Fair enough. The canon definition of a squib is specifically a non-magical child of wizarding parents. I’d assumed the Grangers had wizarding blood further back than that, making them genetically identical to squibs but not meeting the definition of the term as used in wizarding culture.
Roberta had been increasingly apprehensive about giving her daughter over to witchcraft—especially after she’d read the books, put the dates together, and realized that her magical mother had probably been killed at the height of Grindelwald’s terror, not died giving birth to her as her father had always claimed.
I’m having a hard time imagining how Hermione got two copies of the magic gene if they weren’t.
Petunia and the Grangers are Squibs, though.
The Grangers are squibs?!
They had to be, in order for Hermione to be MuggleBorn. Mendelian pattern.
Both recessive magic-gene carriers. That’s the definition of Sqib in MoR—or have I got this wrong?
Fair enough. The canon definition of a squib is specifically a non-magical child of wizarding parents. I’d assumed the Grangers had wizarding blood further back than that, making them genetically identical to squibs but not meeting the definition of the term as used in wizarding culture.
That could still be true of Mr Dr Granger.
I’m having a hard time imagining how Hermione got two copies of the magic gene if they weren’t.
Not that I’m suggesting any of these are true or even reasonable, but;
She could be adopted.
Her mother could be a squib, and her father was not Mr. Granger.
Her mother could be a squib, and she could be the result of Parthenogenesis.
Extreme luck could spontaneously cause a mutation in either gene to the magic gene, with the other parent being a squib.
They could both be wizards, unawares.
Apparently my imagination is defective.
Has it been confirmed that magic is a single-gene trait?