they often forget, stretch, and twist details and misinterpret lines in the book to create theories like this. If we accepted their theory, I would argue that Dumbledore put his soul together through remorse. If at no other point than when he drank the potion of despair in the cave, and the pain of it nearly killed him. Harry's wand wouldn't have broken so easily if it were a horcrux as it is explicitly stated that physical damage is not possible on horcruxes. but if it were possible, it happened long after Dumbledore's death so it wouldn't stop dumbledore from being "alive". this theory is just an example of one of their desperately silly theories. Perhaps I should call it a Rita Skeeta theory. based on just enough truth to make you question how well you thought you knew the subject, but upon closer inspection, being utter nonsense.
What if Dumbledore created the horcrux in order to confirm that he killed his sister. He was so distraught over her death that he needed to know that it was him rather than His brother or Grindlewald. He turned to dark magic for his own peace of mind but rather found that he was indeed the perpetrator of this heinous crime. This is why he feels so responsible for what happened.
Suddenly the fact that Dumbledore's mere presence always has a calming effect on Harry, makes a whole lot of sense. I want to believe this one. I truly do.
And why Dumbledore is the only person Harry ever obeys without question or hesitation. Harry admired him from the first mentioning of his name when Hagrid mentioned it... even before ever going to Hogwarts.
What types of noise does the (/do) illuminati make? Is it more chase music for backgrounds, or is there an animalistic aspect, involving chittering of some sort?
How to achive immortality: Throw some avada cadavras Then use the following as horcruxes - Nokia - Grain of sand - Voldys nose - The Hulks pants Now you are immortal
This explains how Dumbledore knew Harry was at the mirror and there behind the "perfect" invisibility cloak. He never appeared to do those tricks with anyone else.
Not a bad theory. It would also show Dumbledore's wisdom in choosing an immortal being as his horcrux. Nagini was the inadvisable choice because she is mortal. Fawkes is continually reborn thus Dumbledore could live forever.
If when Harry “died” in the forest I’m deathly hallows, that killed the part of Voldemort in him. I wouldn’t be surprised if when Fawkes gets reborn, the part of Dumbledores is killed as well.
I actually liked the Cursed Child. There was a Potter in Slytherin, it explained psychological growth, and it gave a reason why time turners always need to create a paradox. I know people don’t like that Albus and Scorpius go back to the Goblet of Fire and it changes everything from then on, but I think when they go back to when Harry was cursed it reset everything they changed.
Daniel Flores seriously guys he’s ignoring several things one being that creating a Horcux is so disgusting that it would make you throw up just hearing it and it’s very difficult dark magic. Second what your saying is that it makes sense that instead of feeling remorse about the death of his sister( which he does) he looks at it as a way to prolong his life. Your saying he uses his sister death to prolong his life when he has access to the sorcerer stone that nickolas made. I don’t think so it’s much easier to use the stone to prolong life and much less of dark Magic to do so. Dark magic which is what killed his sister. Dark magic which twice he had to face stop rains of terror. Once being the only person who could stop it. But your saying that he made a hocrux this is a horrible theory I expect better from these guys
It probably requires some preparation, and if everything was set in place when he triggered all that (the curse backfiring) it might still have created the horcrux - the destination just defaulted to Harry instead of whatever Riddle intended to use.
His body died, but his soul could not, his soul was already damaged and this is why a part of his soul attached to the easiest host available: Harry But if you think this is cheap, there are worse gaps in the books.
Dumbledore created a Horcrux, so Dumbledore is still alive. That's why Dumbledore appears at King's Cross. It's only people who have created Horcruxes. Ariana was the victim. Fawkes is the Horcrux.
While talking about how J.K. loves her Trios, check this piece out. By connecting the three of them by the wands core, Dumbledore, Voldemort, and Harry, she also mimicked the thee brother's. Dumbledore who sought the stone, Voldemort who sought the wand. And Harry, who had inherited the cloak from his father.
This is actually a really good theory. It also would explain how Dumbledore could seem unfazed about letting Harry be killed to get rid of Voldemort, as a Horcrux rips away part of your soul. A lot of Dumbledore's compassion might have actually been in inside Fawkes.
Orrr... He knew that his soul was in harry and so there was a 50 % chamce that Dumbledore being Dumbledore would die instead of harry. Or he knew thay Harry had 3 soul inside him and had like a 33% chance of actually dying.
He wasn't unfazed...see the "gleam of triumph" at the end of GoF and his explanation in OooP that he grew to like Harry too much to tell him unpleasant but vital info.
Thanks to everyone who participated. I'm picking the "Nagini ate it" and the "Nobody needs such an extraneous body part" answers and combine them into "He cut it off and fed it to Nagini himself".
After having watched this video a few times, I'd say that there is a small detail worth noticing: in the 6th book, everyone comments that Dumbledore seems to have been weakened after his fight with Voldemort. It is explained afterwards that the reason he was weak was the cursed ring. But now, after a bit of thought, I seriously doubt that. Snape used a counterspell to give Dumbledore time and reduce the impact of the curse on his body. Besides his arm, he was fully functional. (Remember that in the cave, he managed to swim inside against the roaring waves. This means that even in his last moments, his body remained strong) But what if the real reason that Dumbledore had been weakened is that the part of his soul inside Fawkes died? Maybe his fight against Voldemort was really the reason of his weakness, because Voldemort destroyed (accidentally) his horcrux. The timing is perfect.
Yeah I think it's possible. Remember that phoenix come to Dumbledores in need? Well in that unfortunate fight, there wasn't just one Dumbledore, there were 3. And one of them, Ariana, was very distraught. So it might have come to her but then she was murdered by his own brother out of anger & frustration. He then unintendedly created a horcrux in Fawkes. 😯
Interesting theory, but disproven by the story in the books. Harry meets Dumbledores soul in the limbo area after dying that looks like kings cross station. Dumbledores soul is intake. Its not ripped into two, otherwise defouled or even looking a tiny bit like voldemorts soul which is completely ripped to pieces. There's nothing indicating that Dumbledore has ever made a horcrux.
I think JK hates this theory because she's the only one who knows how to make one so it disturbs her to think that Dumbledore would ever do something that made her editor almost throw up
the editor clearly didnt almost threw up... if i learned one thing about JK is how this whole series inflated her EGO even more than marge. She has no idea how to make the horrocrux be something so nasty so she keeps saying is too nasty to tell and drops it. She doesnt want to be seen like she "lost her touch" or anything like that. she also hates most, if not all, theories because of the same reason, no one can add to her story but herself. Seriously, she is almost as arrogant as voldemort.
Zareen Subha what if at the end of the book where he dies when fawkeas ( spelt that wrong) flies away it is to bring back dumbledore but he he is just as voldemort was after the backfire and he is just a soul spirit ghost thing
I know this is an old video, but it occurs to me that your theory explains the Golden Fire spell that Harry's wand cast on its own, saving Harry from Voldemort in the battle of the 7 Potters, at the beginning of Deathly Hallows. Harry didn't know the spell, but Dumbledore did. The part of Dumbledore's soul residing within the wand knew what to do and reacted to save Harry because of the connection it had with him. Apologies if this has already been covered in the comment section.
Also another thing is that phoenix cores also act on their own sometimes to protect or just do stuff that's why some wizards don't like them I remember reading somewhere
There is one issue with the theory: It states that the death of Dumbledore's sister caused his soul to split, but the soul only splits when you kill someone in cold blood. Even if Dumbledore's spell actually killed her sister and it counts to split his soul, remorse does have the ability to heal your soul and Dumbledore being so remorseful about her sister's death means that even if his soul split during that fight, it would heal from all the remorse he felt
Maybe Dumbledore didn't feel quite remorseful enough until after he made the Horcrux in an attempt to escape his growing guilt as he processed what he had done. Or maybe he killed someone else to make the horcrux which he doesn't feel remorse for
I think Dumbledore feels guilt rather then remorse, and even if he didn't kill his sister himself, he believes he did there for his soul was able to split (mind over body).
Or dumbledore, a very powerful wizard, recognized his soul had split from blaming himself for his sister's death and he refused to let it heal as some sort of self punishment. (A very dumbledore thing to do.)
@@annabellethepitty here is the thing though, remorse splitting the soul makes no sense because remorse is the very thing that heals a split soul. In the final book Harry even says to Voldermort to 'try for some remorse, it's the only thing you have left' after Nagini was killed. So it still makes no sense
JK Rowling has said that this theory is “strangely upsetting to me.” However if she did embrace this angle while writing the books and explained all this and added it to the story.. it would of made for a more interesting twist.. I personally think the idea may have crossed Dumbledore’s mind in youth but that as time passed his inclination and fear of this magic would have made him more and more repulsed by the idea. If JK Rowling added this to her books she, I’m sure, would have added the moment where Dumbledore reunited his soul. And if Fawkes survived then that would of meant Dumbledore survived as “less than spirit” and he would have undoubtedly could have guided Harry to the destruction of the Horocrux’s, making it less luck and happen stance and help from his brother and Snape, that guided Harry in the last book. Very good argument and an interesting alternative ending I would admit.
Dumbledore could possibly guide Harry through his portrait in his office but they never think of that idea, even though he was advising snape at that time
@@jackbagdadi6117 Considering she contradics herself multiple times shows that the story she gives us isnt the correct one either, so not even she decides what is or isnt.
regardless of what JK Rowling says this theory makes the most sense and fixes many plot holes. I like it. If JK Rowling can change the ethnicity of her characters and entertain the idea of killing off Ron I don't see why this is an issue. Great video and good job researching this.
Ok. I could see Dumbledore doing this. He had his dark moments and as stated this would bring additional significance to certain actions/words and it addresses certain plot holes. All of this without really tarnishing the memory of Dumbledore.
DaGaZ Rune Rowling's described he process of creating a horcrux as the most horrible thing imagined, a magic so perverted and sick that even the majority of dark magic books just describe it as something totally horrible and doesn't even bother giving details on how to do it. Voldemort had to read a lot of different books just to find out how to create a horcrux. also those who create horcruxes have a visible deformity
Maybe you didn't watch the video. I'm not going to argue his point. The video explains exactly how this could've occured, and gives ample examples as to how the creation would explain the various plot holes or gaps that the HP series has. If your want to argue the gaps in his explanation then by all means tweet, text, or simply write your own post to him.
DaGaZ Rune i did watch the video but the video gave no proof. and i am sorry but you are simply wrong. it could never have occurred dumbledore wasn't the type of guy to do something so horrible JK even said this Random guy @ JK_rowling any comments to the theory that dumbledore made fawkes a horcrux? j.k rowling response: "the idea that anybody believes this is strangely upsetting to me" another random guy Jk_rowling but... this theory does make sense at many points... right? jk response" not if you've read and understood the books"
Using a Phoenix as your horcrux is a genius idea. An animal who when it dies it becomes reborn again. So under any normal circumstances he’s almost immortal
I don't believe a phoenix would make a good horcrux. Remember that the horcrux inside Harry was destroyed when he temporarily died. A phoenix will still experience death before being reborn.
@@Connor.SG-1Ringit only would have been destroyed because it was AKd. If this theory holds true and it was dumbledores soul helping harry in COS, Fawkes had already died a natural death at least once before it helped him.
@@GhnmiksGamingCorner I'm wondering if Fawkes natural 'death' process could be considered a true death though, since he goes from being full grown to a baby he continuously has a body. The way the video explained it, with Fawkes getting the AK spell, could be the only way he actually 'died' for a bit before becoming a baby bird again. Kinda makes one's head hurt a little, lol
@@meacadwell yes but if Fawkes was made into a horcrux like this theory posits then he would have been privileged with all the protection spells regular horcruxes get like Nagini but unlike Harry who was the accidental horcrux which would mean he would be immune to normal damage (obviously AK still works) but he would essentially have eternal youth and near invulnerability
If Harry has part of Dumbledores soul, what if since in Crimes of Grindelwald when they say a Phenix will always find a Dumbledore in trouble, what if Fawkes reconized the Dumbledore in Harry's wand and came to yis need since a "Dumbledore" was in trouble? Am i crazy?
Rachel I think that since dumbledore doesn’t want to break the rules and he knows that it is against the rules that he willed fawks not to come to harry because he wanted Harry to win on his own
Think on it, guys, Dumbledore DID use at least once the connection between Harry and him. How else would he know, that, in Chamber of Secrets, Harry was staying at the Weasley's ? Sure, it could've been just the Trace, but remember : it's _Dumbledore_ who is apparently repsonsible for changing the adress from 4 Privet Drive to the Burrow, as Arthur says it _"Dumbledore_ must know you're here, Harry. Doesn't miss a trick, that man !"
Yes, except it is owls that usually know where the recipient is even if the sender does not. (Should have made it really easy to track down Sirius Black's location)
@@DanielPschaida Fair point the owls go wherever the person is and Hedwig finds Sirius many times so how come the ministry didn't just send him an owl saying turn yourself in and follow it! Ditto for Voldemort and known Death Eaters! We've just solved all crimes in the wizarding world!
See that's what keeps messing me up about this whole idea. WAS it because of soul connection or was it simply Dumbledores fkn MAJOR talent and ability magically speaking that made him able to sense harry when cloaked and through the whole series
ALSO- when Harry does the resurrection stone- dumbledore doesn't appear (because he's still alive in Harry) but if he was truly dead, surely he would have been there, he's proper important to Harry
+Ben Jamin That means nothing, as it is just as possible (and also theorized) that Limbo (the King's Cross-like area where Harry saw Dumbledore) is where one decides whether or not to become a ghost instead of simply passing on, suggesting Dumbledore may have just been waiting for Harry there, as he knew that Harry was a horcrux and would appear there sooner or later
@@flyntflossy3044 from memory one of the books talks about a shed snake skin in a house. Sorry for being so vague as I can't remember completely. But when Harry first sees what Voldemort is doing through his scar/dream connection. When Voldemort kills someone.
I had this thought too. But thinking deeper, now I’m wondering... It’s said that Fawkes “gave” feathers for the wands, implying choice. I wonder if Fawkes could also choose to imbibe those feathers with a bit of Dumbledore soul?
@@jenschafer269 That doesn't really make sense. When Fawke's feather's were used to make the wands, no one could have known who they would end up belonging to, which either a) means that Fawkes has no control over it, b) that if Fawkes has control over it, she's just willy nilly giving pieces of Dumbledore's soul away, or c) Fawke's isn't a horcrux and this whole theory has as many holes as a block of swiss.
I know that JK shot this theory dead but there are also a couple of interesting details that SCB missed which really bring this "headcannon" to life. Detail 1) In order to "undo" the making of a horcrux, the person has to experience intense grief that is so powerful that it might be actually be preferable to die in the first place. If we imagine that Dumbledore did indeed make Fawkes/The Elder Wand his horcrux then he would have to experience intense grief in order to truly 'undo' that act rather than just destroy the horcrux. What happens to Dumbledore moments before his death? He drinks the potion of despair and then he undergoes a process of grief so intense that he actually begs Harry to kill him. I think THAT is the moment where Dumbledore's soul finally mends itself and the horcrux is 'released'. Not destroyed in a way which destroys the portion of soul stored but truly released so that it rejoins with Dumbledore's whole soul. The drink of despair is his redemption for the sin of making a horcrux. Detail 2) Dumbledore 'waits' in King's Cross Station Limbo for Harry. If we go by the assumption that Dumbledore's soul has been healed then it makes perfect sense as to why he is healthy in Limbo unlike Voldemort whose soul is like a decrepit child unable to move on. Since Dumbledore healed his soul before death he is perfectly capable of moving on (which also explains why he knows that Harry's soul can move on if he wants), but instead Dumbledore waits for Harry to completely finish all of his work in the mortal world (or possibly as some sort of small self-punishment for making a horcrux in the first place), and then Dumbledore moves on.
Just a thought. Dumbledore in King's Cross, in Harry's dream, could show that Dumbledore is still alive, not physically though. Basically. If the part of Dumbledore's soul and Voldemort's soul was destroyed when the killing curse was shot at Harry. While the other part of the Horcrux was also destroyed by Nagini in Godrick's Hollow. The representation of Dumbledore is both the Horcrux, and showing his soul finally departing to heaven. Because Dumbledore is at King's Cross when Harry gets there, his soul is still in limbo because his whole horcrux wasn't fully destroyed until that moment. So when Harry got there, Dumbledore was only then allowed the opportunity to pass on into heaven. Make sense? :D
Also his horcruxs finally joined together once Harry's was destroyed. He now knows that the last remnants of the fight many years before were gone. So the absolute remorse he felt was able to join the rest of his soul together so he could go to heaven.
+darkydrone Not really because Voldemort had help to come back from Pettigrew, and was never actually killed due to the sheer number of horcruxes. Dumbledore had Fawkes and that piece of soul would have been killed off before he died, during the events of the order of the phoenix. So if there were small pieces of soul inside the wands, they wouldn't be strong enough to bring him back, plus no one would have known about them, nor would perform the dark magic that Pettigrew did to bring back Dumbledore.
Kim Flux We're also ignoring the fact that Dumbledore didn't have the stomach for creating one. Sure, he didn't have a problem with sending someone to their death, or setting someone up to die as a necessary evil, he wasn't one to get his hands dirty in the way required to make one. Especially not after what happened to his sister.
Sofa Ⓥ Exactly. That's all it is. I don't understand why so many people would be so upset and annoyed at even the thought that he might have a Horcrux.
Rowling is upset just probably because she herself never EVER thought of this kind of connection and somehow illuminated by this theory... All in all, Rowling creates something so big that she didn't even come to realise that every details are somehow having a connection she NEVER thought about in the first place...
She is upset because in the Harry Potter universe the creation of a horcrux is the most vile thing one can possibly do its horrific and demented... and not only does it involve murder but it also involves the vilest magic ...as was stated in "secrets of the darkest arts". which means that the magic required to create a horcrux is some of the most evil magic in the magical world (if not the most evil). I think strangely upsetting comes from (my own theory here) the fact that rita skeeta used half truths to defame Dumbledore and turn him into a monster that he was not. and the idea that Dumbledore could ever perform magic so vile and upsetting.... one does not make a horcrux from guilt or remorse... it is a object of pure evil. and dumbledore is the champion of good. I think its upsetting both because it paints Dumbldore as evil..... and becaus ehow people can believe that Dumbledore could ever be evil... THAT EVIL!
In the movies it movies in the deathly hallows that mister voldy (Voldemort) goes to Grindelwald prison cell to ask about the elder wand, but in the books it never says if Voldemort went to Grindelwald or not
I suppose maybe when Dumbeldore fired the curse he didn’t have any remorse, he only regretted it once he thought it was himself who had killed his sister. Possibly he felt split as well as a part of him regretted what he had done and a part of him felt that he was now free from having to take care of her, maybe this division in his feelings being enough to split his soul?
I love the trinities she does and I realized a long time ago that for the trinities there's also a quartet between Harry, Ron, Hermione, and Draco. Harry has black hair, Ron red hair, Hermione brown hair, Draco blond hair. Harry has green eyes, Ron blue eyes, Hermione brown eyes, Draco gray eyes. Although the three are in Gryffindor, Harry acts like a Gryffindor, Ron acts like a Hufflepuff, Hermione acts like a Ravenclaw, and Draco acts like a Slytherin.
I’d make one tweak to this theory, only as to what emotions Dumbledore actually detached from himself in making his horcrux. Depressed people often, as you stated, feel that they “deserve it.” Do we ever really see Dumbledore happy? Yes he can be calm, reminiscent and optimistic, but I don’t recall ever seeing him joyous. If there was any particular emotion that Dumbledore put into Fawkes, I think it would have been his love and his happiness, as we never see him loving anyone either. Maybe him and Grendelwald(?) had a thing but it was clearly broken off at some point seemingly by Dumbledore’s choice, why? Because he was so depressed and self loathing about his actions that he decided he did not deserve the love of another person anymore, and we see in fantastic beasts that he does have Fawkes at that point! Plus, Dumbledore is a MASTER of manipulation, something most commonly found in people lacking emotional empathy, a trait often associated with love. Next, what do we see from Fawkes? Certainly it’s hard for a bird to express emotion, so let’s look at his actions. Swooping into danger to fight a basilisk in defense of someone who deserves better treatment from who is basically himself (as in making amends) plus a tear that ends up healing him? And why would Fawkes cry at all? Plot convenience? Well yes, but unless Phoenixes poses the ability to understand complex situations involving concepts foreign to them (permanent death and it’s onset), it seems to me that the very small but powerful portion of Dumbledore’s soul commanded Fawkes to cry. Throughout the series every time we see Fawkes he is constantly being a saving grace, something that only someone with deep love and empathy for others would do. And finally, in swallowing the Avada Kedavra curse from Voldy, Dumbledore is killing two birds with one stone literally. His is finally killing the part of him which has love and happiness as he knows from here on out (when in war) those things will only get in the way of the sacrifices needed to win, and he tests to see how the avada kedavra spell acts when met with something unkillable (like Harry) and correctly determines that the spell will kill off anything that is not unkillable (the souls of “normal” men like himself and voldy.) From this point on we also see a drastic spiral for Dumbledore as he plummets into an emotionally dark place throughput the rest of the series, and yes the extenuating circumstances certainly help him down this path, but without his love and happiness being beside him he truly lacks anything to stop himself from the worst depression spiral he has had yet, one that ultimately leads to his death by assisted self-deletion.
I think this theory is full of holes. Firstly, I doubt that Dumbledore had any intention of killing anyone during the duel with his brother and Grindelwald. It is certainly not mentioned. Secondly, curses other than the killing curse can lead to death. The death of Ariana was certainly accidental. This theory takes certain quotes from the books and spins interpretations around them that have little to no foundation. It also rips some quotes out of context, especially regarding Fawkes. Phoenixes differ from other pets that wizards have, such as owls, cats or toads, which are ordinary creatures. Any Potter geek knows the qualities and magical abilities phoenixes have. As Dumbledore said, a phoenix makes a VERY LOYAL pet. Because Harry showed loyalty to Dumbledore AND the feather core of his wand was from Fawkes, the bird came to him in the Chamber of Secrets. Anyway, that's just a few points.
Not really holes, more like, "there's another way to explain why all these pieces of evidence. But the fact that they're all still there (and as Jay mentioned, it wasn't nessicary whether dumbledore had any intention of killing, the point was, he believed his arrogance to kill his sister) shows that it is still a likely possibility that dumbledore has a horcrux.
TheVidBros Official I just don't think it's within Dumbledore's character. Yes, he was arrogant as a young man, and that arrogance blinded him even to the point of being willing to sacrifice some people for the sake of the "greater good". But remorse and self-blame came soon after Ariana had been killed and from the "canon" of HP books it seems that remorse and self-blame are not the kind of attitudes and feelings that lend themselves to the making of a horcrux. How would those feelings lead Dumbledore to making something that would help him to be "immortal"? I don't buy it one bit.
+TheVidBros Official (TVB) you don't just go around making horcruxes because you murdered someone. then everyone that commits murder would have one right? that's the logic he is using. dumbledore had no intention of creating one. not to mention the three of them fighting doesn't automatically mean they were "using dark magic". for all we know, a bookcase could have fallen on her. I'm guessing she just couldn't survive getting stunned or something. and you cant use voldemort trying to kill Harry as a baby as a reason. too much involved in that one, vold clearly wanting to commit murder and having the spell backfire, it's just too complicated of a scenario.
The thing is dumbledore loved ariana and wouldn't murder her, but merely accidentaly kill her. The way of crating a horcrux is by murder ( the act of intended and planned killing)
Santiago Arce this is a very important thing! you cant create a horcrux when you are able to love and you still love the person you've accidentily killed. That doesnt make sense on the prospect that horcruxes is one of the darkest magic there is. Then i even think that it is in general not possible to create a horcrux when you are able to love. one thing here: it is said that Voldemort has never loved anything and voldemort cant possess harry because he his full of love. So that means a horcrux and love cant exist together (you can be a horcrux but you cant create a horcrux). And one other reason why dumbledore couldnt have created a horcrux is this: when voldemort created his horcruxes and experimented with the dark arts he changed his appearence. So if Dumbledore would have created a Horcrux he would seam less human.
Santiago Arce ah and one thing to add: I think creating a horcrux is just as using an unforgivable spell. You really have to mean it. You can just create a horcrux when you want to extend your live. Otherwise it isnt a horcrux at all and there ia one proof for that: If you want to have your soul whole again you have to feel remorse for that you killed a person to extend your live. So if you didnt do that because of this reason you cant regenerate your soul
Yeah i see your point, but somehow he was angry enough to kill Grindelwald. So I think it's not important WHO the curse was meant to kill, as long as it comes from the bottom of the heart. Which this curse did.
Lorenza Lo but as a matter of fact dumbledore didnt kill grindelwald. He defeated him in duell and the put him into nurmengard. But it is possible that he has once killed somebody because harry says i think in the 7th Book that Dumbledore never killed anybody if he could get around it. So yes he could have killed somebody but for a horcrux it depends on the reason why you did this. Dumbledore just killed to save his own or somebody others life. In the conversation between slughorn and riddle I understand the way of doing a horcrux like that: you kill on the purpose to become immortal. Thats the clue. The magic as Rowling describes it has much to do with how you mean it. E.g. you cant put a real Cruciatus-course on somebody if you dont really want to, if you dont enjoy your enemy to suffer horrendously. So as a horcrux is at least as dark as the cruciatus-course it is bound to the same magicalprinciples. So dont get me wrong the idea is good and there is evidence that dumbledore might have created a horcrux but as i told you it all depends on you purpose.
Lorenza Lo oh my god im so sorry now i got your message! Sorry. So forget my first one :D youve got a point there. Though i dont get why he would want to kill any of them. Because he was deeply in love with Grindelwald so he couldnt kill him but also loved ariana and Aberforth as they are his sister and brother. So maybe ariana had been hit by many powerful spells at the same time. Then you dont want to kill somebody you accidently killed someone. Yeah but please read through my first comment in yours though. It all depends on your purpose
OMG the part of the video saying how quotes make more sense literally sparked something in my mind. The very 1st chapter of Philosophers Stone, when Professsor McGonnagall asks whether Hagrid should be trusted to bring Harry to Privet Drive, remember what Dumbledore answered? "I would trust Hagrid with my life". I have always wondered why he said that, yet we never see any such scenario play out. A lot of what Dumbledore says has meaning or something happen later on to link to what he said. This line has nothing, at all, ever, until now. This theory opens this up and gives this line an entirely new meaning. He knows a bit of his soul is in Harry and Hagrid has Harry so Hagrid literally has a piece of Dumbledores life with him and Dumbledore is trusting him to bring Harry
Yea, so was I (taken aback). His theory actually makes the story even more complete. the magical rules of horcruxes more coherent, and Dumbledore's character even more complex and human. I think JK is upset that this theory violates Dumbledore's core personality and principles. (Here I pretend to be JK: Depressed or not, if a person is good-natured, they wouldn't go down the dark path, much like how a drunk person wouldn't go about committing crime if they don't already have that in their sober mind.) I personally don't think personality is deterministic and rigid, especially in dark times. To put simply, I like this theory.
when harry is being chased by voldemort in the deathly hallows, chapter: the seven potters gold flames appear and defeat voldemort i think that it was dumbledore helping him via wand
It was because of the phoenix cores in their wands . Fawks gave their cores and since their wands are technically brothers, the wand knew voldemort's wand was nearby and took action (gold sparks). Dumbledore explained this at deathly hallows .
+Ma7cus 8: Harry's wand didn't snap because of a Horcrux. "While battling a Horcrux" isn't really a spell or special circumstance that would allow a horcrux to randomly snap. Harry's wand snapped because Hermione cast a wrongly aimed Confringo. How the hell can a wand contain a small part of a horcrux, but not be a horcrux? That makes no sense.
A spell rebounding off a Horcrux likewise does not make it more potent. If it did, the grounds where the Trio were camping when they tried to destroy it using magic and Hogwarts would be completely detroyed, as would the old Potter shack, considering how many spells and curses rebounded off Horcruxes in those olocation. Please stop playing Devil's Advocate for a ridiculous theory with zero evidence, a plethora of counter-evidence and which forces one to rewrite several pieces of canon information to make it even work. This is one of the stupidest HP fan theories ever. Let's not keep it alive for any longer.
Also in The Tales of Beedle the Bard, Dumbledore notes how the Warlock removing his heart is similar to horcruxes but says that it won't work the same way, HOW DOES HE KNOW? My guess is that Dumbledore did try to remove his guilt by splitting his soul in horcruxes but later realised his mistake.
In the Goblet of Fire (book) while fighting against Voldemort in the graveyard Harry hears a phoenix singing, which happens to represent his connection to Dumbledore. Just sayin'.
it was the Twin cores. you know, the Twin PHOENIX cores, when their wands connected and they had the Priori Encantantum effect...it had nothing, absolutely NOTHING to do with Fawkes being Dumbledores horcrux, therefore making the wands horcruxes as well. this theory is absolutely ludicrous and quite insulting to me, jk Rowling, and Harry Potter fans everywhere. do some reading, you may learn a thing or two.
Some might count the moving paintings as Horcruxes. The painting has a cope of someone's soul in it. The panting are alive. Just up load the person's soul into the painting after the death. That makes them no longer dead!
This is the most crackpot theory I've ever heard. Are you suggesting the moving pictures in their newspapers (like of reeta skeeta - who is STILL ALIVE) are souls?
Aden Haussmann no. The moving PICTURES were put in a painting to make them move with a little bit of personality. The moving PAINTINGS can talk, interact, and think, and we don't know how they are made
Whether we agree or disagree with this theory (I love any and all theories simply because they make you really think and analyze the extended universe far more than Rowling probably ever thought someone would,) I just f*cking *love* that we even have a platform where not only this video can live and entertain but gives us a place to come a discuss other theories at length and not be made to look foolish or weird because we love the Potter-verse so much. *This was my happy place for today and every single person that has commented and added their theories is just AWESOME.* Love, A Sometimes Misunderstood Slytherin 😍🐍
Thats a great thought process! I love watching/reading Theories and conspiracies of all of my favorite books/movies. I feel like I understand plots and storylines better because of other peoples abstract thinking.
15:38 throughout the movie, whenever harry potter was under the cloak of invisibility dumbledore could sense him, this could be because of the soul connection
Breakin-Bad How real is the tale of the three brothers though? Like real folk lore, it could be rooted in reality but I doubt “death” is a real and tangible character in the Potterverse.
Dumbledore also the cloak before, plus the elder wand, maybe he could see it that way, and on top of that he can sense magic, like in the cave in half blood prince
Yes, I always wondered how that conversation happened. Did Ollivander write to Dumbledore that he was low on phoenix feathers and would he give him one from Fawkes's tail? What did Ollivander do for Dumbledore in return other than tell him who that wand chose? Whose idea was it to give two feathers and why that number? Doesn't Ollivander make thousands of wands? I got the impression that Fawkes gave two feathers on two separate occasions. Like Ollivander was running low and twice turned to Dumbledore. I would like more detail on how that history happened.
Blaming yourself for the death (not murder, manslaughter) of Dumbledore's sister is not enough to create a horcrux. What the committing of the murder does to you is what you need to split the soul, merely blaming yourself would not be enough to perform the magic needed for the horcrux. It's dark magic for a reason, blame would not be enough.
I agree. Guess blame itself would even be counterproductive. For such dark magic you probably ought to be fully aware of what you're doing and do it willingly. Not accidentally and later feel remorse for it.
Bad Wolf Bay Not quite. A horcrux is dark magic, taking responsibility for a death is not dark enough. You have to actually be committing the murder for the purposes of darkness.
Is it possible these are just crazy theories fan thought up of that the author had never thought up of and we over analyzed and are over thinking this? Nah
How to Create the Perfect Horcrux while Recycling at the Same Time- (Tom Riddle patented and approved) Step 1: Get a plastic bag Step 2: Insert your soul in said plastic bag Step 3: Bury it underground Step 4: Enjoy an extended 400+ years to your life (until said bag disintegrates)
Janira Skrbkova How to live forever. Step 1, place your soul in a grain of sand Step 2, place every magical protection there is on said grain of sand Step 3, place sand somewhere in the Atlantic Ocean. Step 4, live forever
There's one flaw with this theory and that is the fact that Dumbledore obviously felt remorse for the death of his sister, and as we know from the books, regretting the murder is the only way to mend ones soul
There’s another time in the books where there is an unknown voice in Harry’s head. When he’s resisting the imperious curse a voice argues about jumping.
Didn't Dumbledore die though? Oh and about that 'three' thing; it's the number 7 Rowling loves most: 7 years, books, horcruxes, players on a quidditch team, floors on hogwarts, weasley children. 7 is harry's quidditch number, there are 7 secret passages to hogsmeade, Hermione Jean Granger ( 7 syllables ) and Ron Bilius Weasley ( 7 syllables ), Voldemort tried to kill Harry 7 times, Nicholas Flamel is 7 years older than his wife, 7 is the number of lights Dumbledore put out, and lastly 7 snakes on the door to the Chamber of Secrets
Also, you said harry's wand horcrux was destroyed so Dumbledore could die, I think it's noteworthy that Harry's wand was destroyed AFTER the Astronomy tower event
Its not the killing that make them immortal, it is the making of the Horcrux that makes them immortal. A powerful dark spell has to be used to create them, a spell that almost no ones knows and still almost no one knows about horcruxes, Hermione didn't know until she read Dumbledores books.
Very good theory, makes sense to me. How about this. When Dumbledore says it's inadvisable to use an animal as a horcrux it's because of the bond formed between the two. Because of the bond between Dumbledore and Fawks they share consciousness. Watching Fawks die and be reborn repeatedly has numbed him to human emotion because every time it happens he has to re-watch his sisters death. It would also explain his calm demeanor because he relies on logic and not emotional feelings.
@@flyntflossy3044 because it was people he thought of as or who were family that he kept close to his heart, the ones who love us never really leave us.
Often having pondered this question myself, I think it is safe to assume that it was Rowling’s way of illustrating Harry’s closure. After all, most of the final book is focused upon his doubts of Dumbledore as a person. It seems more mature for him to accept everything than have it confirmed by Dumbledore himself. This confirmation is also avoided in Harry’s mind-meeting with Dumbledore, as all Dumbledore could possibly tell him, disregarding the video’s theory, is what Harry himself already knew to be true.
this is quite a stretch. i suppose you could argue the validity about most of this, but the one thing that cant be true is this would mean harry's wand is a horcrux. Hermione broke harry's wand with a weak spell, not dark magic. horcruxes are immune to most damage
Well, I wouldn't consider Harry's wand a full-on horcrux, it just has the smallest piece of Dumbledore's soul, not something to make it immune like an sctualy horcrux.
true, but then that would mean that the horcruxes for voldemort would get progressively easier to destroy, but they were not. size doesnt matter for this, if a piece of soul is there its a full fledged horcrux
Well then, I guess Voldemort is still out there, cause it would take a lot of time to destroy all of Nagini's molt, and even all her shit, with powerfull magic.
cam. life hm, I see your point there. You could argue that voldemort was simply being cautious with nagini as he knew his other horcruxes had been destroyed, but then you'd think harry, being another such horcrux, would have been less injury prone if that were the case
I always felt the way Harry’s wand saved him when he escaped private drive was never satisfactorily explained. With this theory in mind what if the piece of soul in Harry communicated with the shard in the wand producing magic that seems beyond Harry.
Didn't the wand store magic from the priori incantatum battle with Voldemort along with some of Harry's excess magic? Maybe a lot of wands store some of what is channeled through them. Which probably is discharged via sparks or something, normally.
I saw from another comment that talked about this. That comment brought up that Harry is a Parseltounge, an ability that isn't his, it's Voldemort's, which suggests that horcruxes can inherit abilities from the original soul. Dumbledore is a master of defense against the dark arts, he'd definitely have a solution for every duel he went against, ergo Harry and his wand would resonate that mastery when needed since they inherited it from Dumbledore's soul through Fawkes.
My problem with this theory is that you don't KILL someone to make a horcrux, you MURDER them. The difference between kill and murder is intent. If you drive while drunk and hit someone you KILL them, but if you deliberately aim your car at someone and run them over you MURDER them. Even if Dumbledore did kill Ariana it was an accident so it was not murder. No Murder, no horcrux. Theory denied. Additional note. I have just finished re-reading The Half-Blood Prince and Slughorn clearly states that after committing the murder you have to perform a spell to create a horcrux.
I read this part of the book too but then the question remains: How did Harry become a Horcrux for Voldemort? Voldemort obviously didn't perform some sort of spell to create the Horcrux?
@@Abhi_B That confused me too, and I can't find any explanation. It does say that the part of Voldemort's soul just attached itself to Harry without Voldemort's knowledge. Maybe the spell is only needed to make an inanimate object into a horcrux.
@@jonathanbauer2988 Maybe. Or it could be that it is because Voldemort was essentially killed that night so the bit of soul that escaped was weaker. Actually, just thought of this but was the bit of soul that split off because of killing James, Lily, or Voldemort's own death.
Yeh it's a weird one hey? I mean, Dumbledore said Voldemort would have a whole army of Inferi based on the number of people he's killed but no part of his soul seemed to have split off during any of this. So why did it split off after he murdered Lily and James? I think you may be onto something with the spell needed for inanimate objects though. Voldemort would possess other living things so perhaps his broken soul just latched onto Harry since he (or broken souls in general) can do that? I wish JK Rowling would provide more information on this haha
conor McDermott-Mostowy I assume this is supposed to be a "counter-argument" saying that "can" doesn't mean "will". Well then tell me why would a guy, who was shaken to the core by the realisation that his arrogance has caused the death of his sister, compound this by creating a horcrux, which is such a foul magic that even most Dark Wizards consider it disgusting? This idea is the *EXACT SAME KIND BULLSHIT* that turned Scrappy Doo into the villain of the Scoody Doo movie, and the whole Darth Darth Binks theory. Only an idiot would come-up with something that goes so much against the personality of a character, and only an even bigger idiot would actually buy it.
But if he has a life expectancy more than most wizards, like we know Dumbledore does, maybe a Horcrux can be a factor in that. Just proves the theory of the video even more.Just some thoughts for fun!
Actually a fan asked her about it and she mentioned that, That was her original intention so she could revive Dumbledore but later realized that it would cheapen his death and ruin the series! I can not find the link to the post and google shows nothing but this is like 8 odd years ago that I saw it!
Depending on how you interpret it. A hocrux is an item that contains part of someone's soul. If she said there is no hocrux of Dumbledore this may also mean that there is no hocrux anymore, because the soul piece in Fawkes is destroyed. He may have been a hocrux once, but not anymore. Which contradicts neither what she said or the argument in this video. Basically Dumbledore may have had hocrux once, but he doesnt anymore. He will not revive.
Sky Lord Panglot She didn't say that. She said "The idea that anybody believes this strangely upsets me" meaning (as much as it would be nice) that Dumbedore doesn't and hasn't had a Horcrux.
Ali Aslan This is not a denial though. She may say that it upsets her, because its true but she made a lot of effort to make Dumbledore the good guy even though he may not be as good as he looks.
Really interesting theory and extremely convincing, but one question - why in the world would Dumbledore _ever_ give two of Fawkes' feathers for wands if he knew it was a horcrux? That seems extremely irresponsible of him.
+SuperCarlinBrothers but if Nagini sheds her skin (as snakes do) does that mean there's a tiny piece of Voldemort's soul left in a piece of molted snake skin? 😟
+molly sandweiss Phoenixs are inherently immortal, so any shed feathers would still be alive and containing a soul as well as fawkes' life force. Nagini isn't an immortal magical creature.
i just realised, the symbolism of fawkes and nagini, in some aboriginal cultures they believed that phoenix symbolise rebirth and immortality, but also in some cultures snakes represent rebirth and immortality
I love this theory! However I do believe (at least I hope) you got one thing wrong... Remember how hard it is to destroy a horcrux? - The object had to be damaged beyond physical or magical repair. Now in this theory the part of Dumbledore inside Harrys wand is destroyed after the attack in Godrics Hollow, but was it? - The wand was broken, yes, but the wand is not the horcrux, it's Fawkes feather inside of it! And it's clearly stated in the books that the only thing holding the wand together was the phoenix feather, the last piece of Dumbledore! This means there's still a part of Dumbledore alive inside of Harrys wand.
Also he got the whole point with Fawkes wrong Because Fawkes is a phoenix, and those show a huge loyality to the humans they trust And to trust a human they "just" need to see the absolute good, and Dumbledore came to this point after regretting Arianas Death
But it could be that there was never any part of Dumbledore's soul in the feathers in the first place. I mean, Fawkes burns his feathers off and regrows them every time he dies so it could be that the soul is only contained in the actual body of the bird. That messes up the theory a bit cos then Voldermort's wand wouldn't have a connection with Dumbledore, but it would fill the second plot hole.
I dunno, I was with all of it until then..although the idea of Harry and his wand being connectedto Dumbledore is great, just think if each of Nagini's scales had a piece of soul in them. Feathers and scales shed...well, molt.
FinHax01 Harry's wand, if I remember correctly, wasn't ever a horcrux. They were Slytherin's Locket, Hufflepuff's Cup, Ravenclaw's Diadem, Gaunt's Ring, Tom Riddle's Diary, Nagini, and Harry himself. This video is saying that a piece of Dumbledore's soul is in the wand, but isn't a horcrux at all. It can be destroyed by normal magic, not just by the killing curse. And if the wand is destroyed, so is the small piece of soul left there.
Because the only thing strong enough to kill a Horcrux is another Horcrux or The Sword of Gryffindor. Last I Read/Saw when Harry Dropped his Wand in Godric's Hollow, Hermione picked it up and used it to to cast at Nagini who was a Horcrux. It Rebounded as She stated and the Wand being a Horcrux killed itself.
Best Gamer doesn’t that further prove this tho? if part of dumbledore was inside harry then it would make sense that fawkes appeared to him in the chamber of secrets
Gee thanks. How about a spoiler warning or something. That's the worst kind of habit. When a movie is 10 years old who cares. But a movie that came out earlier this year. Bad form.
@@Finlandpro1 that's hardly the point now is it. Even this channel says spoiler warning before every vid. Even for the first potter movies. If I was watching one about fantastic beasts then that would be my fault. But you saying things on a completely different vid. That's a different story. There are still people who haven't seen it. Whether you think its been long enough or not. Just don't spoil movies. Its not that difficult.
it blows that rowling went out of her way to deny this like this and the "draco is a werewolf" theory are my favorites AND convincingly connect seemingly unrelated dots to brilliant, lore-friendly conclusions and she's just like "nah no way good try though"
To be wise you must first be foolish, to show your light you must have some darkness. What theories was she insinuating when she wrote the series? Has she ever explained it or left it unmentioned by sheer random occurrence and in that case why can she reject something she doesn't even have her own intended theories on?
Doesn't matter. He would die anyway. He could just revive himself in a different form if he could. He would need to seek for a new form of life. After the wand was snapped (not long after) it was all over.
The fact that THE instant death curse merely blasted him ALIVE out of a tower dramatically would make more sense, but we know that in the wizarding world, intent is 98% of a casting. Perhaps having a horcrux explains this, but I feel SNAPE creating a horcrux makes a little more sense. After all, neither Dumbledore nor Snape appeared when the resurrection stone was used even though they both obviously meant a great deal to Harry (I mean he did name his offspring after them). Hard to resurrect a non-corporeal if they aren't entirely dead. I do believe that killing Dumbledore would have broken anyone's soul. Likely shattered it into smithereens, but that's neither here nor there. 😹
