[merlin455]

Thanks sjrd : I couldn't post the 2 parts in a row, because the system would merge the 2 messages, and that gave something too long again.
So, here is the end of the essay.
--------------------------

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 completely 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).

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 !


4. THE PROTECTION THEORY

4.1 – The base idea

The base idea is that Hermione is – much like Petunia – an essential part of Harry’s protection. It is her 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 most common interpretation 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, then why was Dumbledore’s “ancient magic” needed in addition ? Wasn’t Lily’s original protection good enough ?
I think no one has 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.
This quote clearly shows 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 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.

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 – 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 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.
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 book 7 : 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”.

“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 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 Harry's blood gave him more than just the ability to touch and/or to harm Harry !

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 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.

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 !


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, including 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 is 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 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”.


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… I gave up about most of this (Voldemort being Harry’s great-uncle) 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.
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. At that time, I proposed 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.

Cosforums is another place where the Sibling Theory has been discussed quite a lot. One of my fellow STS on the Darkmark boards posted our summary there quite early.
I joined the discussion on cosforums in 2005 : it was pretty active, and it continues to this day.

A few other Harry Potter forums (HPANA, Veritaserum to quote just these two) have started Sibling Theory threads. So this theory is now better known among fans than it was in the days of the STS.