Rita Skeeter's Witch Weekly article states that Love Potions are banned at Hogwarts.     Love Potions are of course banned at Hogwarts, and no doubt Albus Dumbledore will want to investigate these claims. In the meantime, Harry Potter's well-wishers must hope that, next time, he bestows his heart upon a worthier candidate.   (Goblet of Fire, Chapter 27, Padfoot Returns)   Obviously Skeeter has been known to print the odd untruth in her time. I wonder if this one of them. There certainly seem to be plenty of Love Potion-brewers and -users at Hogwarts:   Gilderoy Lockhart encourages students to ask Snape to brew a Love Potion for them. Molly Weasley brewed a Love Potion as a student. Romilda Vane repeatedly tries to dope Harry during Half-Blood Prince. Slughorn brews Amortentia, "the most powerful love potion in the world", in front of his sixth-year Potions class. The Weasley twins brew the "best range of love potions you'll find anywhere." These are banned by Filch along with the rest of the Weasleys' Wizard Wheezes products. Whether the Love Potions in that range were contraband on multiple counts is up for debate I think.   Pottermore only features  summary of the examples listed above. There's no JKR feature.  Are they actually banned? If so, why are they so commonly used with no disciplinary consequences? If not, why did Skeeter claim that they were as if it were obvious?  ( Note that I'm not asking about whether Love Potions were banned by the Ministry of Magic but whether they were banned at Hogwarts.)
123386
We know that in the Harry Potter universe, Love Potions (potions that cause a strong infatuation in the drinker) exist. We see at least two instances of their use in the books;      When Romilda Vane attempts to trick Harry Potter into drinking some, and when Tom Riddle Jr's mother Merope Gaunt tricks Tom Riddle Sr into drinking one.   A Love Potion in the world of Harry Potter acts very similar to that of the Imperius Curse in some ways, which like Love Potions causes the victim to lose any sense of self control that they once had. As we all know, the Imperius Curse is an Unforgivable Curse, and is one of the worst and most illegal spells a magic user can cast.  Being as a Love Potion is effectively just a more effective and magical version of Rohypnol, are they legal to make/sell/use in the Harry Potter universe?      Bonus question: Is Romilda Vane ever punished for attempting to rape or sexually assault a fellow student?
88639
Since Hermione already admitted that they were breaking the Law. Would it be safe to conclude that the Ministry cannot instantly (by magic) detect illegal time-tampering?  (Both before and during the events of Prisoner of Azkaban.)     “Hermione,” said Harry suddenly, “what if we — we just run in    there and grab Pettigrew —”       “No!” said Hermione in a terrified whisper. “Don’t you understand?    We’re breaking one of the most important wizarding laws!    Nobody’s supposed to change time, nobody! You heard Dumbledore,    if we’re seen —”       — Prisoner of Azkaban, chapter 21 (Hermione’s Secret)
35516
led me to asking this one. R.A.B. takes the "real" locket out and asks Kreacher to destroy it, then puts the "fake" locket back in the basin. Why would he feel the need to do this? He knows already that Voldemort has used someone else to drink the potion (Kreacher). In fact Kreacher's story to him about his mistreatment on the island seems to push him over the edge to act.   Instead of assuring that someone else (most likely innocent like Kreacher) would have to drink from the basin, why not just leave the note outside the basin for someone to find? If Voldemort finds it then so be it, at least then no presumably innocent person would have to drink again.
110196
The instructions are:      The X potion is a legend. It is said  that whoever manage to brew it and drink  it would travel to a place where no one   have been before.     I don't know if this potion is just a   legend or not, but I will write in this   book everything I know about it.     The X potion is mentioned in many old   legends and alchemy books. Here's a  summary of the informations which may  help you to brew it. Good luck!    - It is said that 5 steps are necessary  to brew the X potion.    - It is said that no lollipops are  required, except for one of the steps.    - It is said that, unlike for other  potions, you can't brew multiple X  potions at once.    quoted when it comes to the X potion :               On the first day,   it gave birth to the very first Sweet.           But it was cold outside.              On the second day,         it gave the Sweet a father.          But it was cold outside.              On the third day,         it gave the Sweet a brother.          But it was cold outside.              On the fourth day,         it gave the Sweet a friend.          But it was cold outside.              On the fifth day,         it gave the Sweet a lover,      and it may sound simple or silly,        but now the Sweet was happy,          and it was hot outside.
108947
I remember from my mumble about nine mumble rereads of the Harry Potter series that the following classes Harry took were taught to more than one house in the same lesson:   Potions with the Slytherins  Herbology with the Hufflepuffs  Care of Magical Creatures with the Slytherins  broomstick riding with at least the Slytherins (maybe other houses, too?)    I don't remember any student from a house that isn't Gryffindor being mentioned in the sections on Transfiguration, Charms, Defense Against Dark Arts, History of Magic, or Divination. That would mean McGonagall had to teach twice as many classes as Snape, if both subjects got the same number of lessons (which I think I recall).   Were any subjects other than Potions, Herbology, and Care of Magical Creatures taught to more than one house in the same lesson? And do we know why some subjects are taught to more students at the same time than others?
14458
What is a wizard that makes them non-Muggle? Or, more directly, what ancestry does the witch/wizard gene follow? Is there a patriarchal wizard (or matriarchal witch) that Muggles have no part in? Elves perhaps? Stop reading here.  Purpose of the Question/History/Don't Read There seem to be solid consequences associated with being Muggle, or Muggle-related. A dominant theme in the novels is discrimination against the non-gifted race, but, when read into, the wizard bloodline doesn't appear all that well defined. JKR indicates that wizard-ness is genetic, or inherited:  &quot;Muggle-borns will have a witch or wizard somewhere on their family tree, in some cases many, many generations back. The gene resurfaces in some unexpected places.&quot;  By the above, it stands that a family that produces a squib (non-magical born of magical parents) must be a half-blooded family in some way, since half-blooded only requires one non-magical ancestor. Of course, we are dealing in magic genetics. Any other form of genetics would make this inherited, seemingly recessive trait (or squibs couldn't exist), never appear at all. Unless they were XMen. If it is so important, what does the wizard-bloodline follow? Other Mythos In other literature a wizard can be nearly anything, but magical powers are typically inherited as well as learned. Merlin of the Arthurian Legend (also mentioned in HP) is Cambian, meaning he is born of demonic intervention; this explains his source of enchantment. Gandalf of Middle Earth is a Maiar, as are all Wizards of Middle Earth. Wizards in Harry Potter seem to follow a bloodline, and it has been mentioned (in the question Gabe linked) that genetics have a heavy play in it, meaning that squibs and parents of Muggle-born wizards should have identical genetics. This bloodline must come from somewhere. Magical Creatures In Harry Potter it is common for magical creatures to &quot;mingle&quot; with humans, these beings are typically somewhat magical. Elves have been described to have very strong magic, but are for some unreasonable reason subservient to humans. I may be mistaken, but believe it was hinted that elves and the wizarding lineage had intersected at one time. Maybe I'm imagining this. Genocidal Allusions Voldemort hates muggles, and half-bloods, and whatever else is non-wizard. The presence of this theme, suggests that this wizardly bloodline must be at least defined if the main antagonist is so obsessed with keeping that mysterious bloodline pure. Since Slytherin himself was said to be a supremacist (circa a really long time ago) it suggests that this bloodline should have existed long before he was around, especially if he founded a school with people he was not related to, but were also magical.
67436
‘Nice loud howl, Harry – exactly – and then, if you’ll believe it, I pounced – like this – slammed [the werewolf] to the floor – thus – with one hand, I managed to hold him down – with my other, I put my wand to his throat – I then screwed up my remaining strength and performed the immensely complex Homorphus Charm – he let out a piteous moan – go on, Harry – higher than that – good – the fur vanished – the fangs shrank – and he turned back into a man. Simple, yet effective – and another village will remember me forever as the hero who delivered them from the monthly terror of werewolf attacks.’   Gilderoy Lockhart - Chamber of Secrets - chapter 10 - The Rogue Bludger   Yeah, yeah. I know: consider the source! We all know Gilderoy Lockhart is a fake and a fraud in that he took credit for other heroic wizards' work. However, it occurred to me that in order to sell his books, he would have had to have written accurate and real spells and charms and potions, etc, into the books, or else everyone would have known right away that he was a turkey.   So is it possible there's an actual Homorphus Charm that will change a werewolf back into a human before the werewolf's moon cycle is over? If so, why on earth would they not have used it on Remus Lupin (for Lupin's safety) or Fenrir Greyback (for the community's safety)?
58600
While answering another question I mentioned the love protection spell from Harry's mom, which got me thinking, since this spell is so unique and no one understands it, does that mean not a single person in the entire history of wizards is known to have died for someone because of love and then have created a protection spell for that person?  No parents, spouses or really close friends in the history of everything self-sacrificed for a loved one?  Did JKR create a loveless universe, where love was as miraculous and rare as the fact that Harry is the only person to survive Avada Kedavra?
53054
I saw this come up in another question in regards to drinking a healing potion not being a Use an Object action as the text in the equipment chapter under healing potion specifically says that using a healing potion is an action.  But if I look at the other objects in the equipment chapter, I find similar text:     Applying the poison takes an action.        Drinking or administering the potion takes an action.        As an action, you can spread a bag of caltrops...   None of these refer specifically to Use an Object.  However, the Use an Object text in the Combat chapter says this.     When an object requires your action for its use, you take the Use an   Object action.   So the text in the Combat chapter, by my reading, seems to say that the 'action' in the text of specific objects in the equipment section is Use an Object.  Is this correct?  Is using any of the objects in the equipment chapter the Use an Object action as the Use an Object text seems to say?  If not, then what can you do with Use an Object?
77349
The meat of the question stems from several things in HP lore:   people could get falsely accused and go to jail for nothing (Sirius Black for instance) people could betray other people (Potters + Pettigrew + Fidelius charm) people could say that they are not Death Eaters and were under influence of Imperius (Lucius Malfoy)   So, basically the vow of the following format could save both Ministry, Order of Phoenix (who whouldn't mind killing a Death Eater even if it would enforce stringent discipline in their ranks, eg taking the vow), Death Eaters (who actually used it casually (Snape-Malfoys)), bankers etc. from a world of headache:     Giver: "I swear to tell the truth regarding matter X and I swear not to conceal any facts that may pertain to the understanding and the appropriate line of questioning by Receiver"      Receiver: "I swear to hear the truth from the Giver and act accordingly and justly"      Binder: "I bind you bla-bla-bla"     Why wasn't it used as proposed? Maybe there is some rationale I'm missing.
10829
This came up to me while I was reading the question about Magical being using firearms in battle to raise their power (which I think I have a good answer for, but it's too long to fit in this question... and it would also be inappropriate).  Anyways, I was reading it and then the following thought came into my mind: If wizards decided to use guns on their battles (the ones agains Voldemort for instance), that would create that opening for much bigger battles than we see in the books (after all even a muggle can fire a gun, so lots of guns + the Imperio curse, and presto manifesto (is that racist? talking about wizards and all) you have yourself an army). Those kinds of battles, however, would most definitely not go unnoticed by the muggles - even though they wouldn't be able to link it to magic.  Well, that thought brought up my one and final question, which I bring forth to you guys. Is there any mention on how the Wizards and Witches viewed the two world wars (which had taken part by the time Harry got to Hogwarts, and which he had probably heard about in muggle school), and what was the Wizards' part in it? What about the cold war? Did the magical world even recognise the existence of weapons such as nukes, which could render all life on earth extinct?  EDIT  DVK has brought up an  regarding the connections between the Second World War and the wizarding world (more specifically, the wizard Grindelwald). Although it doesn't fully answer my question, it does help by showing that there was indeed some form of connection between the two world at the time.
42517
The truth potion (Veritaserum) is one of the most powerful potions that forces the drinker to speak truth. Then why didn't Ministry used it in any criminal cases instead of long discussions and proceedings? I know there are antidotes to the potion (Dumbledore tells Harry in the 6th book , "Slughorn might have been carrying antidote to veritaserum ever since I asked him about the memory"), but why don't keep criminals in custody until the effect of the antidote wears out and then make them drink veritaserum. Won't that result in perfect judgement?
11704
Are there either examples, or a mention of this having happened, of students permanently transferring from one magical school to another in Potterverse?  Canon only please (books/JKR/Pottermore).  Please note that I am only asking about transfers, e.g. you must already be studying in one school. Therefore an example of Malfoys considering sending Draco to Durmstrang is not in scope, since that happened before he attended Hogwarts. Also, guest-studying during Tri-Wizard doesn't count as it wasn't permanent.  Also, if the answer is a "no", please provide evidence (other than "well I read the books before and I don't remember a single case like that", unless you have eidetic memory) from entire canon.
24789
Leaving aside ethical and moral considerations, the whole policy of Salazar Slytherin's "we should not teach muggle-born magic-capable children" seems to be completely counter-productive to the whole "Let's not allow Muggles to know about existence of magical world" idea.  To wit, muggle-born wizards are obviously capable of performing magic (there were several examples in the book) even without wands/training, and many of them are powerful enough as far as their magical ability that it's likely to get noticed.   So, short of killing off every child that has latent magical abilities (or at least those with abilities beyond some threshold) or charming them so they are unable to do any magic, wouldn't refusal to teach them all how to PROPERLY use magic and what the rules are merely get a lot more chances for Muggles to see magic being performed which totally goes against the whole "Let's not allow Muggles realize that there are magic users around" that drives a lot of the Wizarding rules?  UPDATE Just to clarify - this question is about the idea of Salazar Slytherin himself and not the modern-day Death Eaters/Voldemort.
41371
This Q/A (  ) made me realize that I can't seem to remember a single HP wizard/witch who had a Muggle job with a Muggle company, aside from Kingsley's bodyguard cover as the Prime Minister's secretary.  Everyone whom I recall being mentioned as having a job is either employed in some magical company or the Ministry of Magic (which seems to employ more magical people than every other employer combined) or be self-employed - again economically interacting with wizards.  Am I merely forgetting someone, or was Kingsley really the only magically capable person with a paycheck from the Muggle world (which doesn't count since the job was a cover)?  UPDATE: Just to clarify - I didn't necessarily mean "working a Muggle job while using magic to help you" - it could also mean simply doing a Muggle job. So there's not necessarily a concern about Statute of Secrecy (plus, you can use the magic, say, to learn - e.g. Hermione could magick herself to learn how to do dentistry in 1 month or something). So no need to answer how having some wizard doing a Muggle job would be contrary to HP universe rules. I merely want to know if there's an example, NOT why there should't be one.
54699
I have heard rumors that there is Adult versions of the Harry Potter book series that were only released in Europe. Not porn type adult but more graphic in nature. In this series supposedly Dumbledore is gay. Is there any truth to this?
22501
It seems different enchantments trigger different consequences - for example, Lily's protective enchantment over Harry disappears the moment Harry turns seventeen, and the Unbreakable Vow results in death if broken. What constitutes the 'binding magical contract' in Goblet of Fire regarding the Triwizard Tournament? What are the repercussions of breaking the Triwizard contract? Both Dumbledore and Mad-Eye Moody stress the fact that Triwizard champions cannot withdraw from the tournament. However, I cannot find any canon reference to what would happen if a Triwizard champion outright refused to participate. Is there any canon source that addresses this? Please no Wikipedia/Wikia answers - I'm looking from information from the books or J.K. Rowling. An appropriate speculative answer based within the spirit of canon if a canon reference cannot be found is fine. For reference:     ‘Once a champion has been selected by the Goblet of Fire, he or she is obliged to see the Tournament through to the end. The placing of your name in the Goblet constitutes a binding,   magical contract. There can be no change of heart once you have become champion.’ - Dumbledore -   Goblet of Fire - page 226 - Bloomsbury - chapter 16, The Goblet of Fire   and     ‘He’s got to compete. They’ve all got to compete. Binding magical contract, like Dumbledore said. Convenient, eh?’ - Mad-Eye Moody -   Goblet of Fire - page 244 - Bloomsbury - chapter 17, The Four Champions