The Locket!

wow! I can't believe I was right. lol thats a first
[/b][/quote]

I totally agree that the note was from Regulus Black. I also think that the locket that was found in Grimmauld Place in book 5 might be the real horcrux. I also think that if kreacher has stashed it somewhere, now that Harry has inherited everything from Sirius (including Kreacher). All Harry has to do is order Kreacher to give up any info he has on the matter... making it that much easier Harry to pick Moldy Voldy apart, piece by piece. Ha!

I love it when a plan comes together! :P

I don't think it means anything, because the locket had probably been horcrux for a very long time, they wouldn't find it there, at least not slytherin's locket

If you go to this site http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/blackfamilytree.html you will find the black family tree. It's not really helpful for finding Regulus' middle name, but if you look closely at it, you will see that Sirus is related to Bruke, the Potters, and the Bulstrodes.

Thanks for the tree.

You forgot to mention Weasley, Longbottom, Crouch, Crabbe, McMillan.
And the name, "Prewett" is familiar, but I can't place it.

one question: why would regulus take the locket anyways?? i mean from what we knw about him it doesnt sem like he that smart, he was a death eater, a pureblood lover, even if he didnt want to be a death eater anymore i doubt he would risk defying voldemort

I've posted this theory on another thread... I'm not at all convinced that Regulus is RAB. I think he's a decoy - a red herring. It's too easy, if you think about it.
Would the Black's have left the locket lying about in some glass display cabinet? I think not. Even if it wasn't common household knowledge that it was a horcrux, it was still Slytherins' locket! It would've been hidden, dearly guarded, because of its monetary and historical value. Also, given the assumed very short time that Regulus was a Death Eater, I don't think Voldemort would've entrusted him with his biggest secret - horcruxes. The absolute most Regulus might have hoped to glean from Voldemort was the means of trechery he was willing to use to attain power - the creatures he would ally himself with, the dark methods he would employ, the utter carelessness he had for his own supporters. I'm sure Regulus realized, too late, that he was merely a tool, and didn't want to be used and disposed of so callously.
I think, as an alternative, it's entirely possible that RAB is the Bloody Baron.
Replies Welcome

I think your definitly right about Regulus being a Red Herring. It's too easy... I mean atleast for people who read the book a lot its easy. I'm not sure bout the Bloody Barron though, it sounds like hes been dead for a while. I think it possibly could be Borgin or Burkes. I mean we have heard of Borgin a few times but I'm pretty certian theres nothing about Burkes past in the books. Maybe theres a story there?

I think black being RAB is to easy to there is a possiblity that she hasnt actually mentioned who RAB is I mean it could be someone we find out is related to one of the characters she do anything she wants with a new character

Molly Weasley (nee Prewett)- her brothers were killed by the Death Eaters. She's lost all her family. Not surprising that she's a little paranoid about losing any more family or friends.
Interesting that she and Arthur weren't involved in the Order along with her brothers.
Why aren't the Longbottoms, Weasleys AND/OR the Potters struck from the tree?!? How is Harry related to Ron , Neville AND more to the point, Malfoy??

Ottery et al; I don't get the impression that Regulus told anyone even his family, what he was doing. I kinda picture him staggering home to die - maybe not even making it- and making Kreacher take the locket, maybe, and his secret, definately, of what he had done. Why Reggie did it is the mystery yet to be uncovered; not a simple or 'easy' option but a heavy intrigue.

I kinda think it's important that it IS Reggie 'cause Sirius has to be wrong about his reading of his brother as he has been wrong about so many other things. Harry has to learn the weakness of Sirius because he was a horrably flawed character and Harry refuses to see any of that and it's to Harry's detriment.
Sirius's simplistic even patronising 'reading' of others caused the death of Lily and James and he still hadn't learnt any form of understanding/empathy for others. He was a truly arrogant git. If Harry chooses the same path - as he kinda did in the 5th- he'lll be as lonely and.. well.... dead, as Sirius. I reckon that's the moral lesson we are meant to learn from Sirius and, his being even a little wrong about his brother, ties in with that lesson.

If Jo brings in another character to be RAB in the last book it would be... yuck! Way too Christie and totally unfair!

Why do you assume that Reg was a Death Eater for a short time?

We don't hear Voldy mention/grieve the loss of Reg (then again we don't hear him grieve the loss of anyone) so we've gotta assume Reggie wasn't of any great importance. We have got to remember though that Voldy is quick to underestimate people and this is a great weakness. Dumby made this point heaps of times. It is clear, I reckon, from the note that RAB felt undervalued and wanted to prove his worth in a final, suicidal act of either attrition or, more likely, spite. This to me, seems like an act of an underdog sick of being kicked about ; a character much as you discribe Regulus!!

Just gotta keep putting in my two cents, lol. Love these boards - what will we do when there's nothing left to speculate? Uh!
Anyway... I wanted to point out that JK has said that there will be no more major characters, so that narrows our list of RAB suspects considerably.

We have: Regulus Black, Mr. Borgin, Mr. Burke, and the Bloody Baron (my personal choice).

Oh, and utterly of track, BuffBuff, you asked why I thought Regulus was a Death Eater for a short time? Because he was eighteen when he died. Using information from book six - how unusual and impressive it was that Draco should be made a Death Eater at such a young age, 16 - I guessed that Regulus was probably recruited straight after coming of age, 17. I could be wrong on all my suspicions, but just because someone becomes a Death Eater doesn't mean they automatically have access to every plot and scheme of Voldemorts'. Regulus would have had to prove himself worthy and loyal, and that takes time. Remember, this is Voldemort's most precious secret (horcruxes), he's not going to let a slip of the tongue ruin his greatest plan.

But, getting on with it, I started thinking about the matter in a different view. Does it make any difference who RAB was? Why should it? If the real locket is gone, destroyed, why would it be an issue who actually did the deed? I can think of three reasons, but they still don't point the finger at the identity of RAB.

Reason one is that Harry needs to be certain that the locket is actually destroyed, and not take it for granted that RAB did what the letter said.

Reason two is that JK needed to leave an "open door"; she needed a way of bringing some unexplored character into the story. This character will help give a ton of back story, I'm sure, but maybe RAB isn't anything more than a writing device.

Reason three is that maybe RAB is still - not alive - but able to communicate with Harry. A portrait, a living accomplice, a ghost? If Harry needs to get some vital information from RAB, then it would be necessary that Harry could find and communicate with RAB.

I'm sorry, I'm talking in circles. I don't have enough information to make anything more than wild guesses.

The Bloody Baron did it. Here's my reasons:
He's Slytherin. That implies that he's a Dark Wizard. But he also seems to have some measure of control over Peeves, which oppositely implies that he has limits to the lengths he will go to achieve his goals.
He isn't a new character, just unexplored. He's connected to Hogwarts, it's the place that he haunts - the same place that Volde was so anxious to return to. The Bloody Baron probably knows all about Hogwarts - its secret rooms and hidden tunnels and untapped stores of magic.
We don't know how or when he died. We do know that he's covered in silver blood stains though. Unicorn blood? I betting it is. It would also be perfectly logical, to me, that the Bloody Baron had used unicorn blood as an antidote for the potion he had to drink in the cave. Unicorn blood is said to keep you alive even if you're an inch from death. But it won't keep you alive forever and you'll be cursed for drinking it. If RAB already suspected he was on Volde's bad side, he knew his days were numbered. Unicorn blood would've given him time enough, maybe, to swipe the locket, plant the fake one with the note, and do whatever he did with the real one (ruin it, hide it, pass it to someone for safe keeping).
He's the only ghost described as "bloody". Maybe human blood doesn't show up in the after life? Maybe only traces of how they actually died would remain? He's also described many times as "gaunt", which I took as a vague hint from JK. It sort of reconfirms his connection with Dark things, the Gaunt family, and therefore Slytherin. He would've been a shoe-in for Death Eater - if he was alive at the time.
Lastly, I've said it before but it's a feeling I can't shake, Regulus is too obvious as RAB. (I'm talking in circles again, sorry) But I gotta admit that the point that was raised about Harry needing to see Sirius in a less ideallized way - through Regulus' actions - was pretty compelling.
Replies welcome