How do Muggle-born (Mud-Bloods) inhearite magic, if there partens don't have magic?

JK Rowling has stated that every muggle-born with or wizard has a wizarding ancestor. The magical gene might have lain dormant for centuries but it resurfaces later. incredisuper 07:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Magical Gene

The article Blood purity states "Due to the dominance of the magic gene, children born to at least one magical parent will usually be magical themselves [...]", while this article says "The magical gene, being recessive [...]". It both makes sense in their own right within these articles, but which is correct now? The magical gene being dominant would make much more sense, as half-bloods are usually magical by one parent. Muggle born could then be explained by chiasmata and the genetic linkage maybe or mutations. -- 13:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this article should not say that the magical gene is recessive, since JKR has said that "magic is a dominant and resilient gene". However, I'm not sure if she meant it in a technical sense, since there are inconsistencies either way. If magic is a dominant gene, it explains why there are so many half-bloods and why the occasional Squib is born (though they should actually be more common than they are described as being), but it makes it difficult to explain why there are a fair number of Muggle-borns. Magic being a recessive trait explains Muggle-borns well and why there are so few Squibs, but not why there are so many half-bloods. I've also heard of epigenetics being used to explain Muggle-borns. However, all of this is speculation, and Rowling's word is law, so I'll alter the article to reflect what she's said on the subject. Oread 20:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
JKR has given conflicting statements as to whether the magic gene is dominant or recessive. In a 2007 webchat, she answered a question about how a magical person can be born to non-magical parents by stating, "Muggleborns will have a witch or wizard somewhere on their family tree, in some cases many, many generations back. The gene re-surfaces in some unexpected places." However, as Oread noted above, JKR clearly stated on her website that magic is a "dominant" gene, going so far as to define a Squib as any "non-magical person born to at least one magical parent."
I could go on a lot about how the information given by JKR is hard to make sense of in terms my admittedly limited understanding of Mendelian genetics. Instead I'll just point everyone to an excellent theory by T. Brightwater on MuggleNet which manages to logically explain everything in canon (Squibs, Muggle-borns, and half-bloods). Starstuff (Owl me!) 13:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I quite like the genetics piece on MuggleNet. I'm not a biologist, but I've done some study of genetics, and it's almost certain that a trait as complex as magical ability wouldn't be carried on a single gene! Lytefoot 03:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Won't the first wizard in the world technically be a muggle-born since he or she has no wizard parents?

Second-generation Muggle borns?

Anyone know what the blood status of the offspring of two Muggle-born parents would be? It doesn't seem reasonable that they'd be considered Muggle-born themselves, but Muggle-borns appear to be counted as Muggles for determining blood status otherwise. I don't know, is this question too nerdy for consideration? Lytefoot 03:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Here a good answer...kind of. I made up two people in this and they are muggle-born and got married and had kids. I read somewhere that if two muggle-borns has kids, they are called muggle-borns as well. Or to make up a name, muggle-born-borns. haha. That part was a joke. So what I am saying it that I think they are considered muggle-borns no metter what. If you think they will be pure-blood, then they are for the muggle-born part. Get what I am saying. Hopemon 23:28, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion I think they would be considered halfbloods. Both of their parents are magical but they also have muggle ancestry. It's almost half and half.L4D2 Ellis (talk) 23:50, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

Petrification victims

In Chamber of Secrets, Chapter 17, Tom Riddle tells Harry: "She [Ginny] set the serpent of Slytherin on four Mudbloods, and the Squib's cat." After ruling out Colin, Hermione, and Justin, who are all definitively known to be Muggle-born, this leaves Penelope and Nearly Headless Nick. I think Penelope is more likely to be the fourth "Mudblood" referred to by Riddle, despite the fact that, in Deathly Hallows, Hermione poses as Penelope and claims to be half-blood. I figure Nick is Muggle-born, too, given his known history, but I don't see Riddle counting a ghost as one of the four "Mudblood" victims. Starstuff (Owl me!) 05:02, December 25, 2009 (UTC)

Bump. Starstuff (Owl me!) 02:44, January 1, 2010 (UTC)
Yea, but I think if Riddle knew Nick was a muggleborn, then it wouldnt matter if he was a ghost or not, he would hate him all the same. -- Ratneer Owl Me! 03:02, January 1, 2010 (UTC)

harry potter and the connection

Harry potter and voldemort do have an connection. But what is that connection saying. They always have some meaning the messages but in the end that whole connection can mean something much more.

What? 17:46, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

...Quick question

What is the child of a muggle and a muggle-born? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

Honestly, that is not a connection presented in the text. We have no idea. Presumably, the child will be magic, but as to their blood status, I cannot tell you. --JKochRavenclawcrest(Owl Me!) 23:01, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
BUT they wouldn't nececarily be magic, they COULD be a s quib. 21:47, December 28, 2010 (UTC) you know it, i'm 21:47, December 28, 2010 (UTC)
I would think they would just be half-blood. Because one of their parents is still magical. TheMeaningOfLife 01:00, March 28, 2011 (UTC)
I'm arriving very late to this party, but I agree with TheMeaningOfLife; I think a witch or wizard whose parents are Muggleborn witch/wizard and a Muggle would have to be considered a half-blood. You're not Muggleborn if you have a magical parent. Seansinc (talk) 20:18, November 5, 2015 (UTC)

Discrimination from Slughorn?

Sorry, but in my opinion that is ridicolous to say it is discrimination when someone's surprised that Muggle-born can be good witches—Slughorn is known to like some Muggle-borns and also he was fighting on the "right side" during the Battle from Hogwarts. Prejudices aren't discrimination, also because everybody has prejudices (otherwise we couldn't get a surface impression from someone).--Fußball-Lexikon (talk) 22:32, January 16, 2013 (UTC)

I think you may be confused by the definition of "discrimination". The term doesn't have to refer to the sort of harmful discrimination as I think you're thinking of, like how the Death Eaters viewed Muggle-borns. Discrimination merely means that you have some sort of preference for or against someone that isn't based on their individual merit. Slughorn, who believes that the descendants of great wizards may be great themselves, discriminates against Muggle-borns by the sole fact that they have no wizarding ancestors to "inherit" greatness from. He needs to see evidence, as he did for Lily and Hermione, that they can be great before he will believe it. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 22:44, January 16, 2013 (UTC)
Slughorn's comment was a perfect example of "the soft bigotry of low expectations"! I'm glad that Lily (and later Harry) called him out on it. -- Seansinc (talk) 20:22, November 5, 2015 (UTC)

Muggle-born: the standard term

In Pottermore entry for "Fourteenth Century – Seventeenth Century", it is stated that "while every nationality has its own term for ‘Muggle,’ the American community uses the slang term No-Maj". This elucidates the fact that the term Muggle --and consequently Muggle-born-- fit as standard. No-Maj and No-Maj-born are slangs. Although I think the Blood status of some characters' infoboxes should be corrected from No-Maj/No-Maj-born to Muggle/Muggle-born, No-Maj by itself is... ok. But No-Maj-Born is a grammatical anomaly.

Anyways, those are just more terms to refer to already existent concepts. I don't think that these information should be restricted to the Muggle and Muggle-born pages, however I do think they shouldn't be on infoboxes. Mnonai (talk) 21:03, March 14, 2016 (UTC)

How do they find them?

I thought it was due to the Trace, that triggered when a child used underaged magic, but I have re-read the bits about the Trace; Ron says that, even if the Death Eaters have breached the Laws of Magic and cast a Trace on Harry (despite being older than seventeen), they would still have to be close to him to cast the charm... so no, the Trace isn't a automatical... it requires the charm to be cast on each child...

Hence, the Ministry of Magic has another way to discover muggle-born wizards...

Hogwarts discovers them with the Quill and the Book of Acceptence I assume.--Rodolphus (talk) 09:33, November 30, 2016 (UTC)

Mmmm... so I guess they send somebody to cast the Trace on them, afterwards...Galeah (talk) 22:40, November 30, 2016 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.