1: Would the magical child of a squib and a muggle be considered muggle born or half-blood (grandfather pure blood, grandmother muggle-born)?
2: What do you think happened to muggle borns at Hogwarts during the events of seventh book....were children taken from the school and sent to azkaban? Or did they hide in the room of requirement perhaps?
3: Can only muggle borns be petrified by the basilisk, or was the basilisk merely targeting them under orders?
4: Would looking at the basilisk through binoculars count as not directly looking them in the eye...thus being petrified.
Edit - 5: One question I forgot to ask, If a three year old had seen death, do you think this is old enough to to be able to see thestrals? The three year old at the time cried in response to the death and understood that the person had died.
Not sure this is the best place for this, but here are my thoughts.
1) The general rule is to look back to grandparents for determining blood-status. Based on a pure-blood grandfather with other not pure-blood grandparents, this individual would be half-blood. See Pure-blood#Author's comments for more info.
2) Many Muggle-borns did not return to Hogwarts for schooling during the 7th book - see Colin Creevey. Many were on the run or in hiding - what happened to them if they were caught isn't directly explained at any point that I remember.
3) The stare of a Basilisk will kill anyone - Slytherin's basilisk was being directed by Tom Riddle as he was Slytherin's heir. See Basilisk & Serpent of Slytherin
4) I would say yes - the glass would act similarly to looking through a camera like Colin Creevey.
Good luck with your story! Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 19:25, November 3, 2016 (UTC)
Actually, glasses do not distract the Basilisk's gaze. Myrthle died while wearing her glasses and JKR made clear in an interview that glasses do not protect.--Rodolphus (talk) 16:42, November 7, 2016 (UTC)
- Good point, but I would still say that binoculars are closer to a camera in operation with multiple lenses than eye glasses. However as JKR noted in that interview the reasoning for this exception are not entirely clear so plenty of room for interpretation. Edinburgh "cub reporter" press conference, ITV, 16 July 2005
- ETA - Not sure about the 3 year old - have to be old enough to see and understand death. Harry was not at 15 months, but a 36 month old might be - open to interpretation as well IMO. --Ironyak1 (talk) 16:53, November 7, 2016 (UTC)