Harry Potter (novel)/WMG/Real World Theories

It's a Marxist allegory.
Magic is capital controlled by the wizarding world. The "pure-blood" Slytherins represent the aristocracy who believe that "magic" (i.e. capital) should be in the hands of a privileged elite. The "clever" Ravenclaws represent the bourgeois intelligentsia. Hufflepuff are the petty-bourgeois, stupid and useless yet still oppressive.

All wizards treat Muggles (proletarians) as inferior beings and allow them to labour and suffer when, if they control of the means of production (magic), they could have much better lives. The Muggles are unaware of magic's existence, just like the proletariat are largely unaware of the existence of capitalism. The house-elves are skilled labourers lacking class-consciousness, believing that the system is kind to them. Dobby is like that guy in The Ragged-Trousered Philanthropists, but he ultimately fails in igniting revolution.

Note that while some believe that it is acceptable for Muggle-borns to learn magic (i.e. become nouveau riche) and others disagree, all agree that magical people are inherently superior. The wizarding peoples do not learn to perform productive labour at Hogwarts, merely how to use the magic they were born with. Similarly, the bourgeoisie need only learn to manipulate money; the workers will produce it.

And so we come to our heroes. The Gryffindors wear red Quidditch robes and represent the Red Army. Dumbledore, with his voluminous white beard, stands for Karl Marx; Hagrid is Engels, his faithful servant; while Harry Potter's glasses and untidy black hair make him identical to Leon Trotsky. Harry's lightning-bolt scar is in reference to the fatal head wound inflicted on Trotsky by Ram Ã³n Mercader with an ice pick. The two Orders of the Phoenix represent the First and Second Internationals.

Voldemort represents the modern consumer. His commodity fetishism is symbolised by the Horcruxes, "valuable" objects into which he projects parts of his soul. Possessions give him identity; destroying them shatters it, making him realise that he has not developed as a human being.

Quidditch is a further allegory. The Chasers and Keeper represent the workers, who supply most of the game's work and are forced to compete with each other. The Beaters are the armies who, although they appear to fight each other, in reality oppress the workers. The Seeker is the capitalist: he wins the gold(en snitch) and renders the Chasers' labour virtually worthless.

Snape is Lenin. He kills Dumbledore in order to fulfill Dumbledore's plans, just as Lenin modified Marxist theory to fulfil Marx's broad goals.
 * Hey, that makes sense!
 * Also, Harry often acts like respect and success should just fall into his lap - Trotsky, being far more intelligent that those around him, had the same flaw.
 * Good theory, but for 2 problems: The Workers labour in order to make the products and earn a living, but if magic is in-born, than how can the proles produce it? The theory sounds like a reversal of the Death Eater "Muggleborns stole our magic!" propaganda. Also, Harry may act like he's entitled to a lot of information - which, in a way, he is - but he rarely acts like respect should just be his. He's felt that he's earned it after facing who knows how many near-death encounters and winning/surviving, and is angry that he is always treated as a kid by Dumbledore, Molly, etc.
 * Creative but ultimately almost certainly wrong, and even IF correct it only shows that JK Rowling shot herself in the foot by screwing up the allegory (nevermind the ideological problems in the first place). For one, the theory holds that the Muggles can somehow PRODUCE magic, which we have absolutely no evidence to support. And even if we CAN somehow accept that, there is nothing we know of in canon for Muggles to somehow OBTAIN magic, unlike the workers, who can obtain capital (albiet in Marxist theory largely indirectly).

Order of the Phoenix is an allegory about the dangers of matriarchism.
Umbridge is a woman holding a job that otherwise was exclusively male, and she completely botched it. Just to rub it in, she's from the Ministry Of Magic (M.O.M.), and the job is Defense Against the Dark Arts (D.A.D.A.).
 * Being head of the school is not an exclusively male job. Minerva McGonnagall is major proof.
 * And the M.O.M. point doesn't hold water. Rowling is a British author, and her books are set in Britain, while "mom" is American.
 * "Mom" is not exclusively American. While 'mum' is the dominant form, there are parts of England where "Mom" is used as well.

Grindelwald collaborated with or took over the Nazis
Why conqure the muggles when someone has practically done it for you? It would've been very easy for him, a tall (presumably), blond, blue-eyed, handsome, fiercely intelligent person with occult powers, to win over a group of people who valued these exact traits. Under his leadership, the Third Reich was able to expand; unfortunately for the Nazis, Dumbledore defeated Grindelwald before the end of the war. As for the concentration camps, Grindlewald either didn't know, looked the other way, or had jumped off the slippery slope.
 * There's just a little error in your theory: He probably felt the same thing Dumbledore felt for him, thus making him gay and against the very base of the Nazi evil policy.
 * Ernst Rohm disagrees with you. Sorry, but anti-gay sentiments were never at the core of Nazi ideology. A good smear when you needed to discredit someone, but given a nod when it was still your guy. And Grindelwald was undoubtedly tied up in Nazism/Fascism- the Greater Good stuff all sounded vaguely like the Will to Power stuff of the intellectual roots of the movement.
 * The greater good...
 * SHUT IT!!!
 * And that's not even to mention a Don't Ask Don't Tell idea; if he wanted to ally with the Nazis for some reason, there's no reason he would have had to say "Oh, and by the way, I like men".
 * Rohm was killed in 1934, though. Five years later, at the start of WW 2, the Nazis were extremely anti-gay. Gay people were sent to the concentration camps, you know.
 * I am fairly sure J. K. Rowling described Dumbledore's feelings for Grindelwald as "unrequited."
 * To answer: Since he would've been a Man Behind the Man, only the elite of the elite would've met him - possibly just Hitler and Himmler. The Big Book of Conspiracies says that Hitler was occasionally caught ranting to an unseen being - perhaps this being was inside a portrait? Besides, would you risk spreading rumors about the commander of a magical army who might be able to read minds and was probably no slouch himself in the torture/kill department?
 * Anyway, the Nazis were killing gay Muggles; why would he care?
 * Because a huge part of Grindlewald's (initial) "For The Greater Good" agenda was putting muggles under the protection of wizards, but like I said before that may have devolved to "Rule The Muggles Who Rule The Muggles" by the time Albus defeated him.
 * And wasn't Hitler dark-haired and half-Jewish? Compared to him, Grimdlewald sounds like a model of "Aryan fitness."
 * Dark-haired, half-Jewish and gay!
 * Crossover WMG: Inglourious Basterds was a true story --, but Grindenwald & Co. assumed command immediately afterwards and kept the war going another year.

Alternatively, Grindelwald is Hitler.
I can't really be bothered to make this work this late at night, but it's not impossible what with all the occult nazi stuff. As for the final duel - Hitler didn't commit suicide, he was locked in Auschwitz (Nurmengard) and left there to rot for a little while. He didn't last long and - I dunno. Someone sort this out.
 * "Gendelwald = Kroenen" poster, I'll give it a try (this is facinating when combined with the fact that a fragment of a skull the Russians claimed was Hitler's turned out to be an unknown female's):
 * Always Hitler: Grindelwald takes on the less-impressive but more belivable form of Adolf Hitler so he could infiltrate the Nazi movement, which he or a psychic predicted would have a huge impact on the muggle race. He eventually becomes their ultra-charismatic leader and somehow manages to keep this disguise a secret from the pureblood purist wizards, who would have denounced him for "collaborating" with the muggles.
 * (ponders) So if Grindelwald was gay, would that mean Eva Braun was his "beard"? And this doesn't account for all of Hitler's relatives... After giving it some thought, Hitler's (or "Hitler's") relatives are Grindlewald's squib/muggle relatives (HP Lexicon says he's "probably pureblood", but if Voldemort and Snape are able to get into Slytherin...).
 * Replaced Hitler: The real Hitler was assassinated in the "Valkarie" plot (or earlier) and Grindelwald took over so he could continue to control the Nazis. The later mental breakdowns was the "mask" beginning to crack when he began to lose control of both magic and muggle fronts.

Senator Richard Burr (R-NC) is a wizard. In fact, he is the United States wizarding government's top DADA specialist.
Just like every North Carolinian senator who preceded him in his seat. His senatorial seat is "cursed": it's switched parties in every election since 1975. Sound familiar?
 * The 2010 elections unfortunately seem to have invalidated this theory; Burr just won a second term.
 * That just means the curser lifted it, or died.
 * I think you mean Jesse Helms, OP.

Harry Potter is intended to advertise libertarian viewpoints
Umbridge's time in Hogwarts showed clearly that governmental influence in private education is bad. The ministry of magic itself is described as rather sinister place, schemeing to reach obedience via surveillance. Reliable news only come from the Quibbler, not the Daily Prophet, which appears to be a wizarding world equivalent of the Pravda. My fiance believes this is indication enough that Rowling is libertarian.
 * Benjamin Barton, a University of Tennessee law professor, agrees. If you don't feel like reading the whole thing, Barton's basic point is that the Ministry is a self-serving bureaucracy with no checks or balances and the main characters seem to have little use for it.
 * Unlikely, though, because J. K. Rowling has consistently supported the Labour Party.

All major female characters are author avatars
The female characters are better than the male characters. Not surprising, perhaps. The male characters aren't bad, but the females each really hit a sweet spot.

There have been various claims of this character or that character being JKR's "Mary Sue," but no one character fills the bill. Instead, they all are. Each representing some aspect of JKR. More differentiated than the male characters.

Ginny - shy girl whose determined love wins the hero at the end. By letting him go she proves he really loves her.

Hermione - bookish. Smartest witch in the school, who's wooed by international soccer star Beckham Quidditch star Krum. Know-it-all nerd who's friends with Harry, the coolest kid in school, the Chosen One.

Fleur - ravishing beauty who's brave and intelligent. Marries coolest and richest Weasley. No trouble with harassment or stalkers.

McGonagall - Revered goddess of wisdom. In OotP it's the attack on her that sets off the professor in the Astronomy tower. Even after Sirius' and Dumbledore's deaths Harry keeps trying not to fight. What finally sets him off at Hogwarts in Deathly Hallows is ... someone spitting in McGonagall's face.

Molly Weasley - Keeper of the last homely house. Only person allowed to strike a killing blow against evil. (If anyone is JKR in the book, it's Molly. Think about the special clock as the physical embodiment of the worries of motherhood.)

Cho and Luna can also represent portions of JKR's personality, perhaps based on her personal experiences. Cho is rejection in a relationship. Note also Hermione's telepathic description of Cho's feelings, while Ron's reaction is straight out of the "boys are stupid" book.

Luna (with Sybil Trelawny) - the spacy female aspect of the moon. Runner-up for the real JKR. (Luna's chains of friendship in DH were the most touching scene in the whole series.) (Note Sybil's importance as seeress.)

They're all more distinct and differentiated than the male characters.

The male characters are good, the female characters are just enough better to be great. Drawn with slightly more life, but in the right places and ways.

Bellatrix is the conniving, uncaring, ambitious aspects of femininity.

Look at the other major female death: Self-sacrifice by Lily Potter that saves her son, and ultimately the world.

(Professor Burbage doesn't count. A red-shirt sympathy frag I had to check to determine the gender of.)

- Jove Hack


 * What about Umbridge?

-Leliel


 * The aspects Rowling doesn't like about herself, and knows no one else would. No Villain Sues here, thank you.

The 1st Book is The Sorceror's Stone in the US, and The Philosopher's Stone elsewhere,
Because the Patriots don't want American children to be thinking too much about Philosophers.

The Mauraders are a stand-in for The Beatles
Think about it. There were four of them, and James kind of resembles John Lennon, they were broken up, and two of them died by the end of the series.
 * But the Marauders weren't broken up by Lily. Nonetheless, this is always how I imagine Come Together.
 * Well... she did have the baby involved in the prophecy that prompted Voldemort to kill James. So, she kinda did, right? I like this theory. James is John, Sirius is Paul, Lupin in George and Pettigrew is Ringo. And by the way, all four of the Marauders are dead by the end of the series, not just two.
 * Hey, hey, hey -- don't insult Ringo!
 * This troper would argue that Peter is very much like Ringo -- except he was a Ringo who allowed his perceived lesser importance stop him form being anything other than a hanger-on to their coattails who turned against the rest of his group on promises of a better "role" with a rival/enemy "band." Very much unlike the real Ringo. After all, if Peter had made the choice, he could have been a very lovable, brave, devoted member of the Order -- a real Neville Longbottom type. Harry Potter is all about choices, remember.
 * Now I'm just picturing Dumbledore talking to Ringo Starr and saying things like: "Exactly! And that makes you very different from Peter Pettigrew!"
 * I'm imagining Peter Pettigrew narrating Thomas The Tank Engine.
 * Oh dear god.
 * I like this theory, except if you look at the personalities Sirius makes a better John (acerbic, creative, reckless, and with a tendency to push things too far) with James as Paul (a slightly softer counterpart). Remus works as George, and I suppose Peter works as a sort of alternate-universe evil Ringo. And, theoretically, Lily indirectly caused the ultimate "break up" (James's death, Sirius's imprisonment, Peter's disappearance) by...being there, I suppose, and having such a special baby. But it was really Peter who (rather violently) broke them up (which dear Ringo would never do!).
 * Haha, I love this comparison. James works well for John, as both were clever, witty, glasses-wearing brunettes that had an unfortunate tendency to be casually cruel and bullying (but had a good heart underneath it all), and both were murdered tragically, leaving behind a young son (two sons in John's case). They also had a very close relationship with Sirius/Paul, "never seeing one without the other" and all, and so close that a few people even assume Ho Yay. Sirius is Paul: James/John's right hand man, talented and popular, and the handsomest of the group. You could also make parallels with the Paul Is Dead conspiracy and Sirius being wrongfully blamed for the Potters' deaths, what with being mistaken for something they're not and so many people panicking needlessly over it; also, a few (crazy) people who subscribe to PID think that the replacement Paul was responsible for setting up John's death (again, crazy), as Sirius was believed to have betrayed James. George works well for Lupin: perceived as the "quiet" one, and more mature and wise than their friends, and often overlooked in favour of Sirius/Paul and James/John. Poor Ringo is then Peter, but as people above have said, it unfortunately is a good match, as they are small, a bit awkward, and the odd one out among a very talented group. But of course, Ringo is a lovely guy and a loyal friend, while Peter is... well, yeah.
 * This is EXACTLY what I think. I also believe Peter is an Alternative Universe Ringo who decided to go through the wrong path, betraying his friends. Like someone said above, Harry Potter is all about choices.
 * Remember when Dumbledore told Harry that all you need is love? Maybe he shared this philosophy with the marauders...

Magic is a metaphor for faith
It seems in the books that Squibs and Muggles are rarely ever good people. If Magic is instead viewed as a religion, then Muggles take the place of people born without a religion, Muggle-borns take the place of people who convert to a religion, Squibs are those who have given up their religion and Purebloods are those who were raised by their parents into a religion. Also, it seems, that as long as you have a belief that you can do something, you can. The reason Hermione is talented isn't because of natural intelligence, but because of having more confidence than Ron or Harry (she reads "scripture" often).

This also explains why Witches and Wizards normally have no wish to learn of muggle technology: they believe that their religion provides them with all the explanations they need. Not even Hermione has an interest in Muggle customs, despite how she was born into a Muggle family. In fact, the classes studying Muggles inherently sound like religious-themed Science classes - filled with extra details so that the theorie that can be proven fits with the "magic" that cannot.
 * Some pretty major problems with that theory. If all the good guys have faith, and most people without faith are bad, it follows naturally that the Harry Potter books are written from a very anti-atheist standpoint. So why do all the good guys go on about protecting those different to them? And why do all the major villains use magic? Oh, and "Not even Hermione has an interest in Muggle customs"? Seriously? She took extra classes so she could view muggles from the outside looking in as well as the inside looking out.
 * It isn't that ridiculous. Imagine a war/struggle within a church or religion that was about, among other things, whether to treat atheists with respect or oppress/disenfranchise/convert them by force. It would be all between believers but it'd still be clear who the good guys are. Religious people aren't always at war with those who aren't, you know.
 * What evil Squibs are there? Argus Filch is a Squib AND a dick, but he's also strictly small time. Arabella Figg was a Squib, but she was willing to watch over Harry Potter for sixteen years, and is hardly evil. Every other Squib is only mentioned in the background, but none are evil- like Marius Black, who was disinherited for being a Squib.

It was a previous version of the Millenium Bridge which was destroyed in the sixth film.
After the bridge was destroyed, the Ministry began an extensive campaign to modify the memories of everyone everywhere in the world who knew the bridge existed in order to maintain the Masquerade. Then the bridge was rebuilt, but nobody in the Muggle world remembered it wasn't the first one. This accounts for why we see the bridge existing in what should be 1996.
 * Totally! And they did such a hasty/shoddy job of modifying memories, the designers/constructors of the new one forgot about to test for the whole "lateral vibrations" thing, which is why it was Wobbly when it (re)opened!

Wizarding England is the Wizarding World's equivalent of Somalia or Darfur
Nasty, run by an alternating series of dictators and warlords, and Somebody Elses Problem. Zing!
 * It would explain why the rest of the world doesn't bother involving themselves with England's problems, why no one protests or attempts to the Ministry's quirks, inefficiences, and outright tyrannies.
 * And why noone protests when Voldermort takes over. In comes the new boss, same as the old boss.
 * The Wizarding World is lagging behind technologically by more than a century, maybe they're also lagging behind in human and civil rights.
 * So... since England hosted the Quidditch World Cup, we shouldn't be surprised if the IOC spurns Rio, Tokyo, Chicago and Madrid in favor of holding the 2016 Olympics in Mogadishu?
 * Well, given that Europe as a whole seems to be the center of quiddich as a sport, and judging from Karkoff we can surmise that Europe tends to get dragged into England's messes, its more like if Sudan, Chad, and a few other countries decided to hold their own Olympics, and invited the rest of the world to be polite.
 * Perhaps a better equivalent would be Soviet Russia, since the rest of the world trusts them enough to have major events in their territory.

Wizarding England is considered extremely backward by the standards of the rest of the Wizarding World

 * Aforementioned relative isolation and governmental incompetence.
 * Haven't even developed decent Magitek yet.
 * It follows, naturally, given participation of France and wherever Durmstrang is from in the brutal, pointless Triwizard Tournament (as well as the presentation therein of them and their tech and society level, not to mention Karkoff and the social implications of his power in Durmstrang) that Wizarding Europe as a whole is this crappy, and it is ironically the African, Southeast Asian, and Middle Eastern wizarding communities that are at the forefront, along with presumably America.

Alternatively, Wizarding England is considered normal by the standards of the rest of the Wizarding World

 * The reason they ignore all the internal problems - the corruption and racism inherent even before Voldemort came back - is because the rest of the wizarding world is the same way and they don't consider these problems. This overlaps, obviously, with Fridge Horror.

J.K. Rowling's cousin Ben Rowling was the inspiration for the character of Gilderoy Lockhart.
Remember how a few years ago J.K. Rowling's cousin Ben made a whole lot of public statements and did a bunch of interviews claiming that the character of Harry Potter was based on him? And how J.K. flatly denied it? Well, J.K. has also stated on her website that the only character in the series who was directly and intentionally based off a real person was Gilderoy Lockhart. She also stated the following: "You might think it was mean of me to depict him as Gilderoy, but you can rest assured he will never, ever guess. He's probably out there now telling everybody that he inspired the character of Albus Dumbledore. Or that he wrote the books and lets me take the credit out of kindness." Well, claiming to be the inspiration for Harry is not far off...

The Harry Potter series is real.
JK Rowling might actually be a witch who pretended that her books were written as fiction, which means that there will be a dozen wizards out there wondering what this Harry Potter book is doing as fiction when it's all true. JK might've decided that she wanted the Muggles to know a bit about the whole wizard thing, but she needed to keep The Masquerade a secret. Cue "fictional" accounts.
 * Uh... when I was younger, and was absolutely obsessed with Harry Potter, I used to actually believe this.
 * Hell, I believed that when I was ten -- and I still believe it today. IT'S STILL REAL TO ME, DAMMIT!
 * They could do like what happened in Paul, where, by showing us what real wizards are like, it gets us used to the idea of them existing.

The Harry Potter series is real, with one major difference.
As above, but with:
 * JK is Ginny, but never lost her crush on the 'real' Harry, but he never fell for her either. Probably bro code, where a friend's sister is off-limits caused him to forever stick her in the 'friend zone'. Harry ended up with Hermione and broke JK's heart. This is why she's so vehemently anti H/Hr. It also makes this a weird kind of self-insert real person Fix Fic.
 * I have read a fanfic that had that exact premise. It was the usual Harmonian bullshit. Ron joins the Death Eaters and rapes Hermione, but that's okay, because Hermione is so totally awesome it doesn't matter, and she has three kids, and a full-time job, and Harry looks after them because he's sweet and kind and it's just like the Lifetime Movie of the Week. Like I said, typical Harmonian bullshit.
 * Instead of Harry matching up with Hermoine, he really matched up with Cho after all, since otherwise it leaves Ron without a wife, and it explains how JK seems to like showing Cho in a not so positive light.
 * Because Ron can't marry anyone but Hermione? What?
 * Exactly; there are other ships for Ron (i.e., Ron x Luna, a popular one).

The Harry Potter series is kind of real
Related to above, except that the actual events of the series are not true, only the universe of it is. However, the characters are probably real, to a certain extent.
 * If the characters are real, JKR is most definitely Hermione, not Ginny, and the childhood friend for whom Harry is named is the real Harry Potter. Ron Weasley is probably based on a friend as well, although he most likely didn't marry JKR/Hermione (or he did and is her first husband, Jorge Arantes, but became a Butt Monkey after their divorce). Various teachers and students are likely based on people from JKR's Hogwarts days, as well, although Voldemort is her own creation.
 * This does explain why there are many characters based on people who Rowling knew in real life.

Cho Chang symbolizes Yoko Ono, Cedric Diggory represents John Lennon, Harry Potter is Ringo Starr and Dumbledore personifies Elton John.
Think about it. Yeah.
 * How is Harry Ringo? Shouldn't that be Neville's role? Also, going by this allegory, would Hermione be Linda McCartney? Because I have a hard time seeing Ron as Paul.

Kingsley Shacklebolt is meant to be an Expy of Nelson Mandela
South African activist that rises to the highest position of power? Abolishes laws that favor the master race? How did anyone NOT notice this?!
 * That doesn't work; Kingsley's black British, not South African, so unless he defected a long time ago (I don't know how difficult it is for a black or mostly-black South African to get or be born into British citizenship, if it's difficult at all), it doesn't sound likely.
 * No reason it can't be a bit of a Shout Out.
 * Uh, OP? You do realize that not every black person in the UK is an African immigrant, right? And that not every person born in an African country is black?

On modern anti-muggle bias...
The ancient form of anti-muggle bias was likely based in religious persecution, and the medieval versions probably related heavily to religion as well, particularly witch burnings and torture methods used. But, as with the real world, these feelings fade after awhile, and people look back on the hysteria and foul behavior as both embarrassing and morally wrong, with only the extremists with the least grasp on reality maintaining beliefs about killing or torturing 'sinners' or witches.

This makes the modern anti-muggle bias in the books seem absurd and with no basis, because history doesn't forget, but one can't deny that, when brought up, the Holocaust tends to bring about much stronger feelings than the banishment and executions of Jews from England in 1290. So why has this prejudice been maintained in the wizard world for so long? It occurred to this Troper that the social differences between the wizard world and the muggle world may have created some surprisingly different dynamics in the past.

The wizard world has a history of gender and race equality, their first female minister for magic was in the 18th century. The fact that she was even able to take the post implies that women had the same professional OPPORTUNITIES long before then, even if they had not yet been successful at taking such high-p ower positions. However, the muggle world is a different story. Muggleborns entering the wizard world would have brought with them the biases of their upbringing; racism, classism, religious-based prejudice and sexism among them. After the 18th century (at latest), the classism would have been the only remaining shared prejudice between the two societies.

Muggleborns in the wizard world would have likely been highly intolerant of many of the beliefs of their peers, and may have shown overt prejudice against them for reasons of gender, religion or race. This would have created an environment in which the purebloods who disliked muggles and muggleborns would have seemed less prejudiced than the muggleborns themselves, and may have heavily contributed to the state of modern prejudice in the wizard world, where although not everyone were Voldemort-aligned extremists, the environment was such that radical practices were able to be tolerated by the public and even institutionalized.
 * Many wizards cannot seem to learn science and maths very well, it could be that they are scared of what Muggles can do with their mind as well. I think in the first book Harry asks Ron on the train whether they would be learning stuff like fractions (as well as magic) and Ron asks what a "fraction" is.
 * I think this idea that the Witches and Wizrds pretend to hide from Muggles because they dont want to mix with them, but because they are secretly afraid of what Muggles have built and what they are capable of is quite interesting. Sounds like a good idea for a fanfiction.
 * Uh... Wizards and witches have to know math (including fractions, which was never brought up on the Hogwarts Express at any time) and science to properly brew potions. Also, Word of God states that the laws of magic in the Potterverse are based on alchemy, which requires a knowledge of math and science. Now Muggleborns might have an advantage over pure- and half-blood students (assuming that the half-blood kids were raised by a witch and a wizard) due to their knowledge of modern science, but to say that "wizards can't learn math or science" when two of the classes offered at Hogwarts are Potions (magical!chemistry) and Arithmancy (mathematical fortune-telling) just doesn't make sense.
 * I think you mean word of Fanon; none of this is in the books or supplimental materials/websites, and are flatout contradicted by the information that we have on those.
 * Nope, I mean Word of God. Seventh paragraph from the top.
 * Which states that SHE had to learn alchemy to create the system, not that the Wizards themselves do to use it. Magic as we see it in the book is like a lightswitch. You say spell and something happens. They don't learn the science behind that spell any more than an average person knows how a computer actually works. Regardless of your belief that knowing alchemy equates to knowing math and science, it's inarguable that we see no math, science, language, or culture classes at Hogwarts. Even if Arithmancy is, in actuality, a serious math class, it's not required, and implied that many people don't take it.
 * You can use something and not know exactly how it works. Ever driven a car? And do you know all the fine mechanical functions that make it work? I don't, and neither do a lot of people with driver's licenses, but that doesn't stop us from driving. As for your belief that wizards do not know math or science, period: Math can be broken down into "anything that involves numbers" and science can be broken down into "the properties of [x] as affected by [y]"; by this reasoning, Potions is the magical equivalent of chemistry (since you have to add a certain quantity of ingredients to a cauldron to brew one, and it will alter the properties of the ingredients you put in it; if you're old enough to have taken a high-school chemistry class [which, I'm sorry, you really don't sound like you are], then you'll understand that POV) and Transfiguration is the magical equivalent of physics ("all right, kids, change this teapot into a tortoise, on three!" Changing the basic structure of an object through magic.). Also, "not that the wizards themselves... use [alchemy]"? Explain what Nicolas Flamel was doing in the first book, then, when he was credited as "the only known maker of the Philosopher's Stone", one of the most prominent pieces of alchemical lore. Finally, you should brush up on your Word of God, which states that wizard children are either home-schooled (yes, in all subjects including math and science) or are sent to Muggle primary schools (where they'd have to take math and science classes regardless).
 * It's also possible Hogwarts has Maths and English classes but because they're boring they were left out of the books as they probably didn't affect the story. We know they study history and they don't need science (although they might have a look at it in Muggle Studies and wizards do have some mechanical devices such as clocks and plumbing) because they have magic. According to some of the games they also have art and music classes and maybe they even have a drama class as we know that Hogwarts has done at least one pantomime (however they were banned afterwards). Also there is evidence to suggest they learn a bit about how magic works in the particular classes that the magic relates too, such as the rule that states you can't conjure food from nothing.

The seven Defense Against the Dark Arts teachers represent the Seven Deadly Sins.

 * Quirrell: Greed
 * Lockhart: Pride
 * Lupin: Sloth (failed to tell Dumbledore that Sirius was an Animagus while he thought Sirius was trying to kill Harry, let his friends bully Snape in school)
 * "Moody", a.k.a. Crouch Jr.: Wrath
 * Umbridge: Lust (for power)
 * And blood
 * Snape: Envy
 * Carrow: Gluttony (it's the only one left, I can't find anywhere else to put it, and we know almost nothing about the Carrows anyway)
 * This actually fits. Gluttony is lack of control, and not just by over-eating. Consider drug and alchohol abuse. Here it is their abuse of power. Gluttony shares similarities with Greed and Lust.
 * Win.
 * This is... brilliant.

This troper always thought the Seven Deadly Sins manifested in this fashion:
 * Philosopher's Stone: Gluttony (Food issues and Voldemort's hunger for immortality leading to his immoderate consumption of unicorn blood.)
 * Chamber of Secrets: Pride (Lockhart's vainglory, Riddle's self-aggrandizement, anti-Muggle prejudice as "wizarding pride", etc.)
 * Prisoner of Azkaban: Sloth (Moral sloth in the form of allowing injustices to stand, counterpointed by Hermione's overachieving.)
 * Goblet of Fire: Envy (Do we really need to count the ways?)
 * Order of the Phoenix: Wrath (Harry's issues with his temper, Umbridge's sadism, Voldemort's murder spree, etc.)
 * Half-Blood Prince: Lust (Oh so many ships passing in the night.)
 * Deathly Hallows: Greed (The desire for material gain in several forms, not the least of which are the Hallows and Voldemort's desire for conquest.)

Further WMG about muggle distrust
Every now and then, a muggle born wizard isn't discovered in time, and sent to a proper school, and the power freaks them out. Thus are born witch hunters and inquisitors. The Statute of Secrecy was created in the 17th century, possibly after the worst of the Spanish Inquisition (which mostly targetted heretics... officially) had blown over.

The entire series is just a game played by the trio.
Magic does not really exist. Ron is just a lonely kid who is constantly overshadowed by his many siblings, so he made up a world where magic exists. Harry and Hermione are next door neighbors. Similiar to one of the above theory's, Harry's parents did die in a car crash, the other driver being named Tom Riddle. The Durseleys aren't really evil, just a little strict. Harry went to the Weasely's house one day and quickly became friends with Ron. Harry then joined Ron in his imaginary game. Hermione is another neighbor. One day she was attacked by a dog and Harry and Ron saved her. They became friends and she joined them in their imaginary game where the dog became a troll. The things that happen in their game are their exageration of real life events. Quirrel comes from a newspaper article they read about involving a teacher that was really a terrorist. Most of the staff at Hogwarts represent teachers at their actual school. Dumbledore is a friendly old man who sometimes plays with the kids (a la the Pigman.) The Triwizard tournament was an obstacle course of some kind. One day, one of their teachers named Snape came to their house to talk with the parents about something. Dumbledore was there and the two got into an arguement about something ultimately leading to Dumbledore having a heart attack which he died from. In time, Ron became jealous of the fact that Harry tended to take the glory and center himself as the main character in their game. Finally Ron quit playing for awhile, but came back later and apologized.The final book along with the epilouge is less centered on real life, but more of an abstract what would happen if this were real. The series ends because the three no longer play their imaginary game. Hermione wrote down everything that had happened in their imaginary play and published under a pseudonym.
 * Harry and Ron sued for royalties. (Joke aside, that was a really neat WMG!)

The Troubles extend into the Wizarding World.
In fact, dealing with rogue Irish Republican Army splinter groups is one of the few on-going collaborations between the Ministry of Magic and the muggle government. The Continuity IRA is composed of muggles, while the Real IRA is a wizard faction.

Northeastern Ukraine and southeastern Belarus have a disproportionate number of young Muggle-borns and Squibs.
Three words: Radiation from Chernobyl.
 * Or maybe there will be kids born the way Ariana became?

Voldemort's behavior was 'inspired' by Hitler and affected by his upbringing in the middle of World War II.
Hitler was a former political prisoner that originally intended to help Germany dig out of the terrible conditions that came as a result of Germany losing World War I. Tom Riddle was brought up in a London orphanage, and if the real world timeline overlaps with this one, the second half of his childhood was spent in that orphanage at the height of World War II and only avoided the Blitz because he was off at Hogwarts during the time. It's entirely possible his orphanage may have been bombed and that his caretakers were among the casualties, which might explain his reluctance to go back. As a boy, he dreamed of a utopia for wizards, without any influence from the muggle world, with himself as its visionary leader - and used Hitler's muggle-world plan as his model. Of course, there was the small problem of his legacy possibly being limited by death, and thus the Horcrux plan.

The magical world is less tolerant of LGBT people than the Muggle world.
Edited in because I hate a blank WMG entry: Because it takes longer for the last couple of wizarding generations to die out, which gives them a longer time to influence the next generations (even though the age of majority is 17) and stay in power, more old-fashioned prejudices from the muggle world are still considered in vogue amongst wizards. It's quite possible that in wizarding America and South Africa, black wizards and muggles are considered servants and slaves, respectively.
 * OTOH, wizards and witches have been more equal than men and women in the muggle world (2 of the founders of Hogwarts were women, and they taught equally to boys and girls, and there are women playing in quidditch along with the men). Wizarding world do have prejudices, but they seems to be more in regards on how much magic you can do, and who your parents are. Two powerful wizards/witches getting together? They would be too chicken to say anything about it.

The magical world is more tolerant of LGBT people than the muggle world; there are just fewer LGBT wizards.
Wizards were much more tolerant than muggles around the time and social circles of thefounders of Hogwarts. By the time the muggle world considered homosexuality and bisexuality to be labels rather than actions, the wizarding world had already skipped the stage where LGBT (or at least LGB) wizards would have been persecuted. However, since there are so few wizards around compared both to muggles and to how much of the planet is inhabited by wizards (most of it, sparsely), few gay/bisexual people meet each other so they end up old bachelors/spinsters, and because the magical world is so tolerant, gay wizards don't need a beard, and thus don't pass on their genetics nearly as often. Wizards thus only pass on the traits that increase the likelihood of being gay through recessive and heterosexually advantageous ways, meaning that wizards have fewer gay people because they are more tolerant of them.
 * I always assumed that pureblood supremacists would be less tolerant of LGBT people. not due to any religious reason, but because gay relationships cannot produce "perfect" pureblood children. If a pureblood witch/wizard married another pureblood of the opposite sex and got kids, but continued their relationship with a pureblood of the same sex, they most likely wouldn't care. Come to think of it, that theory would probably deserve a WMG of its own.
 * The Fandom solution to this problem is simple: Mpreg! Wizards do it!
 * Also, claiming that sexual orientation is strictly determined by genetics is a pretty ballsy WMG in general, to remain polite.

J.K. Rowling will publish a sequel series in 2017...
...the year depicted in the Epilogue, when Albus Potter attends Hogwarts for the first time.

By that time, seven books' worth of bonus material published via Pottermore will be pretty much exhausted. She'll spring the new series on everyone just when they think the franchise is gone for good.

Someday, J.K. Rowling will allow for the creation of an Expanded Universe.
After all, Harry's story is done, but there are plenty more stories of the Wizarding World to be told.