Nicholas Flamel was bisexual!!

Heheh, i'm only joking. I noticed that in Philosopher's Stone, Nicholas Flamel is described as Dumbledore's partner … with the knowledge that Dumbledore was gay, we could now re-interpret that. Oh, but wait, Philosopher's Stone also tells us that Nicholas was married to Perenelle Flamel.

So the 'obvious' conclusion … Nicholas Flamel was bisexual AND polyamorous!!

I love crackpot theories! ;)

I am amazed at the drama that has exploded all over the Potterverse and news columns about this gay Dumbledore malarky. In my opinion, it's absolutely fantastic that the most respected, most powerful wizard of all time also happened to be gay. I see no reason to question Jo's motives in only revealing it now. Personally, i feel compelled to read the whole series yet again and look for all the little clues. I believe they begin on page 12 of Philosopher's Stone, with Dumbledore's purple cloak and high-heeled boots! I also love the "Nice suit, sir" comment from Harry at seeing younger Dumbledore's "flamboyantly cut suit of plum velvet"! By Half-Blood Prince Harry certainly had suspicions of Dumbledore's sexuality!

Deathly Hallows spoilers follow …

For what it's worth, i definitely think that Dumbledore's love for Gellert Grindewald was reciprocated. I know we can't trust much written by Rita Skeeter, but there seems nothing particularly malicious or scandalous from what's written about the early relationship between the two of them. Bathilda reportedly said, "The boys took to each other at once" … "they got on like a cauldron on fire" … "A shame Gellert could not have stayed for the funeral … he would have been a comfort to Albus, at least" … it all sounds pretty mutual to me!

I absolutely love the affection in Dumbledore's letter where it says: "I do not complain, because if you had not been expelled, we would never have met". Yes, that caught my attention the very first time i read Deathly Hallows. I am sure there is much more to be discovered about this relationship, that i could find in a close re-read of Deathly Hallows.

My curiosity over Elphias Doge has now been re-kindled too …!

Posted: October 24th, 2007
Categories: amusing, harry potter
Comments: View Comments.
  • Hi Jessica, this sort of sounds like an advertisement, but you've made it relevant to the post so i've let it through.

    I am also bisexual. The reference to Nicholas Flamel was meant to be a joke.
  • Well we don't know whether Albus was celibate for life.

    I am wondering whether it wasn't explicitly mentioned in the Life and Lies because wizards are generally more tolerant and don't see it as an issue worth getting worked up about. Consider that the only gay taunt in all the books comes from a Muggle (Dudley, Book 5). The other explicit gay reference comes in Book 4 where the Weasley twins joke that Percy will be getting engaged to Barty Crouch soon. It wasn't malicious; it was a typical Fred & George type of joke.

    I am pretty sure that Harry knew or guessed Dumbledore's sexual orientation, and didn't think anything of it. It seems to me that Rita knew the nature of the relationship between Albus and Gellert, and didn't bother trying to turn it into a scandal.

    I propose a test: re-read Deathly Hallows and imagine Gellert Grindelwald as female. Change all the pronouns if you like. See if it implies that they were in a relationship together. I bet it does. Which would prove that it's our cultural filter, not the way it's written, that makes us think that Dumbledore's sexual orientation wasn't explicit.

    Bill and Fleur, i think, were necessary because they emphasise the point of tolerance and love conquering all.

    But i am with you on the awful Remus/Tonks pairing - it seems they were thrown together against their will, just because JK Rowling needed to kill off another father at the end to make a nice neat little parallel. In Books 1-5 (and even 6) i was perfectly happy to read between the lines into what seemed to be an implied canon relationship between Remus and Sirius. I didn't think it needed to be explicit, but i was upset when it all crumbled in Book 7. Right up until the end i was clinging to every hint that Remus was unhappy in the relationship with Tonks ... but it wasn't for the reasons that i suspected. I found so many get-out clauses for Remus, but Jo shot them all down. Boohoo.
  • Loz
    Well, I'm 'surprised' that Rita Skeeter didn't manage to dig out this little piece of information in her investigations, I'm 'surprised' that Dumbledore wasn't more explicit about this when he talked to Harry, this announcement of J.K. Rowling's isn't particularly gay-positive, young Albus gets his heart broke, spends the rest of his life celibate and feeling he has made a mistake he can never make up for and spends his time around young boys giving them sweets and allowing them to play with his Pensieve. And really, this is the sort of information that should be expressed in the books, not mentioned afterwards so you can go back through the texts and look for stuff you can read for double-meanings. I'm not surprised that I've argued with quite a few people who see no problem with the pages and pages given over to the out-of-nowhere Tonks/Remus or Bill/Fleur but think it would be 'going away from the point of the novel' to give a few sentences over to be explicit about Dumbledore.
  • Crackpot theories are awesome and made of win. Please post more! Haha.
blog comments powered by Disqus