Order Only: Neal Smullen

[alt_arthur]

I met with Neal's mother, and came back this evening to speak with his father, too, after his work shift was over. Neal's mother is a seamstress, and his father works in a gravel quarry.

They're willing to consider letting us take Neal, but on one condition: they want his brothers to be told, too. Neal has two older brothers, aged ten and fourteen, and the mother, especially, is very firm that she doesn't want to have to pretend to them that the boy has died. I warned them that if the boy manifests his magic and the authorities find out before we come back, the decision may be taken out of all of our hands. That made her waver, but in the end, she stuck to her position. But on the other hand, if we tell the boys, and they let the information slip, then all of the children and adults at the sanctury, as well as those of the Order who work to shelter them, could come under great peril. Are children that age able to keep the secret, no matter what?

Well? Are we willing to do this?

I do suspect that there are other parents of children at Moddey Dhoo who have ended up telling siblings some of what is going on, after we have taken the babies and left. I've had hints of this when I've done the yearly follow up visits. Yet we have not yet had a whiff that the authorities suspect anything, and after all, the knowledge that the sanctuary exists is protected by the fidelius spell. I suppose the greatest danger may be to me and perhaps Bill, as well as the rest of us who do camp visits.

Comments

[alt_poppy]

Could the parents be persuaded to tell their older children something short of the full truth? Something general enough that it would not implicate us or unleash a full-scale MLE search for the Sanctuary if the children failed to keep the secret? They could be told that the baby was sent away with good people who will take care of it. And, if needed, there could be a hint that there was something wrong with the child (to explain why the other children were not also taken). If put just right, if it were later repeated by the children, a camp enforcer might be most likely to leap to the assumption that the child was spirited away by wizards who wished to use it in Dark rituals.

Or. Have you considered making the bargain as the parents have proposed it, but then placing a mild confundus on the other two children so that they will not remember the details correctly? It's a dodgy solution, and I do not propose confunding the parents by any means, but if all other ideas fail, perhaps that would make the situation a bit safer for you and for all of us.

[alt_kingsley]

We don't want anyone repeating anything to anybody that would give the slightest hint that a child was being taken away that survived. If there is any chance the boy's brothers would repeat any story to anyone else, then they shouldn't be told at all.

As for the confundus, I'd prefer not to try that. It is dodgy and a confused story might cause more problems than silence.

Arthur, as in the case of Puneet's parents, perhaps they'll get more flexible when the boy manifests his magic. But it would be dangerous to wait.

Come to think of it: perhaps that might be the answer? Tell the brothers that he has manifested his magic and was taken away by the authorities? So they'll know he's alive at least? The parents could tell them they mustn't speak of it, because they don't want to draw further suspcion that they helped the boy steal magic?

[alt_arthur]

My goodness.

Then the brothers will think he's been taken as a muggleborn slave, you mean?

[alt_kingsley]

Yes. But they'll know he's alive.

[alt_gredforge]

But it's still a lie.

[alt_kingsley]

We lie in this business all the time. It's a test of the parents, in a way, one which we require of all the parents, that they lie to keep their children safe, so the children can be raised to claim their magical heritage at Moddey Dhoo. What is more important to them? To give this kid the chance to be free and learn to use a wand? Or to tell their other children the truth? It's a bitter thing we ask of them. But it is necessary.

[alt_poppy]

Well. There's your answer, then. If you cannot tolerate the risk that a child will repeat something, then you cannot tell them. Full stop.

[alt_lupin]

I think we should tell them the truth -- after a fashion. As you noted, plenty of parents told their other children and never asked for a by-your-leave. 'We will raise your brother in secret and keep him safe, but you must pretend to the world that he's dead' -- that leaves out the sanctuary. They don't need to know who Arthur is, or Bill.

[alt_poppy]

Actually, for that matter, I'm not sure why Arthur needs to do the telling. He could quite well tell the parents that it is not ours to meddle in how they raise their older children.

Say that they may tell the others what they see fit (as they will do in any case), but underscore that it is up to them to make the proper determination because their lives and the baby's and the lives of those who have reached out to keep him safe all rest on their discretion.

[alt_arthur]

I am going to go back tomorrow and try again, giving them Terry's message. If it doesn't work, well...I'll use my best judgement.

[alt_frank]

parents know what their children

they know what's at stake. their own child would be at risk if it came out.

kingsley has a point

but I think that trust is important too. especially if we're going to be asking parents to help in other ways. I think we should trust that she knows what her children can and cannot handle.

[alt_pomona]

This, Frank, yes.

So many children hold so many secrets now. How is this that different? (And I'm not just thinking of young Neville and Evelyn, but so many of our students. In the camps, with the weight of the consequences so incredibly clear, we can only assume they're better at understanding the risks, not worse.)

Ten is young, mind, but - if they're not told anything that might identify us, safe enough, I think, if the parents insist.

[alt_frank]

ta, pomona.

[alt_arthur]

it's not so much

parents may

bugger

Private message to Frank Longbottom

[alt_arthur]

Right. I'm just going to come out and say it.

I'm deuced sorry, Frank. I haven't a doubt that confronting this issue is bringing up very raw stuff for you about Neville and Evelyn again. I still feel--oh, hell.

I deeply regret having to turn you down. Thinking it was the right answer, while knowing perfectly well that I was hurting you and Alice and Neville and Evelyn in the process. I hate like poison to have this come up now, when it feels like I'd just managed to convince you to start talking with me again.

It's bloody awful, isn't it? More than anyone else in the Order, you and I are in the same position: we're fathers who love our children, and we want to protect them and guide them right, and we want to tell them the truth. And our duty, our work for the Order keeps getting in the bloody way.

I cannot tell you how much I regret that we ended up on the opposite side of this issue. I freely admit it's easier for me now because I have Bill and Charlie working with me, although, yes, that adds its own set of worries. It may be cold comfort to hear me say this--even infuriating, given that I blocked your petition--but Frank, I promise you that it will be so much better when you can tell them the truth.

I hope I haven't made things worse by saying this. But I've been wanting to get it off my chest for awhile now. I'll just have to trust, for the sake of our long friendship, that you'll listen and at least try to consider what I've said. Even if I'm inept at trying to explain. Bugger.

I will talk to the Smullens again. I hope that Terry's message will help sway them, and if it doesn't...well.

I'll cross that bridge when I get to it.

Re: Private message to Frank Longbottom

[alt_frank]

okay.

yeah, it's bloody hard.

and I didn't mean

I'm not good at this. talking. never have been.

figured it'd be better all around if I did my job and kept my mouth shut because nothing good was going to come out of it. what's done is done, talking about it wasn't going to change anything.

sorry.

you know what I mean.

any road.

didn't mean to shut you down.

Re: Private message to Frank Longbottom

[alt_frank]

and whatever you end up deciding with the smullens

it'll be what you think is the best thing to do.

and that's okay.

Re: Private message to Frank Longbottom

[alt_arthur]

Thank you.

Re: Private message to Frank Longbottom

[alt_arthur]

Talking through the journals isn't the easiest way to communicate, either.

Well, I'll leave it at that, then. Just--I'd be grateful to have my friend Frank Longbottom back. I highly value his expertise and perspective.

Whether he's inclined to talk or not.

Re: Private message to Frank Longbottom

[alt_frank]

right.

and yeah, you got me.

never left.

[alt_terry]

Mr Weasley,

Could you give the parents a message for me? Tell them about me and how the git was put in charge of me, not naming any names, you know, but just tell them a little of what happened to me.

Tell them that I wanted them to know: I've been a muggleborn slave and a free wizard at the sanctuary both. And I'm begging them to make the right decision for Neal. They have no idea what it's like, how cruelly the Protectorate treat people in their son's position. People like me. I lived it--I barely survived it--but he doesn't have to.

Please tell them that if I could have gone back and advised my own parents, if they had been given a choice, I would have told them to send me away to safety, no question. Even if it meant keeping it from my sister.

If they love him, then please, please let him go.

[alt_arthur]

Terry, my boy, it's a very good thought to give them your personal message, and I sincerely hope that it may sway them. I am going to go back and see them tomorrow, and we'll see what happens. Thank you.