In the Harry Potter universe, does a wizard need to have a wand on him or her to Apparate?
I'd like to clear this up, because I've seen contradictory statements. In https://scifi.stackexchange.com/a/10329/4918 , DVK tells us that they do need one, and that's why Lily couldn't Apparate with Harry when the Dark Lord attacked them in their house. In https://scifi.stackexchange.com/a/8769/4918 , Slytherincess expresses the opinion that they don't need a wand.
Answer
They do
In Book of Spells, Miranda Goshawk recounts the story of a witch who was unable to Apparate until she had retrieved her wand.
The following day Snickerton led a band of men to arrest the accused witch. Cornered at her shop, she was unable to explain why she owned no scissors. Snickerton insisted that her hands should be tightly bound to stop her cursing them all and set about searching for the wand he swore he had seen her using. After several hours, however, he had found nothing suspicious, and his friends were starting to doubt him.
At last, Madam Crimp asked whether she might at least be unbound to scratch her chin, on which there was a large wart. Unable to see the harm in this, her foolish accusers agreed.
The moment Madam Crimp touched the wart, it sprang out of her face, revealing itself as her concealed wand. She promptly Disapparated along with a large bag of gold, and was never seen in London again.
Wonderbook: Book of Spells - Chapter 4
This would imply that a wand is needed to disapparate. (Or at least makes it much easier, like by most other magic.)
Comments
Post a Comment