"If we turn our heads and look away and hope that it will all disappear then they will - all of them, an entire generation of people. And we will have only history left to judge us."
If you are a registered member at Veritaserum, you will have access to many more features on the forums than just being a normal, visiting Guest.
Some features include:
Access to all the forums.
Ability to reply to existing threads and post your own.
Privileges to access other sections of the community like: Personal Message (PM) System, Gallery, Deathly Hallows discussions and more!
The personal, great feeling of being a supportive member of Veritaserum!
It takes just a few minutes to register, and it's FREE!
Here is the essay I've written on the Sibling Theory. If you have read the previous version I posted on another forum last year, you won't find many new things here, just a few minor updates. If you are unfamiliar with the Sibling Theory, then you may want to read this... I know it is long, but I've been discussing this theory for years !
---------------------------------------
Er... it looks like it's too long for a single post. I'll have to split it in 3 or 4 parts... Here is part 1 !
---------------------------------------
Harry Potter : The Sibling Theory. The Secret at the heart of it all ! By “Merlin”, February 2007 version.
There is one thing… it is kind of the heart of it all. And it kind of explains everything and no-one’s quite got there but a couple of people have skirted it. So you know… I couldn’t divert now, everything has been building up to it, and I’ve laid all my clues. - J.K. Rowling, June 19th, 2003.
**************************************
1. AN INTRODUCTION TO THE SIBLING THEORY
The Sibling Theory… What is it ? It is a Harry Potter theory. Basically, it says that Harry and Hermione are brother and sister, and that this secret will be revealed in book seven. Hermione is James’s and Lily’s secret daughter, and she was raised by adoptive parents : Mr and Mrs Granger.
Harry and Hermione brother and sister ? Do you mean that they are as close as a brother and sister ? No, no ! That wouldn’t be much of a revelation, would it ? What I mean is that they truly are related by blood !
Isn’t that a bit… er… a bit Star Wars ? Was G. Lucas the first author who ever wrote a story with lost siblings ? Of course he wasn’t ! I’ll discuss objections to the theory (see part 5 below), and this is probably the most common one. But an eternal myth like this belongs to no one. Furthermore, it could be, in fact, very different from Star Wars. I believe – although not all supporters of the theory will follow me here – that Hermione herself knows the truth. That would make the entire thing quite original indeed !
Supporters of the theory ? Are there many of them ? A few. The Sibling Theory has been discussed on the Internet since 2002, and a small minority of fans have been supporting it since that time. If you are interested, I’ll give a brief history of the theory at the end of this essay. Several people helped build this theory over the years, and much credit should go to the “STS” (Sibling Theory Supporters) group on the Darkmark boards, where the theory was developed between 2002 and 2004. Anyway, while all supporters agree on the basic concept that Hermione is Harry’s sister, they may have different ideas on the details of the theory, on how it can fit in the overall plot, on the relative importance of the various clues… What I present in this essay is my personal view, my own version of the theory. And my own uncertainties too… I will, however, give an overview of some variants and alternatives that were discussed over the years.
What first gave you this idea ? The first thing that gave me this idea is the nature of the relationship between Harry and Hermione. It looked like JKR wasn’t going to have them fall in love, yet I felt they were more than just friends… “Very platonic friends”, JKR had called them… I thought there was more to this : JKR had not lied, but she hadn’t told us everything either…
But what is the theory based on ? Do you have canon to back it up ? If you mean an indisputable proof, then no I have none. If I had, there would be no point having a seventh book, would there ? No, JKR gave us clues, not proof. If the theory is correct, the ultimate proof will be the seventh book itself. I do think we have enough clues to support the theory, to make it one of the strongest and best supported theories out there. As the theory is built on these clues, I’ll discuss them first, in part 2 below. A few of these clues are – in my opinion – really strong : the kind of thing that must mean something. For instance, did you notice that Harry James and Hermione Jane have the same initials (H.J.) ? And before she changed her name to “Granger”, JKR had named Hermione “Puckle” ! H.J.P. !
Wow ! All right, I’m waiting to see the other clues. But how do you have this theory fit in the overall plot ? How does it all work ? What will a sibling relation add to the story ? This is the most speculative part. I’ll discuss this below, in part 3. There are several ways this sibling relation could be a vital element of the plot, or even the key to the final outcome. Different supporters of the theory will often have different opinions here. Most agree that if Hermione is Harry’s sister, then somehow she must play an important role in Harry’s protection – much like Aunt Petunia. We know Lily’s blood is important for Harry’s protection. I’ll explain the “Protection Theory” in part 4 below.
One last question : when will you consider the theory has been confirmed – or refuted ? As there is only one more book to go, this question is now easy to answer. The theory will be confirmed if and only if the existence of the sibling relation is revealed in “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows”. The theory will be refuted if no such thing is revealed in the book. It can be refuted earlier than that if JKR decides to end this theory the way she has already ended some others, in the “rumours” section of her website. A direct statement that Harry and Hermione are not blood-related in any way would effectively kill the theory.
2. THE CLUES
I’ll discuss some “general” clues first. Then, it will be easiest to proceed through the books in chronological order. Finally, we’ll examine a few things JKR said in interviews, or wrote on her website.
I’m going to discuss a number of things from the books, some of which are really strong, striking clues, some of which are not. Among the later are a number of things that make a lot of sense in the framework of the theory – as opposed to proper clues : things that certainly help see “how it works”, but are unlikely to convince you in the first place. They may, however, help you see the “big picture”, and this is the reason why I decided to include them. So if you are unconvinced, I suggest you skip these points first, and concentrate on those clues I tell you are the strongest. You may still come back to the rest later… When you put it all together, you get – maybe not quite a certitude – but at least the strong feeling there must be something.
So which are the strongest clues ? There are many… I’ll tell you when we reach them. Here is just a brief overview : Hermione is a mysterious character, as we know almost nothing about her life outside Hogwarts, or her parents. What we do know is that JKR had originally named her Hermione Jane Puckle (H.J.P.) and that in an early draft of book 1 chapter 1, Mr Granger was the first person to find the ruins of the Potters’ house… We are never told Hermione looks anything like her mum or dad. In book 1, Hermione keeps interfering in Harry’s affairs, even before they get friends. She hugs him at the end of book 1, just minutes before he receives the benefit of his mother’s protection – a protection we learn later he receives when he is close to her blood. In book 2, after Hermione has been petrified, McGonagall runs to Harry – ignoring Ron. In book 4, Hermione jumps from her chair when she hears the words “a father substitute”. In book 5, the importance of the bond of blood is emphasised (Hagrid and Grawp). Hermione mixes up the runes ehwaz and eihwaz (see below, in book 5 clues, for the explanation). Hermione’s Patronus is an otter, and JKR has a drunk Slughorn call Harry “Parry Otter”. Etc…
Note that several clues indicate that Hermione herself knows the truth. At least, this is the way I understand it. On the other hand, Harry doesn’t know - except possibly for a memory hidden very deep in his subconscious.
2.1 General clues
2.1.1 - First of all, I’d like to discuss the nature of Harry’s and Hermione’s relationship. When reading the books, I have the feeling that Harry and Hermione have a special relation. They have a special thing - something unique, beyond friendship - that is not romantic. This is more visible on Hermione’s side – hence the idea that she knows the truth. Her behaviour at the beginning of PS is very interesting – her first meeting with Harry in the train, her highly interfering attitude, the Halloween evening. I’ll come back to this when we discuss the book 1 clues. Most importantly, the argument “it’s because they are friends” cannot work at that time, because as a matter of fact, they are not friends yet.
Clearly, this special relation is what led an important number of fans to “shipping” Harry and Hermione. For years, the “H/Hr ship” was indeed an alternative way of looking at the H-Hr relation. But I think it is no longer a valid option since JKR said in July 2005 : I mean, that’s it. It’s done, isn’t it? We know. Yes, we do now know that it's Ron and Hermione. I do feel that I have dropped heavy – Yet, in the same interview, JKR refused to call the Harry-Hermione shippers “delusional”. They were not : the clues were really there in the books, and the shippers found many. But they draw the wrong conclusion : all these clues meant… something else !
Through the entire series, Hermione’s behaviour with Harry is very “sister-like”.
Harry and Hermione have a way of guessing each other’s thoughts : this happens quite often, they know at first glance what the other has in mind while Ron is completely lost. Sometimes, they also finish each other’s sentences (not unlike Fred and George).
Hermione sometimes speaks in Harry’s name (something nobody else does). Examples : - PoA, chapter 11 : “Don’t be silly”, said Hermione in a panicky voice, “Harry doesn’t want to kill anyone, do you, Harry ?” - GoF, chapter 10 : “Ron… Harry doesn’t want to play Quidditch right now… He’s worried, and he’s tired… we all need to go to bed.” - And of course in OotP - with Rita Skeeter - about Harry’s love life.
She even speaks in James’s and Lily’s name (something nobody but their old friends does). Example : - PoA, chapter 11 : “Your mum and dad wouldn’t want you to get hurt, would they ? They’d never want you to go looking for Black !”
In GoF, Hermione wasn’t affected in any way by the rumours about her and Harry. Harry was annoyed, she wasn’t. When she read Rita Skeeter’s article “Harry Potter’s Secret Heartache”, she was rather amused… On the other hand, Harry kept repeating “no she is not my girlfriend”. Does it mean Hermione knew something that allowed her to laugh at these rumours ?
In OotP, she was perfectly comfortable talking about Harry’s relation with Cho. Even when Harry told her Cho was getting jealous (jealous of her ! ), she was just “sorry”. A friend – even a close friend – of the opposite sex should have been at least slightly embarrassed in such a situation. Not Hermione : she gave Harry more advice… this makes sense if she is Harry’s sister. In HBP, Ginny told Harry it was Hermione who had originally given her some very good advice so that Harry would eventually notice her… So, I think it is safe to say that Hermione has been interfering in Harry’s love life quite a lot indeed !
About jealousy, note that JKR has developed the topic of Harry and Hermione causing jealousy around quite a lot already : first Rita’s articles, Krum’s jealousy and Harry having to say “no she is not my girlfriend” in GoF. Then Cho’s jealousy in OotP… And even a few comments Ron made, in OotP ( “how do you know ?” ) and HBP ( “I’m tall !” ). So, now what ? Is it all to have them stay “just good friends” in the end ? Why insist so much on that topic in that case ? What was the point ? Or will Hermione be Harry’s girlfriend (thus making Krum and Cho right after all) ? Or will something else be revealed in the end (something that will make Krum’s and Cho’s jealousy pointless) ?
One last remark on relationships. After HBP, and most importantly after the interview JKR gave Mugglenet and TLC in July 2005, it has become clear that the canon romantic relationships are Ron/Hermione and Harry/Ginny. First point : with the Sibling Theory, the trio thus represents all three kinds of “love”. I like the idea that all three kinds of “love” will have a role in defeating the Dark Side. - Harry and Ron represent the power of a strong friendship, - Ron and Hermione represent the power of romantic love, - Harry and Hermione represent the power of family love, the bond of blood. Second point : the Sibling Theory also creates an interesting symmetry in the quatuor. - Harry and Ron are friends, - Hermione and Ginny are friends, - Harry and Ginny are in love, - Ron and Hermione are in love, - Ron and Ginny are siblings, - Harry and Hermione are siblings. Two pairs of friends, two pairs of lovers, two pairs of siblings.
2.1.2 – Second thing, there is the astounding lack of background information about Hermione, her parents, her life outside Hogwarts ! Given the way JKR usually gives us such information for other characters, this can be considered a major clue for the theory – or at least for Hermione hiding something big.
Let’s start with Hermione’s psychology : why is she a “know-it-all” ? Why is it so important for her to be the best student in the school ? There is a strange lack of background information here : JKR usually tells us about such things. For instance, we know Ron is a jealous character because of his childhood in the shadow of his five brothers, and also because of his family’s lack of money. We know Voldemort hates Muggles because of his father. For Hermione, we don’t know anything. The Sibling Theory provides an answer : if Hermione knows that Harry is her brother, she wants to keep up with him ! Harry is “the boy who lived”, he is famous in the entire world ; so, Hermione must prove that she can do as well as he can do, or even better. At least, in class, she can answer questions he can’t ! The other possible answer would be : Hermione must prove she is the best because she is Muggleborn. But this doesn’t work : she was already a “know-it-all” when she first arrived at Hogwarts. If she had been knowing about the wizarding world for a few weeks only, this couldn’t have affected her psychology so quickly.
And by the way, Hermione really knew a bit too much about the wizarding world - and particularly about Harry Potter - when she first arrived at Hogwarts…
And of course, there is the big question : why do we know so little about the Grangers – and about Hermione’s life with them ? They are the parents of one of the main three characters, but we know virtually nothing about them, except that they are dentists. Why ? Also note that Hermione has never said “mum” or “dad” (alone) in the story. Not once in six books ! It’s always “my parents” or “mum and dad”… They are Muggles, thus unimportant ? But there are important Muggle characters in the story ! And it’s not just the Dursleys… And even if they are not very important (as JKR herself said), it is still strange that we should know less about Hermione’s parents than we do about the Dursleys’ neighbours or about the villagers of Little Hangleton !
In OotP, Hermione cancelled her Christmas ski trip with her parents. In HBP, we don’t even know where she was for Christmas : she didn’t say. Concerning her life outside Hogwarts, Hermione is a mysterious character.
2.1.3 - Physical resemblance is an issue ; JKR almost always tells us about features of physical resemblance between relatives : Harry and his parents, Dudley and Vernon, Vernon and Marge, the entire Weasley family, Draco and his father, Neville and his mother, Hagrid and his father (same eyes), Dumbledore and his brother, Amycus and Alecto (Harry knows at first glance that they are brother and sister) ; this is true even for minor characters such as Fleur and her sister, Viktor Krum and his father, etc…
But NOT for Hermione and the Grangers. Even though Hermione is one of the main three characters, and even though we have seen the Grangers twice (in CoS and in OotP), we have never been told Hermione looks anything like “mum and dad”. Never ! This is most unusual for JKR ! So unusual I consider this a major clue. We saw Krum’s father only once, very briefly, but these few lines were enough for JKR to tell us Viktor has his father’s nose. Hermione is a much more important character than Viktor, so her parents, even if they aren’t very important, should at least be more important than Viktor’s. Yet, JKR never tells us what they look like.
There are a few examples of relatives who look nothing alike in the story, for instance Lily and Petunia : Petunia’s eyes are “so unlike her sister’s”. But at least, JKR told us something : she gave us this piece of information. In the case of Hermione and the Grangers, the strange thing is that we aren’t told anything at all ! As with Hermione’s background (see above), JKR is keeping information well hidden.
True, we aren’t told Hermione looks like Harry either (well… they both have “wild” hair ! But they don’t have the same hair). We are told another character in the story has large front teeth : Petunia Dursley (Hermione’s aunt if the theory is true).
2.1.4 – JKR likes to play with words and names. And the name “Hermione” is rather interesting ! Hermione = “Her my own” or “Her my one”… I’ll discuss this point again in the GoF clues below (Krum’s pronunciation).
By the way, “Hermione” sounds very similar to “hermana” which means… “sister” in Spanish !
There are a few other examples of JKR playing with words and names, one of which can be considered an important clue : in OotP, JKR gave Hermione an Otter Patronus. In HBP, JKR had Slughorn mispronounce Harry’s name as “Parry Otter”. Coincidence ?
2.1.5 - The “Theory of Interruptions”. This theory is independent from the Sibling Theory. It suggests there is a regular pattern in the books : when a character (often Hermione) suddenly stops speaking in the middle of a sentence (doesn’t apply if interrupted by someone else) then there is a clue for us to find. The interruption is materialised by a “-” in the text. As a matter of fact, this “Theory of Interruptions” works pretty well with the Sibling Theory ! Here are a few examples : - PS, chapter 6 : I mean, it’s the very best school of witchcraft there is, I’ve heard – (Yes ? Heard from whom ? ) - PS, chapter 6 : I know all about you, of course – I got a few extra books for background reading… (Yes, Hermione ? How did you learn so much about Harry ? ) - PS, chapter 16 : …friendship and bravery and – oh Harry… (Friendship and bravery and what ? Family ? )
2.2 Clues from book 1
PS is an important book for sibling clues. First, it is a book JKR wrote before she could possibly imagine Harry Potter would be such a success. Second, the first chapter of the book is one of the very few parts of the story that is NOT written with a focus on Harry’s point of view. And JKR herself said she had written many variants of this first chapter that would – if put together – give away almost the whole plot : Discarded first chapters of book one: I reckon I must've got through fifteen different alternative chapters of book one. The reason for which I discarded each of them were: They all gave too much away. And in fact if you put all those discarded first chapters together, almost the whole plot is explained.
2.2.1 – Let’s examine this first chapter. While most of the story is written in the “third person limited” narration style (third person – but the narration is focused through Harry’s eyes), this chapter is an exception : it is written in “third person omniscient” style – except the bit that is from Vernon’s point of view.
The very first time we hear about Harry : The Dursleys knew that the Potters had a small son too… Why does the narrator use this indirect form “the Dursleys knew…” ? What did the Dursleys ignore then ? A few lines above, we hear about Lily directly from the narrator : Mrs Potter was Mrs Dursley’s sister… So, why doesn’t the narrator simply say : “The Potters had a small son too” ? Because this would not be the entire truth if the Potters had two children, thus JKR could not write such a sentence in “third person omniscient” narration style. But the sentence about what the Dursleys knew is the exact truth.
A bit later in chapter 1, McGonagall’s behaviour is interesting. In fact, her bahaviour is quite unique among the people who knew the Potters ! Why did she – of all people – spend one full day waiting at Privet Drive ? This has never been explained. I think she is one of the very few people who know the truth about Hermione. Her behaviour in this chapter certainly suggests she must have been closer to Lily and/or James than we know… When Dumbledore tells her that they are dead, she is moved to tears : “Lily and James… I can’t believe it… I didn’t want to believe it… Oh, Albus…” Dumbledore answers : “I know… I know…” What does he know exactly ? Is there more to this sentence ? Then, Dumbledore tells her he is going to bring Harry to the Dursleys. At first, McGonagall doesn’t agree : Professor McGonagall opened her mouth, changed her mind, swallowed and then said, “Yes – yes, you’re right, of course.” Well, JKR insists quite a lot here, doesn’t she ? (McGonagall opened her mouth, changed her mind, swallowed…) So, what was Minerva going to say ? According to the theory, it could be : “Don’t you think he should rather go with his sister ?” Anyway, McGonagall clearly had another idea.
2.2.2 – The first time Hermione and Harry meet in the train… She says : I’d have found out everything I could if it was me. “If it was me”… This is a very natural thought for Hermione… if she is Harry’s sister. She’ll use this expression again in the story, when talking to Harry : “I’d be furious if it was me” (OotP).
Now, something I consider an important clue : Hermione entered Harry’s compartment on the pretext of searching Trevor the toad. There is already something a bit strange here, as Neville had already asked for Trevor. This strongly suggests that Trevor was merely a pretext, a pretext Hermione used to enter the compartment.
Otherwise, Neville’s first visit in Harry’s compartment appears rather unnecessary for the plot : what did it tell us ? With the Sibling Theory, it told us that Hermione used a pretext to visit Harry’s compartment.
I think we can even go a little further than that – although what follows is a little more speculative : where was Trevor during all that time ? Did the little toad find his way to the boat (where he was eventually found) all by himself ? Clever Trevor ! I think Hermione could have had Trevor hidden under her robes (she was already wearing her Hogwarts robes). She took the toad just to send Neville look around, and then have a good reason to see her long-lost brother at last ! Ron’s attempt to do magic then gave her an excuse to stay. Note that when Ron told her they hadn’t seen Trevor, Hermione wasn’t listening. The answer didn’t interest her ; but then, why had she asked that question in the first place ?
Shortly after that : as soon as she hears that Harry and Ron might have been fighting (with Draco), Hermione comes back in a hurry ! You haven’t been fighting, have you ? It seems that she cares a lot for two boys she had never met before… She also tells them to change clothes : typical thing an (older) sister would say !
2.2.3 – Hermione’s behaviour before Halloween ; I think it is highly significant – a major clue, because Hermione keeps interfering in Harry’s life, even though they are not friends yet.
For instance, in chapter 9, Hermione’s behaviour is quite excessive : I can’t believe you are going to do this, Harry. Sure enough, Harry notices it : Harry couldn’t believe anyone could be so interfering. At that point, they aren’t friends yet. They’ll become friends after Halloween and the troll. But if Harry is her brother, and if she knows it, Hermione’s behaviour makes perfect sense. We aren’t told she behaves like that with anyone else at that time.
Chapter 10, Halloween. Hermione is crying, alone in the girls’ toilets. Let’s consider it from Hermione’s point of view… if she is Harry’s sister. Let’s see how much sense it makes. At the beginning of PS, she is finally going to meet her brother. She knows he’s famous, she might also know he doesn’t know anything about the wizarding world… So what does she do ? She studies hard, so that she can help Harry cope with Hogwarts, to make his transition into the wizarding world easier. She gets on the train, and as soon as possible she meets him… with the cover story of looking for Neville’s toad. She sees Ron there, and maybe she is a little jealous : Harry already has a friend ! Maybe he won’t need to rely on her… maybe she won’t be able to help him. So what does she do, then ? She puts Ron down… twice… first with the “are you sure that’s a real spell ? Well, it’s not very good, is it ?” comment ; and again with the “you’ve got dirt on your nose” comment. At that time, she sees Ron almost as a threat to her relationship with her brother. Then we get to the day in question… Halloween ! Hermione is already feeling bad...it’s the anniversary of her true parents’ death : 10 years today ! Then instead of being paired with her brother in charms class, she is paired with her rival. She wants to prove to Harry that she can be more helpful than Ron… so once again, she shows Ron up. That’s too much for Ron, who makes the “she’s a nightmare, honestly !” comment to Harry. Hermione overhears it, “knocks into Harry” and starts crying. From what we know of Hermione, she is not really prone to hysterics, so crying like that does seem a bit out of character. Could it be that it’s not only Ron’s comment that brought on the tears ? The fact she “knocked into Harry” strongly suggests she’d been upset because Ron had said that to Harry ! Otherwise, she would rather have knocked into Ron, wouldn’t she ? Let’s look at it like this… This is the anniversary of a very traumatic day for her… and it looks to her like she might lose her brother to Ron. If Harry ends up not liking her… who will she have left ? He is the only true family she has, and she knows it. That would make anyone cry, wouldn’t it ? But finally, that very evening, they will become friends at last. Just 10 years after their parents’ death.
2.2.4 – A few examples of Hermione’s behaviour with Harry. During the Quidditch match, chapter 13 : “Come on Harry !” Hermione screamed, leaping on to her seat to watch as Harry sped straight at Snape – she didn’t even notice Malfoy and Ron rolling around under her seat…” Who do you think she is caring for most in that scene ? Is it because of the match ? This seems unlikely. Hermione isn’t that interested in Quidditch ; she will say so explicitly in OotP : at least my happiness doesn't depend on Ron's goalkeeping ability. But apparently, it is different when Harry is playing. Family pride, you know…
In chapter 16, Hermione is reluctant to let Harry go through the trapdoor ( “You’ll be expelled !” ) Then Harry explains there will be no more school to be expelled from if Voldemort comes back, and concludes : “Voldemort killed my parents, remember ?” This makes Hermione change her mind : “You’re right, Harry”, said Hermione in a small voice. Quite normal, if Voldemort killed her parents too !
2.2.5 – JKR arranged the plot so that Hermione never looked into the Mirror of Erised, unlike Harry and Ron. Why ? What would she have seen there ? Would this have given away too much ? (This is almost the same as the “Boggart” clue in book 3 : see below).
2.2.6 – Chapter 16 : the Giant Chessboard. Harry, Ron and Hermione play a game of chess, and take the place of three pieces : Harry is a bishop, Ron is a knight, Hermione is a castle. - The Bishop : this piece is usually represented with it's head cracked open, quite an obvious reference to Harry's scar ! - The Knight : The faithful friend... The Knight piece is a good symbol of Ron's qualities (Ron will actually sacrifice himself in the game). - The Castle : so, what could it mean for Hermione ? Well, it's obvious, isn't it ? The Castle is Home ! Protection ! Hermione is Harry's protection when he is home... home where his mother's blood dwells ! (See the “Protection Theory”, part 4 below).
2.2.7 – The scene before Harry meets Quirrell/Voldemort (chapter 16) : Hermione’s lips trembled and she suddenly dashed at Harry and threw her arms around him. This could have been one of the moments she desperately wanted to tell him the truth ! And then she said : friendship, and bravery, and - oh, Harry What was she about to add ? Was it and family ?
This scene is immensely important for the Protection Theory : I think this hug is one of the strongest moments in the entire series ! A few minutes after that, the protection Harry received from his mother’s sacrifice will save his life. The symbol is extremely strong : Harry has this protection when he is near his mother’s blood, and this is what the hug symbolises.
2.3 Clues from book 2
2.3.1 – More on Hermione’s attitude towards Harry. In chapter 4, she writes : I hope everything went all right and that Harry is OK and that you didn't do anything illegal to get him out, Ron, because that would get Harry into trouble, too. I've been really worried and if Harry is all right, will you please let me know at once… Note that she mentions Harry three times in this letter, and Ron only once. Also note the way she says : “because that would get Harry into trouble, too”. It sounds like Hermione means : “I can’t prevent you from getting yourself into trouble, this is your business. But don't get my brother into trouble, Ron !”
2.3.2 – Hermione’s behaviour is peculiar when Draco insults her in this book… Being called a “Mudblood” doesn’t seem to affect her very much, does it ? OK, it could be because she doesn’t understand what it means at first. However, it still doesn’t affect her very much in GoF (Malfoy) and OotP (Malfoy and Kreacher). And at that time, she does know what it means. This could be because she is not really Muggleborn. Just pretending.
2.3.3 – There are a few “McGonagall clues” in CoS. Important clues. Minerva’s behaviour is a bit strange on a few occasions, which indicates she must know quite a lot.
After Hermione and Penelope have been petrified (chapter 14)… Professor McGonagall goes straight to Harry : Potter, I think you’d better come with me… Is it because Harry is Hermione’s friend ? If it was that… then she would ask Ron as well, wouldn’t she ? But she doesn’t seem to care about Ron… She includes him as an afterthought, and only after Ron himself comes running up to them : Yes, perhaps you’d better come too, Weasley. Note the “perhaps… too” in the above sentence. Quite strange, isn’t it ? Is McGonagall a H/Hr shipper ? Hmmmm… that wouldn’t make much sense, would it ? But this is perfectly normal if Hermione is Harry’s sister and McGonagall knows it.
A bit later (chapter 16), McGonagall is moved to tears when Harry (not Ron) asks her if they can see Hermione in the Hospital Wing : Yes, Potter, of course you may visit Miss Granger. (Then she must blow her nose ! ) Again, not a word for Ron… And note that she is allowing Harry to break a security rule ! It is for security reasons that visits to the Hospital Wing had been forbidden. Not really like Minerva McGonagall, is it ? There must be very exceptional circumstances for her to behave like that ! A secret sibling is a very exceptional circumstance indeed. She must have thought something like : “Poor boy ! He doesn’t know… He doesn’t know, and yet he must feel it somehow… and he misses her.” (At this point, good old Minerva must blow her nose).
2.4 Clues from book 3
2.4.1 – The Boggart scenes are yet another indication of the fact JKR doesn’t want to reveal too much on Hermione’s background. Hermione didn’t look into the Mirror of Erised in PS ; we didn’t see her fight a Boggart in PoA.
During Lupin’s class (chapter 7), all Gryffindor third years fought the Boggart except Harry and Hermione. We know the reason why Lupin didn’t allow Harry to do it : he was afraid (wrongly) that the Boggart would assume the shape of Lord Voldemort. But why didn’t Hermione fight the Boggart ? This question has never been answered. Well… A Boggart can give away quite a lot. For instance, Lupin’s Boggart (the moon) does reveal his big secret. So, this should mean either that Lupin didn’t want Hermione to do it (because he personally knows the truth or possibly because Dumbledore had told him “Miss Granger shouldn’t do it” ) or that Hermione herself didn’t want to fight the Boggart in public (and thus stayed behind during the lesson).
When Hermione finally fought a Boggart during her exam (chapter 16), nobody but her could see what shape it assumed… She said it was McGonagall telling her she had failed “everything”. I’m not saying Hermione lied, but did “everything” mean her exams ? Not necessarily… With the Protection Theory (see part 4 below) Hermione’s Boggart could actually have been McGonagall telling her she had “failed everything” : Hermione saw her dead brother, and a very reproachful McGonagall telling her she had failed to protect him !
2.4.2 – More on Hermione’s behaviour with Harry, her reactions…
Chapter 11 : “I can hear my mum screaming and pleading with Voldemort. And if you’d heard your mum screaming like that, just about to be killed, you wouldn’t forget it in a hurry. And if you found out someone who was supposed to be a friend of hers betrayed her and sent Voldemort after her -” “There’s nothing you can do !”, said Hermione, looking stricken. Note the way Harry says : “If YOU had heard, YOU wouldn’t… if YOU found out…” Now, why is Hermione “stricken” at these words ? Is it because she is afraid Harry might try and look for Sirius Black himself ? Sure she is afraid ; she must be worried, maybe “dead anxious”… but why “stricken” ? Because Lily is her mother too ! Harry’s words “You… You… You…” must have had a powerful impact on her ! Each of Harry’s “YOU” was like a slap in the face.
At the end of the book (chapter 22) in the train returning to London, talking about the Time Turner, Ron says to Hermione : I still can’t believe you didn’t tell us about it… We’re supposed to be your friends. Hermione answers : “I promised I wouldn’t tell anyone.” She looked around at Harry… “Oh, cheer up Harry !” – said Hermione sadly. (The words friends and anyone are emphasised in the book, strongly suggesting that someone present – Harry – is more than a friend to Hermione). Quite clear isn’t it ? She is talking about secrets and about not telling, then immediately she looks around at Harry ! And she feels sad for him : if only she could tell him right now ! But no : she can’t. Harry has to go to those Dursleys… Otherwise, why would Hermione speak “sadly” ? Not the best way to improve Harry’s spirits, is it ?
2.4.3 – A curious little detail. In chapter 1, Hermione tells Harry in her letter : I’m on holiday in France at the moment and I didn’t know how I was going to send this to you – what if they’d opened it at Customs ? – but then Hedwig turned up ! I think she wanted to make sure you got something for your birthday for a change. So, Hedwig turned up ! Curious… Why did Hedwig take an initiative like this ? Rather unusual… And why did she choose to go to Hermione ? I’m not saying Hedwig knows the truth… but these magical pets have a “sixth sense” of some sort.
2.4.4 – Why did JKR want Hermione to hide a big secret (the Time Turner) during all book 3 ? Was it to prepare the readers to the idea that keeping a secret is a very serious thing for Hermione ? Does it mean we should expect a much bigger secret about her to be revealed in the end ?
Anyway, PoA proved that Hermione is able to keep a secret, even from her closest friends. And the fact a chapter was entitled “Hermione’s Secret” could be foreshadowing something.
2.4.5 – Some interesting symbols.
Chapter 17 (Cat, Rat and Dog) : “Ron !” Hermione moaned. She and Harry looked at each other, then followed at a sprint ; it was impossible to run full out under the Cloak ; they pulled it off and it streamed behind them like a banner as they hurtled after Ron... JKR could simply have written : “they pulled it off and hurtled after Ron...” But she described the Cloak, “streaming behind them like a banner”. “Like a banner”... A family banner, maybe ? The cloak was James’s ! So it is, in a way, the Potter banner. It is important to remember that this scene happens on that particular night when the four Marauders are out in the Hogwarts grounds – James only symbolically so. Harry wondered : Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot and Prongs… Had all four of them been out in the grounds tonight ? James Potter is dead. But his banner was “streaming behind” Harry and Hermione. James was symbolically present in his son… and daughter !
Another symbol, a bit later : when Harry creates his stag Patronus, Prongs symbolically comes back to save three people from the Dementors : Harry, Hermione and Sirius. In a way, James Potter “comes back” for his son, his daughter and his best friend.
2.5 Clues from book 4
2.5.1 – Another interesting symbol. Chapter 13, Divination class : “I’ve got two Neptunes here,” said Harry after a while, frowning down at his piece of parchment, “that can’t be right, can it ?” Well… can it ? The interesting thing here is that Harry seems doubtful. Ron immediately makes a joke about Harry’s birth, but it would be very much JKR’s style to hide an important clue by having someone make a joke about it. And Ron’s joke - “a sure sign a midget in glasses is being born” - emphasises that it is all about Harry’s birth, about his origins. Neptune is associated with the subconscious, and hidden memory… Harry can have nothing more than a hidden, subconscious knowledge of Hermione’s true identity. “Two Neptunes” should represent duality : two children… as Harry knows, very deep in his subconscious.
2.5.2 – As said before, JKR likes to play with words and names. Here is a very nice little example. Something most readers won’t notice, or will just consider a little joke… Yet I think it is an extremely significant clue. Chapter 23 : Krum is trying to pronounce Hermione’s name… “Her-my-oh-nee”, she said, slowly and clearly. “Herm-own-ninny”. “Close enough”, she said, catching Harry’s eye and grinning. Would you really say that “Herm-own-ninny” was “close enough” ? Hmmmm… and Hermione “catches Harry’s eye” just at that moment. “Ninny” is a joke, but it could mean she is “her-my-own-???” for Harry… Furthermore, the “ninny” joke could refer to the “ninny sister syndrome” : in children literature, this is the tendency for girls to be – quite often – weak and clueless characters. It’s a joke here, of course, because Hermione is quite the opposite of a “ninny sister”. But it’s also a clue, because the words “ninny” and “sister” are connected. Last point : the way Krum mispronounces Hermione’s name doesn’t seem plausible at all. A foreigner having difficulties with spoken English would not, I think, repeat the last syllable like that – the way “nee” becomes “ninny”. I would rather expect Krum to pronounce “HeRRR-mi-Ôhn” or something like that… So, I think JKR had Krum pronounce the name that way in order to give us the clue.
2.5.3 – A major clue ! Hermione and Rita Skeeter. Chapter 24 : at the Three Broomsticks pub, Rita Skeeter is trying to get one last interview from Harry. About Hagrid, she asks him : Would you call him a father substitute ? Hermione’s reaction is immediate and extremely violent ; she stands up very abruptly, her Butterbeer clutched in her hand as though it was a grenade. Why ? And why so abruptly (she was quiet seconds before) ? After all, these words were nothing worse than what Rita had been saying before. In fact, compared to Rita’s normal standards, this was almost nice ! And not completely wrong… There is no indication in the book that Hermione was mad at Rita before that. Of course, she must have been angry after the article about Hagrid, but no more than Harry or Ron were. Nothing indicates she was angrier. Her personal crusade against Rita began at that precise moment : after Rita’s “father substitute” comment.
Hermione reacted “very abruptly” : this implies it was because of the last words Rita had pronounced. You don’t stand up “very abruptly” because of something that was said a minute ago, do you ? So, obviously, it is the words “a father substitute” that triggered Hermione’s reaction. Quite understandable if “mum and dad” are not her true parents.
Trying to analyse this scene a little further, I think Hermione was scared when Rita used this expression : “a father substitute”. She was afraid this could be an allusion. Afraid Rita might suspect something about her… After all, Rita’s mysterious ability to unveil secrets was a bit scary at that time. So, Hermione began her “anti-Rita crusade”. And what did she do ? She had no rest until she found out how Rita could spy on people. In her anger, Hermione shouted “she can’t scare me” : typical thing she would say if she was secretly scared, didn’t want to admit it and was furious because of it.
Note that after Rita’s article “Harry Potter’s Secret Heartache” (chapter 27), Hermione sounded much relieved : If that’s the best Rita can do, she’s losing her touch… Of course : only Hermione – and the few other people who know the secret – could understand how ridiculous this article was ! At least, it proved Rita hadn’t discovered anything important.
2.5.4 – Finally, there is Dumbledore’s “gleam of triumph”. JKR confirmed in July 2005 that this one is still “enormously significant”. I think it has everything to do with Hermione and with Harry’s protection. See the Protection Theory, part 4 below.
2.6 Clues from book 5
2.6.1 – Some more clues concerning Hermione’s behaviour with Harry.
Chapter 4 : Hermione had thrown herself on to him in a hug that nearly knocked him flat… “Let him breathe, Hermione”, said Ron… Note that before Ron tells her to “let him breathe”, Hermione is making a fairly long speech… “I’ve looked it up, they can’t expel you, it’s just outrageous…” while still hugging Harry.
When Harry is yelling at her and Ron, Hermione is on the verge of tears. But wait : why is Harry furious at that moment ? Because he has been kept in the dark for several weeks. Hermione’s reaction thus makes a lot of sense if she is hiding a much bigger secret from Harry !
Now an important clue. Chapter 9 : the Prefect’s badges have just arrived. First part : She spotted the badge in Harry’s hand and let out a shriek. “I knew it !” she said excitedly, brandishing her letter. “Me too, Harry, me too !” “No,” said Harry quickly… Second part : a bit later, Ron shows his mother his Prefect’s badge. Mrs Weasley let out a shriek just like Hermione’s. “I don’t believe it ! I don’t believe it ! Oh, Ron, how wonderful ! A prefect ! That’s everyone in the family !” “What are Fred and I, next-door neighbours ?” said George indignantly… See ? Why does JKR insist on the similarity here ? “A shriek just like Hermione’s”. Because it is for just the same reason ! Family pride ! “Me too, Harry, me too !” = “That’s everyone in the family !”
Later in the book, why is Hermione nagging Harry so badly about his Occlumency lessons ? Is it because she is thinking : “Come on, Harry ! If you mastered Occlumency, then maybe I’d be allowed to tell you !” (See below : the reason why Harry mustn’t know the truth is his mind connection with Voldemort).
Hermione and Rita again, chapter 25 : “It’s none of your business if Harry’s been with a hundred girls,” Hermione told Rita coolly. (The word your is emphasised in the book). It seems Hermione considers it’s Harry’s business… as well as hers ! Harry isn’t saying anything : she is speaking for him in that scene !
The way Hermione behaves with Harry and Cho is rather interesting. Chapter 26 : “You should have said it was really annoying… And it might have been a good idea to mention how ugly you think I am too,” Hermione added as an afterthought. “But I don’t think you’re ugly,” said Harry, bemused. Harry had just told her how Cho had got jealous… jealous of her ! 1- If she was just a friend for Harry, even a very close friend… well, she would have been at least slightly embarrassed, wouldn’t she ? 2- If she secretly had romantic feelings for Harry, then she should have been very embarrassed. 3- But her reaction was exactly what Harry’s secret sister would have done !
Finally, it becomes clear in OotP that Hermione spends very little time with her “parents”. First, she spends most of July cleaning Sirius’s house with Ron and the Weasleys. If she saw “mum and dad” that summer, it’s at most for a week or so. Then, she doesn't go home for the holidays. She blows off the ski trip her parents had planned. She says, “they'll understand”. Will they ? Will it be because a friend’s father was nearly killed, or because she knows and they know that they are not her biological parents ? And when she finally meets them again after all that time (chapter 38 ), she hugs them quickly, then : Hermione disengaged herself gently from her mother to join the group. This is the group of people who are talking to the Dursleys, to make sure they treat Harry well that summer. Note that Hermione is the only student who joins the group – we aren’t told Ron does the same – all the others are adults.
2.6.2 – OotP gave us a few more “McGonagall clues”.
Chapter 12, an important clue : even if it doesn’t directly point to the sibling theory, it certainly proves there is something strange going on with Hermione. Pr. McGonagall has just told Harry he needs to be careful with Dolores Umbridge. And she adds : “Well, I’m glad you listen to Hermione Granger at any rate,” she said, pointing him out of her office. This sentence is greatly emphasized by the fact it is the end of the chapter. Quite strange, isn’t it ? How can McGonagall know what Hermione had been telling Harry ? She wasn’t anywhere near them when Hermione explained the meaning of Umbridge’s speech. This strengthens the idea that Hermione is, in some way, “protecting” Harry – and that she is reporting to McGonagall.
Chapter 19. McGonagall is punishing Harry and George : “Now, you two had better listen closely. I do not care what provocation Malfoy offered you, I do not care if he insulted every family member you possess, your behaviour was disgusting…” “Every family member you possess” ! Strange expression to use when talking to Harry Potter, who has no proper family as everyone knows… George had just told her that Malfoy had insulted Harry’s mother : why does McGonagall generalise like this ? “Every family member you possess”… what family members does Harry “possess” then ? But wait… Who is the character Draco Malfoy has insulted most in the story ? Who is the character he keeps calling “a Mudblood” ? Hermione ! McGonagall was so upset in this scene that she let slip out something !
2.6.3 – Another clue indicating that something is going on with Hermione… Chapter 23, Harry is feeling really bad. He is hiding alone in Buckbeak’s room. Then Hermione arrives. She was supposed to be skiing with “mum and dad” for Christmas, but she comes to Grimmauld Place instead. Just when Harry really needs her ! It is her who manages to get Harry out of that room. Couldn’t JKR have had Sirius do it ? Or Mrs Weasley ? Or Ron ? Or Ginny ? Someone who was already there ? Why did it have to be Hermione ? Now, here is the really strange thing : Hermione went directly to the door of that room where Harry was hiding (there was still snow in her hair). But Harry was hiding ! The Weasleys and Sirius couldn’t know exactly where he was ! He had “retreated further upstairs” when Mrs Weasley had called his name a bit earlier. So, how could Hermione possibly know Harry was in that room ? Here is the answer I propose : Dumbledore must have told her. It must be him who sent Hermione to Grimmauld Place, because of Harry : “Your brother needs you now, Miss Granger. I’m really sorry for your ski trip”. (Dumbledore could know exactly where Harry was through Phineas Nigellus).
2.6.4 – The “Hagrid clues”. In OotP, the truth about Hagrid’s secret sibling is revealed… I think the analogy with Harry is a very important clue.
Chapter 25, Hagrid tells Harry they are very much alike : “In the same boat, yeh an’ me, aren’ we, ‘Arry ?” “Er –“ said Harry. “Yeah… I’ve said it before… both outsiders, like”, said Hagrid, nodding wisely. “An’ both orphans. Yeah… both orphans”… “Family,” said Hagrid gloomily. “Whatever yeh say, blood’s important…” In chapter 30, we understand – at long last – what Hagrid meant : his giant brother Grawp. So, “ In the same boat, yeh an’ me, aren’ we, ‘Arry ?” must count as foreshadowing : in the end, Harry will find his lost sibling too ! And note that the entire “Grawp” story is between Hagrid, Harry and Hermione. Ron takes no part in it… It’s all about lost relatives !
Later (chapter 30), Hagrid tells them (Harry and Hermione) about Grawp : “Hermione, I couldn’ leave him,” said Hagrid, tears now trickling down his bruised face into his beard. “See - he’s my brother !” Hermione simply stared at him, her mouth open. “Hagrid, when you say “brother”,” said Harry slowly, “do you mean - ?” “Well - half-brother,” amended Hagrid. The interesting thing here is that Harry is still able to think logically - Grawp can’t be Hagrid’s father’s son - while Hermione is stunned. This is quite unusual : normally, cold logic is rather Hermione’s thing. But here, she is unable to speak… Of course ! A lost brother… this means so much for her !
A scene I think may have a symbolic meaning. Hagrid said that “blood is important”. And Hermione was stunned when Hagrid revealed “he (Grawp) is my brother”. Right. So, I would say that Grawp's importance in the story is to symbolise the importance of the bond of blood. Think of all Hagrid did for Grawp, of all he suffered for him ! Grawp’s blood should thus have a symbolic meaning in the story : it symbolises the strength of the bond of blood. Now, here is the scene I have in mind : when Harry and Hermione escape the centaurs, when Ron, Ginny, Luna and Neville find them, they are both drenched in Grawp’s blood !
2.6.5 – JKR likes to play with words… Chapter 27 : Hermione’s Patronus is an otter. Patronus otter… P/otter… Note that in chapter 9, Lucius Malfoy had called Harry “Patronus Potter”. JKR will insist on this nice little clue in HBP, when Slughorn calls Harry “Parry Otter”.
2.6.6 – Now, a clue I consider one of the strongest in the entire series. OotP, chapter 31 (OWLs) : “I mistranslated ehwaz,” said Hermione furiously. “It means partnership, not defence ; I mixed it up with eihwaz.”
Here is the meaning of these two runes : 1- “Ehwaz” : symbol shaped like a “M”. Partnership, Harmony, Duality, Horse (or two horses), Ideal marriage or partnership… “Ehwaz is the rune associated with twin gods, heroes or horses.” It is the rune associated with the deities Frey and Freyja (twin brother and sister). And, “it also represents partnership, trust, loyalty, and faithfulness, such as that between horse and rider, brother and sister, two halves of the whole”. 2- “Eihwaz” : symbol shaped vaguely like a lightning bolt. Yew tree, Strength, Endurance, Defence, Protection. And : “It contains the mystery of life and death. It is a life giving force which has its roots in the underworld and death.”
These runes can have several different meanings, but as Hermione herself said “partnership” and “defence”, I think it is safe to consider these are the relevant meanings here. Partnership, duality, harmony for Ehwaz (rather than “horse” for instance), and defence, protection for Eihwaz (rather than the “axis of the world”, which is another possible meaning).
This clue strongly supports the “Protection Theory” : Hermione has a key role in Harry's protection, a bit like Petunia – as we know Lily’s blood is Harry’s protection. Hermione must translate Ehwaz, which can mean partnership (such as that between brother and sister) and “twin heroes”... so obviously she thinks of her brother Harry, and she mixes it up with Eihwaz. Why ? Maybe because the Eihwaz rune looks a bit like Harry's scar, but mostly because it represents “protection” : her task is to protect her brother.
To sum up : Ehwaz : partnership, duality between brother and sister. Eihwaz : “a life giving force which has its roots in the underworld and death”. The protection force Hermione is carrying does have its roots in death (Lily’s sacrifice).
Think about it… This clue is particularly striking. Hermione mixes up ehwaz and eihwaz. Ehwaz is partnership, duality, such as that between brother and sister. Eihwaz is defence, protection. Now answer this : what is Harry’s protection, Harry’s defence in the story ? Dumbledore answered this question in OotP ; it is the bond of blood : Your mother’s sacrifice made the bond of blood the strongest shield I could give you. Everything fits : the bond of blood, a partnership, a duality (ehwaz) is Harry’s shield, his defence (eihwaz). All this concerns Hermione (she is the one who mixes up the runes) : she and Harry must be linked by “the bond of blood”.
2.6.7 – In chapter 37, Dumbledore tells Harry : “I guessed, fifteen years ago,” said Dumbledore, “when I saw the scar on your forehead, what it might mean. I guessed that it might be the sign of a connection forged between you and Voldemort.” OK, we know Dumbledore is very smart... But the question is : why did JKR want him to guess as early as that ? It would have been simpler to have Dumbledore understand that this connection existed during Harry's 4th year (when Harry began having dreams). Why make him guess when Harry was a baby ? How did this influence the plot ? Easy : This is the reason why the truth about Hermione was kept hidden from Harry ! (See below : the reason why Harry mustn’t know the truth is his mind connection with Voldemort). If Dumbledore had guessed about the connection no earlier than GoF, then the Secret would have been revealed to both Harry and Hermione. So, there would have been no “Big Secret” for Harry... and for the readers ! In GoF, Dumbledore would have understood that telling Harry was a huge blunder... but it would have been too late ! For the plot to work, Dumbledore had to understand very early that this connection existed.
------------------------------
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. Arthur Schopenhauer
QUOTE(classicalravenclawwriter @ Jan 14 2007, 10:56 PM) [snapback]303232[/snapback]
Harry recieved an album from Hagrid at the end of his first year. Hermione is older than Harry, so that must mean that all of the Potters' friends must have known about Hermione too. Continuing, that must mean that NO photo had Hermione in it, and also Hagrid would know. I don't find that likely.
Although Merlin and I have some differences, we both agree that Hermione's identity is probably protected by the Fidelius Charm (possibly the same charm that originally protected the whole family). While she would certainly appear in some of the pictures in Harry's album, the charm would prevent Harry (or anyone else) making the connection. It's not even certain that Dumbledore consciously knows, since he wasn't the Secret-Keeper to the original charm.
Wormtail first meets Hermione again as an eleven-year-old, apparently Muggleborn, new student on the Hogwart's Express. It's hardly surprising he doesn't connect her with the Potter's two-year-old daughter.
Now Dumbledore is dead, the Fidelius Charm will have ceased to operate, and something the trio find at Godric's Hollow is probably going to reveal the existence of a lost sister.
2.7.1 – HBP gave us a number of new clues concerning Hermione’s behaviour and her reactions.
When Hermione first meets Harry again at the Burrow, Harry is surprised by the way she is looking at him : “Something wrong, Hermione ?” She was watching him as though expecting strange symptoms to manifest themselves at any moment. Sure, Hermione and Ron are both worried by what Dumbledore might have told Harry – that is, the Prophecy. However, Hermione’s reaction is much stronger than Ron’s here. Why ? With the Sibling Theory, this makes perfect sense : Hermione can’t know what Dumbledore might have told Harry… What if he had told him literally everything ? Everything about her… Last time Harry had been kept in the dark, a year before, he had gone mad at Ron and her. No wonder Hermione was expecting “strange symptoms” this time !
A bit later in chapter 5, the trio are discussing Tonks and the reason why she looks so depressed. Hermione has an idea : She still hasn’t got over what happened… you know… I mean, he was her cousin ! And then she adds : She thinks it was her fault he died ! This is a bit strange, because Hermione is completely wrong here. We learn later in the book the true reason why Tonks was depressed, and this reason has nothing to do with Sirius. Hermione is the one who is supposed to be “good at psychology” in the trio. Why does she jump to that wrong conclusion ? I think the answer is quite simple. Hermione remembers that Tonks and Sirius are linked by the bond of blood. The idea of a girl blaming herself for the death of a blood-relative means A LOT to Hermione ! Hermione is not often wrong in the story, and her mistakes are thus of great interest (example : the runes). What Hermione said in that scene didn't reveal much about Tonks... but I think it revealed a lot about Hermione herself and her deepest fears !
Later (end of chapter 21), the trio are discussing Tonks again. Ron suggests the “it’s because of Sirius” idea again. And here is Hermione’s reaction : ‘It’s a bit odd,’ said Hermione, who for some reason looked very concerned. “For some reason”… Well, of course ! Again, the idea of Tonks blaming herself for the death of a blood relative means a lot to Hermione.
A few things Hermione tells Harry are of great interest for the theory. At times, this will cause some jealousy from Ron – the poor boy cannot understand, as he doesn’t know the truth. For instance, when Hermione tells Harry : It’s not Quidditch that’s popular, it’s you ! You’ve never been more interesting and, frankly, you’ve never been more fanciable. No wonder Ron “gagged on a large piece of kipper” at that precise moment : when a girl tells a boy he has “never been more fanciable”, what is that supposed to mean ? A close relative could say it in a completely innocent way. Otherwise…
A bit later, Hermione overreacts when Slughorn reveals that Harry had called her “the best in our year” : Did you really tell him I’m the best in the year ? Oh, Harry ! This makes sense considering Hermione’s psychology, if she is Harry’s sister : having to keep up with her “boy who lived” of a brother, etc… And again, Ron is “annoyed” by Hermione’s reaction…
Note that throughout the book, Hermione is jealous of the so-called Half-Blood Prince, jealous of his influence on Harry. She hates it when Harry follows the Prince’s advice rather than hers !
In the end, Ginny reveals it was Hermione who had given her some advice (very good advice, by the way) about the best attitude to adopt so that Harry would eventually notice her : “Hermione told me to get on with life, maybe go out with some other people, relax a bit around you, because I never used to be able to talk if you were in the room, remember ? And she thought you might take a bit more notice if I was a bit more – myself.” “Smart girl, that Hermione,” said Harry, trying to smile. Well, it is clearer than ever that Hermione has been interfering quite a lot in Harry’s love life.
Finally, note that when Harry and Hermione both need partners to go to Slughorn’s party, they do not consider going together. Why ? Why don’t they even consider the idea ? Is it because they are both members of the “Slug Club” ? No : two members can go together – Hermione will go with Cormac. Is it because they are “just friends” ? No : it is quite possible to go as “just friends” – Harry will go with Luna. I think there must be a deeper reason here…
2.7.2 – A scene I think has a strong symbolic meaning. Chapter 5 : Harry has just told Ron and Hermione about the Prophecy. This is a moment of extreme dramatic intensity, a moment Harry – and the readers – had been anticipating. Harry is waiting for their reaction and… Hermione gets punched in the eye by Fred’s and George’s telescope ! A comical scene in such a dramatic moment ! I think Hermione’s black eye can be seen as a symbol : it symbolises how much stricken she was by the news…
2.7.3 – Just in case some readers had not noticed the “ehwaz/eihwaz” clue in OotP, we are reminded that Hermione did “at least one serious mistranslation” in Ancient Runes.
2.7.4 – An important clue, that strengthens the “Hermione’s Patronus” clue in OotP greatly. Chapter 22, Slughorn (drunk) mispronounces Harry’s name : “Yes, indeed,” cried Slughorn a little thickly, “Parry Otter, the Chosen Boy Who – well – something of that sort,” he mumbled, and drained his mug, too. An Otter is Hermione’s Patronus… Coincidence ? I don’t think so : JKR is playing with words here. Even the verb “to parry” can be associated with the Patronus – after all, this is exactly what a Patronus does : “to parry” a Dementor’s attack ! Compare this with another mispronunciation : In the same scene, Hagrid (also drunk) switches letters between two words : “… bes’ wiz and witchard o’ their age I never knew… terrible thing… terrible thing…” So, Slughorn should rather have pronounced “Parry Hotter”… The word “Otter” is a clue.
2.7.5 – Amycus and Alecto are referred to as “brother and sister” rather than by their names a number of times. Rather unusual… Foreshadowing ?
2.7.6 – In the end, Dumbledore offers Draco to hide him so completely that Voldemort will never be able to find him : Come over to the right side Draco, and we can hide you more completely than you can possibly imagine. Dumbledore is very sure he can do it, in that scene, isn’t he ? “More completely than you can possibly imagine” is a very strong statement indeed ! This sounds like something Dumbledore and/or the Order have already tried – successfully – in the past, doesn’t it ? Why did JKR include that proposal in book 6 ? What’s its importance in the plot ? What did it change ? The Order did not hide Draco in HBP… I think this was included as a hint : Dumbledore and/or the Order are able to hide people very effectively when needed. More completely, maybe, than we can (yet) possibly imagine !
2.8 The movies
The movies cannot be an important nor a very reliable source of clues, as they are not directly JKR’s creation. However, we can assume that JKR gave some advice here and there…
2.8.1 – Remember the “Trevor clue” in book 1. The funny thing is that in the movie, we don’t see Neville looking for Trevor at all, but the scene where Trevor finally reappears was kept. However, from the book to the movie, the place where Neville finds the toad was changed. In the movie, it’s in the castle, during McGonagall’s speech… and just in front of Hermione !
2.8.2 – A little scene of some interest for the theory in the first movie : the trio are climbing the stairs, and Ron says to Harry : It’s spooky : she knows more about you than you do. Harry answers : Who doesn’t ? Who doesn’t ? Many people… If Ron, who comes from an old wizarding family, finds it “spooky” then it means Hermione knows considerably more about Harry than other people do – much more than Ron does. Not bad for a girl who is supposed to have been knowing she is a witch for only a few weeks ! But if Harry is her brother, and if she knows the truth, this is perfectly normal !
2.8.3 – Overall, the movies confirm the impression of a special, yet non-romantic, relationship between Harry and Hermione.
For instance, in movie 3, the scene after Harry has just learned the “truth” about Sirius Black : He was their friend… and he betrayed them… HE WAS THEIR FRIEND ! It is Hermione who walks to Harry alone (Ron tries to hold her back, then he stays at a distance), she removes the invisibility cloak from him and she asks him what happened. I think this scene is important, because it is all about the Potter family (James, Lily, and Sirius who betrayed them – or so they believe at that moment), and it is all between Harry and Hermione.
2.8.4 –JKR said that in movie 3, Cuaron “inadvertently foreshadowed events that will happen in books six and seven”. I really got goose bumps when I saw a couple of those things, and I thought, people are going to look back on the film and think that those were put in deliberately as clues. It could very well be the Harry-Hermione interaction (see above). But also the remarkable parallel between James and Lily on the one hand and Harry and Hermione on the other hand. The parents and the children… Both Remus and Sirius seem to be drawing that subtle parallel - even if they don’t say it explicitly. Harry is a lot like James, Hermione is a lot like Lily : 1- On the bridge, Lupin tells Harry that he is much like his father and that his mother was a powerful witch but also a very good person : “Not only was she a singularly gifted witch, but she was also an uncommonly kind woman. She had the ability to see the beauty in others, and perhaps most especially of all, when that person couldn't see it in themselves.” Well, Hermione is a lot like Lily, isn’t she ? No doubt she is a “singularly gifted witch”, and in GoF, she is the one who comforts Hagrid when he can no longer see “the beauty in himself” (after Rita Skeeter’s article) : “Did you by any chance hear what Miss Granger was shouting, Hagrid ?” 2- In the end, Sirius repeats that Harry is very much like James. Then he tells Hermione: “You really are the cleverest witch of your generation”. Why this sentence ? Does Hermione vaguely remind him of Lily ? Anyway, it certainly strengthens the parallel.
2.9 Clues from J.K. Rowling’s interviews
- Important clue. During a chat (AOL chat, 04/2000) JKR was asked about a possible Harry-Hermione romance in the future books. She answered : …as for Harry and Hermione, d’you really think they’re suited ? Did JKR let slip something big here ? What did these words mean ? 1- Most R/Hr shippers would answer this just means they are not suited. But why ? They get along very well, after all… And if it was so simple, why would JKR have given away that much ? In 2000, she was rather reluctant to give away too much on these matters. 2- For H/Hr shippers, JKR made an ambiguous answer and no conclusion is possible… Maybe the answer was a humorous one…. “well, yes they are !” However, this would be very misleading ! 3- The Sibling Theory fits perfectly here. The sentence would mean : “…as for Harry and Hermione, d’you really think they’re suited ? Wait till you know who they really are !” The answer is not misleading… yet JKR isn’t giving away the main piece of information ! Brilliant !
- Something else JKR said (NPC, 10/1999), another important clue : JKR: *looking through questions* No, don’t like that one. Oh, I like this one… do Harry and Hermione have a date? *laughter* No. They are – they’re very platonic friends. But I won’t answer for anyone else, nudge, nudge, wink, wink. Again, the Sibling Theory fits perfectly… JKR said it herself : “wink, wink.” And note that she chose that particular question from a list (ignoring other questions). This suggests there is more to this. There must be something ! Something she is NOT telling us here, and is enjoying not to tell us ! (Hence her laughter). Note the hesitation : “They are – they’re very platonic friends.” Also, why did JKR say “very platonic friends” ? Why insist that much ? Wasn’t “platonic friends” good enough ? Is it because the mere suggestion of a non-platonic relation between Harry and Hermione was unacceptable for JKR ? Because such a relation would be incestuous, and thus inappropriate in the story ?
- Yet another quote (06/2000) : She is the most brilliant of the three and they need her. Harry needs her badly. What does Harry need badly ? Do you remember his vision in the Mirror of Erised ? His “heart’s greatest desire” ? It was… family ! So… of course he needs Hermione badly !
- JKR once said Hermione’s name is based on Shakespeare. The Hermione in “The Winter’s Tale” went into hiding for 16 years. If the truth about Harry’s sister is revealed before the end, that’s about the time she will have been “hiding”.
- One of the major clues for the theory : during the BBC TV show “Harry and Me”, JKR showed a few items to the camera. These included a school-list. You can have a look at the pictures here : http://www.fictionalley.org/harryandme http://www.crusaders.no/~afhp/notebook/ JKR changed Hermione’s name : she had originally named her Hermione Puckle. She changed the name to Granger later : in the list, the name “Puckle” is crossed out and replaced by “Granger”. (JKR confirmed this on her website later). This implies that : 1 - Harry and Hermione are together in this alphabetical list, as all other siblings are (the Patil sisters for instance). 2 - When JKR first created Hermione, she gave her the initials “H.P.” She changed it later, probably because it would give away too much ! And this clue has become even stronger – much stronger – since JKR revealed (March 2004 chat) that Hermione’s middle name is Jane. H.J.P. ! Harry James Potter… Hermione Jane Puckle. Coincidence ? Honestly, do you believe in such coincidences ?
- During an interview in October 2000, JKR said : Q. Why not then a heroine? Why isn't this Helene Potter? JKR. Very good question. I was-- this is weird-- I was writing the books for six months, before I stopped and thought: Well, he's a boy. How did that happen? Why is he a boy? Why isn't it Harriet? And number one, it was too late. Harry was too real by then for me to try to put him in a dress. That wasn't going to work. And then there was Hermione-- and Hermione is an indispensable part of the books and how the adventures happen. And she so much me that I felt no guilt about keeping the hero who had walked into my head. You know, it was uncontrived. It wasn't conscious. That's how he happened. So I kept him that way. So, Hermione is “an indispensable part of how the adventures happen”… Interesting, isn’t it ? JKR makes it sound like Hermione is the heroine, almost on par with Harry. Like her role in the overall plot is almost as important as Harry’s. Note that elsewhere in the same interview, JKR calls Ron “Harry’s other best friend”. Other best friend…
- The following interview is the only time – that I am aware of – JKR was asked about giving Harry a sibling. The highly significant thing is that… she did not answer ! The San Francisco Chronicle, October 30, 1999 : Q: Could you write a book where Harry has a twin sister Harrietta? Will you write a book where a girl is the main character? -- Jessica, age 12 A: I had been writing about Harry for six months before I stopped and asked myself why I was writing about Harry and not Harriet. And by then it was too late. He felt like a boy to me, I liked him as a boy, and I didn't want to have to put him in a dress and girl him up. Hermione is a very, very strong character. She's a caricature of me when I was younger. As you see, JKR answered the second part of the question (about a girl being the main character) but not the first one (about Harry having a sister).
- JK Rowling's interview with Katie Couric, June 20th 2003 : Couric: Any snogging with Hermione? Rowling: Hermione and Harry?! Do you think so? Couric: No I’m kidding. Rowling: Ron and Hermione, I would say, have more tension there... One more interview that can support the Sibling Theory. You can have a look at JKR’s facial expression when she says “Hermione and Harry?! Do you think so?”, here : http://www.sugarquill.net/goodshiprh/goodshipclip.mov Look at her eyes at that precise moment – the way she is looking at Couric, this expression of sudden interest in her eyes when she says “Hermione and Harry?! Do you think so?” She is obviously fighting back a smile… Then, when she says “Ron and Hermione...”, her expression is quite neutral again.
- March 4th, 2004 Chat : Jami: Is Harry related to Godric Gryffindor? JK Rowling replies : People are always wondering who Harry might be related to. Maybe he is. Wink JKR could have simply answered : yes he is / no he isn't / maybe he is / you'll see / what makes you think so / do you really think I would tell you... But the interesting thing is that she widens the question : “People are always wondering who Harry might be related to.” So “maybe he is”... related to someone else ! Since the July 2005 TLC-Mugglenet interview, it seems that Harry is NOT the heir of Gryffindor, after all : MA : That sort of shuts down Heir of Gryffindor (theories) as well. JKR : (Pause) Yeah. Well – yeah. But it also seems that the March 2004 question about Harry being related to Gryffindor had aroused something else in JKR’s mind...
2.10 J.K. Rowling’s Website
http://www.jkrowling.com A number of things on JKR’s website are of great interest for the Sibling Theory.
- JKR confirms on her site that she had originally named Hermione “Puckle” (see above). There’s no doubt about this, no more room for interpretation : JKR created Hermione Puckle, and changed the name to Granger later. So... Harry James Potter and Hermione Jane Puckle originally had exactly the same initials : H.J.P.
Side note : this clue is really important, first because it is a bit too much for a coincidence, and second because JKR rarely chooses names at random for siblings in the story. Many siblings have the same initials : Albus and Aberforth, Parvati and Padma, Rodulphus and Rastaban, Amycus and Alecto… And many more have first names beginning by consecutive letters : Fred and George, Regulus and Sirius, Colin and Dennis, Fabian and Gideon, Fleur and Gabrielle…
- Another important clue. In a very early draft of PS, a connection existed between the Potters and the Grangers, as the Potters lived not far from the Grangers (JKR moved them to Godric's Hollow later) : The very, very earliest drafts of the first chapter of 'Philosopher's Stone' have the Potters living on a remote island, Hermione's family living on the mainland, her father spotting something that resembles an explosion out at sea and sailing out in a storm to find their bodies in the ruins of their house. I can't remember now why I thought this was a good idea, but I clearly recognised that it wasn't fairly early on, because the Potters were re-located to Godric's Hollow for all subsequent drafts. It is easy to imagine that – in this early version – Mr Granger found Hermione in the ruins… and adopted her ! Or, if Hermione had already left to the Grangers before the tragedy, maybe the Potters didn’t want their daughter too far away in this first draft of the book… Anyway, the existence of a connection in this early version of PS certainly helps support the Sibling Theory. Some people could say that this early version was discarded, so it is now unimportant. This would be a big mistake ! There is a lot to learn from such early versions, especially early versions of book 1 chapter 1. JKR said : Discarded first chapters of book one: I reckon I must've got through fifteen different alternative chapters of book one. The reason for which I discarded each of them were: They all gave too much away. And in fact if you put all those discarded first chapters together, almost the whole plot is explained. In both quotes, JKR is talking about early drafts of book 1 chapter 1 : when you put the two quotes together, you really get a strong feeling there is something there !
- JKR reveals on her website that “Potter” is the name of two friends of hers when she was a little girl : a brother and sister !
- JKR reveals that, while everyone believes Dean Thomas is Muggleborn, he is - in fact - a half-blood. A half-blood whom everyone believes is Muggleborn... Maybe he is not the only one !
- JKR writes : Does Hermione love Ron or Harry? I can't believe that some of you haven't worked this one out yet, but I'm not going to answer because that would spoil the arguments, which I enjoy. Sure she must have enjoyed the arguments ! So many fans were busy discussing H/Hr versus R/Hr… not seeing the main thing !
- JKR refutes a theory : Luna is Snape’s daughter. This is a most tantalising idea, but no, Mr. Lovegood, the editor of “the Quibbler”, really is Luna’s father and Snape does not have a daughter. First point, JKR calls “most tantalising” a theory suggesting that a girl in the story is not really her parents’ daughter… The Snape-Luna theory is false, but this could suggest that another character was secretly adopted. Not Snape’s daughter, but maybe the daughter of another member – or two other members – of the Order of the Phoenix. Second point, I wonder why JKR added “and Snape does not have a daughter”. After saying that Mr Lovegood really was Luna’s father, the question was answered, wasn’t it ? There might be more to this… It could mean that Snape has a son (I doubt it), or… Well, many people believe Snape might have loved Lily. This is not the place to discuss this theory – although I think there are some good arguments for it – but it could fit : Snape does not have a daughter, the woman he loved HAD a daughter, but he wasn’t the father…
- JKR wrote on her website that the fact Dumbledore had James’ cloak is of crucial importance : Why did Dumbledore have James' invisibility cloak at the time of James' death, given that Dumbledore could make himself invisible without a cloak? Prior to posting this I had a quick look on-line, and realised that some fans have been speculating about this question. However, nobody has ever asked me about it, and they really should have done. Just to allay the fears of the justifiably suspicious, this isn't what we in the know call 'a Mark Evans situation.'* There IS a significant - even crucial - answer. JKR is insisting on a very interesting little fact here : Dumbledore himself didn’t need the cloak – as we know he can become invisible without one. So what does this tell us ? That the cloak was for somebody else. Somebody for whom James was ready to give it. Somebody who had to be hidden. With the Sibling Theory, Hermione could be that person. It is even possible that when James brought the cloak to Dumbledore, she was under it !
A bit later, JKR refuted the rumour that Snape was under that cloak the night the Potters died. The question is : who else was ? Was it Hermione ?
2.11 The “Heart of it all”
Here is what JKR said on June 19th, 2003 (just before the release of OotP) : JP: So there will be some pairing up will there in this book? JKR: Well in the fullness of time. JP: Unlikely pairings? Not Hermione and Draco Malfoy or anything like that? JKR: I don’t really want to say as it will ruin all the fan sites. They have such fun with their theories … and it is fun, it is fun. And some of them even get quite close. No-one has ever - I have gone and looked at some of it and no-one’s ever … There is one thing that if anyone guessed I would be really annoyed as it is kind of the heart of it all. And it kind of explains everything and no-one’s quite got there but a couple of people have skirted it. So you know, I would be pretty miffed after thirteen or fourteen years of writing the books if someone just came along and said I think this will happen in book seven. Because it is too late, I couldn’t divert now, everything has been building up to it, and I’ve laid all my clues.
So, we know there is a Big Secret in the story ! The “heart of it all” ! And it is something that should affect character “shipping” somehow (as the question was about shipping). The Sibling Theory fits perfectly : it does affect shipping of course (as it makes one of the most popular ships impossible), and it can certainly be “the heart of it all”, the secret that “kind of explains everything” (especially if Hermione is the key to Harry’s protection – see the Protection Theory below). And many, many clues have been “building up to it”.
In July 2005, JKR made some more comments about a “big revelation” to come in book 7 – I presume she was talking about the same big secret as above : MA : Does the gleam of triumph still have yet to make an appearance ? JKR : That’s still enormously significant. And let’s face it, I haven’t told you that much is enormously significant, so you can let your imaginations run free here. ES : I think everybody realized it was significant when they read it but we didn’t see it materialize in 5 or 6. JKR : Well, it still is. ES : We’ve been kind of waiting for the big revelation. JKR : Absolutely, that’s for seven. That’s for seven.
Here again, the sibling theory fits. I will explain in part 4 below (the Protection Theory) why Dumbledore’s gleam of triumph could have everything to do with Hermione’s secret.
Many other ideas have been proposed for the “heart of it all”, but I’ve never seen one that really fits, apart from the Sibling Theory. For instance : 1- The “heart of it all” are Voldemort’s Horcruxes. No. The Horcruxes are a vital element of the plot, but JKR said “if someone just came along and said I think this will happen in book seven”. And she added : “Absolutely, that’s for seven. That’s for seven.” We learnt Voldemort had made Horcruxes in book six, not seven. 2- The “heart of it all” is the fact Snape was in love with Lily (or vice versa). Maybe he was, but I don’t see what Dumbledore’s gleam of triumph could have to do with this. 3- The “heart of it all” is a secret concerning the connection between Harry and Voldemort – the true nature of this connection, whatever it is. No doubt this is extremely important : JKR herself said it was. But I don’t really understand why JKR would have mentioned this when answering a “shipping” question – J. Paxman’s question about Draco and Hermione.
3. THE THEORY, HOW IT CAN WORK
I now want to discuss the theory, and its role in the story : how it could fit in the overall plot. We’ve seen a number of clues that, when put together, strongly support the idea of a Harry-Hermione sibling relation. Now, I want to try and answer some questions, some “when”, “why” and “how” questions : when was Hermione hidden, and why ? Why doesn’t anyone tell Harry ? And most importantly : what will it change ? A secret of that importance must be the key to something huge, possibly the key to the final outcome of the series. Simply having Hermione tell Harry, in the end, “er… by the way, Harry, I am your sister…” would be unacceptable. The big secret must – as JKR herself said – “kind of explain everything”.
Now… Is it even possible to answer these questions before we have the final book in our hands ? I think we can at least try. Now, even if the base idea of the Sibling Theory is correct, the possibilities are many. But still, we can try to answer some questions : there are some clues in the first six books. For instance, there are strong reasons to believe that Hermione has a role in Harry’s protection.
Still, this part of the essay is necessarily speculative. I’ll try to base the speculations on the books themselves, or on things revealed by JKR, as much as possible. But even if the Sibling Theory itself is correct, some of the ideas I am now going to present may very well turn out wrong.
I’ll begin with some timeline questions, as it is important to clarify these points before we can go further. Then, we’ll see how it could all work. The Protection Theory will be discussed in detail in part 4 below.
3.1 How old is Hermione ?
We know Harry’s birthday is July 31st. Hermione’s is September 19th. How old is Hermione ? Is she younger than Harry or older than him ? This was a highly debated point before JKR gave us the final answer, late 2004. Before that, a majority of fans assumed she was younger. Late 2004, JKR revealed on her website that Hermione was nearly twelve when she entered Hogwarts, so we know she is about 10 months and a half older than Harry.
She can definitely be his older sister : the delay between Hermione’s birth and Harry’s conception is short, but it is possible. Especially if Harry was born a bit premature, but it is possible even if he wasn’t. One could even say that the fact JKR gave them birthdays making it just possible for them to be siblings (and still be in the same year at Hogwarts) is not a coincidence. Furthermore, in HBP, Molly Weasley said something highly significant ; something that could very well explain why the Potters had two children that close : It’s all this uncertainty with You-Know-Who coming back, people think they might be dead tomorrow, so they’re rushing all sorts of decisions they’d normally take time over. It was the same last time he was powerful, people eloping left right and centre –
Before JKR revealed Hermione’s age, we had several variants of the Sibling Theory. The “older sister theory” of course, but also a “twin theory” (Hermione’s official birthday would have been changed in order to hide her even more effectively). Now, I think Hermione is Harry’s older sister. Other variants of the theory would involve Time Magic of some sort, which is not impossible, but seems unlikely…
3.2 Timeline : when was the Prophecy made ?
So, Harry was born on July 31st, and Hermione was born on September 19th the year before. Now, before we turn our attention to the reason why Hermione was hidden, we must try to figure out when the Prophecy was made. Was it made before or after Hermione’s birth ?
I think it is very likely that Trelawney made her Prophecy a few weeks or months before Harry’s birth, and well after Hermione’s birth.
Dumbledore told Harry : “Voldemort tried to kill you when you were a child because of a prophecy made shortly before your birth.” And about the circumstances, he explained : “On a cold, wet night sixteen years ago…”
- “Shortly before your birth” should mean it wasn’t many months before… Yet, “shortly” is not a very precise indication… I don’t think Dumbledore would have said “shortly” for “nearly a year”, though. - “Sixteen years ago” could mean just 16 years, although technically it could mean anything between 16 years and 17 years minus 1 day. - “A cold, wet night” could suggest winter, but even summer nights can be cold and wet in Scotland. Furthermore, we saw in HBP that when Voldemort is powerful, his Dementors can cause cold and wet weather even in July !
One thing is sure : the Prophecy was made before Trelawney started teaching. In OotP, during her inspection, Trelawney told Umbridge she had been teaching for “nearly sixteen years”. And when Umbridge sacked her, she said : “I’ve b – been here sixteen years !” - “Nearly sixteen years” is not a very precise indication… if the Prophecy was made a short time before Harry’s birth, and if Trelawney started teaching in September, at the start of the next term, then she had been teaching just a little more than 15 years… I suppose that could fit. - On the other hand, if Trelawney really had been teaching for 16 full years the day Umbridge sacked her, then the Prophecy was necessarily made much earlier than most people think… around September. Very close to Hermione’s birth then, and possibly some days before. But I think Trelawney’s sentence was not necessarily very precise, and that she just meant “about sixteen years”.
So, my opinion is that the Prophecy was probably made after Hermione’s birth. Which means the reason why Hermione was hidden must be searched elsewhere.
However, I think this is not an absolute certitude. If the Prophecy was made before Hermione’s birth, but less than 17 years before the night Sirius died – for instance if it was made in August or early September before Hermione’s birth – then Dumbledore’s sentence ( “on a cold, wet night 16 years ago” ) is still true. In that case, it is not impossible that some people (Dumbledore ? James ? Lily ? ) thought Hermione could be “the one” and decided to hide her. After all, September is “the seventh month” in the roman calendar. This wouldn’t necessarily mean that Hermione really is “the one”, only that someone believed it at that time.
This is not what I personally believe. I think the Prophecy was made months after Hermione was born, and this is what I will assume henceforward. But I cannot discard the other possibility completely.
3.3 When was Hermione hidden ?
First point : I think it is quite clear that if Hermione is James’s and Lily’s daughter, then she was actually hidden in some way. For instance, part of book 1 chapter 1 is written with a focus on Vernon’s point of view. Thus, it is an established fact that, at this point of the story : - Vernon knew about Harry’s existence, even though he had never seen the boy. - Vernon knew nothing about Harry’s sister. So, Hermione must have been, in a way, more hidden than Harry.
The only alternative would be a massive use of memory charms. Hermione would not have been hidden from the start, but all memory of her true identity would have been erased by magic at some point (necessarily before the “Vernon” scene in book 1 chapter 1). This is not what I personally believe, but I will say a few words about this variant of the theory in appendix 1.
Before we discuss the reason why Hermione was hidden, let’s have another look at the timeline. When was she hidden ? When did she go to the Grangers ? I think Hermione’s existence was hidden from the start. Lily’s pregnancy was kept secret. But did the Potters send Hermione to the Grangers at birth – or soon after birth – or did she stay with them for some months ?
Until very recently, I leaned towards the idea that Hermione was still with them – her existence well hidden, but still present at Godric’s Hollow – the night the Potters were killed ! This would have accounted for JKR’s reluctance to tell us who was present : MA : Was there anyone else present in Godric’s Hollow the night Harry’s parents were killed ? JKR : No comment.
But this no longer seems possible. JKR wrote on her website in February 2006 : Even if one of the Potters had been captured, force fed Veritaserum or placed under the Imperius Curse, they would not have been able to give away the whereabouts of the other two. This expression “the other two” implies there wasn’t another Potter at Godric’s Hollow. If Hermione is Harry’s sister, she was no longer there. She was not concerned by that particular Fidelius Charm.
So, the conclusion must be that Hermione was hidden earlier than that. I think we have two possibilities :
- She was hidden at birth, or very soon after birth. James and Lily were in the Order of the Phoenix, which implies facing great dangers. They thought it best for their daughter to grow up in a safer place, at least until the war was over (they couldn’t know they would die before). For the reason why Harry was not hidden the same way, see 3.4 below.
- Her existence was kept secret from birth for her own security, but she stayed with her true parents for some months. When the Potters learned that the Prophecy had been made (and overheard) they decided to send her to a safer place, at least until things had calmed down a bit (again, they couldn’t know they would die before). Harry was not hidden the same way for the reason explained in 3.4 below.
3.4 Why was Hermione hidden ? Why wasn’t Harry hidden ?
Now the big question : why was Hermione originally hidden ? And why wasn’t Harry hidden the same way ? I assume that the Prophecy was made after Hermione’s birth – see 3.2 above.
I am first going to give what I think is the most plausible answer to this question. Then, we’ll see some alternatives.
I think it was a normal thing to do for people involved in the Order at that time to hide their children the very best they could. Given the dangers that go with Order of the Phoenix membership, this seems quite sensible. So, hiding the children for their safety was a natural thing to do. I suppose James and Lily thought it would be for a short time only : they couldn’t know they would die before the war was over.
Note that the Weasleys were NOT in the Order at that time : so the fact the Weasley children were not hidden does not contradict the above idea.
In that case, we should not wonder why Hermione was hidden, but rather why Harry and Neville were not.
Here is the way I see it : The Potters had Hermione. Lily’s first pregnancy had been kept secret. Hermione was somehow hidden. Lily’s second pregnancy was kept secret the same way. And Alice Longbottom’s too. But then, something crucial happened : the Prophecy was made, and part of it was overheard. And Voldemort used his immense powers to identify who “the One” could be. Lily and Alice tried to hide the fact they were expecting a baby, but they both failed. Yet, Voldemort didn't find Hermione. Why ? Because – obviously – he wasn’t searching ! He was searching a pregnant woman who had thrice defied him. He was NOT searching a six-month old baby girl. From that moment on, there was no point hiding Harry’s – and Neville’s – existence from people : Voldemort already knew. Better keep them at home and protect them the best their parents (and the Order) could. But Hermione was kept hidden.
This idea is, I think, the simplest and the best answer to the question. Here is a quote from HBP that could support it. Dumbledore told Harry : But he (Snape) did not know - he had no possible way of knowing - which boy Voldemort would hunt from then onwards, or that the parents he would destroy in his murderous quest were people that Professor Snape knew, that they were your mother and father - Would you say Snape really had “no possible way of knowing” it was going to be Lily and James ? If he knew Lily was pregnant, he should at least have realised it could be her, shouldn’t he ? There can’t have been dozens of pregnant witches who had thrice defied the Dark Lord around ! This implies that Snape most probably didn't know Lily was pregnant. Which supports the idea that Lily's pregnancy had been hidden in some way.
To conclude, I think this could be the answer : members of the Order would have hidden any babies of theirs at that time : such things really happened in the Muggle World in times of war (during WWII, children were being sent to live in the country when cities were being bombed), and members of the Order were directly engaged in the war. Furthermore, the danger for the children of Voldemort’s enemies has a name since HBP : Fenrir Greyback ! The one Voldemort “threatens to unleash upon people’s sons and daughters” as Lupin explained in HBP ; the one who is supposed to have killed the Montgomery sisters’ little brother… The one who bit Lupin, when he was a child himself. The Potters managed to hide their daughter. But Lily and Alice were unsuccessful in hiding Harry and Neville, because Voldemort tracked down the parents and the boys to whom the Prophecy could have referred. He “found” Harry and Neville before they were even born.
Now, here are a few alternative ideas :
- Hermione was hidden because hiding a baby was a normal thing to do for members of the Order (as above). But the reason why Harry and Neville were not hidden is that Dumbledore wanted the Prophecy fulfilled. Even if the Prophecy needn't be ever fulfilled, my argument here is that Dumbledore wanted it so, because he wanted Voldemort vanquished. Thus, he didn’t want to hide the 2 boys who could be “the One” so effectively that Voldemort could never “mark” one.
- Hermione's birth coincided with one of the 3 times the Potters “defied” Voldemort. Although we know nothing about what they did to “defy” him, this could have been a good reason for hiding their daughter at that time.
- Snape... I feel he should be involved somehow... If we suppose he was in love with Lily but she preferred James, and if she had Hermione shortly after, there are many possibilities. JKR wrote : “Snape does not have a daughter”. Was he jealous ?
- One last idea : I used to suggest there could have been a “bloodline reason” : the Potters were the heirs of Gryffindor, and they wanted to keep their children safe from Voldemort for that reason. Harry would not have been hidden because of the Prophecy (as above). However, in July 2005, JKR said : MA: That sort of shuts down Heir of Gryffindor (theories), as well. JKR: (Pause.) Yeah. Well – yeah. So, I personally gave up on the “heir of Gryffindor” theories. See appendix 1 (variants and alternative theories) though, for some ideas.
3.5 Why is Hermione’s true identity still hidden now ?
Whatever the reason why Hermione was originally hidden, this reason may no longer hold now. So, why is her true identity still hidden ?
The first reason is, quite obviously, for her own security : as Harry’s sister, she would become a prime target for Voldemort. Much more than as Harry’s classmate : Voldemort doesn’t seem to care much about Harry’s friends, except when he can use them (Ginny in CoS) or when they get in the way. On the other hand, he would consider Harry’s sister an important target : he knows the bond of blood is what Dumbledore has based Harry’s protection upon.
I think Harry’s protection is the second reason : Dumbledore must have understood very early that Hermione would one day be able to give her brother the same protection as Petunia. Except that in Hermione’s case, that protection would be secret… A distinct advantage ! See the Protection Theory, part 4 below. If the ideas I present there are correct, then it is essential that Voldemort doesn’t understand exactly what burnt him in PS, when he was possessing Quirrell’s body and tried to touch Harry.
3.6 Who knows the truth ?
Who knows the truth about Hermione ? I think very few people do. It might be possible that a few more people originally knew, but agreed to have their memories modified, so that the secret would be better protected.
The Potters obviously knew. And I think they told Dumbledore. The Grangers must know that Hermione is not their biological daughter. They may, or not, know who Hermione really is.
Based on the clues, McGonagall knows the truth, and maybe Lupin (not sure for Lupin, but maybe Dumbledore told him in PoA before the Boggart class). We often have the feeling that Hermione has a special relation with Pr. McGonagall : if McGonagall is one of the very few people who know the truth, if – maybe – she had a role in looking after Hermione before Hogwarts, this would be quite understandable.
There is also a possibility that Dumbledore told Petunia something in that letter he left for her with baby Harry…
I’m unsure about Snape. I doubt he knows – yet if he knew, if he could have told Voldemort everything but never did, that could explain why Dumbledore trusted him.
Many clues suggest that Hermione herself knows the truth, and that she already knew when she first arrived at Hogwarts.
To sum up : Dead people who knew the truth : Lily Potter, James Potter, Albus Dumbledore. Living people who know the truth : Minerva McGonagall, Hermione. Living people who know at least part of the truth : Mr and Mrs Granger. People about whom I’m unsure : Remus Lupin, Severus Snape, Petunia Dursley.
People who definitely DO NOT know : Harry Potter (at least not consciously), Lord Voldemort.
3.7 How is the secret protected ?
Even if very few people know who Hermione really is, it is quite possible that extra protection measures were taken.
1- First – as suggested above – if too many people originally knew Lily was expecting a child, then a few memory charms might have been used. Memory charms appear quite often in the story. Some people find it hard to imagine that Sirius wouldn’t have known Lily was pregnant. Maybe he knew… but agreed to have his memory modified, in order to protect the secret. I’m not saying this is necessarily what happened. It is quite possible that no one but the Potters and Dumbledore originally knew. But it is an eventuality.
2- Second, I think the secret of Hermione’s birth may very well be protected by a Fidelius Charm. A charm that could have been set up after she was born or, alternatively, later when she left to the Grangers.
Here is what Flitwick said about the Fidelius Charm, the most complete explanation we’ve had so far : An immensely complex spell involving the magical concealment of a secret inside a single, living soul. The information is hidden inside the chosen person, or Secret-Keeper, and is henceforth impossible to find – unless, of course, the Secret Keeper chooses to divulge it.
We’ve only seen the Fidelius Charm used to hide places so far : the Potters’ home, the Order’s Headquarters. But Flitwick’s definition doesn’t limit it to hiding places : it is used to hide secrets. I think there is a good chance we’ll see the Fidelius Charm used to hide a different kind of secret in book 7.
If the Fidelius Charm is used to protect important secrets, maybe the secret of Hermione's birth was protected that way. So, even if a few more people know the truth, only the Secret Keeper can tell other people. This could be the reason why James couldn't tell Sirius ! Or, if you suppose Sirius knew the truth, this could be the reason why Sirius couldn't tell Harry !
With the “Fidelius Charm” variant of the theory, Harry doesn’t know the truth, and Hermione does know but can't tell. She fully understands that she mustn't tell Harry, but even if she accidentally was about to do so, the Fidelius Charm would prevent her : “... friendship, and bravery and – (here the Fidelius Charm blocks her) oh, Harry !” This variant of the theory has some advantages : Harry cannot really go mad at Hermione for not telling him if – as a matter of fact – she could not possibly tell him.
Who would be Secret Keeper ? My guess is Minerva McGonagall. Because if it is Albus Dumbledore, this will be a huge problem : how can he tell Harry in book 7 ? Unless he left a note, a memory or something for Harry to find…
3- One last suggestion : could the Potters have faked their daughter’s death ? At the end of HBP, Dumbledore proposes : Come over to the right side Draco, and we can hide you more completely than you can possibly imagine. In the US version of the book (but – curiously – not in the UK version) he proposes to fake Draco’s death. Was someone else’s death faked in the past, for their safety ?
3.8 Why not tell Harry ?
Because Harry has a mind connection with Voldemort. And if it is of utmost importance that Voldemort ignores the truth, then telling Harry would be too risky as long as he has not mastered Occlumency.
Sure, Harry was much less bothered by the mind connection in HBP than he was in OotP – where the mind connection had a major role in the story. But this is (according to Dumbledore) because Voldemort – not Harry – was using Occlumency in HBP. Which means Voldemort could still penetrate Harry’s mind at any time if he decided to do so.
If Hermione herself knows the truth, then Dumbledore or McGonagall made her promise not to tell. And it must be hard for her, poor girl…
Some may ask : but why did Dumbledore trust Harry with other secrets then ? The Prophecy ? The Horcruxes ? The answer to this is in OotP : Snape explained in some detail what Legilimency is and how it works. It is more the perception of feelings than proper mind-reading. Snape made it very clear it is NOT “mind-reading”. Abstract knowledge like “I have a power the Dark Lord knows not – although I don’t know what it is”, or “I have four Horcruxes to destroy before I can kill him” are much less likely to be detected than a revelation that would be the emotional equivalent of an earthquake !
3.9 How will the sibling relation be important to the overall plot ?
How will the sibling relation be important in the plot ? How will it be “the heart of it all” ? One thing is sure : if the Sibling Theory is correct, then such a secret must play a huge role in the events of book 7. Whatever happens, Hermione will not just tell Harry, in the end : “Oh, by the way, I never told you : I am your sister”.
Now, what this “huge role” will be is still speculative matter, although I think it is highly probable that protection will be involved : if she is Harry’s sister, Hermione can give him protection based on the bond of blood, the way Petunia does. This Protection Theory is, in my opinion, the “number one” answer to the question. Thus, I will detail it in part 4 below.
There are, however, several other possibilities – some of which are compatible with the “Protection Theory”.
First, there is the possibility that Hermione could be “the one” in the prophecy. I personally do not believe this. As I said, there is indeed a certain amount of uncertainty concerning the date the Prophecy was made. While it seems unlikely it could have been made before Hermione’s birth, this is not impossible. And September, etymologically, is “the seventh month”. Apart from that, I see very little reason to believe this. I think Harry is “the one”.
Another possibility, this one much more plausible : in the end, Harry may feel a strong desire to go through the veil, to go the “other side”. He believes all his family are there : his father, his mother. Now his godfather is there too. JKR said Sirius had to die for a reason. That could be it. In the end, Harry will feel a very strong desire to be with them. At that time, having his sister, his closest relative, this side of the veil will make a difference ! Note that in OotP, when they first found the veiled archway, Harry felt a strong desire to go through it. And it is Hermione who held him back… Foreshadowing ?
Finally, there is a possibility that Hermione’s importance in the end will be NOT to allow Harry to defeat Voldemort, but rather to survive doing it. This idea remains a bit vague, but we already know the bond of blood can be the base of powerful magic (Lily’s sacrifice, Dumbledore’s ancient magic). So I think it is a real possibility that Hermione’s role will be to somehow keep her brother alive in the end.
3.10 How will Harry learn the truth in the end ?
There are too many possibilities. All I can do is make a few suggestions…
Harry may either find it alone, or be told the truth. - He could find it in his own memory. - He could understand that he had the same protection at Hogwarts he had at Privet Drive. - He could learn the truth by accident, in the Pensieve. - Or he could find the book kept in McGonagall’s office : JKR once said Professor McGonagall has a magical quill that writes the names of all magical babies into a book when they are born – this is how she can send them an owl when they turn 11. The book is kept in her office. So, it is possible that Harry will somehow find this book and read : “Potter, Hermione - Potter, Harry”. - The Marauders’ Map could tell him… interestingly enough, Harry has never seen Hermione’s name on the Map up to now. - McGonagall or Hermione could tell him – after he has mastered Occlumency. Or after the final battle. - Or Dumbledore could tell him – from beyond the grave : he could have left a memory for him to see in the Pensieve. If Harry somehow makes contact with the “other side” of the veil, he may even learn the truth from his parents !
I think there is a good chance that the revelation will be, in fact, gradual. Even if Harry finds – or is told – the entire truth at the very end of the story only, he will probably begin seeing clues much earlier. Godric’s Hollow will be the perfect place to start !
------------------------------
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. Arthur Schopenhauer
The base idea is that Hermione is – much like Petunia – an essential part of Harry’s protection. It is Hermione’s presence that gave Harry the protection of his mother’s sacrifice at the end of PS, when Quirrell could not touch him.
We know the ancient magic Dumbledore invoked protects Harry against Voldemort when he is home in a place where his mother’s blood dwells : While you can still call home the place where your mother's blood dwells, there you cannot be touched or harmed by Voldemort.
This protection is extremely important in the plot. However, Voldemort knows about Petunia protecting Harry (he said so in GoF). Thus, he won't try to Avada Kedavra Harry through the window of the Dursley’s kitchen while Harry is still protected (that is : before his 17th birthday), as he is not stupid. So, how will this protection play an important role in the story ? Answer : through another blood relative, Harry’s sister, Hermione !
4.2 – Harry’s protection, the standard interpretation (And the reasons why it doesn’t work).
We know Harry received a protection from his mother’s sacrifice, a protection that was explained to some extent in the books.
According to the “standard interpretation”, the interpretation most commonly accepted among fans, it works as follows : - Lily gave Harry a “lingering” protection, that made it impossible for Voldemort to touch him ; it is still in Harry’s flesh, but Voldemort found a way around this one in GoF by taking Harry's blood. It is this original protection – as opposed to the magic Dumbledore added – that saved Harry’s life against Quirrell/Voldemort in PS. - Dumbledore used an “ancient magic” to extend Lily’s original protection, but this “ancient magic” – that works when Harry is near his mother’s blood – will expire on Harry's 17th birthday.
I am not satisfied at all with this “standard interpretation”. I am now going to explain why.
First point : if Harry was protected by Lily’s lingering protection when he was found in the ruins of his parents’ house, then why was Dumbledore’s “ancient magic” needed in addition ? Wasn’t Lily’s original protection good enough ? I think no one has ever given a satisfactory answer to this question. Saying it was to protect Harry against the Death-Eaters doesn’t work, as Dumbledore made it very clear in OotP that he had done it so that Harry would be – primarily – protected against Voldemort himself : “there you cannot be touched or harmed by Voldemort”.
Second point : if Dumbledore’s ancient magic is a mere extension of Lily’s original protection, then how can the former possibly still work (until Harry’s 17th birthday) now that Voldemort has found a way around the later.
Now, let us have a closer look at what Dumbledore explained in OotP : 'My answer is that my priority was to keep you alive. You were in more danger than perhaps anyone but I realised. Voldemort had been vanquished hours before, but his supporters - and many of them are almost as terrible as he - were still at large, angry, desperate and violent. And I had to make my decision, too, with regard to the years ahead. Did I believe that Voldemort was gone forever ? No. I knew not whether it would be ten, twenty or fifty years before he returned, but I was sure he would do so, and I was sure too, knowing him as I have done, that he would not rest until he killed you. 'I knew that Voldemort's knowledge of magic is perhaps more extensive than any wizard alive. I knew that even my most complex and powerful protective spells were unlikely to be invincible if he ever returned to full power. 'But I knew, too, where Voldemort was weak. And so I made my decision. You would be protected by an ancient magic of which he knows, which he despises, and which he has always, therefore, underestimated - to his cost. I am speaking, of course, of the fact that your mother died to save you. She gave you a lingering protection he never expected, a protection that flows in your veins to this day. I put my trust, therefore, in your mother's blood. I delivered you to her sister, her only remaining relative.' 'She doesn't love me,' said Harry at once. 'She doesn't give a **** -' 'But she took you,' Dumbledore cut accross him. 'She may have taken you grudgingly, furiously, unwillingly, bitterly, yet still she took you, and in doing so, she sealed the charm I had placed upon you. Your mother's sacrifice made the bond of blood the strongest shield I could give you.' 'I still don't -' 'While you can still call home the place where your mother's blood dwells, there you cannot be touched or harmed by Voldemort. He shed her blood, but it lives on in you and her sister. Her blood became your refuge. You need return there only once a year, but as long as you can still call it home, whilst you are there he cannot hurt you. Your aunt knows this...
So, my third point is this quote : 'I knew that Voldemort's knowledge of magic is perhaps more extensive than any wizard alive. I knew that even my most complex and powerful protective spells were unlikely to be invincible if he ever returned to full power. --> Well, what about the “lingering protection” left by Lily ? Had Dumbledore foreseen the fact Voldemort would use of Harry's blood, many years later ? I seriously doubt that. It sounds like Dumbledore considers that without the ancient magic he used, Harry would have had no protection at all.
My fourth and most important point is another passage of what Dumbledore said : And so I made my decision. You would be protected by an ancient magic of which he knows, which he despises, and which he has always, therefore, underestimated - to his cost. I am speaking, of course, of the fact that your mother died to save you. It is clearly, unambiguously stated here that it is Dumbledore who decided that Harry would be protected by the fact his mother died to save him : And so I made my decision. You would be protected by… the fact that your mother died to save you. This quote clearly proves that without Dumbledore’s “decision”, Harry would not have been protected by “the fact his mother died to save him” in any way – at least not after the tragic night at Godric’s Hollow.
This contradicts the “standard interpretation” of how the protection works.
4.3 – The Protection Theory
I propose another interpretation, known as the “Protection Theory”. The basis is the fact established just above : without Dumbledore’s “ancient magic”, Harry would have been left unprotected.
So, Lily’s sacrifice saved Harry’s life directly once, just once : the night she gave her life to save him. Maybe the protection was “one time” in essence. Maybe Voldemort’s curse broke through it somehow (after all, Harry was hurt : he got a scar). Anyway, after that, Harry still had the trace of his mother’s sacrifice in his flesh, but this trace alone was no longer enough. From that point on, Harry was protected indirectly by Lily’s sacrifice, through Dumbledore’s “ancient magic” (that was based on the sacrifice). The ancient magic was a necessary part of the protection. Without it, Harry would have been totally vulnerable. Dumbledore’s “ancient magic” was not an extra-protection : rather, it was what allowed the original protection to continue operate over the years (when Harry was close to his mother’s blood).
Most importantly, it is this ancient magic that saved Harry’s life in PS against Quirrell/Voldemort.
So, what Dumbledore explained at the end of PS is true – only incomplete : it is indeed the trace left by Lily’s sacrifice that saved Harry’s life against Quirrell. Only, an outside element – Dumbledore’s spell, and the presence of Lily’s blood – was needed in addition.
The “ancient magic” works only when Harry is “home, where his mother’s blood dwells” : Hogwarts is a place he calls “home” quite often in the story.
So, for all this to work, Lily’s blood must have been present at Hogwarts when Quirrell could not touch Harry ! The girl who hugged Harry, just minutes before the protection saved his life, is his blood relative. Hermione Granger ! By the way, her name could be symbolic of grange/farm or “home”. Family. Her-my-own Home ?
Compare these two sentences : - Dumbledore said in PS : Quirrell, full of hatred, greed and ambition, sharing his soul with Voldemort, could not touch you for this reason - Dumbledore said in OotP : While you can still call home the place where your mother's blood dwells, there you cannot be touched or harmed by Voldemort Isn’t it clear that Dumbledore is talking about the same thing ? The same protection ! He uses the same words : “could not touch”, “cannot be touched” ! So, at the end of PS, Lily’s blood must have been present at Hogwarts !
Important : Voldemort took Harry’s blood in GoF. He believes that, by doing so, he has overcome the Protection. And as a matter of fact, he was able to touch Harry. But Voldemort is wrong here ! The only reason why he could touch Harry in GoF (while he had been unable to touch him in PS) is that the graveyard was a place where Harry was unprotected : Hermione wasn’t there, and the graveyard was definitely not Harry’s “home”.
4.4 – Chronology
- At the beginning of PS : Harry is protected directly (just once) by Lily’s sacrifice. Later, he will be protected indirectly by this sacrifice, through his mother’s blood.
The Protection Theory fits nicely with the fact Hermione was told the Secret. In order for the protection to be effective, the person carrying it must be aware of what is going on. This is the case with Petunia : Dumbledore had to write her a letter explaining everything, and when she took Harry, she knew what she was doing. If Harry had been delivered to the Dursleys without a word, then the protection wouldn't have been activated ; we know Petunia had to “seal the charm” (OotP) : But she took you… and in doing so, she sealed the charm I placed upon you. Same thing for Hermione ! As a baby, she was much too young – so no one but Petunia could have given Harry a protection when he was a young child. But some months before Hogwarts, Dumbledore or McGonagall must have told Hermione the truth, and she agreed she would look after Harry. And that’s exactly what she did... That’s why “Harry couldn't believe anyone could be so interfering” before they became friends.
- End of PS : Quirrell can't touch Harry because he is at Hogwarts, and Hermione is there (not far away). Note that Hermione hugged Harry just minutes before the moment he needed his mother’s protection most ! The symbol is immensely strong ! “But Harry – what if You-Know-Who’s with him ?” “Well – I was lucky once, wasn’t I ?” Said Harry, pointing at his scar. “I might get lucky again.” Hermione’s lip trembled and she suddenly dashed at Harry and threw her arms around him. 1- “ I was lucky once” : Harry had a protection. 2- “ I might get lucky again” : maybe he is still protected. 3- “ Hermione’s lip trembled and she suddenly dashed at Harry and threw her arms around him” : the hug symbolises protection !
A possible objection : one could argue that Harry was indeed hurt during the encounter with Quirrell/Voldemort. But this is because Harry himself maintained physical contact with Quirrell deliberately, almost beyond endurance. Thus Harry hurt himself ! That’s what Dumbledore himself explained very clearly : “the effort involved nearly killed you”. It’s Harry who touched Quirrell - Quirrell couldn’t touch Harry, because Harry was protected. Dumbledore himself confirms this : Quirrell, full of hatred, greed and ambition, sharing his soul with Voldemort, could not touch you for this reason. Voldemort’s presence causes Harry pain in his scar (this has nothing to do with the protection), and Harry deliberately touched the source of this pain : thus, he hurt himself.
- End of CoS : Riddle never touched Harry, nor did he cast any spell at him.
- End of GoF : In the graveyard, Voldemort can touch Harry. He believes this is because he has taken Harry's blood, but he is wrong ! This is just because they are in a place where Harry has no protection. Voldemort is aware of Harry's protection through Petunia, but he knows nothing about Hermione.
- End of OotP : the Ministry of Magic is not a place Harry can call “home”.
Some thoughts about the Prophecy : …but he will have power the Dark Lord knows not… What is this power ? It is love : the power contained in the room at the DoM that is kept locked at all times, Dumbledore practically said so in OotP and HBP. However, there must be more to this. Dumbledore also said : You would be protected by an ancient magic of which he knows, which he despises, and which he has, therefore, underestimated – to his cost. I am speaking, of course, of the fact your mother died to save you. An ancient magic of which he knows ! Voldemort knows about love as a general concept (even though he despises it). So… what is the “power the Dark Lord knows not” ? It must be something more specific. But Voldemort knows about the power of Lily’s sacrifice and he knows about Petunia too… The “Protection Theory” fits perfectly ! The “power the Dark Lord knows not” is Hermione’s protection, because he still doesn’t know anything about her. In essence, it is love. It is Lily’s love (her sacrifice), it is Hermione’s love, it is the protection Harry receives from Lily through Hermione, and about which the Dark Lord doesn’t know anything.
4.5 – A difficulty for book seven
The Protection Hermione gives her brother should play a major role in book 7. However, we have a little difficulty here, since HBP.
Dumbledore said : The magic I evoked fifteen years ago means that Harry has powerful protection while he can still call this house home……………… This magic will cease to operate the moment that Harry turns seventeen ; in other words, the moment he becomes a man.
JKR confirmed this in a July 2005 interview : Harry receives magical protection from his mother’s sacrifice as long as he remains close to her blood. In other words, Aunt Petunia. That protection won’t continue to hold once he is a man, once he turns 17 – he is no longer given that protective aura by his mother…
So, Dumbledore’s ancient magic will end quite early in Deathly Hallows : how can it be the key to the ending, in that case ?
- Could the protection through Hermione carry on, even though the Protection through Petunia is over ? Maybe… In that case, it will cause Voldemort a big surprise in the end. However, JKR said “he is no longer given that protective aura by his mother”, which should apply to any kind of protection Harry receives, directly or indirectly, from Lily’s sacrifice. I suppose one could say the word “that” in “that protective aura” is restrictive and means Petunia’s protection only, the one mentioned in the previous sentence – thus excluding Hermione’s – but I doubt it.
- Could the key event involving Hermione’s protection happen quite early in book 7, before Harry’s 17th birthday ? This is possible, although I would rather see the “big revelation” happen later in the book.
- There is a third possible answer, one that – in addition – explains quite a lot ! It explains the “gleam of triumph” in Dumbledore’s eyes (GoF) very nicely. It is currently my favourite theory. Hermione’s protection will end on Harry’s 17th birthday, and yet it will be the key to the ending, months later ! I explain this idea in detail, in 4.6 below.
4.6 – A new idea, Voldemort’s mistake and Dumbledore’s gleam of triumph
To sum up : Voldemort believes Harry’s blood made him “invincible” – which means MUCH more than just “able to touch Harry Potter” – because he believes the lingering protection left by Lily’s sacrifice is now in him. But Voldemort is wrong. His belief is entirely based on the crucial test he made in GoF, in the graveyard : he was able to touch Harry after his rebirth, while he wasn’t in book 1. But the true reason he could not touch Harry in book 1 is Dumbledore’s “ancient magic” and Hermione’s presence. So, the “test” was flawed. Voldemort wrongly believes Harry’s blood made him “invincible” – due to his ignorance of Hermione’s identity – and this will cause his downfall in the end.
First thing I must prove is that Voldemort took Harry’s blood NOT just to find a way around the protection (and to be able to touch Harry), but for more than that !
Most people assume that Voldemort took Harry’s blood for just one reason : because he wanted to overcome the protection. Taking Harry’s blood meant he had the protection in his veins too. Thus he would be able to touch Harry... or to “Avada Kedavra” him ! While I do not deny this was ONE of Voldemort’s reasons, I think it can’t possibly be his ONLY reason. Clearly, Voldemort believes that Harry’s blood made him much more powerful than any other wizard’s blood would have. But I knew the one I must use, if I want to rise again, more powerful than I had been when I had fallen. I wanted Harry Potter’s blood. I wanted the blood of the one who had stripped me of power thirteen years ago, for the lingering protection his mother once gave him, would then reside in my veins too… Voldemort says he wanted Harry’s blood for the “lingering protection” in it, but clearly, this is not only in order to be able to touch (and to kill) Harry. “More powerful…” is not a synonym of “able to touch Harry Potter”. While the trace left by Lily’s sacrifice is indeed the reason why he wanted Harry’s blood (he gives no other reason for wanting it), he expected more than just the ability to touch Harry from taking it.
“He said my blood would make him stronger than if he’d used someone else’s,’ Harry told Dumbledore. “He said the protection my – my mother left in me – he’d have it too. And he was right – he could touch me without hurting himself, he touched my face.” For a fleeting instant, Harry thought he saw a gleam of something like triumph in Dumbledore’s eyes. Voldemort believes that Harry’s blood made him “stronger than if he’d used someone else’s”. When Harry tells him what Voldemort believes, and the reason why he believes it (the “touching Harry” test), Dumbledore has this “gleam of triumph” in his eyes : this suggests that Voldemort is in fact wrong. Which means Voldemort’s “test” was somehow flawed.
I insist : the “gleam of triumph” does not appear in Dumbledore’s eyes when Harry tells him Voldemort has taken his blood ; it appears a few seconds later, when Harry tells him what Voldemort believes, and the reason why he believes it.
Snape said in HBP : “If I had murdered Harry Potter, the Dark Lord could not have used his blood to regenerate, making him invincible –“ So, clearly, Voldemort believes Harry's blood made him invincible, or close to invincible. If the Death-Eaters are using such words, it must be because this is what he told them.
Now, consider what Crouch Jr said in GoF : “For a week I waited for my father to arrive at Hogwarts. At last, one evening, the map showed my father entering the grounds. I pulled on my Invisibility Cloak, and went down to meet him. He was walking around the edge of the Forest. Then Potter came, and Krum. I waited. I could not hurt Potter, my master needed him. Potter ran to get Dumbledore. I Stunned Krum. I killed my father.” Voldemort didn't want Crouch Jr to kill Harry, at least not before he (Voldemort) had used his blood to regenerate. Why ? If Voldemort wanted Harry's blood only in order to be able to kill Harry afterwards, this would be absurd ! Better have Crouch Jr kill Harry, and then use another wizard’s blood for his rebirth ! On the other hand, if he wanted Harry's blood to make himself “invincible” (whatever that means), this makes sense.
This is confirmed by what Snape told Bellatrix in HBP. Let’s have another look at it, as this makes everything very clear : - “If I had murdered Harry Potter, the Dark Lord could not have used his blood to regenerate, making him invincible –” - “I am merely trying to explain why the Dark Lord is not sorry that Potter survived, at least until a year ago…” Snape is insisting on the fact Voldemort is happy that Harry survived, at least till the day he took his blood. If he took his blood only in order to be able to kill him afterwards, this would be totally absurd ! Again, better have Snape kill Harry, then use another wizard’s blood for his rebirth !
So, I think I have proved this point : Voldemort believes the trace of Lily’s sacrifice in Harry's blood gave him more than just the ability to touch and/or to harm Harry when he took his blood for his rebirth.
Voldemort made a very crucial test in GoF ! He touched Harry in the graveyard, and was able to do so without burning himself ! So, from Voldemort's point of view, it works as follows : - I couldn't touch Harry Potter when I was possessing Quirrell’s body. - Now I can touch him. - Thus I have the power of his mother’s sacrifice in my veins too. I am more powerful than ever because of this – and, in addition, I am able to touch Harry Potter.
I suggest that Voldemort is wrong, and that this is the reason for Dumbledore’s “gleam of triumph” ! The power of Lily’s sacrifice DID NOT transfer to him with the blood ! No power at all was transferred !
Note that this makes a lot of sense with something else JKR said. When asked if Wormtail’s debt to Harry was transferred to Voldemort when he took Wormtail’s flesh, she answered : MauraEllen: Did the debt Wormtail has to Harry carry over to Voldemort when he sacrificed his arm to restore his body? JK Rowling replies -> No. Can't say any more than that! So, magical properties are not automatically transferred with blood or flesh like that ! JKR can’t say anymore than that : she can’t say that Lily’s lingering protection didn’t carry over to Voldemort either !
Conclusion : Voldemort believes he is “invincible” (this notion remains a bit vague), only because his crucial test (touching Harry in GoF) made him believe he had successfully taken the “lingering protection” along with the blood. But the test was flawed ! It was flawed because Hermione is the true reason he couldn’t touch Harry in PS, when he was possessing Quirrell’s body ! And Voldemort ignores this.
I suggest that Voldemort’s (wrong) belief that the blood made him “invincible” will help cause his downfall in the end. Possibly, Voldemort now wrongly believes the Power of Love cannot be used against him – since he believes he has the trace of Lily’s sacrifice in him. Thus, Harry will be able to use the Power contained in the mysterious closed room in the Department of Mysteries against Voldemort – who won’t be expecting it.
Side-note : the little thing I really like with this idea is that, while most people believe the reason behind Dumbledore’s “gleam of triumph” is that the trace of Lily’s sacrifice transferred to Voldemort, the true reason would be that it did not !
4.7 – Protection against the Scar ?
Here is a completely different idea. It is just an idea, and the Protection Theory can very well work without it, but still… I like it : could Hermione’s (and Petunia’s) protection have somehow saved Harry from his scar, over the years ?
Could there be a link between the Sibling Theory and the “Horcrux subplot” ?
I think we should wonder what happened to the freshly torn fragment of Voldemort’s soul (the fragment that was torn when he killed Lily) when Voldemort failed to kill Harry and was deprived of his body.
We know the “main part” of Voldemort's life force flew to Albania. But what happened to the torn part ? Given the fact some of Voldemort's powers were transferred to Harry that night, it is highly tempting to say that the torn part tried to enter Harry's body, and created the scar in doing this.
But Harry was protected by his mother's sacrifice. The same protection that had just deflected the Killing Curse must have prevented the soul fragment from possessing Harry. So, I think the soul fragment was stopped in Harry's skin. It couldn't go any deeper than that. It gave Harry the scar. It was in the scar... and it still is 16 years later (an alternative option is that it reunited with the main part of Voldemort at the end of OotP, during his failed attempt to possess Harry).
Harry is not really a Horcrux, but his scar is almost one - although the soul fragment was never “encased” properly.
According to the Protection Theory, as developed above, Lily’s protection continued to operate over the years, but only through the presence of Lily’s blood : Petunia and Hermione. That would be the link between the “Horcrux subplot” and the Sibling Theory : over all these years, Petunia (at Privet Drive) and Hermione (at Hogwarts) have allowed Harry to “resist” his scar. Through their presence, he has been protected from the damage it would have done to him. He was never possessed. He is not a proper Horcrux. Some powers were transferred from the soul fragment to him, and it established the mind connection with Voldemort, but it never possessed him.
A little thing that could support this idea :
In GoF, Ron tells Hermione that Rita’s article makes her appear as a “scarlet woman”... Could JKR be playing with words ? Why use such an odd expression ? Of course, we understand what the expression “scarlet woman” means. But concentrate on the word “scarlet” : it contains “SCAR”, doesn't it ? Scar-let... So what could “let” mean, apart from the most common meaning of the verb “to let” ?
Here is a possible meaning : let2 Audio pronunciation of "let" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lt)n. 1. Something that hinders; an obstacle: free to investigate without let or hindrance. 2. Sports. An invalid stroke in tennis and other net games that requires a replay.
So, “scar-let” would mean : that hinders the scar. The “scar-let woman” is the girl who “blocks” Harry’s scar. Hermione is the obstacle blocking the soul fragment in Harry's scar from going any deeper...
Just a thought…
5. COMMON OBJECTIONS – ANSWERS TO THESE OBJECTIONS
5.1 – The “only relatives” objection
This is one of the most common objections to the Sibling Theory : the Dursleys are supposed to be Harry’s only living relatives, his only family. Let’s have a closer look at the quotes that support this statement.
5.1.1 – Dumbledore said in PS : I’ve come to bring Harry to his aunt and uncle. They’re the only family he has left now. Given the context, I think Dumbledore means “the only family who can take care of him” : that is, adult relatives. Dumbledore wasn’t going to “bring Harry” to another baby, was he ? This is why he doesn’t mention Dudley… nor Hermione.
Either you take Dumbledore’s sentence literally, or you don’t. If you do, it implies that Dudley is not Harry’s cousin ! Dudley is a human being, he is not Harry’s aunt, nor is he Harry’s uncle. So, if his aunt and uncle are “the only family” Harry has left, Dudley cannot be a relative.
Besides, “left” doesn’t mean exactly the same thing as “alive”. Dumbledore’s sentence could mean : “His parents are dead and his sister is gone. So, his aunt and uncle are the only family he has left”. Dumbledore is talking to McGonagall (who knows the truth) : he is not lying to her… She can understand what he means.
5.1.2 – In OotP (chapter 37), Dumbledore tells Harry : I delivered you to her sister, her only remaining relative. As above, given the context, this must mean “her only (adult) relative who could take care of you.” Otherwise, same remark as above : what about Dudley ? Also, “remaining” is not an exact synonym of “living” : if Hermione had been hidden away, she may not count as “remaining”.
5.1.3 – It is said in book 3 (chapter 1) and book 4 (chapter 2) that Vernon, Petunia and Dudley are Harry’s only living relatives. Dudley is included. And this time, it is said directly by the narrator, not by Dumbledore… Right. But does the narrator always say the “absolute” truth, or just the truth from Harry’s point of view ? It is quite clear that in all chapters where Harry is present (which means all the time except in book 1 chapter 1, book 4 chapter 1 and the first 2 chapters of book 6), the narrator tells us the truth from Harry’s point of view, NOT the “absolute” truth. This kind of narration is called “third-person limited”. With the exception of the 4 chapters listed above, the Harry Potter books are written in “third person limited” style, focalised through Harry’s eyes. For instance : in GoF, the narrator often says “Moody did this” or “Moody said that”, which is the truth from Harry’s point of view. An omniscient narrator would have said “Crouch Jr”, not “Moody”.
JKR herself confirmed that this is indeed the narration style she is using for the “Harry Potter” books – Harry’s glasses are even a symbol of this fact : Eun Ji An for Raincost.com, Canada – I was wondering why Harry had glasses? JK Rowling: Because I had glasses all through my childhood and I was sick and tired of the person in the books who wore the glasses was always the brainy one and it really irritated me and I wanted to read about a hero wearing glasses. It also has a symbolic function, Harry is the eyes on to the books in the sense that it is always Harry’s point of view, so there was also that, you know, facet of him wearing glasses.
Obviously, Harry has no doubt that the Dursleys ARE his only living relatives. But Harry could be wrong…
5.2 – Other objections concerning Harry’s family
5.2.1 – JKR said in July 2005 (Mugglenet/TLC interview) : MA: What about Harry’s family – his grandparents – were they killed ? JKR: No. This takes us into more mundane territory. As a writer, it was more interesting, plot-wise, if Harry was completely alone. So I rather ruthlessly disposed of his entire family apart from Aunt Petunia. I mean, James and Lily are massively important to the plot, of course, but the grandparents? No. And, because I do like my backstory: Petunia and Lily’s parents, normal Muggle death. James’s parents were elderly, were getting on a little when he was born, which explains the only child, very pampered, had-him-late-in-life-so-he’s-an-extra-treasure, as often happens, I think. They were old in wizarding terms, and they died. They succumbed to a wizarding illness. That’s as far as it goes. There’s nothing serious or sinister about those deaths. I just needed them out of the way, so I killed them.
So, JKR said she “disposed of” Harry’s entire family, apart from Aunt Petunia. Can Harry have a secret sister then ? I think the answer is clearly “yes”.
First point : taken literally, JKR’s sentence would imply either that she “disposed of” Dudley somehow, or that Dudley is not Harry’s cousin. I rather think JKR was talking about the adults : after all, the question was about Harry’s family specifically defined as “his grandparents”.
Second point : “disposed of” doesn’t necessarily mean “killed”. Several meanings are possible. From the site “dictionary.com” : “Dispose of” 1. To attend to; settle : disposed of the problem quickly. 2. To transfer or part with, as by giving or selling. 3. To get rid of; throw out. 4. To kill or destroy: a despot who disposed of all his enemies, real or imagined. JKR “disposed of” James and Lily by having Voldemort kill them ; she “disposed of” Harry’s grandparents by having them die ; she “disposed of” Harry’s sister by sending her away, to live in another family. So, Harry was, in effect, “completely alone” – which is what JKR wanted, what she found more interesting, plot-wise.
5.2.2 – JKR said in the same interview : So, Sirius with James wanted a brother, and Harry has nominated Ron and Hermione as his family. I see no problem for the Sibling Theory here. It is quite true anyway that Harry has nominated his two best friends as his family. Harry was, as said above, “completely alone”, he needed a family, and he “nominated” Ron and Hermione. Whether Hermione really is related to him by blood or not is another matter entirely. In any case – if she is – Harry doesn’t have a clue.
5.2.3 – The Mirror of Erised : when he looked into the Mirror, Harry didn’t see Hermione. As Dumbledore himself explained, the Mirror cannot give Knowledge or Truth. Thus, if Harry has secret relatives, he can’t learn anything about them from the Mirror. What he can see in the Mirror is simply his heart’s greatest desire, an image from his own subconscious (possibly a subconscious memory, people he actually saw when he was a baby – this is definitely the case for James and Lily).
Note that Harry would have been totally unable to recognise a 1 or 2 year old baby Hermione in the Mirror ! Maybe a baby girl was in the picture, maybe not – we don’t know, we weren’t given a complete list of the people Harry saw there.
Actually, the Mirror scene is good for the Sibling Theory ! The fact Dumbledore told Harry that the Mirror can’t give knowledge – just when Harry was looking at his family – strongly suggests there is something about his family Harry doesn’t know (and could not learn from the Mirror) : a secret relative !
5.2.4 – Hermione doesn’t have Lily’s and Harry’s green eyes. Many siblings have different eye colours. We know (CoS) that Hermione has brown eyes (shade unknown). Lily had green eyes and James had hazel eyes (OotP). The definition of “hazel” is rather vague, but it can definitely mean “light brown”. A green eyed woman and a somewhat-brownish-hazel eyed man can have both a green eyed child and a brown eyed child (though probably not a dark-brown eyed child – although even that wouldn’t be impossible : eye colour genetics is far more complex than was once believed). Furthermore, we don’t know exactly how magic could interfere, as 1) James was an animagus (this hazel colour could have something to do with the stag’s coat) and 2) it has often been suggested there might be something magical about Lily’s eyes.
5.2.5 – On her website, answering a question about the Fidelius Charm, JKR wrote in February 2006 : Even if one of the Potters had been captured, force fed Veritaserum or placed under the Imperius Curse, they would not have been able to give away the whereabouts of the other two. All right : this must mean that only three Potters – James, Lily and Harry – were present at Godric’s Hollow, under the protection of the Fidelius Charm. So, variants of the theory that suppose Hermione was present are no longer viable. Hermione must have left earlier than that. But the Sibling Theory itself can still work.
5.3 – Objections concerning Hermione’s role in the story
5.3.1 – Some people think it is important to keep Harry and Hermione just close platonic friends, and nothing more ; they feel all of their interaction can be explained by that kind of relationship. I disagree. First, I have this strong feeling that they are more than just close friends. Second, as discussed earlier, Hermione’s behaviour with Harry is special, as early as the beginning of PS : that’s before they become friends ! Finally, such a “very close platonic friends” relation between a boy and a girl would be unique in the story. All other “close platonic friends” are of the same sex. All of them ! James had his group of Marauders. We saw Lily with a group of girls. Cho has her group, with Marietta and a few other girls. Draco has Crabbe and Goyle. Parvati and Lavender are always together. Dudley has his gang. Etc…
Of course, there are other examples of friendship between boys and girls – I’m not saying this cannot happen. But there is no other example of such very close and totally platonic friendship in the story : Harry and Hermione are a unique exception. For instance, Neville and Luna are friends, platonic friends as far as we know, but they are not that close (a number of things Luna said in HBP made it very clear she has no close friends). Ron and Hermione are obviously close friends, but the “tension” between them has been there since very early in the series…
5.3.2 – A very common objection : Hermione being Muggle-born is important, as she illustrates the fact a Muggleborn can be a powerful wizard/witch. If it is revealed that Hermione is not Muggleborn, this message could be lost. But I think another character could illustrate the same fact. Lily, for instance. In HBP, Slughorn depicted her as one of the best students he had ever known, one of his all-times favourites. Furthermore, the revelation that Hermione is not Muggleborn will make her behaviour in CoS appear heroic indeed ! She was pretending she was Muggleborn while Muggleborns were being attacked, but she kept the secret. Finally, the theme of prejudice – a very important theme in the story – is illustrated mostly by Harry himself. More than by any other character, even Hermione. As a Halfblood, Harry will never be considered a true wizard by people like the Malfoys. This is what JKR answered when she was asked about the importance of the theme of prejudice. The example she gave was Harry (and Lily), not Hermione : Q. Book Four explores several themes - some we've seen before like prejudice in Chamber of Secrets. We see more of that with foreign students and people with different parentage. Is that something you've been wanting to explore? A. From the beginning of Philosopher's Stone, prejudice is a very strong theme. It is plausible that Harry enters the world wide-eyed: everything will be wonderful and it's the sort of place where injustices don't happen. Then he finds out that it does happen and it's a shock to him. He finds out that he is a half-blood: to a wizard like Lucius Malfoy, he will never be a true wizard, because his mother was of Muggle parentage. It's a very important theme.
5.3.3 – An important message in the story is that it is our choices that really matter. Not blood. Hermione is already Harry’s friend. Why make her his sister ? Before OotP, I think this was a serious objection. But things have become more complex than that since OotP : as Hagrid said, blood is important. Really important. NOT the way it is important for the Dark Side (purity of blood). But it makes a huge difference, having someone who is really your brother (Hagrid), or your mother’s sister (Harry). - OotP, chapter 2 : And all of a sudden, for the very first time in his life, Harry fully appreciated that Aunt Petunia was his mother’s sister. He could not have said why this hit him so very powerfully at this moment. - OotP, chapter 25 : “Family,” said Hagrid gloomily. “Whatever yeh say, blood’s important…”
5.3.4 – Some people say it is important that the trio are a Pureblood, a Halfblood and a Muggleborn. I disagree. If it was really that important, then I think one of the trio would have underlined the fact by now : “Did you notice, we represent all three kinds of wizards ! Isn’t that a great symbol ?” This has never happened. And if a central message in the story is that it doesn’t matter whether you are Pureblood, Halfblood or Muggleborn, then the trio’s blood-status shouldn’t matter.
5.4 – Timeline objections
5.4.1 – Harry’s birthday is July 31st. Hermione’s is September 19th. She was born 2 months after Harry if we believe the CoS DVD timeline. So they can’t be siblings. See the birthday discussion (3.1 above). The DVD Timeline was wrong : JKR revealed on her website that Hermione was born the year before Harry. She is 10 months and a half older than him.
5.4.2 – Even if it is possible, 10 months and a half between two children is a short gap… Well, yes it is a short gap. But it happens. Siblings born less than one year apart are not that rare. Furthermore, in HBP, Molly Weasley said something that could help us understand why parents would have had 2 children that close, in times of war : It’s all this uncertainty with You-Know-Who coming back, people think they might be dead tomorrow, so they’re rushing all sorts of decisions they’d normally take time over. It was the same last time he was powerful, people eloping left right and centre –
5.5 – The “why her and not him” objection
If Hermione was hidden for her security, then why wasn’t Harry protected the same way ?
I’ve answered this one in 3.4 above : there could have been many reasons. For all we know, the Potters also tried to hide Lily’s second pregnancy, but failed : after the Prophecy, Voldemort used his powers to find “the one”, that is, a baby to be born late July. He didn’t find Hermione because he wasn’t searching.
Apart from that, note that the two Potter children were both very well protected after the tragic night at Godric’s Hollow. Just protected in different ways : - Hermione’s security was based on the Secret. Almost no one would know who she really was. But her Muggle “parents” would be quite unable to protect her against a Death-Eater attack. - Harry’s security was based on Dumbledore’s “ancient magic”, the “strongest shield” he could give him.
5.6 – Miscellaneous objections
5.6.1 – The Basilisk. In CoS, the Basilisk attacked Hermione. Doesn’t this imply she must be Muggleborn ? We don’t really know if Tom Riddle was sending the Basilisk after specific targets, or after Muggleborns in general.
I rather believe he was choosing specific targets : there is nothing in the story (and nothing in the “Fantastic Beasts” book either) to tell that a Basilisk has the ability to “smell a Muggleborn”. The first victim was a cat : saying that the Basilisk was able to “smell” that this cat belonged to a Squib would be ridiculous ! And Riddle used the Basilisk against Harry (a Halfblood) in the end. So, as Tom Riddle believed Hermione was a Muggleborn (because Ginny believed so), he could have sent the Basilisk after her anyway. The Basilisk was only a tool : Riddle was the brain.
Now, even if we suppose that Riddle was sending the Basilisk after Muggleborns in general, this proves nothing. There is nothing to say that the Basilisk was after Hermione : she just looked round a corner with Penelope’s mirror, and the Basilisk happened to be there. It wasn’t necessarily after her… Also note that Hermione was with Penelope. So, Penelope could have been the target, and Hermione just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. We can say that Penelope is (most probably) Muggleborn, because no-one was surprised after she had been attacked.
5.6.2 – The Marauder’s Map. If Hermione was a Potter, then wouldn’t the Marauder’s Map have told Harry ? First point : we have never seen Harry reading Hermione’s name on the Map (this fact is – in itself – interesting), so we are not sure how she would show up… Possibly as “Hermione Potter”, but maybe as “Hermione Granger” if she was legally adopted (and if “legally” means something for the Map). Second point : JKR made sure the Map was returned to one of its creators (Moony) in PoA. Lupin kept it for several months, so he might have “fixed” the problem somehow… he could have put extra-enchantments on the Map to make sure “Hermione Potter” doesn’t show up. Third point : the Map is supposed to show a person’s true name. But – as Shakespeare said – what’s in a name ? What is a person’s “true name” ? It is quite difficult to answer this question in an absolute way ! Does the Map show the name a person considers is his/her true name ? After all, Crouch Jr knew very well he wasn’t Moody. And Scabbers knew he was Pettigrew… What is the name Hermione considers her “true name” if she was told the truth when she was 10 or 11 ? The answer is far from obvious, but I think “Granger” is probable… Last point : if we suppose Hermione’s Secret is protected by a Fidelius Charm, then the Secret can be revealed by no one but the Keeper. Would the Map beat the Fidelius Charm ? Or would the Fidelius Charm beat the Map ? Difficult to tell, but we know since HBP that the Map is not unbeatable : the Room of Requirement was able to make itself unplotable and disappear from it.
5.7 – Meanwhile, in a galaxy far, far away…
A lost sister… This has been done before ! Yes. But almost everything has been done before. Eternal myths belong to no-one ! A good little orphan who has hidden powers… A Dark Lord… All these ideas have been used before too, and more than just once ! And yet, JKR has written an original story based on this. So, why not a secret sister ? There have been secret siblings in literature for ages ! And Dark Lords ! And wise old men with a white beard, who get killed before the end : ES: The wise old wizard with the beard always dies. JKR: Well, that’s basically what I’m saying, yes.
Besides, a secret sister who knows the truth but can’t tell would be an original idea ! And the way JKR put this secret sibling relation at the heart of the entire plot would make her story unique ! In Star Wars, the sibling relation is but a minor detail, with little influence on the plot (unlike the father-son relation). On the other hand, in JKR’s story, the sibling relation could be the heart of it all.
It is true that JKR made some comments on the HP-SW comparison : she said that Harry and Voldemort are not related. She also said she is not going to write a prequel about James and Lily. In both cases, she said Harry Potter is not Star Wars. Right. However : 1- If she knows a big revelation is coming that some readers might find a bit Star-Wars-like (even though it's very different – especially if Hermione knows the truth), then it makes sense for her to underline the important facts that make the two stories very different : no, Voldemort isn't Harry's father ! This is not Star Wars ! 2- How easy it would have been for her to add : “and Hermione isn't Harry's sister either !” But she didn't say so !
5.8 – “I’m going to tell you everything”
Dumbledore told Harry at the end of OotP : “It is time,” he said, “for me to tell you what I should have told you five years ago, Harry. Please sit down. I am going to tell you everything.” And yet, he told him nothing about Hermione.
First point : Dumbledore obviously didn’t tell Harry everything about everything. The subject was “what I should have told you five years ago” : it was about the Prophecy. Not about all other secrets…
Second point : Dumbledore didn’t EVEN tell Harry everything about the Prophecy ! He told him that part of the Prophecy had been overheard. But he DID NOT tell him who had overheard it ! Even though he knew it ! Even though this was immensely significant to Harry ! No wonder that when Harry learnt the truth from Trelawney, he was “standing stock-still as waves of shock crashed over him, wave after wave, obliterating everything except the information that had been kept from him for so long…”
The “information that had been kept from him for so long” ! No, Dumbledore hadn’t told Harry “everything” the year before…
5.9 – Objections concerning Hermione’s family
5.9.1 – About the way she chose the name “Hermione”, JKR said in an interview : Um...it just seemed to suit her somehow. It's a name from Shakespeare. It's in “A Winter's Tale”. Um...although my Hermione bears very little relation to *that* Hermione, but it just seemed the sort of name that a pair of professional dentists, who liked to prove how clever they were...do you know what I mean...gave their daughter a nice, unusual name that no-one could pronounce! I mean, parents do that! Um...and I...and I did want in, in truth, I wanted quite an unusual name for her… Doesn’t this imply that the Grangers named Hermione ? - First, JKR is just explaining here how she chose the name “Hermione”. One of the reasons is that she wanted a name that “seemed the sort of name that a pair of professional dentists… gave their daughter”. Strictly speaking, JKR didn’t say that – in the story – the Grangers actually named Hermione, although this sentence makes it sound like they did. But it could be a misleading statement, and still not a lie. All JKR said is that she wanted a name that seemed the sort of name the Grangers would have given Hermione. - Second, if the Grangers did name Hermione, the Sibling Theory can still work very well. It would just imply that Hermione went to her adoptive parents very early – or at least that the Grangers were involved very early. Alternatively, it could indicate that her identity was changed completely when she went to the Grangers, even her first name.
Before HBP, I found the later idea (that Hermione’s identity could have been changed completely) a bit excessive. But since Dumbledore proposed to hide Draco “more completely than you (Draco) can possibly imagine”, I’ve been wondering : had Draco accepted the offer, would he have retained his name ?
5.9.2 – In March 2004, JKR was asked if Hermione was an only child. She answered she had planned a sister for Hermione. Doesn’t this rule out the Sibling Theory ? I always planned that Hermione would have a younger sister but she's never made an appearance and somehow it feels like it might be too late now. I think this doesn’t change anything for the Sibling Theory : this girl would have been Hermione’s sister through adoption. Either the Grangers’ own biological daughter, or maybe yet another adopted child. What I find very interesting here is that JKR didn’t really answer the question ! (Or that she managed not to answer it… ) After the March 2004 chat, we still didn’t know if Hermione was an only child or not. We didn’t even know for sure if the little sister existed or not. Keep this in mind : this will be important for discussing the next objection.
5.9.3 – Now, by far the strongest of all objections to the Sibling Theory. JKR said on August 15th, 2004 : Q. Does Hermione have any brothers or sisters? JKR. No, she doesn’t. When I first made up Hermione I gave her a younger sister, but she was very hard to work in. The younger sister was not supposed to go to Hogwarts. She was supposed to remain a Muggle. It was a sideline that didn’t work very well and it did not have a big place in the story. I have deliberately kept Hermione’s family in the background. You see so much of Ron’s family so I thought that I would keep Hermione’s family, by contrast, quite ordinary. They are dentists, as you know. They are a bit bemused by their odd daughter but quite proud of her all the same.
I admit this is a difficulty for the theory. Certainly the strongest objection so far. If there wasn’t so much evidence in favour of the theory – as summarised in part 2 – I would probably just take this “no she doesn’t” answer at front value.
But let us see : is there any room for interpretation ? I think there is. I think JKR could have meant Hermione has no brothers or sister in the family who raised her. No Granger sibling.
Is this likely ? I think it is. This was a live discussion with fans, it went on quite fast, there was no time to ponder each and every word carefully… JKR herself never said the words “any brothers or sisters” or “no brothers or sisters” : these words were in the question. She just said “no she doesn’t”, then qualified her answer by giving us some details on the would-be little sister.
What did the person who asked the question have in mind ? Obviously, the Granger family, and most probably the little sister : JKR had mentioned the possibility of Hermione’s younger sister in a chat a few months before – thus raising curiosity about that girl among fans. At that time, the existence of the little sister was a highly debated point, so it is very likely that JKR was expecting a question about that girl. I believe JKR answered with the little sister in mind : Hermione was raised as an only child in the Granger family.
Here is what JKR herself said in July 2005 (Mugglenet-TLC interview) : You can imagine, I’ve now been asked hundreds of questions; it’s perfectly possible at some point I misspoke or I gave a misleading answer unintentionally… I think this is what happened.
- If JKR had said “no brothers or sisters” herself, then maybe I wouldn’t be defending this idea. But saying “no she doesn’t” takes about half a second… If she had the little sister in mind, I think this is quite possible. - If JKR had said “no she doesn’t – full stop – next question please”, then maybe I wouldn’t be defending this idea. But she qualified her answer, making it clear she was talking about the Granger family and the younger sister. - If JKR had answered “no” to the question “does Harry have any brothers or sisters”, then I would obviously give up : such a question could mean only “does he have a hidden sibling ?” On the other hand, the negative answer about Hermione could mean “no sibling in the Granger family”. Context is important.
Some people may add that the transcript of the interview is on JKR’s website. True, but it seems very unlikely that she did the transcription herself : the transcript was on her site after a few hours only. It was written from the record of what she had said, but (most probably) not written by her. And after that, it was obviously too late to change anything : everyone would have noticed !
6. THE SIBLING THEORY, IT’S SUCCESSES
A good theory helps us make good predictions. The Sibling Theory has already allowed us to make a few correct predictions.
- Before OotP, we knew very little about Harry’s mind connection with Voldemort. All we knew was that Harry had had two dreams in GoF. The theory supporters speculated that a mind connection existed, and that Voldemort could also use it to see in Harry’s mind. This was quite speculative at that time, but it was necessary for the Sibling Theory, as it was the reason why the truth was being hidden from Harry. When OotP came out, we learned everything about Legilimency, Occlumency and the mind connection. We had been right !
- Before OotP, some theory supporters had already proposed the concept of the Protection Theory – as we already knew that Voldemort couldn’t harm Harry at Privet Drive. So, we predicted that in book 5, whenever Harry goes somewhere, Hermione would go with him, even if not expected to. This prediction was quite correct : Hermione went to Grimmauld Place, cancelled her Christmas ski trip, etc…
- And of course, the biggest one ! In 2003, comparing Harry’s and Hermione’s initials, I suggested in the Darkmark discussion that Hermione should have a middle name beginning by the letter “J”. In March 2004, JKR revealed that Hermione’s middle name is “Jane”.
------------------------------
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. Arthur Schopenhauer
... And Hermione's age. Most of the fandom believed Hermione to be younger than Harry, based on Dumbledore's "two thirteen year old wizards" quote in PoA. For the Sibling Theory to work, Hermione must be older. Jo confirmed this on her website here.
I'm sorry, but i don't believe one bit of this. I think it is a wellthought out theory, and i am astonished on how long it must have taen you to write it, and i respect it, but i just don't believe it.
"They are Muggles, thus unimportant ? But there are important Muggle characters in the story ! And it’s not just the Dursleys… And even if they are not very important (as JKR herself said), it is still strange that we should know less about Hermione’s parents than we do about the Dursleys’ neighbours or about the villagers of Little Hangleton !"
In OotP, Hermione cancelled her Christmas ski trip with her parents. In HBP, we don’t even know where she was for Christmas : she didn’t say. Concerning her life outside Hogwarts, Hermione is a mysterious character.
The Dursley's neighbors are very important towards how the Dusrleys act. They are always afraid that their neighbors will think poorly of them, so this is one reason they have treated Harry the way he is. They don't want their neighbors to know about Harry, they don't want their neighbors to think poorly of them, so they make up lies, like they sent him to a special school. I'm sorry, but the nieghbors are important towards how the Dursleys are perceived. And also, her parents aren't mentioned a lot because they are not important, not because her and harry are brother/sister. We know about the Weasleys (because they are important), we know about the Malfoys (because they are important), we know about nevilles (because they are important), heck we even know about lunas (because it is important for her character, she believes everything her dad says). . .Hermione's are not important at all to the plot. We don't know about Cho's parents, does that mean they are brother/sister?
And when you say that JKR has never said that Hermione looks like her parents, it is because it is not important
And there was a big deal that Hermione/Harry almost had the same initials. . .so do Cho Chang/Colin Creevey, Dedalus Diggle/Dudley Dursley, Millicent Bagnold/Marcus Belby, Lavender Brown/Ludo Bagman, Pansy Parkinson/Padma (Parvati) Patil, Peter Pettigrew/Poppy Pomphrey. . .I mean, those are just the bare minimum, there are so many other characters. . .it means nothing. . . PS, chapter 6 : I mean, it’s the very best school of witchcraft there is, I’ve heard – (Yes ? Heard from whom ? ) JKR has made it very clear that when a muggle born kid gets a letter from the school, someone goes out and explains to the students parents what it is. . .Could have very well been that person when ensuring the fact that Hogwarts is the best witchcraft school. More probable than Hermione being Harrys sister. . .
PS, chapter 6 : I know all about you, of course – I got a few extra books for background reading… (Yes, Hermione ? How did you learn so much about Harry ? ) JKR has made it a point that Harry's name is in a lot of history books. . .it wouldn't be too hard to find his name in a few. . .
A bit later in chapter 1, McGonagall’s behaviour is interesting. In fact, her bahaviour is quite unique among the people who knew the Potters ! Why did she – of all people – spend one full day waiting at Privet Drive ? This has never been explained. Well, JKR insists quite a lot here, doesn’t she ? (McGonagall opened her mouth, changed her mind, swallowed…) So, what was Minerva going to say ? Because Harry had just defeated the greatest wizard of all time. McGonagall, through her 'behavior' during that scene, must have felt that the boy should have been more protected than just sending him off to muggle parents. . .She was obviously going to object to leaving Harry here, she did not like the Dursleys one bit. . .
And the whole bit about Trevor. . .perhaps Hermione did not know Neville looked in that compartment? That is a more logical answer. And the fact that she seemed uninterested about the response, she probably just realized who it was from his scar. I mean, here is the boy that she had just read about in all the history books. . .I would be a little uninterested about a question i asked if i had walked into a room and noticed George Washington or Abrham Lincoln.
And the fact that Hermione interferes a lot, that is just how JKR introduces the character of Hermione. She is a know-it-all with practically everyone, and interferes quite a lot with people, not just Ron/Harry.
And Hermione is crying in the bathroom because she is sensitive. She is prone to hystertics. This was also demonstrated when Lavender made fun of Hermione in HBP during the class. She ran to the bathroom and cried. I mean, Hermione is quite emotional, it has nothing to do with her being harrys brother.
And when you brought up the subject of the Qudditch game. . .Hermione can't have too much family pride in Quidditch if she wasn't interested in Quidditch, as you clearly pointed out.
The only reason she is reluctant to let Harry go into the trapdoor is because she said, "You'll be expelled" and then Harry says, "There will be no more school if Voldemort come back." (or something to that effect). It clicked in her mind that there will be no more school if he didn't go
. . .and Hermione didn't look into the Mirror of Erised because Harry and Ron went in the middle of the night, and Ron/Harry were in the boys dormitories, and the girls dormitory is unaccessible by the boys. And also, Hermione might not have approved of it. Sneaking out in the night to go see a mirror.
The reason Hermione through her arms around Harry before the Quirrell/Voldemort scene is because she didn't know if she would see Harry again. Because they are friends, she cares about him as a friend. She would have done the same thing if it were Ron.
And you mentioned the letter from book 2. No, she can't prevent Ron from getting into trouble, i mean, he is with Fred/George, afterall, right? But she doesn't want her other friend to get in trouble either, and the fact that she is worried about him is because she hasn't received a letter from him, it has nothing to do with her being his sister.
And when Draco calls her a mudblood, she isn't insulted after the first time much, because she knows what a git Draco is, and she is smart and probably realizes that being muggleborn isn't bad, and it has nothing to do with how good of a wizard a person is.
And the reason McGonagall told Harry just to come, is because he was in plain site on the Quidditch Field. She didn't see Ron until he came down from the crowd. And that is when she changed her mind. . .when she noticed he was there.
And the whole quote that Mcgonagall says on the subject of Harry visiting Hermione is: "Of course, i realize this has all been hardest on the friends of those who have been. . .I quite understand." And then she says the other line you mentioned. Noticed she said "friends" not friends. It was Harry who explained to Mcgonagall, of course she was going to respond back to Harry.
On the boggart subject. . .i think this might have just been a mistake on JKR's part. I don't think there is a reason why her boggart wasn't shown. And she does say "failed at everything." This does hint at exams, which is probably what it did mean.
The reason Hermione looked "Stricken" was because Harry was probably really emotional and she did not expect him to say these words, it wasn't a slap in the face. He had just found out that Sirius had betrayed his parents, he was acting a bit crazy. She was stricken because she probably did not expect to hear Harry say these things.
And, during the train ride, you left out a few sentences: "I still can't believe you didn't tell us about it," said Ron grmupily, " we are supposed to be your friends." "I promised i wouldn't tell anyone," Hermione said severely. She looked around at Harry, who was watching Hogwarts disappear from behind a mountain. Two whole months before he'd see it again. . . "Oh, cheer up Harry," Hermione said sadly. The part you left out clearly signifies that Hermione said it sadly because she knew Harry didn't liked the Dursleys, she knew how they treated him, and he had to go back for two months. Not because she was his sister and she wanted to tell him. I'm sure that if Ron had the same gaurdian problems, Hermione would feel for him too.
And the fact that Hedwig turned up. . .possibly because Harry wrote Hermione a letter. It never does say, but it is more logical than Hedwig having a 6th sense.
The reason Hermione has to keep that big secret is because 1)Time travel is serious 2) If Hermione told someone, they would probably want to use it 3)It is central to book 3, saving Buckbeak, Sirius, and then also for the next books where Buckbeark/Sirius are. The title "Hermione's Secret" only foreshadows the time turner secret. I don't think Hermione would reveal a secret in the end. JKR wouldn't repear plots like that.
And i think the fact that the cloak is described as a banner is just a matter of overanalyzing every word JKR uses to describe things. And the fact that Prongs comes back to save the three if them is more likely, His best friend, his son, and his sons best friend.
"Her-my-own" could refer to Krum. Like, Hermione is his, his own. Or, it is just a way to pronounce the name. And when you mentioned "Ninny syndrome" yes, Hermione is an important person in the books, but not because she is Hrrys sister. She is one of the main characters. When Krum is pronouncing the name, "Her-my-oh-nee" can easily become "Herm-own-ninny" The ni could be the nee prounced in a foreign way.
And the reason she gets up so abruptly is because she knows the subject of Harry's parents is a touchy subject for Harry. Whenever Harry has mentioned his parents in the past, he has gotten emotional/angry. And surely, when Rita says "father substitute" she knows it is completely uncalled for. And Rita said more than that before she stood up abruptly. In the sentence before she calls it and "unlikely friendship and the reasons behind it." And then she says right after that "a father substitute." Hermione could have stood up abrupty right after that insult to Hagrid. Her comments to Rita's article are because she thought it was riddiculous.
Shehugs Harry because she is, as previously stated, a very emotional woman and HArry had just been through a lot and Hermione was glad to see him. She was on the verge of tears because Harry was yelling very brutally at them, and she is a very emotional person. . .
She doesn't insist on a shriek, she merely mentions it. I am sure that there are other times throughout the book where there are similar instances. And the reason Hermione thought Harry would be a prefect is because Harry was a better student, and it was Harry who was holding the badge. She would have never guessed Ron.
The reason she is nagging about Occlumency is because she knows it is very important. Dumbledore would have never made Harry take Occlumency lessons if it wasn't important, and Hermione always trusts Dumbledore's judgements.
It isn't Rita's business if Harry has been with a hundred girls because it simply isn't. I wouldn't want a reporter knowing if i had been with that many guys. . .Hermione is just sticking up for a friend.
I read Hermione's reaction to how Cho was jealous. Heck, i would have done the same thing to my friend. I would have made up an excuse like she did.
And Hermione's relationship with her parents again is not important. We are not sure if Hermione gets along with them well. Heck, her parents may even realize that their daughter is becoming an adult and must make choices by herself. And Hermione joins that group because she is very adult like. She realizes that Harry is in a lot of danger, is very mature about it, probably more than any other student.
And when Mcgonagall says it's good that he listens to Hermione. Well, it is good, isn't it? He listens to Hermione all the time and it always saves his butt. ((As a friend. I would warn my friends of any danger. . .)) And not every sentence at the last of the chapter is important. Just flip through the chapters in the books. Most of them leave an afterthought, and well, it is very important he listens to Hermione, it just has nothing to do with sister/brother. And, Mcgonagall may not be referring to something Hermione said about Umbridge. It may just be in general.
And she only says "whatever family member you pocess" to prove how angry and how much harry's actions were uncalled for.She generalizes to show how uncalled his actions were.
Hermione comes back from the ski trip to find Harry in Buckbeak's room. Maybe she had already looked in other parts of the house? Maybe Harry just felt he was hiding, and everyone really did know he was in there? Maybe Hermione just knew ((because she knows Harry well enough as a friend)) that he was hiding somewhere where he felt no one could find him? And you said "Dumbledore could know exactly where Harry was through Phineas Nigellus" I don't recall a portrait of him being in that room. There is one in the house, however. . .so if you say that Dumbledore knew about it, maybe the other people at Grimmauld place did too, going by your assumptions. . .
He says they are in the same boat because they are both orphans. Even with Grawp, he is still an orphan, just like Harry. He goes on to explain about family saying Harrys family was important, but it was nothing to do with harry and hermione being brother/sister. And the reason Ron isn't with Hagrid/Harry/Hermione is because he wasn't with them, and Hagrid needed them "now." (as he put it)
The reason she can't speak is because she is just because she is stunned, there is no reason behind it. And if it means "so much to her becasue she understands how important family is" why does she not want to help grawp after that night? harry wants to help, not hermione much.
Slughorn calls Harry "Parry Otter" because he is drunk. If you suggest "otter" is significant, than "parry" must be significant too.
But, i only got through your first post. . .i am not going to take anymore time. . .i just don't think, and can't believe that Harry/Hermione are brother/sister. . .while some good arguements are made. . .i just can't see it happening.
------------------------------
Animagus: Kookaburra House: Ravenclaw Patronus: Eagle Wand: 10", Willow, Veela Boyfriend: George Weasley Pet: Trevor Best Friend: Ron Weasley Quidditch Position: Keeper Broomstick: Shooting Star
Thanks Krissy15 for this long answer... I'll have some answers to the points you underlined, but I first want to finish posting the essay. So here is part 4 (the appendix) :
APPENDIX 1 : ALTERNATIVE THEORIES, VARIANTS AND VARIOUS IDEAS
What I am going to present in this appendix are some alternative theories, some variants of the sibling theory, and various ideas that were discussed over the years. Some of these ideas were proposed by other supporters of the Sibling Theory, so they do not necessarily reflect my own views. Some others no longer reflect my present views.
A1.1 Alternative theories : Half-siblings or cousins
Assuming that Harry and Hermione are blood-related, a few alternative theories have been proposed : rather than full siblings, could they be half-siblings ? Or maybe cousins ?
Many of our clues for the Sibling Theory could work just as well for a half-sibling or cousin theory. Basically, all the clues based on a “special relation” could still work – more or less.
These alternative theories may have a few advantages. If Hermione is not Lily’s daughter, then there’s no problem at all with the short delay between her birth and Harry’s conception. If she is Harry’s cousin, then the Grangers could be her true parents. Yet some clues indicate that they are not ! “Would you call him a father substitute ?” Finally, a cousin theory allows Hermione to have literally no brothers or sisters.
Not all clues work, though. Some clues work best for the Sibling Theory only : - The “ninny sister syndrome” : there is no such thing as the “ninny cousin syndrome”. - The Ehwaz rune means duality, which indicates a very close relation ! - “Her my own” (flesh and blood...) also indicates a very close blood relation. - James’s cloak as a family banner “streaming behind them”. - Twice (in PS and in OotP), Hermione told Harry : “if it was me”. This should mean it could have been her… and thus that she, too, was “born to those who have thrice defied him”. - At least two clues indicate that Hermione’s true name should be “Potter” : her Otter Patronus ( “Parry Otter” ), and the H.J.P. initials.
Alternative Theory 1 : Half-sister theory – Hermione is James’s daughter, but not Lily’s. The advantage of this theory is that there is no birthday problem at all. Objections : - The Protection Theory can’t work… So what does Ehwaz/Eihwaz mean ? - Several people (Hagrid, McGonagall…) remember Lily and James as a close couple. - Several clues don’t work : the Ehwaz rune, “If it was me”, Hermione’s large front teeth like Petunia’s…
Alternative Theory 2 : Half-sister theory – Hermione is Lily’s daughter, but not James’s. In that case, the Protection Theory could work. Objections : - Several people (Hagrid, McGonagall…) remember Lily and James as a close couple. - The Potters would have got married a short time before or after Hermione’s birth… This doesn’t fit with the information we have. PoA, chapter 11 : He stopped on a picture of his parents’ wedding day. There was his father waving up at him, beaming, the untidy black hair Harry had inherited standing up in all directions. There was his mother, alight with happiness, arm in arm with his Dad. This doesn’t make it sound like Lily is about to abandon (or has just abandoned) an illegitimate child… - Several clues don’t work : “if it was me”, the banner-cloak, the H.J.P. initials and Hermione’s Otter Patronus.
Alternative Theory 3 : Cousin theory. No birthday problem. The Protection Theory can work only if she’s a cousin on Lily’s side. Hermione has “no brothers or sisters”, literally speaking. Objections : - Why hide Hermione anyway ? - Many clues don’t work : the Ehwaz rune, “If it was me”, the banner-cloak, the “ninny sister” and “Her my own”. Plus the H.J.P. initials and Hermione’s Otter Patronus if Hermione is not a Potter.
So, I personally think the Sibling Theory is far more likely than these alternative theories. First, it is simpler. The clues work much better. Also, Harry’s lack of a proper family is a central topic in the story. When JKR finally gives Harry a family, I think this will be a very close relative : Harry already has a cousin. Harry has no family but the Dursleys, then he loses “the closest thing to a parent he had ever known” in OotP… What is the aim of all this ? About Sirius’s death, JKR said : “I didn't want to do it, but there was a reason”. If the aim is to prepare the final revelation about Hermione, then JKR will make them very close.
A1.2 – Sibling Theory Variant : Memory Charms
I’ve already mentioned the possibility that Memory Charms could have been used to make a few people who originally knew the truth about Hermione forget what they knew.
Some Sibling Theory supporters proposed a very original idea : Harry’s memory could have been tampered with ! This theory (which is not mine) is based on a remarkable similarity :
1- In PoA, Harry’s Dementor-induced memories of the tragic night at Godric’s Hollow are obscured by white fog : - Harry was falling again through thick white fog, and his mother’s voice was louder than ever, echoing inside his head – “Not Harry ! Not Harry ! Please – I’ll do anything –” - White fog obscured his senses… big, blurred shapes were moving around him… then came a new voice, a man’s voice, shouting, panicking - “Lily, take Harry and go ! It’s him ! Go ! Run ! I’ll hold him off –”
2- In HBP, we have another example of a white-fog-obscured memory – and this time, we know the white fog represents an alteration of that memory : - As several of the boys tittered, something very odd happened. The whole room was suddenly filled with a thick white fog, so that Harry could see nothing but the face of Dumbledore, who was standing beside him. Then Slughorn’s voice rang out through the mist, unnaturally loudly : “- you’ll go wrong, boy, mark my words.”
White fog in both cases… Could this be an indication that Harry’s memory was tampered with ?
I’m not sure… In my opinion, the two scenes don’t really sound that much alike. In Harry’s memory, voices were not “unnaturally loud”. Yet, Dumbledore said that Slughorn had “very crudely” done this alteration of his own recollections. This suggests it can be done much better.
In a very radical version of the “memory charm” variant of the theory, a mass memory charm was performed at some point, so that NO ONE any longer knows who Hermione really is. Not Dumbledore, not McGonagall, not Hermione (at least not consciously)… no one at all.
A1.3 – Sibling Theory Variant : Minerva’s role
We often have the feeling Hermione has a special relation with Pr. McGonagall. In the early days of the Sibling Theory, I had an idea that could have explained this. Here it is :
Professor McGonagall has a daughter, who was at Hogwarts with James and Lily. This girl was Lily’s best friend, and she knew James very well too because they were Quidditch team mates. Later, when James and Lily were killed, MacGonagall’s daughter adopted her best friend’s child and became Hermione’s adoptive mother : she is Mrs Granger, and Mr Granger is her Muggle husband. That would make Hermione Minerva McGonagall’s adoptive grand-daughter.
The only clue to support this idea was in movie 1 : when Hermione shows Harry his father’s name on the Quidditch Shield, the name “McGonagall” is clearly visible next to James’s. As it seemed unlikely Minerva could have been playing Quidditch at school when she was in her 40’s, I supposed this could have been her daughter.
There are considerable difficulties with this little idea, so I practically gave up on it. In PS, Hermione said : Nobody in my family’s magic at all, which should mean both Grangers are really Muggles. And JKR herself said the Grangers are not very important in the story… So, maybe there is a connection with Minerva McGonagall, but it must be a bit more complicated than that.
A1.4 – Sibling Theory Variant : Descendant of Gryffindor after all ?
Some supporters of the theory consider James Potter could have been the heir of Gryffindor. In that case, the reason why Hermione was initially hidden could very well have something to do with the Gryffindor bloodline.
I used to support this idea. But as mentioned before, JKR said in July 2005 : MA: That sort of shuts down Heir of Gryffindor (theories), as well. JKR: (Pause.) Yeah. Well – yeah. Which, in my opinion, leaves little room for interpretation.
Still, it can be argued that the question was about the “Harry is the heir” theory – the question was not very precise, by the way – so if the heir is the first born child, then Harry could be a descendant of Gryffindor, and still not the heir : Hermione would be.
JKR’s hesitation can be another argument in favour of this idea.
A1.5 – Various Ideas : Petunia knows everything
Could Petunia know the truth ? Could she know that Harry has a sibling, even if she doesn’t know her name ? Did Dumbledore tell her in that mysterious letter he left for her with baby Harry ? This is just a little idea... The problem is : why tell her ? And isn't it too risky ? Unless of course the secret is protected by a Fidelius Charm, in which case she can't tell anyone.
But at least, this idea would explain a little mystery nicely... At the beginning of OotP, in his Howler, Dumbledore threatens Petunia : “Remember my last, Petunia !” JKR confirmed on her website that the “last” was indeed the letter Dumbledore had left with baby Harry. Now, the point is : Petunia was terrified by these words ! She was about to faint ! Why ? Obviously, there must have been a threat of some sort in that “last” letter... What had Dumbledore threatened Petunia with, if she refused to take Harry ? I can't see Dumbledore threatening her with the Cruciatus Curse or anything like that ! Or even blackmailing her in any way...
But I suppose Dumbledore could have threatened her by saying simply... the truth ! “There you are : you can protect your nephew. For many years, you’ll be the only one able to protect him. If you refuse, Harry’s chances will be very dim. This is your choice. I can’t force you to accept. But there is one thing you must know : there is another Potter ! If you refuse to take Harry and he dies, she’ll know what happened. It might be in fifteen or twenty years only, but eventually she’ll know what happened to her brother.” Thus, Dumbledore would have been threatening Petunia with the wrath of Lily’s blood ! Of all things, this would have scared her to death !
A1.6 – Various Ideas : Mrs Figg’s role
About Crookshanks, JKR wrote on her website : Crookshanks, as anybody who has read Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them will have guessed, is half Kneazle. Good… About Mrs Figg, JKR wrote : Arabella Figg does a roaring trade in cross-bred cats and Kneazles, and if you don‘t know what a Kneazle is yet, shame on you. Hmmm… So, does Crookshanks come from Mrs Figg’s ? The two quotes above, when you put them together, make this sound highly probable.
Is there a hidden connection here ? Could Hermione perhaps know Mrs Figg ? If Hermione knows a neighbour of Harry’s at Privet Drive… then she is definitely hiding a lot of things ! The difficult point here is that Crookshanks is supposed to have been in the shop for several years before Hermione bought him.
APPENDIX 2 : THE SIBLING THEORY, A HISTORY
The idea that Hermione could be Harry’s secret sister probably came up early in the Harry Potter fandom. I certainly didn’t start it. The earliest reference I could find is this one, from HPFGU : http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/faq/hermione.html Most members have rejected out-of-hand the notion that Hermione could be Harry's sister (placed with the muggle Granger family): too "Star Wars-ish." While it is possible that Harry and Hermione are second cousins or first cousins once removed, it seems too genealogically implausible to some members. Note that the idea is rejected here : nothing at all is said to support it and no one seems to think it is possible…
In June 2002 – that was after GoF, and about a year before OotP – I proposed a theory in the a-f-hp newsgroup, that included a very early version of the Sibling Theory. The sibling relation between Harry and Hermione was just an appendix to a bigger theory about Voldemort’s quest for immortality… I gave up about most of this long ago, but I continued to ponder the Harry-Hermione Sibling Theory. Some of the most important sibling clues from books 1-4 were already there.
This theory resurfaced on the Darkmark boards, so I joined the discussion there. This was the great period of the STS (2002-2004). The “Sibling Theory Supporters” are a group of fans on Darkmark, who developed the theory with me for about 2 years. Thanks to them all : this essay would not exist without them. The theory grew, we found loads of clues and discussed some difficulties. The concept of the Protection Theory was born at that time.
We had a big problem when the CoS DVD Timeline came out, as it stated Hermione was younger than Harry... Before that, most STS defended the idea that Hermione was older. So I suggested that Hermione could be Harry’s twin sister and that her birthday could have been changed… For a while, this “twin-theory” was my favourite… Now (since JKR said that Hermione was nearly 12 when she entered Hogwarts), I have returned to my original idea : she is Harry’s older sister.
The discussion on the Darkmark boards ended in August 2004, after JKR answered “no” to the question “does Hermione have any brothers or sisters”… For a while, I thought this was the end of the Sibling Theory. And then I had second thoughts about that quote. I now think JKR could very well have meant that Hermione grew up as an only child, with “no brother or sister” in the Granger family.
After that, I continued discussing the Sibling Theory on a couple of French websites, including la “gazette-du-sorcier”.
Cosforums is another place where the Sibling Theory has been discussed quite a lot. I joined the discussion there in 2005 : it was pretty active in 2005 and 2006.
Other Harry Potter forums (HPANA, Veritaserum, leakylounge… to quote just a few) have (or have had) Sibling Theory threads. So this theory is now much better known among fans than it was in the old days of the STS.
------------------------------
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. Arthur Schopenhauer
Group: Sorting Ceremony
Posts: 58
Joined: 6-January 07
From: Paris, France
Member No.: 36156
Oh my God, some of you write so much!!!
What's that "sibling theory" anyway?? Harry and Hermione are so not siblings!! They're just really, really good friends! Plus, that would be weird.. We could say both are talented and courageous and all but honestly, brother and sister? That's just too much..I guess..
And when you say that JKR has never said that Hermione looks like her parents, it is because it is not important
I guess it is even less important to know that Viktor Krum has his father's nose. And Viktor's father's appearance in the books was even briefer than the Grangers'. Yet, JKR told us how Viktor looked like him. She never did for Hermione and "mum and dad".
QUOTE
And there was a big deal that Hermione/Harry almost had the same initials. . .so do Cho Chang/Colin Creevey, Dedalus Diggle/Dudley Dursley, Millicent Bagnold/Marcus Belby, Lavender Brown/Ludo Bagman, Pansy Parkinson/Padma (Parvati) Patil, Peter Pettigrew/Poppy Pomphrey. . .I mean, those are just the bare minimum, there are so many other characters. . .it means nothing. .
OK... But we have a three-initial similarity for Harry and Hermione : Harry James Potter, Hermione Jane Puckle.
QUOTE
. . .and Hermione didn't look into the Mirror of Erised because Harry and Ron went in the middle of the night, and Ron/Harry were in the boys dormitories, and the girls dormitory is unaccessible by the boys.
Aren't you mixing up the book and the movie ? In the book, Harry and Ron go back together on the second night. So, they have one full day to discuss it before. Had Hermione been present, they could have discussed it with her too. JKR had that scene when Hermione was not present at Hogwarts. So, one can say JKR decided not to tell us what Hermione would have seen in the mirror.
QUOTE
And when Draco calls her a mudblood, she isn't insulted after the first time much, because she knows what a git Draco is, and she is smart and probably realizes that being muggleborn isn't bad, and it has nothing to do with how good of a wizard a person is.
Lily was another very smart person. Yet we saw she was deeply hurt when Snape called her a Mudblood ( "I won't bother next time" ). Hermione is being called a Mudblood by Draco, by Kreacher, and her usual reaction is : "it doesn't matter".
QUOTE
And the fact that Hedwig turned up. . .possibly because Harry wrote Hermione a letter. It never does say, but it is more logical than Hedwig having a 6th sense.
No... We know Hedwig hadn't brought Hermione a letter, because Hermione herself was not sure why Hedwig turned up. She says so in her letter : "I think she wanted to make sure you got something for your birthday". So... why did Hedwig chose Hermione ?
QUOTE
When Krum is pronouncing the name, "Her-my-oh-nee" can easily become "Herm-own-ninny" The ni could be the nee prounced in a foreign way.
But I doubt "nee" could become "ninny" (redoubled) like that... Krum is Bulgarian. An east-european pronunciation of "Hermione" would rather give "HeRRRR-mi-Ôhn" I think.
QUOTE
In the sentence before she calls it and "unlikely friendship and the reasons behind it." And then she says right after that "a father substitute."
But it is ONLY after the "father substitute" comment that Hermione stands up "very abruptly". As far as we know, she was quiet before : it is Harry who reacted abruptly when he first spotted Rita in the pub, not her.
QUOTE
And when Mcgonagall says it's good that he listens to Hermione. Well, it is good, isn't it? He listens to Hermione all the time and it always saves his butt. ((As a friend. I would warn my friends of any danger. . .)) And not every sentence at the last of the chapter is important. Just flip through the chapters in the books. Most of them leave an afterthought, and well, it is very important he listens to Hermione, it just has nothing to do with sister/brother. And, Mcgonagall may not be referring to something Hermione said about Umbridge. It may just be in general.
Given what Harry had just told her, it WAS about what Hermione had said about Umbridge. So... How could McGonagall know what Hermione had told Harry ?
QUOTE
Hermione comes back from the ski trip to find Harry in Buckbeak's room. Maybe she had already looked in other parts of the house?
No... There was still snow in her hair when she found Harry. It would have melted.
------------------------------
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. Arthur Schopenhauer
The thing with Viktor is that he was a new character and to have that connection with his dad would have been good. Hermione was already introduced, we already knew what she looked liked, we didn't need to know she looked like her parents. And, we don't know if all characters look like their parents. We don't know if Susan Bones looks like her mom, we don't know if Sirius looks like his parents, ((the portrait of her is in Grimmauld place, yet it never says if Sirius looks like her. . .)) . . .the fact is, it is not important.
Okay, 3 letter initials. Rupert Axebanger Brookstanton and Rosalind Antigone Bungs ((the rab characters)). And, is there any proof that people from the same family have the same 3-letter initials? Is there any connection with family?
The Mirror of Erised. . .did Harry/Ron really believe that Hermione would approve of them going out in the mirror of the night to see a mirror?
The Mudblood thing again. . .you're right; She knows it doesn't matter. She knows it has nothing to do with being a good witch. She knows it doesn't matter. Hermione is a mudblood, even if it doesn't get to her. The whole series makes a point that she is from muggles, with no wizarding background. That's the end of it.
Maybe Hedwig showing up was just pure luck. I still don't think Hedwig had a hidden reason for choosing Hermione. Maybe, like you said, "Some animals have a 6th sense" maybe Hedwig knew that Harry wouldn't get a letter from Hermione? Hermione says she wasn't sure she could get a letter out through customs. So maybe Hedwig is using this "sixth sense" to get Hermione to write Harry for his birthday. . .
I still am not convinced with Krum pronouncing her name wrong. I think that that whole bit was put in for comic relief and there is nothing sinister about it.
So, the father substitue thing. . .like i said before, "she knows the subject of Harry's parents is a touchy subject for Harry. Whenever Harry has mentioned his parents in the past, he has gotten emotional/angry. And surely, when Rita says "father substitute" she knows it is completely uncalled for."
The phrase that Harry uses when he tells Mcgonagall, he says, "Yeah. . .she said. . .progress will be prohibited or. . .well, it meant that. . .that the Ministry of Magic is trying to interfere at Hogwarts." And then Mcgonagall "eyes him" for a moment before letting him go. She probably just knows that Harry couldn't have come up with that conclusion by himself, giving how he never pays attention.
Okay the whole snow thing. You said Dumbledore could have known from Phineas Nigellus and then he got ahold of Hermione. 1) There is no portrait inthat room that is mentioned 2)If Phineas Nigellus knew where he was, so could every other person at Grimmuald Place. Now that is just going by what you said how Dumbledore would know. I think that it is extremely unlikely, but i say that Hermione knew him well enough to know where he would be hiding because they are good friends, not brother/sister.
The whole Ehwaz/Eiwaz thing could be taken a number of different ways. Partnership/Defense. Like a partnership as in friends to protect each other. It could be Hermione/Ron, Harry/Ron, Hermione/Harry, or any other characters throughout the novel.
And the reason Dumbledore guessed 15 years ago, you said it yourself: Dumbledore is a very smart wizard. And also, he may know because he himself has a scar of the London Underground that may have the same effects. So that is why he guessed.
Okay, and the whole thing where their friends wouldn't know. . .why would they keep her birth a secret in the first place? All of their friends knew about Harry, why not keep Harry a secret either? Everyone knew about Harry's birth even though the prophecy was already made, so why keep Hermione's birth a huge secret? It doesn't make any sense.
((Now i am responding to your 2nd post)) Hermione and Ron are casting glances at each other the whole time Harry is there, as if they want to ask him something but can't. And Hermione and Ron have no idea about the prophecy yet, Harry hasn't even told them. Hermione only looks strange because she and ron both want to know what Dumbledore has told him, if anything, but not about a brother/sister thing here. They are just curious as any friends would be. Hermione and Ron are both acting strange in this scene, not just Hermione.
Hermione only guesses the wrong thing when Tonks is being depressed is because Hermione is very logical and that seems like the logical answer. No one would have guessed that Tonks had a thing for Lupin. And later one, when Hermione looks a bit concerned, it is only because, well, she is Tonks friend and she ins concered for her, that is the bottom line.
And Hermione says "fanciable" because, well, it is true, isn't it? Anyone could have drawn the conclusion that Harry is popular among the girls. Heck, i did when i read the books. Harry was just through a lot at the ministry, and lived. And also, a good friend could also say it in a completely innocent way.
And, the whole best in their year thing, that's a normal reaction. Hermione would have acted the same way had it been Ron who told Slughorn that.
She only hates the Half-Blood Prince and is jealous of him because he outshines Hermione! Hermione can't win at anything in potions because of him. She is just jealous he is better than her.
Yes, Hermione does interfere. That is how her character is introduced, and she still does that throughout the books. Not just with Harry.
Yes, Hermione was striken by the news of the prophecy. As any friend would be. Heck, i would be just a tad bit stricken if i found out my best friend had a prophecy made about him and had to kill the most evil wizard.
The whole "otter" "parry" thing. . .it has no meaning. Slughorn was drunk. That was all, you can't pronounce anything and you slur your words when you are drunk.
And what pages in the book does it refer to Amycus and Alecto as brother and sister a number of times? I can't find anywhere. Point out where i can find it.
Yes, that does sound like something the Order would have done in the past. That is why there are theories Regulus is still alive, the Order hid them.
The only reason that Trevor was found in the castle was because they couldn't put it in the boat, it was too dark outside to find trevor there, and also, there needed to be some closure to him finding Trevor. The only reason why it was in front of Hermione is because she was a main character, up front, near the front of the crowd. Also right in front of a number of other wizards, as well, like Ron.
Yes, a special non-romantic connection. . .just let a female/male best friend. Nothing hidden about it. . .i am just like harry/hermione with my best male friend.
And the scene where Harry/Hermione are in the snow, well, it is just another example of a male/female friendship. Ron stays behind only because he is a guy, he doesn't know what to say. Hemrione, on the other hand, is a female, and knows quite a lot about emotions.
I'm not going to argue the whole foreshadowing in the movie, but a bunch of those scenes could be taken a number of different ways. Like, the scene on the bridge, and Lupin says, "she saw things in people others didn't see" or somethign to that effect, and then he says "you're so much like her" well, it could foreshadow that Harry sees something in Malfoy/Snape/ or any other "bad" character that no one else sees.
And then the interviews. . .
JKR doesn't think they are suited because they have that female/male best friend thing, just likea number of other people have. They care deeply about each other, just as friends who care about each other would. Platonic means "a friendship between a male and female in which there are no sexual desires." Yes, like Harry/Hermione, as best friends would be. And the whole "nudge nudge, wink wink" thing is said right after she says, "but i won't answer for anyone else." She is going through a list of questions, she must have sene someones name that she knew. She is hinting that she knew the person who asked the question.
Harry needs Hermione badly because is very brilliant and very logical. Something Ron/Harry don't have; they need that person who is logical.
Her name is drawn from that play, but JKR also says in that interview that the Hermione character in the play has no real connection to the Hermione character in her book.
And like i said before, is there any real proof that family members have the same 3-letter initials?
Yes, Hermione is an indispensable part of how the adventures happen. Like, Harry would not have gone very far in the Sorcerors Stone without Hermione with the plant, and the potions. And they would not have known it was a Basilik if it wasn't for Hermione. Sirius would have died if Hermione didn't have a time turner. The list goes on and on. Yes, her role is almost as important as Harrys; without Hermione, they wouldn't have gone far at all. She is important. But not because she is Harrys sister.
Yes, Harry could be related to someone else. But at that interview, she could have been planning Harry to be related to Godric, as that interview was in 2004, right after the 5th book. She could have later changed her mind and made him not related to Godric, and says the other quote in 2005, after the release of the 6th book.
The main clue to Harry/Hermione not being brother sister is the fact that JKR said Harry has no sister. No matter how much her words are twisted around, the bottom line is that Harry does not have a sister, and nothing will ever change that. No matter if you think she was being misleading, why on earth would she say Harry doesnt have a sister if there was something this big? She probably would have said something like, "No comment!" like she usually does when someone says something important. Harry having a sister was not important, she is not being misleading, what she said is what she said. And, i don't think JKR meant this theory when she said "Some have skirted the topic" or something like that. Because this theory does not skirt the topic. This theory takes every Hermione scene and overanalyzes everything done. And i think when JKR said there are some things some people can't guess at, she was talking about the horcruxes. Okay, i am not trying to be rude, i am just trying to get my point across. So i am sorry if i offend you. It is a really well thought out topic and i applaud how much time was spent on it, but i dont see it happening.
------------------------------
Animagus: Kookaburra House: Ravenclaw Patronus: Eagle Wand: 10", Willow, Veela Boyfriend: George Weasley Pet: Trevor Best Friend: Ron Weasley Quidditch Position: Keeper Broomstick: Shooting Star
The thing with Viktor is that he was a new character and to have that connection with his dad would have been good. Hermione was already introduced, we already knew what she looked liked, we didn't need to know she looked like her parents. And, we don't know if all characters look like their parents. We don't know if Susan Bones looks like her mom, we don't know if Sirius looks like his parents, ((the portrait of her is in Grimmauld place, yet it never says if Sirius looks like her. . .)) . . .the fact is, it is not important.
We meet Viktor's father near the end of GoF, so Viktor was no longer THAT new a character at that time... We don't know if Susan Bones looks like her mom because we never met her. OK for Sirius : we aren't told if his mother looks like him or not... but we only saw her portrait. Can you find an example, apart for Hermione and her parents, of blood relatives : - whom we have actually met. - about whom we haven't been told anything about physical ressemblance (or lack of). In some rare cases (Lily/Petunia for instance), we have been told blood relatives look nothing alike. But at least we are told something ! For Hermione, we aren't told anything at all.
QUOTE
And what pages in the book does it refer to Amycus and Alecto as brother and sister a number of times? I can't find anywhere. Point out where i can find it.
HBP, chapter 28 : p 559 : "he wheeled around, staggered and then pounded away after the brother and sister." p 561 : "...the brother and sister he had overtaken using his short cut were closing in behind him." etc... (Page numbers refer to Bloomsbury edition).
QUOTE
The main clue to Harry/Hermione not being brother sister is the fact that JKR said Harry has no sister.
As far as I know, JKR never said so... I suppose you mean her negative answer to the question "does Hermione have any brothers or sisters". I've explained I understand this to mean Hermione was raised as an only child in the Granger family. JKR's complete answer makes it clear what she is talking about : the little sister she had planned for Hermione, but decided not to include in the story.
------------------------------
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. Arthur Schopenhauer
Yes, we have met Susan Bones mother. She was at the hearing for Harry in the 5th book. Yet, we are not told if Susan Bones looks like her; it is not important. And, i guess that they were describing what Viktor Krum's dad looked like, and to make a connection it would have been easier to say "He had his dad's nose." And Sirius, yes i know we are not told if he looks like his mom or not, that was the point i was trying to make: That her parents are not important to the plot. I think that if Hermione was really Harry's brother, JKR would have written, "But Hermione did not look like her parents." But it is not important. So, the Susan Bones case is a case where we have met mom/child, and nothing is given about them looking alike. And also Sirius/his mom.
Okay, so JKR said, brother and sister, but what does that actually prove? It could be that JKR wanted to emphasize the point that there are good families, and bad families, or it could mean nothing at all.
Q. Does Hermione have any brothers or sisters? JKR. No, she doesn’t.
That's the end. I know you wrote a long explanation for it, but that is the end of it. She has no brothers or sisters. She is an only child. Period. It is a true, simple statement. If JKR had wanted Harry/Hermione to be brother/sister, she would have hinted somewhere. But she never does, and you can overanalyze every possible conversation/appearance Hermione has ever had, but that does not change the fact that JKR said Hermione has no brothers or sisters. It is not ambiguous and no other interpretations can be made.
------------------------------
Animagus: Kookaburra House: Ravenclaw Patronus: Eagle Wand: 10", Willow, Veela Boyfriend: George Weasley Pet: Trevor Best Friend: Ron Weasley Quidditch Position: Keeper Broomstick: Shooting Star
Group: Sorting Ceremony
Posts: 312
Joined: 23-November 06
From: a (nearly) deserted island
Member No.: 31701
QUOTE
I think that if Hermione was really Harry's brother, JKR would have written, "But Hermione did not look like her parents."
No way. That would have given away too much. JKR likes to keep some things unguessed mysteries until she explains them in the latest books. It's more fun for the writer that way - watching people analyzing her work. If she just flat out said that, it would make it a LOT more obvious.
QUOTE
She is an only child. Period. It is a true, simple statement.
That's where I'm afraid you're wrong. I can copy the exact words if you wish. JKR replied in a lengthy paragraph, if you put it on paper. She didn't just say no. She had a nice explanation, and from it, as you've probably heard merlin455 say at one point or another, you can extract that she's talking about Hermione's adopters. Except that she doesn't say that the Grangers adopted her, of course.
QUOTE
If JKR had wanted Harry/Hermione to be brother/sister, she would have hinted somewhere. But she never does
Before I read merlin's theory, I thought so pretty much, too. However, in his (her? sorry) theory, he/she gives many examples of clues JKR hid in the books. If you think about it, the text doesn't quite make sense if you just think of Harry and Hermione as friends.
QUOTE
And, is there any proof that people from the same family have the same 3-letter initials?
That's not the point. JKR originally had the same initials as a clue for readers. My sibs and I have different initials. In books, tho, the author's purpose is what matters. You realize that the only other people with the same three initials that we have heard of are the ones whose initials Hermione was searching for?
Anyway, I rather like the theory. It explains a lot.
------------------------------
Proud member of MOOOP, the Unofficial Marauder Fan Club and SPELL!
Yes, we have met Susan Bones mother. She was at the hearing for Harry in the 5th book. Yet, we are not told if Susan Bones looks like her; it is not important.
This was Susan's aunt, not her mother. I'll check if we are given a physical description of her...
QUOTE
Q. Does Hermione have any brothers or sisters? JKR. No, she doesn’t.
OK... But as stag underlined above, JKR's answer is much longer than this ! She qualifies this "no" : she explains all about the little sister she had planned for Hermione.
QUOTE
Before I read merlin's theory, I thought so pretty much, too. However, in his (her? sorry) theory, he/she gives many examples of clues JKR hid in the books.
Thanks ! (It's "he" by the way).
------------------------------
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. Arthur Schopenhauer
The Sibling Theory, Harry & Hermione = Brother & Sister?
Feb 15 2007, 12:58 PM
