A Guest Post from Randall Voigt about the puzzling intersection of information from Fantastic Beasts and what we learned about Ariana Dumbledore’s death in Deathly Hallows. Enjoy the challenging questions!
In Deathly Hallows, Aberforth and Albus Dumbledore describe the three-way duel with Gellert Grindelwald that resulted in Ariana’s death. Aberforth says, “I don’t know which of us did it, it could have been any of us – and she was dead” (Chapter 28). Albus says “I never knew which of us … actually cast the curse that killed my sister …. I dreaded beyond all things the knowledge that it had been I who brought about her death, … that I actually struck the blow that snuffed out her life” and that “Ariana … lay dead upon the floor” (Chapter 35). But years earlier, as recounted in Secrets of Dumbledore, Albus tells Newt Scamander, “I can’t say for certain it was my spell …. One minute she was there, and the next she was gone …” (Scene 66).
Several things are puzzling here.
What kind of magical spell hits Ariana? Could it be a spell that makes her disappear, maybe not killing her at all? Or, is it in fact a killing curse, leaving Ariana lying “dead upon the floor”? In Secrets, Albus confirms that Ariana was an obscurus [Scene 66]; could it be that she is not killed, or that she is killed but the obscurus continues to exist, or that in either case the obscurus is transferred to Aberforth and/or to Credence?
Speaking of Credence: In Secrets, a phoenix feather “strewn with [ash]” appears [how? when?] in Aberforth’s hand; Albus says, “The bird comes to [Credence] because he’s dying” and says that Credence is an obscurus just like Ariana [Scene 66]. But later, just as Grindelwald seems to have won election as “leader of the magical world,” a phoenix drops a “feather of [ash] that “attaches itself to his [Grindelwald’s] cheek.” So, is Grindelwald a Dumbledore?
Credence approaches Grindelwald and “smears the ash on his [whose?] cheek.” Then, Grindelwald is defeated and disapparates, Aberforth tells Credence to “Come home,” and “[Albus] Dumbledore watches as the [p]hoenix takes flight behind them” [Scene 95]. We know that Grindelwald lives until Voldemort kills him [Deathly Hallows, Chapter 23], and we know that Aberforth lives through the Battle of Hogwarts [Chapter 31]. On the other hand, we do not encounter Credence anywhere in the Harry Potter series, after the events of Secrets (although maybe we would in a sequel to Secrets) so maybe Credence does die? We must ask, what is going on here?
Why do both Aberforth and Albus say that they do not know whose spell struck down Ariana? We know from Goblet of Fire that a wand can be forced to “regurgitate spells it has performed,” although there seems to be disagreement as to whether the forcing wand must have the same core as the wand being forced (singular “Prior Incantato” in Chapter 9 vs. plural “Priori Incantatem” in Chapter 36). It seems that Aberforth and Albus could easily test their wands, right after the duel, as Grindelwald flees.
We know from Deathly Hallows that Grindelwald later “procure[s] a wand of immense power” i.e. the Elder Wand, but maybe he keeps his previous wand also. Albus tells Harry Potter that he eventually dueled Grindelwald, “won the duel …. [and] won the wand” (Chapter 35; note that Albus does not mention the blood troth). When Grindelwald is locked away in Nurmengard, Albus should be able to test any wand that Grindelwald possesses. But whether or not Albus is able to do so, testing his own and Aberforth’s wands would have made clear, by the process of elimination, whose wand struck down Ariana. Maybe both Aberforth and Albus fear this truth so much that they never test the wand(s). Or could they be hiding the truth for another reason?
We know from Crimes and from Secrets that Albus and Grindelwald create a blood troth to keep each of them from attacking the other. This must happen before Grindelwald flees. Later, when Dumbledore and Grindelwald meet in a cafe, Grindelwald remarks that he has “carried [the blood troth] for so many years” and asks how it feels for Dumbledore to wear it (Secrets, Scene 4). Given that Newt Scamander’s niffler steals the blood troth from Grindelwald (Crimes, Scene 115) and that Dumbledore keeps the blood troth until it is accidentally destroyed (Secrets, Scene 14 and Scene 93), maybe we can conclude that Dumbledore and Grindelwald meet at the cafe after the events of Crimes but before the events of Secrets.
If so, this seems to imply that Grindelwald took the blood troth with him when he fled, and, in turn, that Grindelwald was wearing the blood troth during the three-way duel. Does this mean that neither Dumbledore nor Grindelwald could cast spells at one another during the duel, instead only being able to cast them at Aberforth or (accidentally?) at Ariana? It is easy to guess that Grindelwald would cast a killing curse, but should we imagine that Albus might have done so?
Although it’s ambiguous, the two statements about Ariana after her death aren’t contradictory. Saying that she’s “gone” may just be a way of saying she’s dead – body lying there, but lifeforce, gone.
Do we know enough about wandlore to know whether the effect of previously cast spells can be determined? If Grindelwald, Albus and Aberforth were all firing off killing curses, then testing the wands might not be any use in figuring out who killed Ariana because it would tell you they had all cast Avada Kedavra, but not whose spell had connected.
@Ed Sharslow That’s what I thought at first, but then, remembered that, in goblet of fire, the conection between Harry’s and Voldemort’s wands created a prior incantato and Harry’s wand made Voldemort’s regurgitate the last spells it made, being the avada kedavra in the form of the ghosts of the people he killed.
Here are more thoughts about Albus, Aberforth, and Ariana Dumbledore, Gellert Grindelwald, and the three-way duel.
In Deathly Hallows (Ch. 28), Aberforth tells Harry Potter, Ron Weasley, and Hermione Granger about the Muggle boys’ attack on Ariana, Percival Dumbledore’s taking revenge on the boys, Ariana’s becoming an Obscurial, and Ariana killing Kendra Dumbledore. Aberforth also gives his version of the three-way duel among himself, Albus, and Grindelwald. When Aberforth says that Ariana’s death freed Albus, Harry counters that in Half-Blood Prince (Ch. 26), Albus was remembering the duel. Lastly, Ariana’s portrait responds to Aberforth’s request that she fetch Neville Longbottom.
But, what if Albus were remembering the attack on Ariana rather than the duel? It seems to me that what Albus screams in the seaside cave could indicate that he had been doing magic, possibly through Ariana, to which the Muggle boys reacted. It might indicate that Albus could then have pleaded with Percival to punish him, Albus, instead of the Muggle boys, that maybe no one else ever found out that Albus was responsible, and that Albus feels guilty of causing injury to the boys as well as causing Ariana to become an Obscurial.
It occurs to me that after Ariana killed Kendra, in order to protect Ariana, Albus could have made a Horcrux for Ariana, possibly under Grindelwald’s instruction. If so, could Albus have put a fragment of Ariana’s soul into the blood troth that he and Grindelwald made? Can one person make a Horcrux for another person? Could this be regarded as a (partially?) redeeming purpose for doing evil, in the way that Albus considers Severus Snape’s killing him (Albus) to be less damaging for Snape than for Draco Malfoy? (Deathly Hallows, Ch. 23)
It seems more likely to me that if Grindelwald was the one who killed Ariana, he would have made the blood troth into a Horcrux for himself. Or, if Albus was the one who killed Ariana, when Albus got the blood troth back (stolen by Newt Scamander’s niffler), perhaps he made the troth into a Horcrux for himself. Can a single object be a Horcrux for more than one person?
It is possible that Albus does not realize that the blood troth is also a Horcrux for Grindelwald. Also, it is possible that the blood troth tries to kill Albus (Secrets, Sc. 14) only because it is a blood troth and responds to Albus’s disloyalty. However, the blood troth’s attempt on Albus’s life seems so similar to the Voldemort locket Horcrux’s attempt on Harry Potter’s life (Deathly Hallows, Ch. 19) as to suggest that the blood troth is a Horcrux. Albus seems to have become too fond of, or dependent on, the blood troth, which Hermione Granger learns (Deathly Hallows, Ch. 6) is very dangerous with regard to a Horcrux. If the blood troth is more than just a troth, one can imagine the mixed feeling Albus has when the blood troth is destroyed! (Secrets, Sc. 95).
Think back on Albus’s recounting the three-way duel for Newt (Secrets, Sc. 66), Aberforth’s telling the story to Harry, Ron, and Hermione (Deathly Hallows, Ch. 26), and Albus’s retelling the tale for Harry (Deathly Hallows, Ch. 35). Maybe when a younger Albus tells the story, with Grindelwald active and dangerous, Albus is trying to protect Grindelwald – or to mollify him, if somehow he hears what Albus has said. Maybe Aberforth gives a more accurate account (but what if he is mistaken about the attack on Ariana?). Maybe when an older Albus tells the story, he sees things more realistically, and accepts more guilt. Perhaps this is (partially?) due to his, and Grindelwald’s, and Harry’s all being dead (although Harry has a choice whether to return to life).
It seems to me that J.K. Rowling’s presentation of three different accounts of the three-way duel is similar to, though less-developed than, Agatha Christie’s presentation of five different accounts of the murder of Amycus Crale in her story, “Five Little Pigs.” I think “Pigs” is a fine example of intentional and unintentional “narrative misdirection” and I commend it to all readers.
Finally, it occurs to me that in our theories and speculations, as in others’ fan fiction pieces, we Harry Potter fans may be writing J.K. Rowling’s novels for her. Wouldn’t it be clever of her to let us do so? Even so, I would prefer her to write the novels herself!
Thanks, and best wishes, Randall K. Voigt on January 13,, 2026