I had always thought that Muggles and Squibs had the same magical attributes, or more accurately the same lack of magical attributes, mainly because we know they both can't preform magic and can't see dementors. But then it occurred to me that this cannot be true because Filch, a squib, was able to walk around Hogwarts despite it's anti-muggle charms. So what is the physical/magical difference between a squib and a muggle?

A muggle is a non-magical person who is born to non-magical parents, cannot peform magic but still may have a connection with someone or something that is magical, for example, Aunt Petunia is a muggle despite her being Lily's sister A squib is a person who is born to magical parents but cannot perform magic, for example, Merope Gaunt, Voldemort's mother or Argus Filch, the Hogwarts caretaker.

So, to make it clearer, both 'muggles' and 'squibs' cannot perform magic, the only difference is that 'Squibs' have access and knowledge about the Wizarding World (some Muggles do in rare cases) and Squibs have wizarding parents

Squibs know all about hogwarts, and the wizarding world, and are probably brought up in the wizarding community, and they are technically not muggles.

Squibs can see dementors. Mrs Figg saw them in OOTP when they attacked Harry.

I reckon all those anti-muggle charms on Hogwarts dont apply to squibs cos those who applied the charms, ie the 4 founders, and subsequent professors/headmasters, set the charms specifically against muggles, not against all people incapable of performing magic. Like you say, there's not much difference between squibs and muggles really, in that neither can perform magic, but the charms are designed against muggles only, I think. Like the muggle repelling charm Hermione uses in DH when they're camping. One of her incantations is "repello muggletum", or something like that. The incantation actually specifies muggles.

I'd say wizards and witches still see Squibs as part of the wizarding community, despite their inability to perform magic. They have magical blood in their veins, their parents, brothers and sisters could all be full wizards and witches, they're raised fully aware of the wizarding world, so I dont think any witch or wizard would consider setting up protective charms against them, stopping them accessing certain magical buildings.

Squibs actually can't, that's why Arabella Figg's testimony was very basic, 'big with cloaks', she obviously knew what they where sort of like from friends in the Wizarding World. Tiby, read this, its from Jo's website and about squibs.

I guess Wendall, you answered my question. I didn't think a charm would be able to distinguish a squib from a muggle (as a dementor's invisiblity is unable to distinguish the two) because they are the same except for their background, but hey, it's magic!

I'm curious about whether all Squibs are completely devoid of magical ability, or whether some Squibs have some low-level magic about them, but not enough to successfully complete a Hogwarts education.

I'm comparing Squib-ness to mental retardation, as not all retarded people have the same level of retardation. It varies widely and there is a threshold of IQ that separates a retarded person from a less intelligent "normal" person. In the wizarding community that threshold would be sufficient magic to complete a Hogwarts education, as you have some students with rather weak magical abilities there along with near-geniuses such as Hermione.

I think it is simply that Filch has some immunity to the charm, either because some spell has been cast on him so he isn't affected, or because the muggle repelling charm only acts on those muggles or squibs who don't know what is really there. I don't think the repelling charm can be absolute, because there will be occasions when muggles need to visit the castle, for example the parents of a muggle born child might need to visit in some circumstances.
No, squibs are completely non-magical, because you either have magic or you don't.

There is one major physical difference between squibs and muggles. A squib is a child of magical parents and carries the magic gene. In fact all muggles who produce magical children carry the magic gene, so I assume they are descended from squibs. Jo said in an interview that all muggle-born wizards and witches have a magical ancestor somewhere in their family tree.

It could be, but this is pure speculation, that the muggle-repelling charms don't work on squibs because the squibs carry the magic gene. But, of course, that would mean that they wouldn't work on the parents of muggle-born magical children. Remember Hermione's parents were able to get into Diagon Alley, which is invisible to muggles.

Maybe muggles can see Diagon Alley if they know it is there. Like you said, Hermione's parents were not only able to see the Leaky Cauldron, but also Diagon Alley. They also saw Arthur and Lucius Malfoy mix it up at F&B, but that's another matter. Perhaps the enchantments are set up so that one can see Diagon Alley if one can see the Leaky Cauldron ? Maybe Hogwarts isn't visible to the casual muggle passer-by, but parents of a muggle-born can be taken to the castle by someone who knows the place ?

The though occurred to me as I was typing this - what would a muggle have seen if he'd been in the vicinity of Hogwarts on May 2nd ? Would he have seen all the fighting going on for Voldemort had broken many of the protective spells around the castle ?

I doubt the Leaky Cauldron is protected by muggle repelling charms, because all the muggles dashing away whenever they got near would really hurt the trade of the shops nearby. I think it is more likely that it is enchanted so that you don't notice it unless you know it is there, which is how Harry feels when he first sees it.
We are told that Hogwarts appears to be a dangerous ruin to muggle eyes. However that isn't sufficient by itself because the well tended grounds, potentially with a lot of students on them would rather give away its presence. So I don't think we can tell if the spells that hide Hogwarts would be enough to hide the visual and audible evidence of a battle going on, but it is also protected by its remote location, and it is probably the case that there aren't any muggles within several miles of Hogwarts and Hogsmeade.

Yeah, I doubt the Leaky Cauldron has the muggle repelling charm on it. I reckon Roonwit's right. We know magic like this is possible with the fidelius charm, so it's probably something similar, but maybe not as strict. Instead of it appearing when the secret keeper tellls you the location, it appears when anybody tells you the location, or even just that it exists, or something like that.

It's like St Mungo's, in that muggles have to be able to get inside under certain circumstances, so it can't have a charm that would stop muggles getting to it.

I think it is the idea of Heritage, it all seems to boil down to that. Squibs still have wizard blood in them, and although wizard families might disown them out of shame, they are still part of wizarding lines. Whereas although Squibs are out casted by default, they still have links to the wizarding world. I think they have more wizarding blood in them than a straight forward Muggle, they're not affected by going near hogwarts for instance.

Can you rephrase that to mentally disabled. The phrase "mentally retarded" is now outdated and improper...

Anyway, I think the biggest difference is that Squibs can use magical items (such as the floo, the night bus, etc.) while Muggles cannot because they can't see these things.

By the way: Was Merope Gaunt a real Squib? I though Dumbledore said she just had "little magical ability" - can someone answer?

Merope was definitely not a squib. She was a witch. Dumbledore explained that her magical ability did not show itself while she was being oppressed by her father and brother, but she was able to give full rein to it after they were out of the picture.

Except that "mentally disabled" could refer to almost anything -- including having a butcher's knife stuck through your temple! So, why don't we just call a spade a spade. Try Googling, "mentally retarded." The phrase is still widely used by doctors and other professionals alike. It's neither outdated nor improper.

I mean, if your goal is to be as PC as possible, then you might want to consider not using the word "disabled," as I believe some people feel it to be offensive as well. I believe the current PC phrase is "differently abled."

So, now we're left with the phrase, "mentally differently-abled" -- which doesn't mean anything at all!

Back on topic: I'm not sure the Muggle-repelling charms on Hogwarts are absolute. Remember when the parents of the Triwizard Tournament champions came to watch the 3rd task? What if one of the champions was Muggle-born? Would a spell have to be performed on their parents when they arrived at the gates, to negate the Muggle-repelling charm? Or would the Muggle-repelling charm just have been cast in such a way as to exclude parents of Hogwarts students?

And harrydavid is quite right that Merope was not a Squib. Marvolo only calls her one to insult her.

I would think that the magic gene would have a great deal to do with it, when it comes to things like The Knight Bus. The bus will appear to Squibs, because they have the magic gene, even though they can't do magic, but it won't appear to Muggles, because they don't have the gene.

Except -- Muggle-born witches and wizards get the gene from their Muggle parents! So if even Muggles can have the magic gene in them (in its dormant, recessive state, of course)...it can't work like that.

And incidentally -- could a Muggle ride the Knight Bus, if a wizard flagged it down for them?

Linnea

That's a great point Mrs_Linnea_Snape. I don't think heritage can be the determining factor because then muggle born witches and wizards would not be accepted.

I think the idea of knowledge being the determining factor is probably the most likely instead of heritage or ability.

However, it just occurred to me that even this hypothesis poses problems for wizards and witches who are mentally retarded or have suffered a serious memory charm like Lochart.

It would seem that for an anti-muggle charm to work, it would require intelligence to judge each individual situation because there doesn't seem to be any absolute differentiation, unless of course a witch or wizard has to manually add or subtract people from a sort of blacklist or whitelist.

I suppose I'm reading too much into this because let's face it, it's magic, but it's interesting to try to figure out what exactly it means to be a wizard or witch, and what it means to be a muggle.

Well, for what it's worth, I have this to add to the discussion. Two quotations from PS that both help shed light on this topic, and make it more confusing than ever:

After Harry leaves Madam Malkin's after meeting Draco Malfoy for the first time, he is very worried that he won't be good at magic because he's grown up with Muggles. Hagrid tries to reassure him, saying:

"Yer not from a Muggle family. If he'd known who yeh were -- he's grown up knowin' yer name if his parents are wizardin' folk -- you saw 'em in the Leaky Cauldron. Anyway, what does he know about it, some 'o the best I ever saw were the only ones with magic in 'em in a long line of Muggles -- look at yer mum! Look what she had for a sister!" (UK edition, p61).

Second, at the feast in the Great Hall, after the sorting, Neville says:

"Well, my gran brought me up and she's a witch," said Neville, "but the family thought I was all Muggle for ages...Great Uncle Algie came round for tea and he was hanging me out of an upstairs window by the ankles when my Great Auntie Enid offered him a meringue and he accidentally let go. But I bounced -- all the way down the garden and into the road. They were all really pleased, Gran was crying, she was so happy. And you should have seen their faces when I got in here -- they thought I might not be magic enough to come, you see," (p93).

Neville's family appears to have thought he was a Squib (at least, I think that's what he meant -- I think J.K. didn't want to introduce the word "Squib" yet, in the same way Lucius Malfoy calls Hermione "a girl of no wizard family" when he's safely in the presence of Draco and Borgin at the start of CoS -- he would undoubtedly have just called her "a Mudblood girl," but J.K. wasn't ready to introduce the word "Mudblood"). But, after the incident with Uncle Algie when Neville bounced down the road, his family believes he has magic, but that he might not be magic enough to come to Hogwarts. This seems to indicate that there is not such a clear, definite, black-and-white line between Muggles and Squibs.

The first one helps shed more light on the geneology thing. It seems to tell us that there also is not a clear, definite, black-and-white line between Muggle-borns and non-Muggles borns. Rather, except for the strict pureblood families, everybody and nobody is actually Muggle-born. Does that make sense?

EDIT: What I mean is: okay, say there's a pureblood wizarding family called -- let's say the Gambinos, because I think that's hilarious. The Gambinos have a Squib son, Paulie Gambino, who integrates into Muggle society and marries a Muggle woman. He is an only child, and so were his parents -- no more wizarding children. And all of Paulie's children turn out to be Muggles, too. So, the family line now continues as a Muggle line. Then, maybe a couple hundred years later, the Gambino family produces its first wizard in a long time. This boy, Tony, is also an only child, and his parents were too. He marries a witch, has five wizard and witch children, and now the Gambinos are a wizarding family again.

I've just always thought that Muggle-repelling charms could be overcome simply by showing the Muggle the place or taking them directly there by side-along apparition, a bit like telling them the name of a place guarded with the Fidelius Charm I guess. And squibs would've been taken to these places early in their lives so even if they are technically "all-muggle", they've seen them so can still go to them... well that's just my view on how it works.

I think that this may be wrong. allow a small correction please. I think that wizards married into muggle families, then they may have been forgotten for centuries, until a randomly selected child got the wizard powers. This would mean that there are no Muggle-born wizards!
This seems to be closer to being right

Oh yeah, I missed that point. You guys are a step ahead of me lol. Perhaps all muggle born wizards and witches have a wizard or witch down the family tree. However, yeah, as Mrs_Linnea_Snape pointed out, if that is the case, many muggles would also have a wizard or witch down the family tree. Therefore these muggles with the 'magic gene' would be wizards to an anti-muggle enchantment if it used heritage as criteria.

That's what one would gather from Neville's words, but Jo said clearly in an interview that there is no such thing as 'not being magic enough'; one is either magical or one isn't. It is just a question of how gifted and hard-working one is at magic. Dumbledore was extremely gifted while Aberforth wasn't, but both were wizards.

That's what I always thought, too, which was why I was so confused by that line. I guess he just meant that his family didn't think he had enough raw talent to make it into Hogwarts. References like this are made a lot, i.e., Snape telling Lily, "You've got loads of magic." I can't think of any other examples off the top of my head, but you get the idea. The characters seem to talk as though it's possible to have different levels of magic, not as if you either have magic or you don't. But I guess what they're actually talking about is different levels of talent, not magic.

1) Merope Gaunt was NOT a squib

and

2) technicalities aside the point of not letting Muggles into magical stuff is to keep the statute of secrecy. So even though a squib and Muggle are the same in that they have no magical powers, a squib is someone who is born and raised in the Wizarding world and therefore nothing has to be kept secret from them. Muggle repelling charms would be for real Muggles that don't know about the Wizarding world. How a charm manages to do that, I don't know, but the point of them would be to keep things secret that are meant to be kept secret. A squib would all ready know, there's no point in keeping things secret from Filch or Figg even though they don't have magical powers. So they would see Hogwarts and can go around it, even if they can't do magic, because they were prolly told about its existance since they were infants, they can't do magic but they're not part of the group that magic needs to be kept secret from.

Err... I have a question. Was Filch always such a depressing old git or was it when he realised what he was missing out on.

Exactly my thoughts. They seem to have equated the magical ability with talent which are two different things. There are so many things that go into making a person's magical power that it is impossible to have two wizards equally matche in all aspects. For example, Tonks was dead clumsy as she put it, but she was a superb Auror too. Of course, one doesn't need to be magical to express one's feelings - remember Mrs. Figg with a bag of cat food ?


Good question!
I'd say that the seeds of grumpiness were there but realising that he would never be truly a part of the magical world gradually led to them sprouting into plants and later a whole forest of surliness. IMO, he would have been bad if he'd been a wizrad too but not as bad as he was as a squib.

I think thats a good point.


but it still keeps one question open.

how does it come that diffrent witches or wizards develope their magic in variable speed?

for example neville found out that hes got magic powers very late and on the other side voldemort was very talented in young years even though he didnt exactly knew that hes a wizard.

Mabey its not all about talent...

or does this instinctly act of magic also depends on talent.

anyway i think the tropic of this matter changed alot more deeper than just the disparity of squibs and muggels 

well to satr and be obvious squibs have magical parents and muggles do not. squibs know everything baout the wizarding world that wizards do but for some reason cant practice using the magic because for some reason they just dont have the touch. muggles dont know anything about the wizarding world and have no reason to find out if they have ability with the exception of those few muggles who have discovered their ability and practice magic of course. other wise they are pretty much the same the only differece is one knows what they cant do and the other doesnt because to them magic doesnt exist.




on the matter concerning weather or not squibs cant see dementors i would like to point something out i may be wrong sorry if i am but in the order of the pheonix mrs. figg was a squib but she saw the dementors when they attacked harry and dudley didnt she i may just be losing my mind but i thought she did.

She did claim to have seen the dementors, but it is strongly implied in the surrounding text that she wasn't being completely truthful, which is confirmed on Jo's website.

I think there is no difference between Muggles and Squibs concerning magical ability. And I think this proves it:



At that point we do not know the word "Squib" and Nevill says they thought he was "all Muggle". Since we now know the word Squib we know what Neville is talking about. So from this extract I conclude:
Squib = all Muggle

If that is the case then there is no difference betwee Squibs and Muggles biologically speaking.

Ofcouse the case of upbriniging is a totally different matter. We are all aware that Squibs are raised in the wisarding world and Muggles are not. So I think that the spells on places like Hogwarts or the Leaky Cauldron are not simple Muggle repelling spells.
I suspect it is a combination of spells that do the following:
1) Allow those with magical abilities to see what is there and Muggles not
2) Allow those that have been shown the place to see it

So a wisard would always be capable of seeing the Leaky Cauldron while a Squib would have to have been taken there by a wisard so that he know the place is there.

Agreed. I think the sentence in which she explains it sums up the difference between squibs and muggles: "Arabella Figg never saw the Dementors that attacked Harry and Dudley, but she had enough magical knowledge to identify correctly the sensations they created in the alleyway." That's the diference: Magical knowledge.

I agree that the spells on places like the Leaky Cauldron aren't just simple Muggle repelling charms, and that if you have been shown the place you can see it, Muggle or not. Otherwise how would Hermione's parents (and parents of other Muggleborns) be able to take them shopping for their school supplies? They wouldn't be able to get through to Diagon Alley because they wouldn't be able to see the Leaky Cauldron.

I'm not sure whether squibs have to be shown or not though. As other people have said, squibs are already aware of the wizarding world so they know places like the Leaky Cauldron exist.

For me, it's like the concept of believing in fairies in Peter Pan. You can't see them until you believe in them. In the same way, Muggles can't see places like the Leaky Cauldron until they know they're there.

Good comparison Bookworm_Weasly.

Perhaps you are right and it is only magical knowledge. But I think that would be to distinct for a spell to notice.
Thats why I believe that Squibs need to be shown.

That's a good point. I expect it's a very complex branch of magic. It's might be like the Fidelius charm. This is magic that only lets specific people see the location of something, and other people can then see it if they're told of the location. Hmmm...

I agree. It is very complex.
I wonder if a squib can show a Muggle (or a Muggle a Muggle) or if the spell prevents that form happening. Since it would break the Statue of Secrecy. Also I wonder if a Squib marries a Muggle if that Muggle is allowed to be told about magic. Or would they lead Muggle lives? It might be nicer for the Squib. JKR is right we shuld feel sorry for Squibs.

I'm not sure a Muggle could show another Muggle. I was always under the impression that parents of Muggleborn students had to agree to keep the existence of magic to themselves (though, like Fudge says to the Minister, who would believe them?). Otherwise they might be tempted to tell all their friends, and they might try to take their friends to Diagon Alley to show they're telling the truth. Then all hell would break loose.

I expect that if a Squib marries a Muggle then they're allowed to tell them about magic. Especially if the Squib- like Filch- works in the Magical world. It wouldn't be fair to expect them to to lie to the person they loved.

You've got a point.
But lets say that the childeren are Muggles are they told? Or do they fall under the loved ones category? And if they do, do they tell thier partner? And then again do they tell thier children. Where is the end of the line? Who is not told, so that the magical ancestors are forgotten and they are ready for a Muggle-born Wisard?

BTW I am assuming that the Squib has a Muggle job and is not intigrated into the Magical world the way Filch or Mrs. Figg is.

I think in that situation, it would be up to the parents whether they told the kids or not. Say Filch got married (and not to Mrs Norris! ), it would be more difficult for him to keep it from the kids because he lives at Hogwarts. It might be easier for a Squib who worked at, say, Flourish and Blotts, because they don't need to tell the kids anything other than that they work at a bookshop. Of course, if the child finds out in later life that magic exists (from, say, marrying a witch or wizard themselves) and find out that their parents knew, then that might cause problems.

Exactly. They know all about the wizarding world, so if something were to happen w/magic, they wouldn't need memory modifying or something like that.

My impression was that squibs could not see dementor's. In Harry's trial had been given some helpful advise on what to say. That came from JK Rowlings. However no one questioned how could she see and feel them if that is true.

Lets go to mendle and his bean bods. If you don't know it yet you will. The Genetic mution must have appeared through what is called gene spliting. Being a dominent gene would tend to appear in most of the children. The reason their are not a world full of wizard and witches is that the gene was never reproduced under the right conditions.


A witch marries a muggle, chances are one will be a squib. If the children married muggles then the magic gene would become recessive and if they kept reproducing
with muggles then over time no more witch or wizard. That is why to the Blacks and other Pure Blood was important. They had to have noticed that witches and wizards seemed to just go away in some family's. I doubt they knew the reason why.

Magic does not come from no where, so we have to figure that something special has to happen to turn a muggle family into one that has a witch or wizard.

Back to those bean plant. The small one splits that dominent gene and bang you have a witch or wizard that can be very powerful. Lilly was a prime example.

If witches and wizard's tend to marry into their own kind then the population
growsup. Hermione marries a pure blood well as long as only on occations muggles are entered into the mix, then you will continue to produce the witching world for a very long time.

That is why which has been spoken about before, must have the gene show up but because they married muggles the gene as powers went away.

I feel sorry for squibs because they are aware of the wizard world but seem to have the rottenest jobs and lives.

I was under the impression that Squibs could see dementors, because of how indignant and outraged Mrs. Figg is when Fudge asks:

"Incidentally, can Squibs see dementors?" he added, looking left and right along the bench where he sat.

"Yes, we can!" said Mrs. Figg indignantly, (USA edition, p143).

I did notice that Mrs. Figg had a hard time visually describing the dementors, but I thought this was because she had never seen one before, not because she was incapable of seeing them. She arrived in that alleyway only after Harry had gotten rid of the dementors with his Patronus charm. She still felt their presence, though, because she was in the immediate area, but she did not actually see them.

So, I thought that she had missed seeing the dementors, but thought her testimony would be more believable if she pretended she had. Thus, her testimony was a little shaky when she was asked to visually describe the dementors, because that part was a lie, but she quite accurately described the coldness and misery that emanated from them, because she was truthfully a witness to that part of it.

Linnea

Here is the quote from Jo's website about squibs:The way Jo says it your explanation could be right, but I have always took it to mean that squibs can't see Dementors (they aren't really magical). The fumbling way she testified made me think she couldn't really see them before I even saw this quote. She ends with "That was what happened." Then when asked if that was what she saw, she repeats "That was what happened." Implying that she hadn't really seen them at all. But, I guess it is open to interpretation.

That could be, but I think it's interesting that J.K. didn't say, "Mrs. Figg was unable to see the dementors that attacked Harry and Dudley..." Instead, she said, "Mrs. Figg never saw the dementors that attacked Harry and Dudley..." which seems to imply that she could have seen them, if she had arrived in the alleyway just a few minutes earlier.

Your interpretation is no less possible, but it made sense to me that Mrs. Figg had simply never seen a dementor before (not many wizards have, I suppose, and Mrs. Figg lived in the Muggle world, which would make her chances of coming across a dementor even more remote), not because she couldn't see them, but because she had never had the chance to see one.

She missed her chance again on the night of August 3rd -- that is, she missed seeing the dementors that attacked Harry and Dudley simply because she arrived too late, after they had gone. But she didn't want to admit this in her testimony, because she thought it would weaken Harry's case. So she lied about seeing them, which was why that part of her testimony was weak, but she didn't lie about the cold and misery that emanated from them, because she was nearby enough to truthfully feel that.

Linnea

Maybe because squibs know about the magical world, and muggles don't.

I agree. From a magical ability standpoint Squibs and Muggles are identical. It is the knowledge and exposure to the magical world that makes the only difference. If a Squib was given to a Muggle family at birth there would be no noticable difference. However, I suspect that the Squib's offspring could be a witch or a wizard.

IMHO it seems that Squibs would have to be able to see dementors, just from what we see in the series. While I think Rowling definitely meant Squibs can't see dementors rather than Figg never saw them, I think it raises some sticky questions. For instance, in PoA, wouldn't not being able to see dementors hinder Filch, a Squib, quite a bit? I don't have my book, but I would assume that Filch, as caretaker of the castle, would have to interact with dementors at some point during the year.

No, because Dumbledore said they were supposed to stay outside the boundaries of Hogwarts. They were not supposed to be able to get to Harry during the Quidditch match.

As much as I know, the Squibs are aware of the magical world and were born to wizards, when the muggles weren't.
It's just that they both can't perform magic, isn't it?

I always guessed that Squibs were born to magic-ability parents but for some strange, unexplained reason they were unable to utilize magic. Kind of a strange anamoly in the Wizarding world more than anything.

Muggles, on the other hand, can practice magic if they so choose once the Wizarding world is exposed to them. Though we never saw Muggles (not Squibs) that were unable to utilize magic so we would never know what they would be called.

So lets step through this logically. A squib is the classification for a person who has magical blood, but is born without whatever gene or attribute, or whatever enables a person to be magical. Now a muggle on the other hand, as non magical people are so called in Rowling's universe, is a person who does not have magical parents - or parents with magical blood; however it appears that even if you are without any of the prior genetic requirements you can still have magical children. So their ability to have magical children isn't a very good separating factor for telling the two apart.

~~~~~~

From what I can tell there are only two prominent squibs in Rowling's universe. The first is the aforementioned Mrs. Figgs, the second is Mr. Filtch. The connecting attribute between them is that they both share an abnormal connection, not to mention a means of communication with and command of, their cats.

Thus is appears that, unlike muggles - who again share the ability of producing magical offspring, squibs have a negligible control over magic that only appears strong enough to control and communicate with cats (or perhaps even other animals.)

While this might not be saying much, it does give a clear difference between muggles and squibs. There may be different degrees and types of squibs with other magical abilities, but that is entirely speculation.

~~~~~~~~

Actually the control of cats by squibs only appears to be hinted at in the books, though I am fairly certain that Mrs. Figgs ordered her cat to follow harry which is why she knew he was in trouble.

~~~~~~~~

Another prominent feature about squibs might also be that they encounter discrimination in the magical world. This isn't hard to believe if Rowling's universe had several figures which opted for power on an anti-non-magical sentiment. Indeed, I don't recall Filtch ever being treated with much respect, and I believe he's usually only ever addressed by his last name without the prefix 'mr'.