20

Is there any canon information in Harry Potter that proves one way or another whether a wizard always owns only one wand as a matter of routine?

What I am talking about is a wizard buying and owning one wand and also a second wand (for backup, or simultaneous use, or separate purpose, or ceremonial+work wand), akin to people buying more than one pair of boots, guns or hammers.

A proof would be either canon info showing someone owning 2 wands simultaneously; or a statement showing why that does not happen except in rare exceptions (see below).


NOTE: I am discounting special situations such as winning an extra wand in a duel ala Harry (e.g. the second wand's obtainment wasn't intended/planned), or someone winning a Death Stick from prior owner (in which case it was intended as a replacement wand and not an extra one); or taking another's wand for a time being, ala Voldemort and Lucius Malfoy (since it was more of a "temporary replacement because main wand was useless for the purpose due to paired cores" - far from a normal situation).

Also, I meant wands intended for use - e.g. if Malfoy would have a (imagined by me) collection of rare antique wands, that's as irrelevant as someone having flintlocks in a display case.

  • 12
    I picture some bad ass Auror with a vest full of wands a la Il Duche from Boondocks Saints – Monty129 Oct 6 '12 at 21:28
  • 1
    @Monty129 - I'm tempted to photoshop either this, or Chau Yun-fat from Replacement Killers – DVK-on-Ahch-To Oct 7 '12 at 0:52
  • 1
    Great question. I had always wondered this since Olivander started saying things like "nice for charm work" or "excellent for transfiguration" about wands, which suggests a highly skilled wizard may well have a wand for each specialisation. – Crow T Robot Dec 29 '14 at 6:16
15

Your mistake [for lack of a better word] is that you are viewing wands as a "hammer" or a "boot" of which someone can just have spares.

But remember that wands are exceptionally special to a wizard.

Firstly:

...Mr Ollivander states that a wand chooses a wizard....

...The second states the connections made between both wizard and wand are complex, and will grow with experience, the wand learning from the wizard, the wizard from the wand....

Wandlore page on Wikia.

Also, some further insight to the Wand phenomena is given here.

Furthermore:

...a wizard may channel his energy with any wand, whether his or not. However, the best results come where there is a great likeness between a wizard and a wand....

Wandlore page on Wikia.

Generally the bond takes time to develop.

To me, the thing wouldn't be whether or not people do or don't have multiple wands, as we know this is possible, but the issue would be how well the wand is used.:

Would the Elder Wand choose every new owner who wins?

Can a Person Be Chosen By More Than One Wand?

Can a wizard use more than one wand?

As you mentioned that a wizard could possibly have a wand for 'ceremonial' use. I believe this can be a fair possibility; have a main wand, which one is akin to, regardless of how it looks; and then have a nicely-adorned one like Lucius Malfoy's wand, which one could use during ceremonies and the like. Having said that, if you had a main wand, which you loved and were attached to - and vice versa - wouldn't you be proud to show that one off, regardless of how it looked?

Tactically, I believe it a possibility to have extra (or back-up) wands. But since the other wand is not going to be much more effective than say an umbrella lying about (if your main wand breaks during a duel); then why bother carrying an extra wand around?

  • 4
    ... because carrying a spare umbrella around is inconvinient? :) – DVK-on-Ahch-To Apr 16 '15 at 20:54
  • 1
    But if all wizards only ever used a single wand, what happens when the wand is destroyed in some irreversible way? Or taken to some far away place? Wouldn't it be better for wizards to train with multiple wands to ensure this doesn't happen? – James Watkins Jan 13 '16 at 18:43
  • Uh-oh, did I just tell @DVK he's made a mistake? – Möoz Sep 21 '16 at 22:22
  • 2
    @Mooz - Inconceivable! – DVK-on-Ahch-To Sep 22 '16 at 1:46
  • 3
    @DVK because carrying a spare umbrella around is inconvinient? :) tell that to Hagrid! – Möoz Nov 30 '16 at 4:16
2

In Pottermore, when you get your wand, it's mentioned that there are regulations by the Ministry for Magic regarding the purchase of wands. We don't know if one's allowed to purchase more than one wand, but at least we do know it's something the Ministry keeps an eye on.

  • 3
    there are regulations by the Ministry for Magic regarding the purchase of wands Really? Where does it say that? – Möoz Nov 30 '16 at 4:17
0

In Deathly Hallows Chapter 19 there is an example of a wizard carrying a backup wand, and he explicitly states that its purpose is to be a backup wand:

"Did you just say you got away from the Snatchers with a spare wand?"

"What?" said Ron who had been watching Hermione examining the locket. "Oh – oh yeah."

He tugged open a buckle on his rucksack and pulled a short, dark wand out of its pocket. "Here. I figured it's always handy to have a backup."

While it is true that Ron did not deliberately procure a backup wand, the fact remains that he had the backup wand for several weeks already.

  • Given Ron's history, having a backup wand was probably not a bad idea.... – RDFozz Sep 26 '18 at 16:56

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.