15

In Harry Potter, Squibs are generally known as people who cannot perform magic, and all the examples from the books appear to be descended from wizards.

In reality, we see various levels of magical control exhibited by Squibs -- they can see magically hidden things (such as ghosts, the true appearance of Hogwarts, Diagon Alley, and magically hidden creatures), use magical items, develop magical relationships with magic beasts (such as kneazle-cat hybrids), etc.

Moreover, there are many Muggles who claim abilities (such as seeing ghosts) which require magical sensitivity as well. While Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them claims that these people are either lying or Squibs, it's also purposefully written with an unreliable narrator.

The Muggle-born wizards we see, however, are all of standard wizarding capability.

Can Muggles give birth to a magic sensitive (but incapable of casting spells) child, equivalent to a Squib (since the term 'Squib' itself only applies to the children of wizards); a dud wizard?

Squib

Community
  • 1
  • 1
    magic sensitive – Himarm Feb 17 '16 at 19:00
  • 4
    Where in canon did a squib do something a muggle can't? I'm pretty sure I saw a JKR quote saying Mrs. Figg fibbed about seeing the dementors, checking on that one. – Kevin Feb 17 '16 at 19:07
  • @Kevin Harry speculates that she's describing dementors from what she's read in books, and Fudges questions if Squibs can see Dementors. The conversation gets interrupted before we get an answer in the novel. –  Feb 17 '16 at 19:10
  • @Kevin Filch sees Hogwarts without its disillusionment. He sees ghosts, too. –  Feb 17 '16 at 19:35
  • 3
    Not a dupe. Squibs are, as @Himarm said, magic sensitive. –  Feb 17 '16 at 19:36
  • 3
    i think this is a unique question as well, however, i think the answer is, we have no idea – Himarm Feb 17 '16 at 19:45
  • 7
    @Himarm No idea is fine by me. I'm just tired of every single question I ask being marked a dupe by questions only tangentially related which don't answer it! –  Feb 17 '16 at 19:46
  • 1
    @Axelrod I have the same problem and I do not see this as the same question as it was marked a dupe of... It is related, yes, and much of the same reasoning may be in an answer but it is not a dupe. – Skooba Feb 17 '16 at 21:25
  • 3
    Since Muggle-borns and Squibs both exist and both have a magic in their bloodline, I would say theoretically the answer is Yes. It would be very rare as Squibs are rare to begin with. There certainly won't be any canon to substantiate any answer. – Skooba Feb 17 '16 at 21:28
  • @Skooba One more vote... –  Feb 19 '16 at 00:24
  • 2
    If they did exist, they'd likely all be undergoing some form of psychiatric care, since they'd be seeing things no other Muggle can, and if they're not sufficiently magical to attend Hogwarts it's never going to be explained to them (or their parents). – Anthony Grist Mar 03 '16 at 12:01
  • 2
    @AnthonyGrist there are plenty of people today who claim to see ghosts that aren't in psychiatric care. There are even wizards who claim to see things that other wizards don't (Luna). – mikeazo Mar 03 '16 at 17:32

2 Answers2

11

Using the Wayback Machine - I found this site / info which is attributed to J.K. Rowling herself and would cement the 'No' answer:

I have been asked all sorts of questions about Squibs since I first introduced the concept in ‘Chamber of Secrets’. A Squib is almost the opposite of a Muggle-born wizard: he or she is a non-magical person born to at least one magical parent. Squibs are rare; magic is a dominant and resilient gene.

http://web.archive.org/web/20110713111531/http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/extrastuff_view.cfm?id=19

Additionally - in more current form:

Pottermore* seems to have the answer land on 'No' as well - however, depending on your interpretation of things (as well as the canonical level of the site) - you may find some conflicting info on the same page.

The Squibs Fact File defines Squibs as:

Humans with little or no magical talent born into wizarding families, who are looked down on by the wizarding world

(emphasis mine) - so, the very clear "born into wizarding families" seems to indicate the identifier "squib" belongs exclusively to offspring of wizarding families.

However, it goes on to say:

MAGIC ABILITIES

Able to access the wizarding world, unlike Muggles, and can use certain magical objects and creatures

If Muggles can produce non-muggles, then purely logically, they should technically be able to produce non-muggles with limited wizarding capabilities which would fit a practical definition of 'Squib'. We have seen that some wizards have more innate skills than others and this would seem to indicate there is a 'curve' of some sort in terms of skill but again, logic aside, the term Squib seems to be reserved for wizard families, not low skill Muggle-borns

*Is Pottermore canon?

https://www.pottermore.com/about/us

Pottermore, the digital publishing, e-commerce, entertainment and news company from J.K. Rowling, is the global digital publisher of Harry Potter and J.K. Rowling’s Wizarding World.

NKCampbell
  • 39,978
  • 13
  • 149
  • 203
  • The fact files were not written by Rowling and have been known to occasionally contain movie information. – ibid Mar 04 '16 at 17:33
  • That is true - however, being an official arm and curated repository of info should place it as canon where it doesn't contradict with the published texts or word of god imo – NKCampbell Mar 04 '16 at 17:36
  • That does depend on one's approach to HP canon. (HP wiki would agree with you, HP Lexicon would not. Neither would lots of the high rep users on this site.) See this question. – ibid Mar 04 '16 at 17:44
  • yeah - I looked at meta's question on it too - but it was ultimately inconclusive in my view. Also - per this accepted answer on the question you directed me to - Pottermore is canon: http://scifi.stackexchange.com/a/55370/55637. I'm not sure how much more official it can get that Pottermore is now an official arm of her work. StarWars.com is considered canon for that universe - correct? – NKCampbell Mar 04 '16 at 17:50
  • From your linked answer: Note: This only applies to Pottermore content by JKR. Pottermore content NOT known to be by JKR slides down to same level as films. Star Was is different as they have an offical stance on Canon with a Story Group to manage it. Harry Potter has none of that. Neither JKR nor WB have ever officially labeled which works as "canon". – ibid Mar 04 '16 at 17:52
  • We are clearly just going to disagree on this one - her website lists Pottermore as her work: http://www.jkrowling.com/en_US/#/works - with no caveats or asterisks. I'm not proposing that all work on Pottermore is written by her, I am however saying that, due to it being an official publication, that makes it canon. Even if film level canon - that is still official until such time as it is contradicted by word of god (which I actually also found) :) – NKCampbell Mar 04 '16 at 17:56
  • 1
    Also, jkrowling.com was a primary source. (new info directly from JKR). Pottermore Fact files are secondary sources (info compiled by the Pottermore team based off of their understanding of the primary sources). – ibid Mar 04 '16 at 18:04
  • 1
    I don't question Pottermore. I was just hoping she'd actually answer the question directly. But it's better to give the bounty to someone than let it go to waste, and you answered the question -- if not to the standard I wanted for the bounty! Grats! –  Mar 08 '16 at 17:45
  • thanks @Axelrod! - did you see my update from a few days ago where I did find a JK quote from her old site? – NKCampbell Mar 08 '16 at 18:49
  • 1
    Yeah. She seems to not be decided on if "squib" levels of magic are a thing or not. First they say a Squib can see dementors, then they don't, then a book says they can see all magical creatures... ugh. –  Mar 08 '16 at 19:41
  • 1
    JKR sucks at genetics. If magic is a dominant gene, then muggleborns would be impossible, and squibs would be common - the non-magical gene could hide in wizards and with two carriers, children would have a 25% chance to become a squib. If it were recessive, then squibs would be really rare and wizards could show up if two muggle carriers got children. – Gloweye Sep 14 '18 at 08:14
  • @JaccovanDorp : It seems JKR uses the term "dominant" incorrectly. In genetics, dominant and recessive have very specific meanings, and it doesn't have anything to do with how "strong" or useful properties the phenotype has. The only logical explanation is that the magical gene is recessive. If you got it from both parents you are a wizard, if got get only one you are a squib, and if you have none then you are a muggle. The parents of muggleborn wizards are really squibs (and have 25% chance to produce magical offspring), they just don't know it because they don't live in the wizarding world. – vsz Sep 25 '19 at 06:23
  • If the magical gene would be recessive, then how are squibs ever born? If you have 2 full magicals as parents, and the gene is recessive, then you WILL end up with double recessive yourself. That should make squibs impossible. But it does not, therefore JKR sucks at genetics. – Gloweye Sep 26 '19 at 07:47
3

Yes, from a certain point of view...

Scenario 1 Half-blood Squib

If we have one parent as a Muggle and one parent as a Wizard the child with minimal magical talent would be a half-blood Squib (for lack of a better term).

a) If the wizard parent has not revealed to their spouse of their magical abilities the child will be raised as a Muggle. (e.g. Never interact with the Wizarding World, go to Muggle Schools, get a Muggle job)

b) If the wizard parent has revealed their magical abilities the child would be raised as a Squib. (e.g. Go on trips to Diagon Alley. Possibly be home schooled, find a magical related job, like Filch)

Scenario 2 Muggle-born Squib

Both parents are Muggles, they could have recessive magic genes and produce a child with minimal magical talent. (i.e. Hermione, but if she was a Squib)

a) This child would be raised as Muggle. Although, they may have some strange encounters, they would be chalked up to the child having a vivid imagination (or even worse as having a mental disorder).

b) There could be small chance this child could run into a Wizard who noticed that the child has magical talent and informed them as such. However, I think this might break the Secrecy Act as the Wizard would have no way of 100% knowing the truth.

Skooba
  • 60,372
  • 26
  • 294
  • 368