Subject: Not precisely, dear enquirer.
Author:
Posted on: 2016-07-28 22:37:00 UTC

The Time-Turner per se didn't exist in 1899; they are a specialised magical artefact designed to mitigate the Mintumble Effects - a stabilised time-reversal charm with strict limits on range. Rather, Madam Mintumble cast her own temporal reversal charm, the incantation for which is strictly controlled by the Department of Mysteries.

Her retrieval, so far as can be determined from the records, was accomplished by a modified Prior Incantato spell. Researchers have proposed various methods by which this might have been accomplished: some speculate that Madam Mintumble's wand was left behind in 1402, and thus was present in the Department of Mysteries to be directly interacted with; others propose that a wand with matching core was obtained, and somehow a Priori Incantatum effect was induced across time; still others, that the Unspeakables were able to access and reverse the charm simply through the room in which it was cast.

Whatever the case, it seems that Madam Mintumble's rescue was effected five days after her departure, and left her spending five days in the past. No other witches or wizards travelled back to collect her, or else they would have been equally affected by the First Effect: the returning spell simply dragged her through the timestream at high speed, allowing the aging process to continue. (It has been speculated that this, rather than the Second Effect, is the direct cause of the Third Effect shockwave; understandably, no research has been conducted.)

There was no safeguard on the charm used by Eloise Mintumble. It is unlikely, in fact, that a single-cast spell such as she used could even be safeguarded.

As for the Minister for Magic: in a rare interview following the Albus/Scorpius affair, she confirmed that she has 'always felt older than [she] should be', and that she believes her use of the Time-Turner at Hogwarts added a month or more to her age. The safeguard on her Time-Turner only limits the distance back one can travel in a single casting (and induces a cool-down period to prevent multiple castings); it does not include a 'spring-back' effect. The Nott prototype's 'spring-back' is unique, and a consequence of the Turner's unique construction.

~Professor Huinesoron, &c &c

(Eeeeeeverything in here is wild speculation. Your interpretation is just as valid. ^_^)

Reply Return to messages