Originally Posted by sparklystuff

Originally Posted by Vanilla Sky

That could also explain why Snape was snearing at her Patronus form when she takes Harry up to the school gates.

Originally Posted by [URL=http://community.livejournal.com/hp_essays/112554.html

hernandezstudio]hernandezstudio[/url]

In short: Is it possible that Tonks in HBP was actually Narcissa Malfoy in disguise?


After reading HBP, re-reading certain passages, and really digesting it, Tonks just didn’t sit right with me. I know that JKR said that Tonks in this book was used as a red herring – we’re supposed to believe that Tonks’ pining for Lupin explains all of her bizarre behavior, but there are scenes that just can’t be explained by unrequited love. My curiosity was also peaked by that infamous Leaky Cauldron/MuggleNet interview with JKR. JKR herself brings up the subject of Tonks/Remus. They were discussing R.A.B. and Regulus and the part he may have played in the whole Voldemort/horcrux thing, and then JKR casually and rather abruptly slips in, “Oh, how did you feel about Lupin/Tonks?” I got the feeling that JKR may have been feeling the interviewers out to see if they had any suspicions or theories.

(ETA: I also want to point out that she asks this after she's already mentioned using Tonks as a red herring 'to a degree', and after she's already asked them, "How did you feel about the romance?" So by asking, "Oh, how did you feel about Lupin/Tonks?"...what's left to discuss, really, at this point? She was clearly trying to elicit something more from the interviewers here. She had also just said, "mine are very character-driven books, and it’s so important, therefore, that we see these characters fall in love" - and that's a major sticking point for so many readers...we didn't see Remus and Tonks fall in love. We saw what is supposed to be the aftermath of falling in love, but we never do see the 'falling' on both character's parts.)

My own theory began to develop here, in this old Leaky Lounge thread (starts with the third post), shortly after HBP came out. I was really kind of making it up as I went along there with bits and pieces coming to me in response to questions that people brought up. This essay is mostly taken from that thread, word for word, with one big difference - at the time, I thought that Narcissa was using Polyjuice, but now I think that she’s a Metamorphmagus herself. If this is a physiological ability that one is born with, then it stands to reason that it may run in families. But if Narcissa is a metamorphmagus, why did she keep the mousy brown hair? Why wouldn’t she adopt Tonks’ brightly-colored hair in order to be more convincing? I’ll explain that in a bit. First things, first…


Why would Narcissa want to impersonate Tonks? Suppose Narcissa knows about the locket horcrux? R.A.B. = Regulus is a pretty good theory, so my theory builds on that. It’s been mentioned that R.A.B. would have needed help from someone to have stolen the true horcrux – suppose that ‘someone’ was Narcissa? Whether it was Narcissa or not, though, as his cousin, she may have known something about that locket. She could have learned about it from Kreacher (Regulus was one of the people Kreacher served and was devoted to – he may have known the significance of the locket. He may have even been the person who helped Regulus obtain the locket.)

In OotP, Dumbledore tells Harry, “But he (Kreacher) gave Narcissa information of the sort that is very valuable to Voldemort, yet must have seemed much too trivial for Sirius to think of banning him from repeating it.” DD means that Kreacher told Narcissa that Sirius was the person Harry would go to any lengths to rescue, but who’s to say Kreacher didn’t also tell her about the locket? And if Sirius doesn’t know that the locket is a horcrux, that would be information that he would have thought trivial.

So assuming that Narcissa knows about the locket and its significance, she would know that that locket could be used as a powerful bargaining tool with Voldemort – in exchange for the locket, for a piece of his soul, Voldemort might release Draco from his Death Eater obligations.

I think Narcissa may have gone to Grimmauld Place to search for the locket and found that she couldn’t get in. She may have deduced that it was being used as the Order’s headquarters (she knows where Sirius’s and Tonks’ loyalties lie and probably knows that they’re members of the Order.) I think she thought that as Tonks she would be able to get in, and Tonks was the most logical Order member to impersonate – she’s Narcissa’s niece so Narcissa already has a wealth of information about Tonks’ family background, though I think she also probably has the real Tonks stashed away somewhere and has questioned her with Veritaserum.

Would Narcissa do that? Kidnap and hold captive her own niece? Sure. She zaps Bellatrix in the ‘Spinner’s End’ chapter and when Bellatrix says, “Cissy, your own sister?” You wouldn’t –“ Narcissa replies, “There is nothing I wouldn’t do anymore!” (to protect Draco.) I don't think that this exchange is there for filler - I think JKR is giving us a definite clue that Narcissa is not going to just sit by and do nothing.) Incidentally, I also think Bellatrix is helping her in this endeavor.

And as Tonks, I think Narcissa spent a lot of time with Molly Weasley, not for “tea and sympathy” but to pick up more info – such as, that Mundungus had been hanging around Grimmauld Place and that he’s a petty thief that kept trying to nick Black family heirlooms. Why is that bit of information important? Because of that…

Scene where Tonks’s appearance is suspicious and can’t be explained by unrequited love: One of the most puzzling scenes to me – the scene in Hogsmeade where Harry finds Mundungus selling Sirius’s things – is never really touched on again. It’s mentioned that “Tonks had appeared out of nowhere” but we never do learn exactly what she was doing there (I know she’s stationed in Hogsmeade, but her 'sudden' appearance seems a little odd.) If Tonks were really Narcissa, she may have been watching Mundungus selling the Black heirlooms to see if he had the locket. And I think she had been standing there for a good while watching, because it’s mentioned that her hair is wet with sleet. She 'appears out of nowhere' (so she must have been somewhere very close by) and her hair is wet with sleet (so she's been standing there a while.) Also, she's awfully nonchalant about the fact that Mundungus was selling her cousin's things - things he had stolen from Sirius. Harry is outraged, but Tonks is "perfectly untroubled by this piece of information" and only tells Harry to go in to get out of the cold.

(ETA: I know that this scene is one of the red herrings - we're supposed to wonder if Tonks was there to do what we find out later Rosmerta actually did. But a good red herring is one that misleads you, but when you go back later and look at it again, you're able to make the connection to what was really going on, in this case, Tonks's lovesickness for Lupin. And that's where this fails as a red herring - this scene is in no way explained by Tonks's lovesickness.)

Tonks’s lack of clumsiness in HBP: In OotP it’s pretty much a constant thing – she’s always tripping, falling, dropping things, knocking chairs over – most Tonks scenes in OotP include a bit of trademark Tonks clumsiness, but in HBP, she doesn’t have one single clumsy moment. It’s been suggested that she’s only clumsy when she’s around Remus, but she establishes in OotP that she’s always been that way, that she nearly failed Stealth and Tracking during Auror training because she’s “dead clumsy.” One scene in particular stood out to me – when she and Harry leap from the train, even Harry staggers a little, but Tonks manages the leap quite gracefully.

Why would Narcissa pursue Lupin so persistently? Multiple reasons. First, if the real Tonks is in love with Lupin, she would have to continue that in order to be convincing in her role. Secondly, Narcissa may think that Lupin knows something about the locket and its whereabouts, since he lived in Grimmauld Place for a time (she could have easily learned this from Kreacher.) Thirdly, it’s mentioned that Voldemort threatens to unleash Greyback upon people’s sons and daughters if they don’t do as he asks and I feel sure that he’s threatened to have Greyback bite/kill Draco if he fails in his task. (Draco refers to Greyback as a ‘family friend’ so there’s more than likely been contact between Greyback and the Malfoys.) Narcissa may think that Lupin would be the only one that could lead her to Greyback and help protect Draco.

That outburst in the hospital wing declaring her love for Remus? Narcissa is truly desperate now. She knows that Draco has failed in his task – yes Dumbledore is dead, but it wasn’t Draco that did it. She may not be sure (just as we, the readers aren’t sure) of Draco’s fate at this point. Will Voldemort let Draco off easy since the deed was accomplished anyway, even though it wasn’t by Draco’s hand? Doubtful. Voldemort doesn’t seem the sort to let anyone off the hook, and it’s mentioned in the ‘Spinner’s End’ chapter that Voldemort has chosen Draco as the one to kill DD precisely because he thinks that Draco will fail – it’s punishment and revenge for Lucius failing Voldemort.

So Dumbledore is dead, Draco has run off with Snape, Greyback is with them, and Narcissa is very unsure of Draco’s fate. She really wants that locket now and she also really wants someone with inside information on Greyback (if Voldemort has used Greyback as a threat if Draco fails), so she renews her efforts to get close to Remus.

Also, note in that hospital wing scene that Tonks never says anything that directly expresses grief over Dumbledore’s death. She’s whispering and subdued at first, sure, but that could just as easily be explained by her worry over Draco. Her first question is merely, “How did he die? How did it happen?” (Narcissa wanting to know if it was Draco that killed him.) Then she says, “But Dumbledore swore he was on our side! I always thought Dumbledore must know something about Snape that we didn’t…” (I’m sure Narcissa did have her doubts about Snape – Bellatrix certainly did. This statement could have been honest surprise on Narcissa’s part.) “I’d love to know what Snape told him to convince him.” (Wouldn’t we all?) She never really expresses any grief – no tears at all from Tonks were mentioned, even at the funeral, and Harry notes quite a few people that were crying or otherwise emotional.

(ETA: I didn't elaborate here because this essay was going on so long already, but if you're at all interested, go back and re-read HBP from the hospital wing scene through the funeral and take note of all the emotional responses Harry notices. I just did this myself, and it's amazing, really. From Lupin collapsing into a chair and covering his face, Madam Pomfrey bursting into tears, Luna's mouth trembling, McGonagall dabbing at her leaking eyes, Molly's grief over Bill, people using stricken tones of voice, and more - Harry makes note of a lot of grief here - and yet nothing at all from Tonks. The closest thing to emotion we get from her, is a lack of emotion, really - she speaks one line in a 'hollow voice.' If you apply my theory that this is really Narcissa, it makes sense. Narcissa is extremely worried, but not grieving - the deed was done and Draco got away with Snape.)

What about that mysteriously changing patronus? The patronus may not have been a werewolf or a dog. It was big and had four legs – it could have been a dragon. Draco = dragon. That would also explain the look of “shock and anger on Tonks’s face” when Snape tells her that her new patronus looks weak.

(ETA: In response to a very good point someone brought up below - Would Narcissa's patronus be a dragon, when a patronus is a protection device? She's protecting Draco (dragon), rather than him protecting her. I thought I might add my thoughts on the patronus thing here. JKR has said that a patronus is a 'spirit guardian'. Hermione's is an otter, and Ron's is a small dog like a Jack Russell terrier, so there's something about those animals that they identify with or see as comforting/protecting. I don't think Narcissa's patronus indicates that she feels protected by Draco, rather that she has some affinity with and respect for dragons themselves. It's possible, even likely, that she chose her son's name - Draco - because of this favorable view of dragons as powerful creatures.

JKR has also said that a patronus is an 'anti-dark arts' device - it drives dark magic away. She never says that a dark witch or wizard can't conjure one, but it stands to reason that they may not do it routinely. One of the biggest hurdles to my theory for me, was when I remembered that JKR said that Dumbledore came up with the way of using a patronus as a communication device and that only Order members have been taught to do this. I do think that Voldemort and his Death Eaters are aware that the Order communicates in this way. So it's possible that Narcissa and Bellatrix would question Tonks, using Veritaserum, about how this is done, and Narcissa learned the basics that way, but it stands to reason that she wouldn't have perfected it by any means. I think that's why her message didn't go to Hagrid, not because Hagrid was late getting to the opening feast (and Hermione tells Harry that Hagrid was only a few minutes late, so we know he would have been very near by.) JKR has said that a patronus is not hindered by physical barriers, so it seems like Tonks's patronus would have gone to Hagrid wherever he was. [Which brings up an interesting point for those interested in the question of whether Snape is truly evil or not: JKR has also said that the patronus used as a communication device is very reliable because it's very resilient to interference from Dark wizards. If Snape is truly a dark wizard, he may have not have been able to intercept that patronus.])

But why would Narcissa have helped Harry when he was hurt and trapped on the Hogwarts Express? It’s possible that Narcissa didn’t know until she removed the invisibility cloak that it was Harry she was helping. Maybe Narcissa had been watching for Draco, saw his friends get off without him (remember he stayed behind alone to beat up on a Harry a little), and grew worried. As she told Harry, she saw the blinds drawn on the compartment and grew suspicious. She may have missed seeing Draco when he did leave, so she entered the train looking for Draco, not Harry.

It’s mentioned twice that Tonks isn’t smiling at Harry – “without smiling” and “still unsmiling”, and she was pretty short and terse with Harry - very cool. It seems like the old Tonks, lovesick or not, would have been able to muster at least a weak smile for Harry. Narcissa, on the other hand, doesn’t like Harry at all and wouldn’t feel the need to fake a smile for him. And she may have fixed his nose so that he wouldn’t have to go to Madam Pomfrey, because if Harry had to tell someone what happened, Draco would get into trouble.

Wouldn’t someone notice something suspicious? The Weasleys? Tonks’s fellow Aurors? Everyone did notice and agreed that Tonks wasn’t acting like the Tonks they knew – it’s just that they were chalking it up to grief and guilt for Sirius at that point. I think it’s very telling that Tonks left so quickly when Dumbledore arrived at the Burrow with Harry and that she wouldn’t meet his eyes. She may be able to fool everyone else, but Narcissa would know that she couldn’t fool Dumbledore.

And if Molly was right and Tonks spent Christmas alone rather than with her family, I think that’s telling also – Tonks’s family would most likely be able to spot her as a phony pretty quickly, so Narcissa would definitely avoid that situation.

As to the other Aurors – if she had been working with someone like Moody all year, yes…I think Moody would have spotted her as an imposter quickly. But she was stationed in Hogsmeade all year with Dawlish and Savage – two Aurors who aren’t Order members and who aren’t particularly fond of Dumbledore and his Order.

If Narcissa is a Metamorphmagus, she would just change her appearance to look exactly like Tonks, bright pink hair and all. Why would her hair be mousy brown? Suppose shortly after Narcissa assumes Tonks’s identity, the Order tries to send her on a mission using her Metamorphmagus abilities? Narcissa can’t do that - she needs to stay close to Draco, to Hogwarts. She wants to be close when Draco attempts his task and she wants to know when it happens. So she ‘loses’ her Metamorphmagus abilities and offers to work stationed in Hogsmeade, conveniently close to Hogwarts.

As to the other aspects of Tonks’s appearance – appearing drawn and ill, growing thinner over the course of the year – all that is genuine. Narcissa is sick with worry over Draco and it shows.

So what about the big battle? Why would Narcissa go so far as to fight alongside the Order? To give Draco the best possible chance to complete his task. Narcissa wouldn’t want a lot of Death Eaters going up to that tower – the more people there, the more likely someone else would get Dumbledore first. The other Death Eaters don’t care about Draco – all they care about is that if they kill Dumbledore, they’ll gain favor with Voldemort. And with Lucius in prison, the Malfoys don’t have a lot of power over the other DE’s right now.

That brings up the “fourth Death Eater”, though. That one Death Eater was trying to help Draco. Who is this? Dumbledore calls every other DE up there by name, but that one – I think that one may have been Bellatrix in disguise (note that Bellatrix is otherwise missing from this battle.) I think she was working with Narcissa to make sure that no other DE killed Dumbledore before Draco could. The “fourth death eater” even attacks Greyback in order to make sure that Draco has his chance.

During the battle, I think Narcissa may have been selectively firing off spells at Order members as well, in order to protect Draco and the “fourth Death Eater”. Everyone was so busy fighting for their lives, that I’m not sure anyone would have been aware that she was doing it. It was a chaotic scene, made even more confusing by the Death Eater who was “firing jinxes off all over the place” (I suspect that some of those jinxes may have actually been fired by Narcissa.) Even an old seasoned pro like McGonagall says, “I don’t know exactly how it happened…It’s all so confusing.”

So why did she go back to the pink hair at Dumbledore’s funeral? Draco is gone from Hogwarts now so she has no need to remain close to Hogwarts. If she ‘re-gains’ her abilities, she can be sent on missions for the Order, which will almost certainly be concentrated on finding Snape (who Draco is with.)

So if this theory were correct, why didn’t JKR resolve it in HBP? It’s not like her to carry a red herring over from one book to another. One very simple explanation – perhaps it’s going to be an integral part of book seven. Maybe Narcissa and her love for Draco, and her willingness to sacrifice anything for him, will play a part in the downfall of Voldemort.

I think there was a tiny little detail in HBP that may have been there for a very concrete reason: In ‘Spinner’s End’, when Bellatrix kills the fox to see if it was actually a fox and not an Auror in disguise – that lets us know that an animagus or metamorphmagus most likely reverts to their natural state when killed. I think we may get a scene in book seven where ‘Tonks’ is killed, but when the body is flipped over, lo and behold…Narcissa.



~~~


I freely admit that this is a crack-tastic theory and a far reach, but I think that’s what makes it so fun. I also think that if someone had suggested to me way back after books one and two that Scabbers was more than just a mangy old rat missing a toe, I would have thought they were reaching a little far, too. :o)

(ETA: I'd also like to point out that while this theory seems overly complicated, if you go back and look at the key points, it would actually be rather simple for JKR to easily and efficiently work this into the plot of book seven. She wouldn't need to detail every instance that she dropped a clue. I go into much detail in this essay to try and prove that this scenario is possible, but she wouldn't need to do that. I think she would leave a lot of the finer points to readers to go back and re-read HBP and discover for themselves the clues she dropped.)

As I pointed out to someone over in that Leaky thread, this theory doesn’t have to kill the Remus/Tonks relationship at all. In fact, I find that it makes it potentially more romantic – what if Remus is the one that first realizes that Tonks isn’t really Tonks? Perhaps Narcissa was able to fool everyone else, but she couldn’t fool Remus – he knew that this wasn’t his Tonks. Indulge me for a moment in another bit of far reaching – maybe Remus had recently gone to McGonagall and Dumbledore with his concerns about this strange, new Tonks (and remember, many characters in HBP do notice and comment on the differences in Tonks. There’s also much talk of the need to beware potential imposters) and they advised him to get closer to Tonks in order to learn the truth.

In the hospital wing, when Tonks confronts Remus with her love and he refuses to meet her eyes…suppose he knows that this is an imposter and he thinks this person may be skilled in Legilimency. He doesn’t want to get closer to this person, and it’s only after a ‘curt’ reminder from McGonagall of what Dumbledore would have wanted, that he decides to go through with it. (I know this bit is really reaching. I’ve just always wondered why McGonagall spoke ‘curtly’ to poor Remus at a time like this. McGonagall has used a softer tone from time to time, and that situation seemed like a time for it – it would have made more sense to me to have that bit read, "Dumbledore would have been happier than anybody to think that there was a little more love in the world,” said Professor McGonagall kindly. I don’t think JKR chooses her words lightly, so I still wonder about the curt tone.)