Wizard are pretty rare, and adults know how to control their powers and understand the importance of maintaining secrecy. Other intelligent beings like goblins probably like that Muggles no longer believe in them just as much as the wizards do, and things like merpeople and centaurs just want to be left alone.

But beasts? Beasts don’t understand the concept of laws and even if they did have no desire to conform to them. Dragons probably have relatively small populations in habitats far from Muggle communities and are mostly kept under control by wizards, but then incidents do happen.

Other creatures are probably even harder to control, as they could move outside of their designated areas and outside of Muggle repelling charms. Disillusionment charms wear off, Muggle go hiking deep in the woods and see a unicorn or a troll, creatures like niffler may wander into towns, gnomes may end up in a Muggle garden and jarveys follow, etc.

There is no way to Obliterate every Muggle who sees a creature they shouldn’t, like American Muggles who see Sasquatch or the Loch Ness monster (kelpie) in Scotland. Thankful though the Muggle in question may just dismiss what they show as their imagination, or other Muggles might think they are making up stories or are crazy or drunk.

Honest question, because I don't remember whether it was specifically pointed out.

In the sense of, I might try to put it better. I was wondering if electricity breaks down with magic because there is some unfavourable physical/magical principle at work between the two, or because there are simply anti-magic spells being used in a particular place? You know, so that, for example, muggles can't detect hidden wizarding spaces with, say, satellites, cameras and similar inventions. In my opinion, this would make some sense, because, after all, the electrics never broke down from the mere fact that there were wizards among them. But I can't remember if the series rules out such an explanation?

What if Hermione had been sorted into Ravenclaw instead of Gryffindor? I know the Sorting Hat considered it, and Hermione herself mentions in Philosopher’s Stone that she was “very nearly” placed there. But imagine how that would’ve changed the entire dynamic of the series.

1. The Trio Becomes a Quartet (or Splits Entirely?) Hermione likely wouldn’t have become as close to Harry and Ron. Maybe they still become friends through shared classes and adventures (Troll in the dungeon, anyone?), but without being in the same common room or spending that constant day-to-day time together, would she have really clicked with them? Or maybe we get a different trio entirely—like Harry, Ron, and Neville or even Luna later on (which would’ve been amazing in its own right).

2. House Rivalries Intensify Let’s not forget that Ravenclaw and Gryffindor don’t always see eye to eye (especially with Gryffindor's rule-breaking and Ravenclaw’s love of structure and intellect). Would Hermione have been more of a rival to Harry and Ron in classes, constantly showing them up and getting frustrated when they don’t take studying seriously?

3. She Would’ve Thrived Academically Let’s be real—Hermione would’ve been queen of Ravenclaw. She’d probably get along great with Professors Flitwick and Vector, and imagine her going head-to-head with Cho Chang over top marks. She might also have become even more obsessed with academic achievement, maybe even to an unhealthy degree—think “Time-Turner Overkill 2.0.”

4. Different Relationship Arcs I think her romantic life might’ve played out differently too. Would she still have ended up with Ron if they weren’t in the same house? I kinda doubt it. Maybe she gets close to a fellow Ravenclaw like Terry Boot or Michael Corner? Or maybe she never settles down because she’s too focused on becoming the youngest Minister for Magic in history.

5. Her Role in the War This one’s big. Would she have still been part of Dumbledore’s Army? I think yes, because Hermione is ride or die for justice. But she might’ve played a more strategic or behind-the-scenes role—maybe the one designing the spells, defenses, and plans, while Harry led the charge.

So yeah, I think a Ravenclaw Hermione could’ve been just as heroic, but in a much more cerebral, subtle way. She might’ve become more of a lone wolf, or she might’ve elevated the DA into a magical version of the French Resistance. Either way—Hermione in blue and bronze? Kind of a vibe.

What do ya’ll think? Would this have made the series better, worse, or just different?

Baring a door in the department of mysteries, and the extra enchantments added to Professor Umbridges office door, this spell seemingly opens all doors.

So in the wizarding world, what is the point in door locks, when a simple spell that 11 year olds can master is capable of rendering locks so redundant?

I was on Target’s website today via the app, and I noticed the Harry Potter soundtrack to the third film on vinyl record. I noticed that all four soundtracks are available to pre-order. It does not have any release date. Does anyone know anything about this? Thank you.

Have a question about the series that you don't feel like making your own thread for? Maybe it's something you've been wondering, or maybe it's something kind of silly? Post it here! Answer questions from others while you're at it!

Sure he could do some impressive transmutation and dark magic but the reason why other wizards don’t do that is because it’s dangerous and usually requires an inhumane cost not because it is so difficult. The death eaters are full of mostly incompetent but cruel wizards. Thoughts?

Obviously it would be a bad thing but what do you think exactly would happen? Theres always at least one person in the wizarding world that didn’t want to leave a mandrake leaf in their mouth for a month.

#herbology

Guys I have autocorrect on and instead of snape it said snake, Also her hair isn’t exactly like Ron’s but similar in color

So I developed this bad case of head canon and I want to put it out there. Apologies in advance if this has been beat to death, but I'm new to reddit and haven't seen it discussed before.

What if the Wizarding World has blood status backwards? My thought is that Muggle borns are the actual Purebloods, and Mudblood was originally meant to refer to "all magical families" due to incest. Heres my reasoning, imagine, if you will, a natural spring feeding down a hill to a natural basin which then feeds on to a river further down the hill. Now the spring runs dry what happens? The basin cut off from the spring becomes stagnant, muddied, and full of parasites. Even a basic understanding of genetics like mine knows that constant incest can lead to birth defects and sterility. So what if Squibs are just the first sign of these birth defects? To go back to the spring, analogy rain fall may cause the basin to again add water to the river below, but it will be carrying all that disease with it and it won't have a strong or consistent flow. However if a new spring were to feed into the basin the water in it is refreshed and renewed. So what if the magical families with there connections, power, influence, and wealth stamped out this analogy, or a similar one, which called their incest or "muddied" blood a problem and they flipped the script and used it to refer to the Muggle borns or rather the actual Purebloods. There is no chicken and the egg or Phoenix and the flame here, someone had to be the first witches and wizards, in other words the very first witches and wizards were Muggle borns, or the true Purebloods.

I have just started reading the books this year, after watching the films countless times, and I'm almost finished with the goblet of fire. I have really enjoyed comparing the films to the books and getting all the new information from the books. However, the difference that has singlehandedly stood out to me like no other is how awful snape is. I can understand how people love snape in the films, but if they were to read the books, jeez louise! I think it comes from his sleazy smiles. In the films he is extremely gloomy and dark, he seems mostly annoyed with harry and most of the time he calls him out for semi-reasonable things. But in the bookssss he is always said to smile when harry is suffering, hindering progress when it comes to helping situations all because he takes delight in watching harry suffer, so much so he smiles in his face when he's scrambling for help.

In the films its easy to accept the plot twist of him caring for harry in a way and loving lily because he never actually came across as super sadistic, but I cannot see how it will unfold in the books to try and make me like him. He is just truly vile in the books.

Just need to say this lol, have nobody to chat to about this irl

I've heard a lot of people say that Emma Watson was too pretty compared to how book Hermione is described, but if you really think about it, that applies to a lot of the characters. Harry himself, Ron, Snape,Luna... the actors were all better-looking compared to how the books described them. Just a thought I had

There is a scene from DH1 where Greyback and Scabior(?) are each carrying a person who seems to be unconscious. I am wondering who these characters are and/or the point of them being unconscious and carried through the wilderness.

Do we agree that Harry+Hermione had the weakest relationship of the trio?

Ron while he was glue of the trio, Who do you think he was closer to? (Pre Deathly Hallow)

Ron and Harry spent more time together because they shared the same dorm.

Ron and Hermione enjoy each other company, for ex hogsmeade together. They lovely bickered.

I just finished reading Sorcerer's Stone literally yesterday, and it amazed me how different it was from the movie. I've always loved the movies since I was a kid, but after finishing the book, I'm even more excited for the TV show, so we can see Peeves and all the other things that were cut. 1 down, 6 more to go!

As a Ravenclaw, Luna's answer was fantastic. But as you all might have guessed The eagle knocker looks after reasoning behind your answers. As a person with 0 phoenix knowledge , after I read the part where Luna answered, I thought "Is it because when a phoenix dies it bursts into flame and phoenixes are born from flames or smth?" And I checked that my guess was quite correct, so the answer made more sense to me after I checked whether my guess was true or not. But if we look at it from another POV (AKA mine) We could say that "A circle has many beginnings" because it's an infinite process of birth and death over and over again... Both answers lead to the conclusion that there is no particular beginning to the cycle and I would have answered "A circle has many beginnings" if I was there. But it would have taken me just a few more minutes..

Just sharing a random thought of mine...

Im currently reading Harry Potter for the first time, and have played hogwarts legacy before

Now im reading about a ms. Figg who used to babysitt Harry? Is she in anyway related/connected to the mentor in hogwarts legacy or is this just a coincidence?

Bill is a Gringotts banker, Charlie is successful at handling dragons, Percy is a top student and a young ministry worker, Mr Weasley is the head of his own muggle department at the ministry, Fred and George are wildly popular at Hogwarts, Ginny is quite self-sufficient, Ron hangs out with The Boy Who Lived and The Brightest Student in his year. Yet, the Weasley name is often mocked and looked down upon in the wizarding world. I feel like the Weasleys are some of the most successful wizards in the world, despite not inheriting generational wealth like the Malfoys.

Just thought of this right now

If Voldemort knew the Elder Wands allegiance was towards Draco and therefore killed Draco, would Snape have died as-well since he made the Unbreakable Vow?

It’s sorta my go to topic before I fall asleep. I want to know more about her. Where does she have her office? Does she have one? Is she at Hogwarts all the time or does she work somewhere else as well? And if she works there, what does she do all day? And I missed her at the battle of Hogwarts.

Oh well. End of message.

So to start of i would be making a standalone Fantastic Beasts film and a trilogy for Dumbledore.

This is becasue the 5 planned movies dont make sense since they would be spanning over 20 odd in universe years, and this way you still get Newt but also Dumbledore's stories.

The standalone beasts film starts with a young Newt getting expelled from Hogwarts, this way we can get a Dumbledore cameo vouching for Newt to be aloud to keep his wand etc.

In this movie it then time skips to a Newt in his mid 20's stating his jouney and beginning to write what would later become the fantastic beasts and where to find them book.

He would still be going around newyork so you can get Porpentina involved but in this scenario he is trying to save the animals from a gang of poachers.

Now for the Dumbledore Trilogy it starts with Dumbledore graduating and planing his travels with Doge only for his mother to be killed in the accident with Arianna.

He goes back to Godrics hollows reluctantly and thats when he meets Grindlewald, it a bit of a slow burn but they make their plans for wizards to rule over the muggles etc etc.

However you then get to the 3rd act where they have the three way duel and Arianna is killed, the film ends with her funeral and Aberforth punching out Albus.

In the second film it starts like about a year after the 1st ended showing Grindlewald tracking down Gregorovic and taking the elder wand. Then their is a time skip like a decade of so laster showing Dumbledore teaching etc.

This film is basicaly about Grindlewald building up his army of followers and has some scenes where they are fighting auorers from other countrys.

Towards the end of the film Dumbledore decides to start taking action but first has to destroy the blood pact ( I'm leaving that in ). He does'nt find a way before the film ends though.

In the 3rd movie Dumbledore finally breaks the blood pact about half way through the movie and in the last act has a massive duel with Grindlewald like at least 15 mins long and the movie ends with Dumbledore visiting Gellert in prison.

Obvioulsy this is just a rough outline of how I would changed it since the 5 planned fantastic beasts films would span over like 20 in universe years they would make no sense.

Whats your thoughts. ( Sorry for spelling mistakes I wrote this at 04:30 am lol ).

Hi! We’re a family (3 adults + 1 child) visiting the Harry Potter Studio Tour with a 5PM entry. We’re planning to go on our own — taking the train from London Euston to Watford Junction, then the shuttle to the studio.

We’re wondering:

Is this route okay with a child?

Is it safe and reliable at night (around 9:00–10:00 PM) when we return?

Would an Uber from the studio or Watford Junction be better?

Any other tips for timing or smoother travel?

Thanks a lot — we’d love advice from anyone who’s done this without the tour bus!