The Bewitcher

i also believe people tend to forget this is, at its core, a children’s series. characters like him often serve a satirical or exaggerated role, the overly strict, sharp tongued teacher that makes the school setting more entertaining. that archetype isn’t unique to this series at all. you see it in series like mallory towers and similar school stories. without figures like that, the environment would feel boring and unrealistic. but instead of recognizing that narrative function, people isolate him and judge him as if he exists outside the tone and conventions of the genre.

and they also continue to downplay his trauma or turn into some kind of competition where people try to stack it up against others as if suffering and experiences people go through can be ranked. the reality is, no one else in the series goes through that exact combination of isolation, neglect, manipulation and prolonged psychological strain with zero support system. and then people act shocked that he doesn’t come out of it as some well-adjusted, emotionally controlled person with zero guidance. he is actually a fairly accurate portrayal of someone who has gone through that kind of experience, which makes me wonder how would some of these fellows would act in front a real victim of such situation when they can barely tolerate a fictional character who wasn't the perfect victim they want him to be.

what gets me most is how uncomfortable people seem with the idea that a character can be both deeply flawed and still worthy of understanding and love. there’s this constant push to either completely vilify or completely purify, as if nuance is somehow a threat. but severus is one of the few characters who actually feels like a reflection of real, messy human behaviour. a one who makes bad choices out of pain, spite, survival instincts, verbally lash outs when feeling powerless, is unforgiving, petty and bitter but also is self-sacrificing, brave, loyal, protective, capable of having long enduring kind of love and extremely intelligent.

The fact that Snape can never just relax on a nice day. He has to hide himself in the shadows for fear of being attacked and tormented is so sad.

We know what kind of person Wormtail grew up to be and we see here that he was always attracted to hanging around powerful, cruel people who could provide him with sadistic entertainment. He traded James & Sirius for Voldemort once he got out of school of course. But I think it says a lot about the kind of people they were at the time. This wasn't an isolated incident that went especially far, but a regular type of entertainment.

It's really just sick what happens here. They're basically magically waterboarding him at this point. James is exactly the kind of person Harry would have stood up to if they'd gone to school at the same time. I mean after this memory he is so shaken he falls into a depression and wonders if James and Lily ended up together because he forced himself on her.

And to be clear I actually like the narrative potential of Harry discovering that the father he looked up to so much actually was the type of person he despises. I wish a bit more had been done with this though.

The fact that James takes out his frustration with Lily's rejection by tormenting and humiliating Snape more says a lot about him. I also think it's really interesting Sirius is the one who says "[i]f you want to know what a man's like, take a good look at how he treats his inferiors, not his equals" but he never really connects that sentiment with how he and James treated Snape.

"I will also never get why JKR thinks James and Sirius are redeemable for this behavior even though we never get to see anything in canon to prove that James or Sirius ever truly acknowledged the depth of how wrong what they did was or regretted it, but somehow she gets all mad at people for suggesting that Draco, who did canonically regret his actions and change his ways and who never did anything like this, was somehow irredeemable."

Rowling outlined this story and developed the characters when she was trying to escape an abusive marriage. James Potter is incredibly similar to her abusive ex-husband, both in physical description and characterization. He's a charismatic man with a penchant for cruelty and controlling behavior. I think it can be difficult for people who have never been in an abusive relationship to understand the dynamics of one. Whether it's family you were born into or someone you're in a committed relationship with, feelings of love are intertwined with the abuse. You hate what they do to you but you still love them and make excuses for them as long as you still cling to that love more than you do to loving yourself. And when it comes to a relationship (ie. you choose the abusive partner, as opposed to being born into a family with an abuser), there's a reason, often subconscious, that someone has chosen a partner who must have dropped red flags along the way that all got ignored or pushed aside.

Rowling thinks James and Sirius are redeemable because if she could admit that they aren't, specifically because they haven't done anything to change as people and redeem themselves, then she would also have to confront the complex aspects of her own first marriage, including the ugliest, scariest parts of it. She leaves James' development as vague - he became a loving father who put his life between his family and Voldemort to give them a chance at escaping. We don't know how or why, because she doesn't either. This is her escapist fantasy; James exists primarily as the man on the pedestal Harry puts him on because Rowling needs him to be there.

The mask comes off in SWM, but Rowling tries to justify it. I'm not sure she realizes how brutal a scene she wrote, especially given that she went to school in England in the 80s, and this kind of bullying wasn't out of the ordinary (in terms of cruelty, obviously the magic is fictional). As a victim of abuse, her scale for what level of violence is frightening is very different than that of someone who's never experienced that, or even of someone, say, reading this text who'd gone to school in the 2000s or 2010s when bullying was far less brutal. She justifies James' and Sirius' cruelty the same way kids in school do when the bully is the hot quarterback and they want his approval and validation - except she's doing this as a grown woman and with fictional characters she has complete control over. That's... concerning.

She wrote this scene not realizing how cruel she makes James, and it's hard for me not to read it as her subconscious fighting to show her the truth about the man he's based on as her conscious mind deliberately ignores it. Harry's moral crisis in response is never followed through, it's kind of dropped after he talks to Sirius and Lupin about what he saw, and Harry's attitude towards Snape doesn't really soften between this moment and when he kills Dumbledore. It's a very weird moment in the story if you think about it in the context of Rowling being the writer, because it's like she almost gets it for a second, but then can't handle it. It's like she's taking a peek at her own wounds and then says, nope too gross, and puts the band aid back over it. She can't see the forest for the trees, because if she could, she wouldn't have married Jorge Arantes, and wouldn't have invented this whole story as a coping mechanism in the face of his abuse of her.

This is also why I'm skeptical of the people (some of whom I see in the comments, don't @ me, I have zero interest and will just block you on sight) who say that Snape deserved it because he said a slur. And sure, I could go into how James' cruelty and bullying happened mostly before Snape called Lily a Mudblood, or point out that it was clearly the first time it happened based on their argument in front of Gryffindor Tower that night. But actually what I think is important to point out here is that Snape in this scene is written as a boy who is abused at home, bullied at school, and socially isolated (no one's intervening on his behalf except Lily, not even Slytherins) in an environment where a cultic fascist leader is gathering a following, some of whom share Snape's dorm room. Rowling has given backstory on Snape that includes his father routinely whipping him with a belt. We see in this scene how easily and willingly James assaults him, implying - as OP so aptly pointed out - that this is routine, and not an incident that got out of hand. As many people who have written meta about this scene have pointed out, Snape regards it as his worst memory not because of the trauma of the bullying, but because it was the moment where he alienated Lily and lost her friendship (his regret of which propels his entire story arc).

In this moment when he calls Lily "Mudblood" he's absolutely primed for radicalization, and that's exactly what happens to him. That doesn't excuse his behavior and actions, but then his use of a verbal slur also doesn't excuse his being physically and sexually assaulted by his peers. For one, verbal abuse doesn't justify physical abuse. Period. That's not open for debate. For another, the consequences for verbal abuse should be determined by an established disciplinary body, be it a teacher or the headmaster, because when it's meted out by a group of his peers in the reactionary way we see in this scene, that's basically what a lynch mob is. That doesn't mean I'm comparing Snape's treatment in this scene to the victims of actual lynch mobs, but rather that I'm using a parallel - the same way that "Mudblood" is a parallel for a slur, not an actual slur, or how the Death Eaters are a parallel for racism and not actual nazis. Saying "he deserved it" is abuse enabling and supporting mob rule, which isn't justice, it just makes you feel good about your personal subjective feelings about a situation, and it's also what lets abusers get away with abuse. It's also not comparable to the idea of punching nazis, because, again, there are parallels here, not actual nazis.

This reminds me of when I stopped reading a fic because Severus didn’t get jealous about anything and seemed completely unaffected, and it felt like the most fake and unbelievable characterization ever. I was like, nope, I don’t buy it, because:

Severus is extremely insecure. First of all, he’s spent his whole life feeling bad about himself, so he tends to think he’s a terrible person who isn’t lovable. On top of that, he’s spent half his life being told he’s ugly, that he has a huge nose, greasy hair, etc. So if you combine low self-esteem in terms of self-worth with low self-esteem in terms of appearance, you get someone who probably doesn’t believe they can truly be loved by anyone. For a hookup? Sure, why not. But for someone to genuinely be attracted to him? Probably not.

That level of low self-esteem comes with huge insecurity when a third party appears, so rather than jealousy per se, it’s intense insecurity. The idea that at any moment someone better than him could show up (because he probably thinks that wouldn’t be hard), and the other person will realize they’re with someone who isn’t worth much and leave him.

He’s not someone who would externalize it at first, because one of his big but fascinating contradictions is that he has very low self-worth but is also incredibly proud. He probably thinks jealousy is childish and a sign of weakness, so he’ll bottle it up as much as he can.

At first, he might not even realize it’s jealousy, because he lives in a kind of delusion where he denies his own emotions, so he just feels terribly irritated and finds the person he’s jealous of extremely annoying for no clear reason.

He’d be extremely rude to the person he sees as a threat, rude to the point where you’d want to slap him to shut him up.

He’d probably also be quite sarcastic with his S/O for no reason, because he has zero ability to manage his insecurity, high irritation levels, and no internal reflection about what’s actually going on with him.

He’s not pathologically jealous per se. If, for example, he knows the person is just a close friend of his S/O, he’d calm down quite a bit. But if he doesn’t understand the situation, that’s when he gets deeply triggered.

The more trust there is, the less jealous he becomes, although he still needs quite a bit of reassurance in certain situations to feel secure, even in an established relationship.

He’s not the type to make a scene, but he’s definitely not going to pretend everything is fine either

Every so often, I'm reminded of the sheer number of fans who, upon re-reading PoA, cannot or will not attempt to understand Snape's perspective. They see his animosity towards Lupin as "pettiness", "prejudice", and "bitterness", and while of course he harbors all of the above to varying degrees, that's not the main driver of his behavior towards Lupin throughout the book? And his attitude, which is primarily one of suspicion, is anything but unwarranted.

Snape and Lupin's fraught history sometimes obscures the fact that in PoA, Snape also strongly believes Lupin is plotting with his old friend, the traitor and escaped mass murderer Sirius Black, to kill Harry. Snape says this explicitly, yet many fans seem to forget this when they interpret his behavior, instead painting Snape as irrational, unreasonable, or even maliciously spreading a lie about Sirius and Lupin so as to ensure their imprisonment. But you know what? He's got some pretty solid reasons to believe what he does.

Let’s follow his thinking here:

1. Sirius is a dangerous criminal who is headed to Hogwarts to kill Harry. Lupin, who will now also be at Hogwarts, may help his old friend target Harry.

Sirius Black–traitor to the Order, the Potters, and (oh yeah) a mass murderer–has broken out of prison for the purpose of killing Harry Potter. Everyone from the Minister to Dumbledore to Mr. Weasley is convinced of this. Snape, who never knew the identity of the mole in the Order, and who has his own history of being targeted by Sirius, has no reason to doubt this.

From Snape's perspective, it seems likely that Sirius will attempt to re-establish contact with his old friend, now in a position of authority at Hogwarts, to plan his attack on Potter. Lupin has never stopped Sirius from attacking before, why would he start now?

Snape warns Dumbledore about the possibility of Lupin helping Sirius get into the castle prior to the start of term.

2. Lupin attempts to gain Harry’s trust.

Lupin tries hard (a bit too hard?) to portray himself as a cool, approachable teacher. Snape seethes over Lupin’s attempts to butter up the Gryffindors at his expense; not only is it a severe reminder of his past bullying, but Snape could also see this as a machination on Lupin’s part to appeal to Potter. This approach would have worked with James, and Snape is convinced that Harry is just like him.

Then, Snape walks in on a private meeting between Lupin and Harry, taking place while all the other students are away. Lupin quickly (and obviously, to a spy and legilimens) changes the subject upon Snape’s arrival. Snape is suspicious; what is he up to? From Snape’s perspective, Lupin might be manipulating Harry, perhaps laying the groundwork to lure him into Sirius’s hands.

Furthermore, Lupin has a lax attitude about taking the potion. He won’t take it in front of Snape… would he perhaps "forget" to take it entirely? Is Lupin engineering a situation that will endanger Harry? Maybe Sirius intends to use his friend to kill the young student. Wouldn’t be the first time, would it?

Snape warily watches Lupin the rest of the night.

3. Only a few months into Lupin’s tenure, Sirius is able to evade security measures and get into the castle.

Is it a coincidence that this was the same day Lupin was paying special attention to Harry, and on a night very near a full moon? Snape thinks not, and reminds Dumbledore of the warning he gave him prior to the start of term. In Snape's mind, it's clear he was right to be concerned. When Dumbledore shuts his suspicions down, Snape knows that he must take matters into his own hands.

4. Lupin both passively and actively undermines security over the next few months. During this time, Black breaks into the castle a second time.

To Snape, Lupin’s avoidance of werewolves in class may indicate not simply self-preservation, but nefarious intentions. If Lupin were tasked with delivering Harry to Sirius, he wouldn’t want to jeopardize Harry’s trust by revealing his lycanthropy. And if the plot involved Lupin’s werewolf form, Lupin would need Harry to be ignorant so that he would be easy prey. Snape takes over teaching DADA for one lesson, intending to arm Harry (or his more talented friends, who can help look out for him) with knowledge of werewolves. His assignment on recognizing and killing werewolves reflects his suspicions and his high level of concern about the danger Lupin poses. He is not simply trolling Lupin here; Snape asked for the essays to be handed in to him, not to Lupin. Lupin’s cancellation of the assignment would serve only to further cement Snape's belief that Lupin is attempting to undermine student safety.

After a second breach of Hogwarts security and another failed attempt on Harry's life by Black, Harry is caught sneaking outside the castle on a Hogsmeade weekend. Snape is upset with Harry’s arrogance in playing fast and loose with his life, particularly in the present climate. When he interrogates him, he discovers the Marauders Map. As the parchment begins taunting him with familiar nicknames, the subject of his attention shifts from Harry to Lupin. He snaps into investigative mode--this might not just be Potter being an arrogant dunderhead, but another attempt by Lupin and Black to get Harry out of the castle. Furthermore, he was found right outside the Shrieking Shack, where Lupin and Sirius once almost killed another student. To Snape, the picture is coming together. When he confronts Lupin, Lupin flat-out lies to him and takes the suspicious parchment out of his possession. Lupin is undermining the protections around Harry and is working against Snape’s efforts to keep Harry safe, assuring Snape that he is guilty.

5. The grand plan finally comes to fruition. Snape, in the course of taking wolfsbane to Lupin after he has forgotten to take it, sees Lupin headed for the Shrieking Shack on the map Lupin supposedly knew nothing about. Snape now believes that Lupin has intentionally avoided taking the potion and that the plot he suspected was being hatched is now coming to fruition. It’s go time.

With an understanding of Snape's perspective headed into the Shrieking Shack scene, the question becomes: why should Snape listen to Lupin’s protests and hear him out in the shack instead of taking control of the situation and delivering these obvious criminals to justice? We understand his desire to head off, intimidate, threaten and thwart Quirrell in the Philosopher's Stone, so why, when he acts similarly towards Lupin, is it suddenly unreasonable? To Snape, what’s the difference between Lupin's protests in the shack and Quirrell’s in the forbidden forest two years previously?

Like, they’ll sit there in their comfortable rooms and preach about how "nothing excuses his actions," but they will never, ever understand the view from the bottom. They see a bitter man; I see the kid who had nothing. I see the greasy hair and the mismatched, oversized clothes and I don't see a "villain"—I see the kid who didn't have enough money for soap. I see the kid whose parents were too busy drowning in their own war to notice he was being hunted in the hallways.

And the "bullying victims" who hate him? Those are the ones that hurt the most.

If you were a TRUE victim of that kind of soul-crushing bullying, you wouldn’t be able to stand the Marauders. You wouldn't be able to look at James Potter and see a "hero."

How can you say you were bullied and then turn around and justify the Marauders? You’re doing the exact same thing everyone did to you. You’re looking at a kid who was a scapegoat, a kid who was humiliated for his appearance and his poverty, and you’re saying "Well, James and Sirius had a rough life too, so it’s okay that they targeted him." You’re literally doing what your bullies did. You’re giving the "privileged" bullies a pass because they’re charming or because they "had it rough" in a way that’s easy to pity—like a strict family—while turning a blind eye to the raw, grinding survival of the kid they targeted.

And don’t even start with the "he bullied children when he got older" argument. You want to talk about how he turned out? Let’s talk about what happens when you spend your entire childhood being the punching bag for "golden boys." Let's talk about the bitterness that rots your soul when you realize the world will always prefer a charming bully over a poor, "scary" victim.

You think you and Snape went through the same thing? Then how can you forgive the people who broke him? You’re just proving my point. You’re choosing the side of the people who never had to dig in the trash for a "toy." You're choosing the people who have a safety net, while the rest of us are just trying not to drown in the silence.

It’s the absolute hypocrisy of the "SA victim" to card being used to silence anyone who defends Snape. How can you claim to care about consent and bodily autonomy, and then watch a scene where a boy is levitated, pinned, and stripped by force in front of a laughing crowd, and not call it exactly what it is?

It’s assault. Period.

But because it’s Severus, everyone suddenly develops selective amnesia. Because he’s "the weird kid," because he’s a Slytherin, because he’s "ugly" or "bitter," you decide his body doesn't belong to him. You justify James Potter and Sirius Black stripping him in public as "just a prank" or "schoolboy rivalry."

If that were any other character—if that were a girl, or if that were one of the "Golden Trio"—you would be screaming from the rooftops about the trauma of that moment. You would be talking about the lifelong psychological damage of having your privacy and your body violated for the entertainment of your peers.

But no. You’ll look a real survivor in the eye and say it’s different. You’ll say it’s okay because of who he became later. Since when does being a "bitter adult" retroactively make it okay for people to have assaulted you when you were a fifteen-year-old kid with no one to protect you?

How dare you.

How dare you use the language of survivors to protect the bullies and the predators just because they’re "charming" and "heroic." You’re not standing up for victims; you’re standing up for the people who think they have the right to touch and humiliate anyone they deem "lesser" than them just for EXISTING . If you can watch that scene and laugh, or even just shrug it off, you aren't a champion for victims—you’re just another person turning a blind eye to the reality of assault because the victim wasn't "likable" enough for you to care.

It’s the sheer isolation that follows that kind of trauma—the kind where you realize that your body isn't yours and your dignity can be erased in a single afternoon for the amusement of the "heroes."

How can you not see the psychological prison he lived in after that?

Imagine the next day. Imagine walking into the Great Hall and having to meet the eyes of every single student, wondering if they were there. Wondering if they saw everything. Wondering if they’re replaying the moment you were stripped and humiliated while you’re just trying to eat your breakfast. Every laugh in the corridor, every whisper behind a hand—it all becomes a weapon. You stop looking up. You stop making eye contact. You become a ghost in your own skin because it’s the only way to feel safe afraid of ripping your skin with your hands if you don't feel safe.

And the "house" that was supposed to be his family? He became a stranger there, too. When you’re the "poor kid" who got publicly shamed, your own housemates don't always rally around you; sometimes they distance themselves because they don't want the "loser" scent to rub off on them. He was isolated in the one place he was supposed to belong.

Then there’s Lily.

Everyone talks about how "he called her a name," but nobody talks about the context of a boy in the middle of a mental breakdown and physical assault. He was being violated, his adrenaline was red-lining, he was humiliated beyond repair—and in that moment of total powerlessness, he lashed out at the only person he cared about try to actually stop instead of just talking or hit the four boys who were actually hurting him.

That small detail—the flicker of a smile before she "caught herself"—is what makes the blood boil. It’s the ultimate betrayal.

Imagine being at your lowest point, being physically violated and publicly mocked, and looking to the one person in the world who is supposed to be your "safe place," only to see them enjoying it for even a split second. That smile confirms every dark thought a person in poverty has: Even the people who "love" me think my humiliation is funny. Even the people who know my heart think I’m a joke.

It’s that specific, cruel brand of "holier-than-thou" behavior. She gets to play the saint later by "defending" him, but that momentary smile proved she was just as entertained by the Marauders' cruelty as everyone else. She was a spectator to his assault before she was a protector, and you can’t just erase that.

It makes her "mercy" feel like pity, and her anger at his slur feel like an easy exit strategy—a way to stop being friends with the "poor, weird kid" without having to feel guilty about it. She used his mistake to justify abandoning him when he was at his most broken.

And she walked away. She refused his apology. She saw a boy being assaulted and focused on a word instead of the trauma. She left him to drown in the aftermath of the Marauders' "joke" because it was easier to be offended than to be a witness to his pain.

And the teachers? The adults? Total silence. They watched it happen. They knew the Marauders were relentless. They saw the "greasy," poor kid being targeted day after day and they did nothing. They validated the bullies by letting them get away with it. When the system that’s supposed to protect you decides your humiliation is "harmless fun," where else are you supposed to go?

You don't just "get over" that you don't tell a victim they should get over what screwed them up in their life like they're entitled you and time

Since you'll love bringing up Nazis, then I’m sure you’ve read plenty about how indoctrination, manipulation and grooming of young children are conducted and how they affect people. Nazis and the Hitler Youth didn’t appear out of the wild, did they? There were psychopaths, yes, but also brainwashed and groomed youth in those groups. That context never excuses the harm done, but ignoring why people are radicalized and focusing only on individual moral failure helps no one. Without addressing systemic factors, nothing changes.

You’ll undermine how, on top of brainwashing and grooming, chronic abuse can rewire someone to the extent that their morals get distorted. Snape's situation has a lot more to do with indoctrination, exploitation of existing biases (in Snape’s case, the fact that his abusive Muggle father and his witch mother clearly made him regard Muggles in a very negative light, and the Slytherins encouraged that feeling), the lie that the person in question is “special” and not like all the others (something everyone craves to hear), and the promise of escape from poverty and gaining influence that is sorely lacking.

You must also know that someone being manipulated and indoctrinated from a young age, or having their vulnerabilities and hopes exploited, cannot simply be written off as dumb, evil, or as someone who “shouldn’t have chosen that.” The psychology behind hate groups, cults, and gangs is much more complex than the “he should know better” line people keep using. If it was so easy, such groups wouldn’t be as successful as they are. You'll just love throwing that word around because you'll are way too lazy to wrack your brains and think critically and analyze what might have caused people to join it in the first place. You'll don't actually give a fuck about it though, don't you'll? Some of you'll just put up a false SJW bravado upfront just to get your egos boosted every-time someone praises you for how politically correct you are, being the next revolutionary icon and shit. Real SJW requires getting in the trenches, understanding harsh realities of the world and different mindsets of people and seeing all perspectives and roots of social issues.

The phrase “he should know better” sounds like something said by someone who’s never actually been in a position of inferiority and deprivation. It’s easy to judge choices made out of desperation and powerlessness, turn a blind eye to what led to them, and dismiss their efforts to change, even if those efforts weren’t for the best reasons.

The entire point of Snape’s character is about how kids who come from abusive and impoverished homes and bullying environments get groomed into extremist groups that take advantage of their miserable situations, and how, when that trauma is neglected, they stay stuck in that childlike mentality even as they grow up. It’s a realistic example of teenagers being coaxed into criminal gangs in real life. Whether you like it or not, it still happens and you not liking to admit it, doesn't make it less of a fact.

And people like James do not help that; they only solidify the hatred already existing due to the abuse Snape went through from the first Muggle adult in his life for 11 years, simply for being different. Snape has at least an explanation for why he grew up the way he did, whereas James had no real reason to be who he was, even at the age of 16.

Abused kids attach themselves to any place where they get acceptance and appreciation, and unfortunately Snape got that from the wrong crowd. For someone who’s been deprived of that their entire life, it means a lot, and they may be unable to think rationally. It’s easy for others to say what he should have done, but reality doesn’t always work that way. Such individuals are often afraid to lose the one place where they feel accepted.

That’s one of the most ridiculous double standards I’ve ever seen.

The FORBIDDEN FOREST is a wild forest full of dangerous creatures, it’s not a botanical garden or an eco-park. A wild forest is already dangerous at night even for adults, for eleven-year-old children, it’s even more so. So McGonagall’s punishment was essentially putting students in a situation that could lead to death or serious injury, it cannot be called a normal punishment.

There’s a persistent belief in HP fandom that both twin (identical) and paired (same species but different sexes) patronuses are symbolic of love, especially romantic love. But while researching for a different meta, it struck me that these beliefs aren’t canon, but rather an oversimplification of what they truly represent, as well as a projection of a fixation on soulmates and “one true love.”

Note: I am considering canon in this case as the seven HP books only. I am not considering extracanonical sources.

Matching patronuses as symbols of grief

Notably, when Remus explains what patronuses are in PoA and why they change in HBP, he doesn’t mention love at all. A patronus is “a kind of anti-Dementor — a guardian which acts as a shield between you and the Dementor. The Patronus is a kind of positive force, a projection of the very things that the Dementor feeds upon — hope, happiness, the desire to survive.” It changes only due to “a great shock ... an emotional upheaval.”

The three most notable patronuses we see in canon are Harry’s, Severus’s, and Tonks’s, and all three match people they have lost in moments of emotional turmoil. These patronuses do represent love (but not necessarily romantic love) in a way, but it is lost love. They are a projection of grief and how that grief impacts the character’s desires, hopes, and reasons for living.

Harry’s patronus is James, representing a connection to the loss of his parents (who were quite literally acting as protective guardians when they died), and also his desire to keep Sirius, a surrogate father and a direct connection to James, alive. His patronus is steeped in grief and his desire for the loving family he never had.

Next we have Severus’s patronus, which represents the loss of Lily. It is an expression of his grief and guilt, and how his reasons for living and surviving become atonement for his role in Lily's death and the fulfillment of her final wish. (I have a lot more to say on this that I'll put in a separate meta.)

Tonks is where things get really interesting, because I believe Tonks's patronus represents both Remus and Sirius. First, her patronus is never explicitly stated to be a wolf, but a “an immense silvery four-legged creature”. Large canines are connected to both Remus, a werewolf, and Sirius, whose animagus form is a grim (We have someone else whose patronus represent a person's animagus form, don't we?). I don't think Tonks had a romantic relationship with Sirius, but it's clear in the text she is grieving over his death at the time her patronus changed, and according to Hermione, "She thinks it was her fault he died" (Again, sounding like anyone else we know?). What I think is that her grief over Sirius compounded the loss of Remus rejecting her, creating the necessary emotional upheaval for her patronus to change (not to forget Remus's own grief impacting his decision to reject her in the first place), and Remus comes to represent Tonks's hope for a future—because he’s still alive and a romantic relationship remains possible. It's okay if you believe her patronus is only representative of Remus, but I feel like there's too many connections to Sirius to ignore (and I love how it gives her patronus a connection to both Harry's and Snape's as well). It represents lost love either way.

It’s clear these sorts of patronuses are based in love, but it is lost love and the subsequent desires and motivations as a result of that grief that create their forms, not the expression of love on its own.

Twin and paired patronuses as symbols of intended or true love

Canon contains zero explicit examples of identical twin or paired patronuses, and the patronuses we do see do not represent true love nor destiny, so this one is fanon.

In regards to two people sharing the same patronus forms, canon only implies these exist based on Snape's and Tonks's forms, and some assumptions on Harry's part. We never see nor hear about Lily's nor Remus's corporeal patronus forms in the books. As I argued above, what I think is canonical is patronuses that represent specific people, but those do not even represent romantic love, let alone "true love" or some sort of intention or fate.

As for romantic couples having male and female versions of the same species, these just straight up do not exist in canon, even by implication. “What about James and Lily?” you ask. Well, we never learn what James’ patronus is from the text of the books. As I mentioned earlier, Harry’s patronus is very clearly James’s animagus form; Harry, Remus, and Dumbledore all state it is Prongs.

The whole “James and Lily have paired patronuses” thing is from JKR (boo, hiss) online and in interviews. Given the nature of HP fandom, I’m not surprised people glommed onto it and expanded from there. But paired patronuses aren't present in the books at all.

Also, yes, if we’re being pedantic about it, stags and does don’t even come from the same species, but I think it’s safe to assume that JKR didn’t know that and as with a lot of things in HP, should have looked it up but didn’t. Accepting for a moment that James’s patronus is a stag, if we look again at what patronuses actually represent, according to the definition in the books, James having a patronus that matches his animagus form would seem to imply that his “hope, happiness, and desire to survive” is a lot more connected to himself and the Marauders than Lily. So basically, if that’s what JKR intended, she fucked up in multiple ways. 

"The walls were completely covered in books, most of them bound in old black or brown leather..."

"He pointed his wand at the wall of books behind him and with a bang, a hidden door flew open, revealing a narrow staircase..."