On Air Now
Heart's Feel Good Weekend with Dev Griffin 12pm - 4pm
1 August 2019, 15:06
it turns out Harry Potter's scar might not be in the shape of a lightning bolt, and fans are completely shocked.
If you’re a Harry Potter fan, there’s a few things that are instantly recognisable about the books and films.
Dumbledore’s cloak, Ron Weasley’s flying car and most importantly Harry’s lightning bolt scar.
But now we’ve all been left questioning the WHOLE plot after it was revealed the latter might not be true.
Harry got the scar when he was just a baby after Voldemort tried to kill him with a curse, but as his mum Lily tried to save him, it hit the dark lord instead - leaving the young wizard with a mark on his forehead.
However, a Twitter account pointed out earlier this year that the lightning bolt may be something else entirely.
Originally shared in January, the post reads: “Did you know Harry Potter's scar isn't a lightning bolt, but actually the hand motion to cast Avada Kedavra."
Did you know Harry Potter’s scar isn’t a lightning bolt, but actually the hand motion to cast Avada Kedavra pic.twitter.com/B8ig9dLGFg— Today Years Old (@todayyearsoldig) January 10, 2019
Next to a photo of Harry lifting up his hair to show his scar, the account shared a screen grab from the Harry Potter Wiki entry on the killing curse.
It includes a diagram of the hand movement used to cast the spell which is very similar to the shape of Harry's scar.
The tweet immediately went viral, with thousands of people shocked over the revelation.
“I'm not even a Harry Potter fan and I'm surprised af,” one person said.
Another wrote: "It all makes sense now,” while a third added: “I actually didn't know that, I loved the movies but never read the books or really geeked out on it."
Although some were quick to suggest that the scar is actually both a lightning bolt and the curse.
Now we just need J.K Rowling to confirm it for us!
The 1997 first edition of Harry Potter And The Philosopher's Stone was bought over the phone by a private UK collector.
Its value was boosted by two errors in the text which include a misspelling of "philosopher's" on the back page and a double-mention of "1 wand" in an equipment list on page 53.