I think the top quote should be changed, probably to Snape's vow. The current vow makes the vow seem something funny, and simply doesn´t fit.--Rodolphus 15:44, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

Unbreakable Vow

Where in the book mentioned that immediate death follows after you break the vow? And must you really have exactly three terms to swear upon?

  • Yeah if it was gradual death it could explain why Snape accepted getting all snakebit. Ty 06:07, July 15, 2011 (UTC)

I, too, don't see why there have to be three terms to swear upon. Nothing in the book indicates that. There's also nothing that indicates that the response must be "I will". Depending on the nature of the question, the response could very well be, "I won't", "Yes", "No", or whatever response is most appropriate. Currently the introduction of this article says "one person asks another person three separated terms of the vow, where the person will respond 'I will'." I'm going to change this to, "one person gives the other person one or more terms of the Vow, which the other person then agrees to." 04:36, October 16, 2011 (UTC)

No proof Dumbledore is dead

Snape's vow is worded vaguely, so he could have just hit Dumbledore with Expelliarmus without breaking it. Lemme explain:

to watch over and protect Narcissa's son Draco from harm as he attempts to fulfill the Dark Lord's wishes, and, if necessary, carry out the deed the Dark Lord ordered Draco to perform: kill Albus Dumbledore.

Snape did protect Draco. As far as "necessary", it was not necessary to kill Dumbledore immediately. Snape already knew he was dying, and he could have tried to kill him later if he wanted to. There was no urgent need to kill Dumbledore, merely making him seem dead would make Draco give up and remove the threat to him.

Dumbledore has Fawkes' phoenix tears and could have discovered crazy magic to keep himself alive. No proof of death, fake corpse. We already know wand ownership can transfer via expelliarmus. Draco had already disarmed dumbledore, Dumbledore was not a threat so there was no 'necessity' for Snape to kill him, so his not doing so would not break the vow. Ty 06:07, July 15, 2011 (UTC)

Sure, except it goes against every major theme of the books. Besides, Harry spoke to Dumbledore in limbo, so he had to have been dead. Plus the full body bind wore off of Harry. Plus to fulfill the vow Snape had to kill Dumbledore if Draco couldn't do it-he didn't swear he would make sure that Dumbledore died, he swore that he would carry out the deed. Not to mention, Dumbledore wouldn't have been able to survive that fall without a wand. We're really passed the point of "Dumbledore's Not Dead."Icecreamdif 05:28, November 8, 2011 (UTC)
Well, that, plus the fact that Rowling herself specifically said in no uncertain terms that he was dead, and Rowling's word is law here. ProfessorTofty 05:47, November 8, 2011 (UTC)

Mmm when snape did the unbreakable vow if he broke it he would die but Bellatrix made snape do it so whst would voldemort say86.30.202.147 17:28, November 8, 2011 (UTC)

Ron's wov

Fred and George were only 8 in 1986. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

I'm not sure if you're still here to see this, and quite honestly I'm not too concerned about that. Anywho, that's right because they had Ron do it when he was "around five". They're two or three years older than him (pretty sure it's three), hence making them eight. --This is an automatically sent message. (You can reply here) 23:32, November 20, 2012 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.