You may choose not to believe it, but the wizarding world is very real. And so is the Daily Prophet. Think of it like this: a magical community spawns a shared view of what is likely to happen tomorrow and make the news. That's the Daily Prophet effect among the witches and wizards. It has existed since wizard numbers rose, and a magical level of common thought united their culture. The shared cultural 'telepathic production' began internationally with the International Wizarding Times in 1342, and then spread to regional communities, which were often focused around a single idea or pride in a city eg the Wizarding Chronicle of Paris.

The owls oddly play a part in disseminating that thought ('Owl Post') even if the physical description is a simplified metaphor for kids (real owls delivering letters).

Compare our articles to those in the blogs on those other Daily Prophet sites like dailyprophet.net or on Warner Bro's mock ups of the Daily Prophet with their cartoonish copy headlines like 'Boy Who Lies' and 'Dumbledore: Daft or Dangerous?' Our articles have the ring of authenticity to them, theirs don't.

Rita Skeeter's magical quill is vicious and boasts of having 'punctured many inflated reputations' but she and the paper itself are not simple or stupid like those headlines make out. Fact is, Warner Bros can't produce wizarding headlines, cos it's a wizarding skill.

Indeed, they can't even stand writing 'daily prophet' in a uniform meaningful manner, and had to make the 'P' in the title different to avoid the meaning. A travesty in media design. The logo they designed, a shield with arms and legs but no head, is a typical 'headless horseman' halloween effect, taken from a weak Muggle royal house. See a copy of their mock newspaper below. As you know from the books, the Daily Prophet is vicious like a dragon in its pursuit of truth, and not merely stupidly tabloid like some Muggle papers.

Trouble is, Muggle-borns, the Harry Potter story comes from the wizarding community. It belongs to us. Cos it mentions real witches and wizards. Takes their stories. And good old JK didn't write those stories.

If you're in any doubt, you should ask her or take a look at her writing style in subsequent books. It's febrile, and nothing like the roly-poly style in the 7 Potter books. And her own style doesn't work well with kids, none of those other books, that she wrote, have sold well at all. A measly 153,000 in sales for The Ickabog, which she gave away free to disguise the fact, like she did with all her spinoff books such as Fantastic Beasts (which introduced no extra real magical creature in it). She has lost a lot of the Harry Potter audience (65 million per book) that the 7 books created. And add to that the problem that even Muggles, slow as they are, have picked up on the difference ie what she's been inventing on Pottermore and Wizarding World doesn't sound remotely canon.

No, we have a right to say this kind of thing, because it is the truth. And JK won't sue us, where she did the Harry Potter Lexicon, because our editorial board includes the real author. We told you in the About section, who he is. Feel free to tell her about this site, because she will have to acknowledge that the Harry Potter tale is a TRUE story soon. It will be an absolute SHOCKER when people realise the truth, but our Muggle-born readers can know it first.

You think a made up story could be that popular? It isn't as easy to write a deep cultural fairy tale as you might think! Most real fairy-tales, Snow White, Cinderella and Robin Hood have a grounding in true events somewhere. 

Snow White was a girl who had a dispute with her mother-in-law (not stepmother as in the popular version), and really did run away causing a scandal in Italy in the 700s.

Robin Hood's roots in a true story you'll be more familiar with, as he was Robin of Northumbria (Loxley), who rebelled during the crusades and tried to undermine the English monarch (the official versions have him giving up and offering his fealty to Richard the Lionheart (Insane) as the public was still loyal to the Muggle king, but that is pure propaganda, by later rulers who couldn't afford to be isolated from popular culture. Robin the Hood remained a rebel to the end).

The Harry Potter books tell a true story, and mention real historical events (like Grindelwald's actions and defeat in 1945, the role of the philosopher's stone, whose part in the story American publishers were so scared of, ie that you'd understand the books through references to alchemy, that they made JK change the title of the first book to Sorcerer's Stone!)

You want to know the story behind the modern mythology? Can you handle it? You're sure?

It's about a kid who does what alchemists dreamed of, at the age of 12 (11 in the books) he discovers the Philosopher's Stone. This is a mystical stone - like a ball of energy that can be used to guide chemical changes to produce the Elixir of Life, a drink that makes one immortal - live forever. In the books, the pretence is that he discovers Nicholas Flamel's old stone, and not a new, real one.

Wow. Genius kid. Discovers immortality. But here's the catch. He sees a problem with immortality like that, for as Dumbledore says, the stone can be stolen. A person who uses it to make the elixir can be poisoned or lose the stone. So he does the unthinkable, and destroys the stone.

Yeah. End of immortality. But not quite. Because he had another idea... horcruxes... and another... the deathly hallows. The hallows are the real secret of immortality in a way, and the 7th book ends as the first book ended, with Harry appearing to give up 2 of the 3 deathly hallows just as he gave up the philosopher's stone in the first book.

Wow. He gave up immortality again?

No. That's where the Muggle 7th book misleads. He only claims he would put them aside... cue, story to come in the 8th, and why it is going to be controversial for the churches and religions which don't believe in immortality, or believe it can only be a gift from god.

There's a black haired guy with specs walking around who doesn't age...