Did the Weasleys lose a child?

[symplet]

Ok, I've searched and didn't find any thread on this.

We know that there is an age gap between Charlie and Percy. 8 years to be exact. Why is that? Is it possible that Mr and Mrs Weasley lost a child? In the battle against Voldemort maybe? (too mush stressed caused a miscarriage?)
We know Mrs Weasley is a very protective mother. Maybe the loss of that child is the cause of it.

OR maybe, that age gap is due to Mr Weasley being wounded during the war.

What do you think?

[timmay]

This theory has been explored in a number of fan fictions, most notably the Psychic Serpant trilogy by Barb http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb/

In which there is not one but two daughters missing from the Weezly Family between Charlie and Percy.

Who were kidnaped near the end of Voldemortes reign.

But it is a very plausable theory, all of the other children are close together in age except for Charlie and Percy(8 years), the youngest four Fred, George, Ron and Giny only have 4 years seperating the lot of them.

Maybe we will see another Wezly or two in Future JKR books?

[Fuchsia]

Maybe they just didn't conceive.

[GodricSlytherin]

Maybe they decided to not have any. Then Mrs.Weasley wanted a girl. And they had Percy. The the twins. and then they had Ron. And then finally Ginny and stopped there. Any number of thigs could be the reason the weasleys left such an age gap. Maybe they had decided to not ahve any, until that is, the Mrs. wanted to have a girl. Even though I have thought that the Weasleys had another child and that is why MNrs.Weasley is so protective. And that Accountant, maybe they are never mentioned because they have memories linking to the death or dissapearance of the other Weasley.

[periwinkle-blue]

Originally posted by Fuchsia (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=204205#post204205))
Maybe they just didn't conceive.


:lol: I was thinking along the same line as yours, Fuch.

Perhaps it's because of the long dark years of Lord Voldermort's pre- and post- reign, that made almost everyone had no desire to expand their families and create offsprings?

[Fuchsia]

Great minds think alike Peri. :)

After WWII there was the big baby boom in the USA. Maybe they had one in the Wizarding world. But the Weasleys boom lasted a lot longer...

[WhiteSlash]

Gosh I hope not. Then I agree with Draco. WAY too many kids. It might just be because...they couldn't keep trying you know. They had that many kids and then had Percy, and twins...No girl and then Ron and Ginny. A girl, and decided to finally stop.

[periwinkle-blue]

Originally posted by Fuchsia (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=204265#post204265))
But the Weasleys boom lasted a lot longer...


:rotfl: :rotfl:

*Dabs eyes* Yeah... that now is a feasible thought.

War or a very oppressed period that prolonged for years may give some dues to the downturn of population birth. The Weasleys may be one of the statistics.

[Snowangel]

I think if the Weasleys had lost children, Harry would probably have heard something about it by now (although not necessarily). It's always a possibility but I think it's just as likely that they just didn't have kids in that gap of time. I agree that they might have been trying to get a girl and that's why there's so many kids.

[FoolOnTheHill]

Originally posted by periwinkle-blue (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=204263#post204263))
Perhaps it's because of the long dark years of Lord Voldermort's pre- and post- reign, that made almost everyone had no desire to expand their families and create offsprings?


That would make sense except for that Percy, Fred, George, Ron, and Ginny were all concieved during Voldies reign. Ginny MIGHT not have been born before his down-fall, but Mrs. Weasley was definitely pregnant with her.

So who knows about that gap.... could be chance, or maybe it is a child that passed away.....hmm......something else to think about.....

[periwinkle-blue]

Originally posted by FoolOnTheHill (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=204279#post204279))
That would make sense except for that Percy, Fred, George, Ron, and Ginny were all concieved during Voldies reign. Ginny MIGHT not have been born before his down-fall, but Mrs. Weasley was definitely pregnant with her.

So who knows about that gap.... could be chance, or maybe it is a child that passed away.....hmm......something else to think about.....


Woops.. I made the mistake of assuming Percy and his younger siblings were born after the fall of Voldermort. Guess we're back to square one :smile:

[Cat]

Wow, the Weasleys have a lot of children.

Sorry, that awe-inspiring fact just creeps up on me now and then.

Is it really that impossible to consider that they fancied a break after two sons? It's not like they're breeding on a schedule.

[Fuchsia]

I can be so daft sometimes. I should have remembered they were born before argh. :)

But yeah they just concieve whenever they are in the mood methinks.

[miri]

:rofl: they just conceive whenever they're in the mood!

In the early days:
"Yup, a small family, we'll stop at 2"

Around a year before Percy was born:
"They're both growing up... I'm not ready to let go... let's have another one"

When Percy's less than a year:
"The other 2 had each other for company... I dont think it's right he's left out coz we decided originally to have a small family... We might retard his social and mental development if we dont have another kid..."

a few months after that:
"TWIIIIIINS? You sure? Well I guess they wont get lonely..."

around the birth of Gred and Forge:
"I'm surrounded by boys in this house... I think we should have a girl to balance it out"

after/ shortly before Ron's birth depending if they kept it secret or not:
"One last try"

Ginny's birth:
"I've just realised we had 7 children... I think we should stop now. Wont be that long before grandchildren either!"

ok when I did that I made it logical! *tuts at self* I liked the randomage!

oh well!

It would also explain Ron feeling insecure although I doubt they know he's the one they had when failing to have a girl...

[miri]

lol I mean I doubt he knows he's the one who failed to be a girl!

[Fuchsia]

That is hilarious Miri and most likely true.

[NYCwitch920]

If it were true that they had another child, it would be rather interesting but we see little or no foreshadowing of this. At least nothing in books 1-4. So just have to wait for book 5.

[Mireille]

Another possibility may be that Mr. Weasley wasn't home much. She could have been busy in the morning taking care of the kids while he was sleeping and worked nights. Then when he was up, she was in bed.

[bubblesofdeath88]

Ya he could have been really busy with voldemort on the loose, and tring yo keep muggles unaware of his evil doings, but i do think that they lost a child some how. Kidnapping, death, or a miscarriage, i think that would add a certain new element to the story, and JKR did say the books would be darker, and harry would discover new things. Maybe this could be one.

[MadMagic]

I think we would have heard from Ron if there had been more Weaslet children. It seems like he would have said something sometime when Harry was receiving all the attention to try to get some of it too. But I can see that the Weasley's would have been extremely busy during the big lapse in time. That was probably around the time when Voldemort was rising to his highest power. After being in prison for 12 tears, Sirius claims Voldemort has been hiding for 15 years, which makes him having lost some power 3 years before his encounter with Harry. So He would have been losing some power right around the time of Percy's birth.

But then, maybe they weren't so sure they wanted a big family for a while.

[Fuchsia]

Another factor is money. They might not have been able to afford it.

[MadMagic]

Very true. I really don't see how they afford 7 kids anyway. But that is another issue.

[periwinkle-blue]

I like your idea MadMagic, that if there's a sibling lost or somekind, we would probably know it from Ron. However, the big gap symplet pointed out was between Charlie and Percy, so perhaps the only people who knew about anything would probably be Mr. and Mrs. Weasley, Bill and Charlie. Maybe they made a pact as of not to tell what had happened to the younger ones.

[MadMagic]

That could be. They probably wouldn't really like to talk about it. Especially since they had 7 kids it could make them feel like their parents would rather have the other kids back then have the younger ones.

[Fuchsia]

I don't know if the Weasleys are the secret keeping types. They are very open with each other.

[MadMagic]

They are, which is shy I don't think there are any lost kids.

[Fuchsia]

So it is back to "They just weren't in the mood." :)

[MadMagic]

Pretty much. I don't think there has to be a conspiracy behind everything. Although it is fun to think of wild conspiracies.

[rotsiepots]

Ah the long debated "Missing Weasley" theory.

Erm, I'm still not entirely sure what to make of it; the concept is quite likely, but it's almost impossible to speculate if it's true or not due to a lack of information. I believe, however, that this is one of the more plausible theories floating around out there.

Could Mr Weasley's speech in GoF about coming home and finding the Dark Mark "hovering" over your house have any relevance to this theory?

P.S. The full quote from Mr Weasley is the following:

"Just picture coming home, and finding the Dark Mark hovering over your house, and knowing what you're about to find inside..."

[Weatherby]

Perhaps this missing Weasley cousin is the accountant they never talk about?
:lol:

Maybe the wizards have methods for less painful childbirth?
I don't see how anyone would want to have seven kids otherwise. (oops.. twins. Make that 6)
I agree with the theory that they wanted a girl and kept trying.

[go_anna40]

Originally posted by Fuchsia (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=204205#post204205))
Maybe they just didn't conceive.


I was thinking the same thing Fush!

I don't there's anything wrong. There's an age gap- so what? I don't think there's anything suspicious about it- but I could be wrong.

[manticore]

What if the Weasleys had another son, then Ron would be the seventh son and if his father was a seventh son, that would make ron a very powerful wizard. The old superstition the 7th son of a 7th son had the ability to see through things and stuff like that.

[Vitiosus]

They were a very old family, maybe they had many children in the hope at least one might survive and carry on the family line should their family become a target of You-Know-Who.

[Puffskein]

Might I ask exactly how we know Bill and Charlie's ages? I know the Lexicon has a timeline but I don't think it's based on solid evidence.

[dorcasderr]

I think it is entirely possible that there are missing children in the eight year gap. I've had four myself and, well...I never had much of a gap. I know there is always the traditional "after thought" or "oops", but FIVE "oops'es? However the "out fighting Voldemort" theory has merit.

[dumbleedore]

Originally posted by Snowangel (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=204276#post204276))
I think if the Weasleys had lost children, Harry would probably have heard something about it by now (although not necessarily).

You can know someone for a long time until you find out something like that. I had known a friend for about 7 years before I found out that they were meant to have another brother. I found that out after 7 years of close friendship. If they did have another child inbetween and they died, they wouldn't really want to talk about it.

Charlie had been out of Hogwarts or off the Quidditch team for 7 years when Harry got to Hogwarts. The twins mention that the last time they won the Quidditch cup was when Charlie was on the team. We don't know whether he was on the team right up until his 7th year or whether he had just dropped out. So we really can't pin point his age, or Bill's for that matter.

[Ronman]

I'd Say NO To This For 2 Reasons
1. Mr. Weasley Was Wounded
2. Mrs. Weasley Might Of Been To Busy Doing Other Stuff

[nehaljetha]

Well a eight year gap doesn't sound too long .I was born in 1984 and my sister was born in 1991 so that is a differnce of seven years.Another theory,maybe arthur and molly found the dark mark over thier house.He asks Harry how would he feel if he found the dark mark over his house .May be he is talking from experience.
Chow

[HPviolinist85]

Mr. Weasley was at the office A LOT during Voldemort's regieme. Well, if he's at the office, then there's no real time to do ......the things that are necessary to have a baby.

[Animagi Girl]

Originally posted by HPviolinist85 (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=206816#post206816))
Mr. Weasley was at the office A LOT during Voldemort's regieme. Well, if he's at the office, then there's no real time to do ......the things that are necessary to have a baby.


Yeah, good point.

[miri]

I think the whole *dark mark over house* thing could well be past experience... he says it bitterly, doesnt her? I can see it happening if the kiddy was alone with a babysitter or something and the babysitter was a DE or they both got fried...? Never trust anyone unless you have fully examined their arms. Then hope they're not so good at transfigurations they can transfigure that patch of skin to its pre-dark mark state...

[symplet]

I like that theory Miri. :)

[Mirabella Plunkett]

When I started reading this thread, i was like, "Omigod no!"
but now I'm not so sure...

It's entirely possible & compelling, although my gut still rebels.

[Rowena Ravenclaw]

Originally posted by Puffskein (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=205223#post205223))
Might I ask exactly how we know Bill and Charlie's ages? I know the Lexicon has a timeline but I don't think it's based on solid evidence.

I was wondering the same thing. Given that wizards seem to start their careers right out of Hogwarts, it wouldn't surprise me if there were only three years or so between Charlie and Percy. That's not a lot more than between Percy and the twins.

[symplet]

[I] from the HP Lexicon (http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/index-2.html)
Calculating the ages of the Weasley children

In PA it's stated that Gryffindor haven't won the Quidditch cup for 7 years. It is also stated (in either PA or PS can't remember which) that they haven't won a the cup since Charlie was Seeker. In PA, Ron has already been at hogwarts for 2 years so 7-2 =5, so that's 5 years between Charlie leaving Hogwarts and Ron starting Hogwarts. Add on the severn years you spend at Hogwarts 7 +5 =12 so you get 12 years between Charlie starting at Hogwarts and Ron starting at Hogwarts. That's 12 years between Charlie and Ron. Since we know that Ron was born in March 1980, Charlie must have been born in 1968 or 1969. Now the twins are two school years above Ron, and Percy is two school years above the twins. That's roughly 4 years between Percy and Ron and 12- 4 = 8 years between Charlie and Percy (roughly: could be nearer 7 or 9 as we're using schools years).
Here you go!

[Sinistra]

If Bill and Charlie were very small when the mythical missing sibling/s "died" they may not have conscious memories of it. This would be three or younger.

The Dark Mark quote by Arthur just seems too bitter and apt for it to be something he is reporting as happening to others. Also if a child died, it may also account for the gap bewteen Charlie and Percy. Often women who have had traumatic issues with children may delay conceiving because of emotional stress.

Anyhow, it's entirely likely there is a missing Weasley, and either they don't talk about it or they have concealed it from the children. It might explain a few character traits of Molly and Arthur.

[Justin Etre]

Maybe the eldest is really adopted, and they wanted to start having kids of their own after a while?

[Sinistra]

Adopted is a good idea, Justin. Or maybe the children of a close relative who was killed by Voldemort.

[smartypants]

Ah, but do we know that the last game won was in Charlies last year? Maybe it was a couple of years before, like in Charlies 5th year, and that after that the Gryffindor team, except Charlie, was so crappy even he couldn't save them!

And wasn't Charlie both Prefect and Head Boy? Maybe he thought he didn't have time to be that AND be a seeker?

So, 7 years ago = Charlies 5th year, which means it's 5 years since he graduated, which means he graduated five years before Percy.
4-6 years difference, not 7-9. :)

Besides, the Weaslys are poor, one reason is of course that they have so many kids, it's expensive. Before Mr Weasly got his position at the Misuse of Muggle-artifacts -department, he probably had even less money, and hence they couldn't afford more kids then. I would assume they probably had Bill pretty quickly, maybe Ms Weasly just came out of Hogwarts, and was only 17-18 years old.

[Yadiami]

I'm pretty sure that if they had one children and got killed by an accident or a Death Eater, they had photos of him/her in the house and Harry would have noticed. They love their children, they wouldn't stop loving him/her only because s/he was death.
So there was any child at all or it was an miscarriage.

[bubblesofdeath88]

well maybe they had lots of pictures of them but when they died, or whatever they took them all down and put them in one album the arthur and molly keep. Or possibly it was just so trematic that they put memory charms on bill and charlie so they wouldnt remember the little kids.

[Andora]

I think that if the Weasley's did have other kids in that 8 year gap, that Ron wouldn't necessarily know about it. Some people learn really weird things from their parents later on in life, maybe they figured the younger kids couldn't handle it. Plus is Ron supposed to just randomly dump that news on his friends at any old point? "Oh yeah I had two other brothers, but they got killed during Voldemort's reign. Are you gonna eat that pumpkin pie?"

If they had other kids, I can definitely see it coming as a shock to Ron, maybe Fred and George as well. And while I agree that the Weasley's love their kids and stuff and would have photographs, maybe they just don't have them up in the kitchen. Harry has really only seen the kitchen and Ron's room, he's never been in Percy's, Fred and George's, Ginny's or Mr. and Mrs. Weasley's rooms. Maybe the parents have an old scrapbook like Harry does of his parents, and they keep it in their room.

There are plenty of reasons not to have tons of photos around, but there are also plenty of reasons to say maybe they just didn't have kids and the reason the age gap is there is because it's more convenient for JKR to have kids who are older and so in a different world than the Hogwarts kids in someone's family. I mean Ron's family is a completely wizarding family, his dad works in the ministry, they might as well have connections in all the right places.

1) Mr. Weasley works in the ministry
2) Percy now works there and was a prominent figure as role model/head boy blah blah
3) Charlie and Bill work outside of Hogwarts and besides the teachers and Mr. Weasley seem to be the only adults out of Hogwarts with jobs
4) 4 kids still in Hogwarts, one being a girl
5) Fred and George on the Quidditch team

They are probably just the gap to make the Weasley's have a perception from every view. All positions are taken, quidditch player, younger student, older student, boys, girls, out of Hogwarts, in Hogwarts, working in the ministry.

[Mystic Fairy]

This is my first post so bare with me.

Maybe there was a squib in the family? They are a pureblood family and there is a accountent for an uncle. It's possible.

[Rowena Ravenclaw]

In regards to Arthur's personal reaction to the Dark Mark over people's houses, do we know he's always worked in the Misuse of Muggle Artifacts office? Maybe he once occupied a more prominent position that would have required him to be on the scene. Or maybe there were some distant relatives involved. Either way, I'd be surprised if he and Molly survived if the attack was meant for him and his family.

[Beatrice Bottbean]

OK, I am loving this thread but before I partake in mad crazy speculation, I was wondering if somebody could clear up a couple of questions on the age calculation thing for me because I am a little confused.

In CoS chapter 17, Ginny says she has looked forward to going to Hogwart's ever since Bill came. If Bill is older than Charlie and Charlie is 12 years older than Ron, this would mean Ginny was not born when Bill first went off to Hogwart's. I had always based Bill's age on the statement he makes in GoF chapter 31 - that this was his first time back in five years. If he graduated five years prior to making that statement, this would make him approximately 22 when Ginny is approximately 13, thereby making Ginny 2 years-old when Bill started at Hogwart's at age 11.

This doesn't necessarily work with the date of Charlie's last Quidditch win and I do realize that I was previously maybe assuming too much when thinking that Bill did not return after graduation.

But I am still confused, because I never thought about Charlie's exact age before. I guess I didn't make the connection that the Lexicon did. Ginny's statement sounds like she remembers a time when Bill was the only Weasley at Hogwart's - which can't be the case with a separation of 13 years between Ginny and Charlie since then Charlie would be approximately a third year at Hogwart's when Ginny was born.

I am confusing myself even more, but I do like the extra child idea when I keep my head from spinning off and I love the connection between the statement about the Dark Mark and the possible missing child.

[Barbara Kennedy]

Originally posted by bubblesofdeath88 (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=208314#post208314))
well maybe they had lots of pictures of them but when they died, or whatever they took them all down and put them in one album the arthur and molly keep. Or possibly it was just so trematic that they put memory charms on bill and charlie so they wouldnt remember the little kids.


Could it be that if the boys [Bill and Charlie] were severely traumatized by the death of a sibling, that the Weasleys could have made them forget the whole incident, including the fact that there had ever been a sib? Perhaps the boys witnessed the death, whether by accident or murder.

Another possibility is that Molly was off pursuing her own career during the gap.......
They needed the money, right?

[smartypants]

Originally posted by Beatrice Bottbean (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=208952#post208952))
In CoS chapter 17, Ginny says she has looked forward to going to Hogwart's ever since Bill came. If Bill is older than Charlie and Charlie is 12 years older than Ron, this would mean Ginny was not born when Bill first went off to Hogwart's. I had always based Bill's age on the statement he makes in GoF chapter 31 - that this was his first time back in five years. If he graduated five years prior to making that statement, this would make him approximately 22 when Ginny is approximately 13, thereby making Ginny 2 years-old when Bill started at Hogwart's at age 11.

This doesn't necessarily work with the date of Charlie's last Quidditch win and I do realize that I was previously maybe assuming too much when thinking that Bill did not return after graduation.


Well, I wasn't sure about who is the eldest, Bill or Charlie? I just assumed that if there was a gap between Charlie and Percy the obviously Bill was the eldest, but maybe he isn't? I can't remember any statement saying this.

So, in fact, with my calculations above, Charlie may be 4-6 years older than Percy, and Bill will have graduated 3 years before CoS, i.e. 4 years before Percy. Then the longest gap is between Bill and Percy, and it would be some 3-4 years.

Yeah, I'm still confused. :)

Another common confusion is the claim that the gap is becuase Mr Weasly worked so mych overtime during Voldemorts regime.

Well, the only one of the Kids being born after Voldermorts demise would possibly be Ginny. So that doesn't work either.

I just think that there is no gap. :)

[HogwartsChaplain]

I like the idea of Molly pursuing a career during the time in question. Maybe she had the first two kids, then got a job. With a job, she had no time/ interest in having more kids right then. Maybe later her ideas changed.

OR: Maybe Arthur and Molly had taken Bill and Charlie out somewhere, leaving a younger child home with a sitter, when the Dark Mark was found over their house, with the baby/toddler and sitter dead. If that happened, I could see why they'd put a memory charm on the older boys, to keep them from being terribly frightened. If they did that, they might want to wait until ALL the children were old enough to handle that kind of tragedy.

You're right that after losing a child, it's difficult emotionally to turn around and get pregnant again. I've experienced that feeling after an early miscarriage, and I assume it would be the same with other kinds of losses.

The amazing thing to me is that after having twins (and they probably were an incredible pair, even as infants), that the Weasleys went ahead and had two more in rapid succession. I don't know many women who would do that! But maybe witches have more tolerance for chaos!

[Andora]

Or maybe insanity runs in their family :P

No I'm just kidding. I suppose it would make a lot of sense if Molly was off trying to have a career, her powers are pretty much unknown to us, she could be an incredibly powerful witch, we'll have to see. Maybe the gap will be explained, but I just think it's more convenience than anything else (see previous post).

[smartypants]

Well, I still have to be convinced that there is a gap in the first place. :)

[smartypants]

And I now have it. :)
In GoF Bill is mentioned as their "eldest child" in the magazine clip Ron sent to Harry. Of course, the magazine could have gotten it wrong, but that seems weird for JKR to put in an intentional mistake like that.

So, in fact, the order is: Bill, Charlie, Percy, Gred&Forge, Ron, Ginny.

We are not told how MUCH older Bill is, though. They could even be twins. However, it's mentioned that Ginny has been wanting to go to Hogwarts even since Bill came, and it doesn't say Bill and Charlie there, so they seem to not have graduated the same year, and are therefore reasonably not twins.

It's also mentioned that Gryffindor hasn't won since Charlie left, and you don't say that unless it's been several years. Otherwise you would just say "we didn't win last year". I could find no mention of this being seven years ago anywhere, so if somebody knows where that reference comes from, I'd like a pointer.

In GoF Bill does say that he hasn't been back for five years. That means he hasn't been back since one or two years before Harry and Ron started. But even that must be after "Charlie left". My earlier theory about "Charlie leaving" ment only the Quidditch team has come to shame though. Charlie "could have played Quidditch for England if he hadn't gone off chasing dragons" and this doesn't make much sense if he didn't play Quidditch until he graduated. I also can find no mention of Charlie being prefect, and he definitely wasn't head boy, he was Quidditch captain, though.

This all leaves a minimum gap of three years between Rons starting year and Charlies graduating year, because of the "We haven't won since Charlie left" quote, that must refer to at least two years gap to make any sense. That means Charlie graduates the year after Percy starts, which means they have a minimum age difference of five years.

However, if Ginny wanted to go to Hogrwarts when Bill did, she mush vae been at least three-four years old, or she would have been to young to have any concept of Bill going to another place at all. That means Bill gan have earliest graduated seven years before Ginny started. Since Bill is a minimum of one year older than Charlie, Charlie can at the EARLIEST have graduated six years before Ginny started, which is seven years before Percy graduates.

That gives an age difference ranging between seven and five years between Charlie and Percy.

Phew! That took some time. :)

While doing all this I also formulated a theory of Bill and Charlie being twins, which I like, which has Mr Weasly and the future Mrs Weasly falling madly in love at Hogwarts, and Mrs Weasly getting knocked up, having the Twins, and postponing her last year at Hogwarts for a couple of years, only to have Percy when she graduated. :)

However, since Ginny hasn't wanted to go to Hogwarts since Bill and Charlie went, but just since Bill went, then they don't seem to have been starting and graduating the same time, and hence are not twins. To bad, I liked that solution. :)

[Rowena Ravenclaw]

In the first book, it's mentioned that Slytherin's won the House Cup for seven years running. I'm not sure if the same is ever said about Quidditch. If not, I guess the assumption is that the points from winning the Quidditch championship would be enough to put whatever house won over the top, though if that were the case, Ravenclaw would have been in first place at the end-of-year feast.

[honeyelle]

Ok, this will take a while to read but is worth it. Cassie Claire's stuff is really great!! This is a must for all Draco Lovers, and anyone else from the HP series as well. http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Cassandra_Claire/ It's great, and it says something along the lines that one of the Weasleys (the missing one) drowns. But anyway, read it!!! It's cool, and it takes place in the sixth book, so you don't have to worry yet about it being wrong.

[smartypants]

Originally posted by Rowena Ravenclaw (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=212808#post212808))
In the first book, it's mentioned that Slytherin's won the House Cup for seven years running. I'm not sure if the same is ever said about Quidditch. If not, I guess the assumption is that the points from winning the Quidditch championship would be enough to put whatever house won over the top, though if that were the case, Ravenclaw would have been in first place at the end-of-year feast.


Yeah, I think that assumption would be a bad one. Not only would it defeat the whole purpose of a house cup if the winners are almost always the same as th Quidditch winners, in the three years we know of, two times Gryffindor won the House Cup without winning the Quidditch chamionship.

Anotehr note along these lines: In book four it is mentioned that Hufflepuff rarely gets any glory, and that one of the few times they did get some glory was when Cedric led their Quidditch team to win over Gryffindor (which was mostly because Harry fell of his broom). This shows that the Quidditch Championship is probably a deal between Gryffindor and Slytherin (and possibly Ravenclaw). It makes sense too, the brave people who like risks, and the ambitous that do anything to win, will probably be the ones who are good at sports. :)
That also means that not winning the Quidditch championship since Charlie left doesn't have to be a very long time. Not if they usually win about half the time. Then two or three years would seem like forever. :)

[Zahri Seb Melitor]

It is mentioned in PoA that Gryffindor hasn't won the Quidditch Cup for 7 years, though I can't give you the quote at this moment, as the book's in the same room as my brother, who is supposed to be going to sleep... somewhere around one of Wood's motivational speeches, I think.

Harry is regularly described as 'better than Charlie Weasley'. Charlie is said to have been able to play for England if he wanted to. Charlie won the Quidditch Cup in his 7th year, when he was Quidditch Captain.

Actually, Bill started Hogwarts around the time that Percy was born, though there is a year or two lee-way in each direction (not knowing how old Bill is). Maybe Molly felt that she wanted another child to keep her busy during the year whilst Bill and, in a few years, Charlie were at school. Then it went from there...

[Beatrice Bottbean]

I don't think Bill could have graduated when Percy was born. Percy is five years older than Ginny, which would mean that Ginny was born the year Bill graduated. This can't be the case, as Ginny clearly remembers a time when Bill was at Hogwart's in CoS.

[Scotlandking85]

A good point. But there are too many alternatives, more probable alternatives, to consider. Tight on money, couldn't conceive, just wanted a freakin break. Only they and JKR know for sure. So the rest of us will just have to wait it out.

[Barbara Kennedy]

I have another theory to fill the alleged 8 year gap. What if Bill and Charlie are Mr. Wesley's children from a previous marriage?
It could explain his references to the Dark Mark being so bitter if he had lost a wife and any number of other children to an attack by the Death Eaters.:'( :sigh:

[smartypants]

I've found it: McGonnall says, after she had said that she don't wany Harry training outside, that "hmm, yes, it would put us out of the running for the eigth year in a row" or something like that.

This means that Charlie did graduate 8 years before Percy.

We still don't know how much older Bill is though, but for Ginny to want to go to Hogwarts he can't really be more than one year older, which makes him graduate when Ginny is three years old.

[smartypants]

Originally posted by Barbara Kennedy (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=219042#post219042))
I have another theory to fill the alleged 8 year gap. What if Bill and Charlie are Mr. Wesley's children from a previous marriage?
It could explain his references to the Dark Mark being so bitter if he had lost a wife and any number of other children to an attack by the Death Eaters.:'( :sigh:


Ms Weasly mentiones that she got into trouble because she had snuck out on a "walk" with Mr Weasly when they both attended Hogwarts, and hadn't returned until the wee hours.
So they surely has been together even since Hogwarts, so an earlier marriage seems quite out of the question.

[Yadiami]

Originally posted by smartypants (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=219297#post219297))
Ms Weasly mentiones that she got into trouble because she had snuck out on a "walk" with Mr Weasly when they both attended Hogwarts, and hadn't returned until the wee hours.
So they surely has been together even since Hogwarts, so an earlier marriage seems quite out of the question.


Not really, they could have been together at Hogwarts but they could have broken, Mr Weasley could have married someone, then they divorced or she died and then he married Molly.
I don't think it happened that way, but it's a possibility.

[smartypants]

Well, anything is possible, but it is rather far-fetched. It's easier to assume that they simply didn't want to have any more kids during this period. Possibly because they couldn't afford it.

It's not to hard to imagine that Mr Weasly got his position at the ministry 17 years ago, and hence got more money then before, so maybe that's the time they got the house they now live in and had Percy.

It's sure is a much simpler explanation. :)

[ahsweape]

Originally posted by smartypants (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=219296#post219296))
I've found it: McGonnall says, after she had said that she don't wany Harry training outside, that "hmm, yes, it would put us out of the running for the eigth year in a row" or something like that.

This means that Charlie did graduate 8 years before Percy.

We still don't know how much older Bill is though, but for Ginny to want to go to Hogwarts he can't really be more than one year older, which makes him graduate when Ginny is three years old.



So going off of this, as of book four: Bill is 28, Charlie is 27, Percy is 18, the twins are 16, Ron is 14, and Ginny is 13.

Of course, this is assuming that Bill is only one year older than Charlie and that Charlie won the Quidditch cup in his senior year. Bill could realistically be up to 30.

[smartypants]

Something like that yes. And of course, it may very well be that Charlie didn't win in his senior year, maybe he was hurt, or bad luck, or although he was a brilliant seeker, the rest of the team sucked. Professor McGonnall does complain about last years team in Book one, maybe only The Weaslys and the team captain was any good. :)

[Sinistra]

Another point, is that Bill says he hasn't been to Hogwarts in five years. But he never says as a student. He cold have visited for other reasons, like a nostalgic visit or as a guest lecturer or even accompaning a sibling to school (like Percy?--or better, the twins as someone had to keep them in line on the train). So that 5 years is not necessarily the number of years since Bill graduated. I like the "older" Bill and Charlie, and the "gap."

There is obviously some explanation for the gap between Charlie and Percy. Hopefully we will find out before the end of book 7.

[Barbara Kennedy]

Could the gap of 8 years be a factor in what happens to Percy in book 5? We know that something will happen to him. He has reached a major crossroads in his life.

[Barbara Kennedy]

Wow, I just noticed I'm second year now. [when did that happen?]

[Kneazle]

When you posted for the hundredth time (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?threadid=3969). :)

[DocHollidaywe]

I think this is a great theory to explain the age gap as well as the overprotection she shows .... Think of how worried they were during the end of book 2 with Ginny, it must of been like reliving it

[Barbara Kennedy]

Arthur and Molly are such a loving and nurturing couple. I'm sure Molly was crazy with grief at the thought that Ginny was thought to be dead.

[Adryan]

I agree with the theory about just wanting a girl. Like my mom a five year gap between two of my brothers, and an eight year gap btween my middle brothers, and a four year gap between my brother and I.

[Sph1nx]

Originally posted by periwinkle-blue (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=204286#post204286))
Woops.. I made the mistake of assuming Percy and his younger siblings were born after the fall of Voldermort. Guess we're back to square one :smile:


It can't be since Voldemort came crashing down :) when Harry (and Ron) were 1 year old. Ginny MIGHT have been conceived during the downfall, but the rest (Percy and the twins) were born when Voldemort was still powerful.:angel: ;)

[RonFan24]

I was thinking about how maybe the Weasleys only wanted a few children and got Bill and Charlie. Then maybe there was a little accident. That usually explains a large age gap between siblings, but then what about the other four youngest? So, my theory became flawed. I'm not quite sure why there is such a large age difference between Bill and Charlie vs Percy, the twins, Ron and Ginny. I haven't done any math or logic to this, but I always thought Bill was in his mid to late 20s and for some reason, I got the age 26 for Charlie. Again, I have no rhym or reason to my theories, it's just the way I pictured it when reading about the older Weasleys.

[Barbara Kennedy]

Maybe the "lost" Weasley child was a girl and Molly wanted another girl because of that?

[RonFan24]

I was just on the Harry Potter Lexicon and it says Bill Weasley born sometime in the mis 1960s and Charlie in 1967. I was wondering if anyone knows if this information is true or not. It seems that they go by facts stated in the books because there was a little blurb about the year Hermione was born, but I wasn't sure.

[smartypants]

That's about right. We don't know when they are born exactly, and my guess would rather be that Bill is born 67 and Charlie 68, but something around there, yes.

[RonFan24]

That's why I was wondering because I was under the impression that we weren't sure when either of them were born, but the Lexicon seems to be sure that Charlie was born in 67.

[smartypants]

Well, I don't know where they get that info, but it's not possible to deduct that accurately from the books.

[Barbara Kennedy]

But we CAN extrapolate from information that was in the books.

[jordmundt6]

Hold it a second. The Gryffindors had a seven or eight year Quidditch Cup drought from Charlie's graduation (at 17) to Harry's triumph (PoA). 17 + 7 = 24. Oh, scrap that. I see now. But maybe they decided to quit having kids after their second boy . But Bill grew up faster than Molly expected and she started experiencing the nostalgia sometimes called "empty nest syndrome" as Bill moved into the upper forms at Hogwarts. Her little boys were growing up. Y'know, something like that. But the idea that there are a couple of Weasleys missing adds poignancy to Arthur's remarks about the Dark Mark. (It could actually have happened to him). I don't think they were war miscarriages though, If they had been, there's a good chance Ron would never have been born because the stress and fear ws at its peak the year he was born.

[Barbara Kennedy]

Losing a child at some point could explain Molly's fierceness when anything seems to threaten her family. It's her way of stating "Never Again!"

[olivepitt]

Why did the Weasleys have so many kids in the first place? I don't want to offend anyone -- this is just an idea -- but maybe they just couldn't afford that many, and had to get rid of one, hence the "lost" child.

[ahsweape]

Get rid of one? Do you mean gave one up for adoption?

[Stallion1]

hmm maybe all the kids seem to be only a few years apart and the last kid is ginny and she was 10 when ron was 11 and no other younger bro or sis hmmm.

[olivepitt]

Post deleted.

[jordmundt6]

Well you gotta figure if Voldemort is close to 70, the Weasleys are in their 80s. How long do you expect them to keep having kids. It looks like Arthur might have listened to a little Otis Redding in his younger days.

[ahsweape]

Originally posted by jordmundt6 (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=274267#post274267))
Well you gotta figure if Voldemort is close to 70, the Weasleys are in their 80s. How long do you expect them to keep having kids. It looks like Arthur might have listened to a little Otis Redding in his younger days.


Huh? How is Voldemort's age connected to Mr. and Mrs. Weasley's?

[Stallion1]

80s wow that is really old.

[olivepitt]

Wow, I never realized they were that old. If they've been having a baby every other year since they were 20, that means they should have at least 30 kids by now. But, there are only 7 that we know of. What happened to the other 23?!?!?

[Ashkins]

Their 80's??

I was thinking their early 50's being they dated while they were in Hogwarts.

Ginny was born in 81
Ron in 80
the twins in 78
Percy in 76
Charlie in 69
and Bill in 67.

We don't need to get ALL of our info from the books. We can take into consideration all the interviews JK has given. She has stated Harry was born in 1980. That is our baseline.

[jordmundt6]

Nah, they didn't meet in the early 50s. They were in school and courting when Ogg was still gamekeeper. They're at least as old as Voldemort, but I think they could be as many as 10 years older or more because the Squib discipline freak in their day was was Appollion Pringle. And he did use the chains and the cane or whip. Arthur still has the scars from when Pringle caught the two of them taking a monlit stroll through the grounds. I think the chains have been hanging up unused in teh janitors office for six decades or longer (I think they mentioned something once about how the use to be used in the 1800s but not now. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt and saying they were probably last used in the 1930s). That would make the Weasleys what about 78 or 79 in 1995? Remember McGonagall is 70 in Book 3 and she isn't greying yet. And Dumbledore is 120. So, let's see in 1942 he would have been 70 and he still had a full head of bright auburn hair and an impressive auburn beard (he was still in his prime). The Weasleys are middle-aged, so speculating that they're in their late 70s is not that far off.

Edit: Okay, two things. If they'd met in the early 50s, Hagrid would have been trudging around the grounds as gamekeeper for a solid decade. Ogg would have retired by then, and Filch would be a young man in his first years as janitor. Molly remembers Ogg fondly and remembers a serious beating Arthur received from Apollyon (I read someplace that that means "Destroyer") Pringle, so they have to be considerably older than that. In fact, older than Hagrid which means they had to have been in school at least starting in the late 1930s or earlier in the decade which would mean that they were both pushing 80 now.

[Ashkins]

Ogg trained Hagrid for his job. Hagrid was only 13 when we was expelled from school. Ogg was still gameskeeper till Hagrid was old enough and trained enough for Ogg to retire.

Apollyon could have trained Filtch. We don't know how old Filch really is. He acts as if he is in his upper 50's - 60's. Maybe younger if he has had a hard life. Filtch has no magical blood in him so he will age like all other muggles.

DD is 150 and has been at Hogwarts since before Hagrid was attending.

But this is getting way off topic.. Sorry..

[jordmundt6]

But if they (the Weasleys) met in the 1950s, Hagrid would be in his 20s and have been doing the job for 10 years. Ogg would have retired easily by then. And I think Filch is probably in his 50s so he would have started in the 1950s as well. Molly and Arthur were in their 5th year when Arthur got clobbered and they don't talk about a regime change between disciplinarians, so they had to be in school before the 50s. Let's say they were in school the same time Hagrid was. They'd still be nearing 70, and I think they're older than Minerva.

[Barbara Kennedy]

Originally posted by olivepitt (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=274260#post274260))
I hate to be the one to say it.... but maybe they had to kill one or more of their children for financial reasons. Does anyone know what method of birth control they use?

That is just sick.

[jordmundt6]

This is not the Middle Ages people. And Molly and Arthur would starve themselves before they would sacrifice or abandon one of their children.

[lunchbox-hobbit]

I think that the Weaslys did lose a child because didn't arthur say something about coming home and seeing the Dark Mark floating above your house? I think that he was reflecting on a past experience.

[jordmundt6]

It could be, but I think both he and Molly also came from large families and experienced the conflict that way.

[Guardian Angel]

I don't believe that the Weasley's had lost a child. If that really happened we would probably see something on Mrs. Weasley's or Mr. Weasley's face when they'd start talking about their children. There would probably be a JKR's hint, like "On the sound of the frase" 7 Weasley kids", Harry thought he saw Mrs. Weasley shivering a bit, but after looking her again he was convinced that he just imagined it." (Yeah, I know the line was stupid, but I hope you understood my point.)

Anyway, my belief is that they will lose a child in the following war. It will possibly be Percy, but there's a chance for Bill and Charley to die as well.

[jordmundt6]

Yeah, there probably would have been some type of warning (a mention from one of the older sibs about brothers or sisters no longer with them or sorrow hanging over Mr. and Mrs. Weasley in spite of the health and happiness of the remainng 7 children. But we get no such inkling.

[Adryan]

Originally posted by Guardian Angel (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=275036#post275036))

Anyway, my belief is that they will lose a child in the following war. It will possibly be Percy, but there's a chance for Bill and Charley to die as well.



Good point, but I think it will be one of the twins.

[jordmundt6]

If you lose one, you'll lose both. The survivor would go on a suicide mission or just lose the will to live entirely. It will probably be Bill or Charlie. Percy's too stubborn to die.

[Adryan]

Originally posted by jordmundt6 (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=275535#post275535))
If you lose one, you'll lose both. The survivor would go on a suicide mission or just lose the will to live entirely. It will probably be Bill or Charlie. Percy's too stubborn to die.



Maybe the twins will die in the next book. It would be a great twist. Most definitly a hard death to write. Who doesn't like the twins?

[jordmundt6]

True. But theiy're the best source of comedy in the whole series. If we eliminate them, we'll have to rely on Trelawney's predictions, Neville's clumsiness, Cand Cadogan's buffoonery for all our humor. Somebody just yelled "Crucio."

[Adryan]

I recall JK saying that the next books are going to be darker. A perfect chance for them to die.

[Guardian Angel]

I don't believe that Fred, George or both of them will die. They are just too light characters so they can be gone. They bring the most of the humor and I'm sure that even during the war they will entartain people.

[jordmundt6]

Yeah, they're more necesasary than ever.

[Weatherby]

She better not kill one of them and leave the other twin-less. I couldn't take that.
But I'm moving into 'who will die' territory there so I'll stop. :)
The question is have they already lost a child.
I think Ron would have mentioned it if he had known. So why would they keep that from him and the others?

[Barbara Kennedy]

That would be a severe trauma for one of the twins, not to mention the rest of the family. [and us!]

[jordmundt6]

You're right. One of the eldest would have remembered the missing sib and added that to the story to make Ron shut up at the QWC.

[astaire]

When I read the first post on this page I thought, "Charlie isn't 8 years older than Percy." I read most of the posts and hardly anyone questioned this. Bill, the oldest Weasly, probably left school five years ago, meaning he's four years older than Percy, meaning Charlie is probably about 2 years older than percy. There isn't a huge time gap. You might have been confused by something said in SS about not winning the house cup in six years and not winning the QUIDDICH cup since Charlie left. The two aren't related and Charlie isn't 8 years older than Percy. Just do the math. I seriously doubt there's a conspiracy regarding a weasly child. Someone just got the math wrong.

[Hpmons]

Thats a very good point, and I think you're right.
I always thought that there wasnt much difference of ages between Bill and Charlie, and it said in book 4 that Bill had only left four years before.

[black&potter]

maybe they just didnt conceive because they were to busy with the war also keep in mind there poor maybe they couldnt afford another for a while

[smartypants]

Originally posted by Barbara Kennedy (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=272801#post272801))
But we CAN extrapolate from information that was in the books.


Yes, but I repeat: NOT THAT ACCURATELY.

[smartypants]

Originally posted by astaire (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=279830#post279830))
There isn't a huge time gap.


Yes, there is.
I posted it a couple of pages back, it's probably time again, and I can trim and update it a bit:

In several places Bill is mentioned as their "eldest child". So, the order is: Bill, Charlie, Percy, Gred&Forge, Ron, Ginny.

We are not told how MUCH older Bill is, though. Bill and Charlie could even be twins, but this is not mentioned anywhere, so they probably aren't.

It is mentioned that Gryffindor hasn't won the Quiddich cup since Charlie left. McGonnall says in PoA, after she had said that she don't wany Harry training outside, that "hmm, yes, it would put us out of the running for the eigth year in a row" or something like that.

Percy Graduates in PoA, so this means that Charlie did graduate 8 years before Percy. Hence, Charlie is 7-9 years older than Percy (We are not told when their birthdays are, so we can't know more accurately than that).

That in turn makes Bill at least 8 years older than Percy, and at least 12 years older than Harry.

Also, if Ginny wanted to go to Hogwarts when Bill did. Bill can have at the latest graduated nine years before Percy, which means he graduated eight years before Ginny started, which means he graduated when she was three years old, or possibly two years, if he is two years older than Charlie.

Hence, their graduation years are:
Bill 1983-84
Charlie 1985
Percy 1993
Fred/George 1995
Ronald 1997
Ginny 1998

We can't deduct their exact birth years, since we don't know their birthdays. They would be 17-18 when graduating, meaning they are born:

Bill 1965-67
Charlie 1967-68


[edited a typo]

[Barbara Kennedy]

Originally posted by smartypants (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=281813#post281813))
Yes, but I repeat: NOT THAT ACCURATELY.


If that bothers you so much, don't read the thread and most especially don't post to it. Let us have our fun and don't let it bother you.

[jordmundt6]

Hpm--No that just means he hasn't been to the castle in five years.

[smartypants]

Originally posted by Barbara Kennedy (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=282895#post282895))
If that bothers you so much, don't read the thread and most especially don't post to it. Let us have our fun and don't let it bother you.


I'm not bothered. It just that since I obviously didn't make myself completely clear the first time, since you did not understand it, I try to repeat what I said more clearly.

[Hpmons]

:wacky: :shrug: I still dont understand...But your probably right so Ill just smile and say "mmm..."

Back to the title of this post...I personally dont think that the Weasleys lost a child. Alothugh it may fit in with some parts of Mrs Weasleys personality, I just dont think so...The books are about Harry Potter, and not about Crookshanks/Snapes similarity to a vampire/an ancient crowd devoted to giving out immortality. (And I just know someone will totally disagree with me).

But, there are lots of things that would make sense if this has happened, as Mrs Weasley is very protective, and there is about eight years difference between Percy and Charlie.

[Barbara Kennedy]

Originally posted by smartypants (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=284074#post284074))
I'm not bothered. It just that since I obviously didn't make myself completely clear the first time, since you did not understand it, I try to repeat what I said more clearly.

Ok.
What were you saying?

[smartypants]

I was saying that you can not deduct the exact birth year of Bill and Charlie from the information in the books. You can do it roughly, but not down to the exact year.

So saying that Charlie is born in 1967 may very well be corret, but you can't be sure it is, based on the books alone.

[Barbara Kennedy]

That is right, but we also use information from JKR interviews which I would say is as good as what is in the book.
Besides, what does it hurt if we theorize? That is what this board is for isn't it, to discuss the books and what their information means or could mean?

[smartypants]

Originally posted by Barbara Kennedy (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=286255#post286255))
That is right, but we also use information from JKR interviews which I would say is as good as what is in the book.


Absolutely. Has she said anything about this topic?

Besides, what does it hurt if we theorize?


Nothing. But this has nothing to do with theorizing, since it's about what can be deducted from the books, so I don't see where you are going with that comment.

[lanifiel]

Alrighty kiddies. Both of you calm down, I havnt read your entire 'Discussion' yet, but I can see both of you are interpreting each others posts wrongly. Lets just calm down and get back to the topic, not how we get the information. Theorise all you want, please, but stop talking about each other.

[Barbara Kennedy]

Ok now....where were we?

I've gotten so sidetracked I don't even remember what point I was trying to get posted now.
Guess I'll just have to start over and look at the original reason for this thread.


Originally posted by symplet (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=204160#post204160))
Ok, I've searched and didn't find any thread on this.

We know that there is an age gap between Charlie and Percy. 8 years to be exact. Why is that? Is it possible that Mr and Mrs Weasley lost a child? In the battle against Voldemort maybe? (too mush stressed caused a miscarriage?)
We know Mrs Weasley is a very protective mother. Maybe the loss of that child is the cause of it.

OR maybe, that age gap is due to Mr Weasley being wounded during the war.

What do you think?


If Mr. Weasley was wounded we haven't heard of it. So it must have been some other reason....

[remo]

I think we could all come up with a million reasons that there is an age gap between the Charlie and Percy.
Myabe they were too busy with work and life to get pregnant. Maybe Mrs Weasly took Charlie and Bill and stayed away for a while because of V. Maybe they just didn't want a baby at the time. Maybe Mr Weasly needed some wizard viagra and it hadn't been invented yet.
I don't think there was a Weasly that died. There may be no significant reason for the age gap. They could have just thought they were too young to handle more kids at that time. IMO there is no dead Weasly child and there was no big reason to the age gap that would affect the plot.

[Barbara Kennedy]

Oh my! LOL...........wizard viagra......rofl

[smartypants]

We know they don't have too much money. And before Mr Weasly got his current position at the Ministry (which he have had a while) they would have had even less.

I think he got that position around one year before Percy was born. ;) Ehm, 1974, then? Well, something like that.

They wanted more kids (maybe they wanted a girl), but they didn't have any more, because they couldn't afford it. Mr Weasly then became head of the Magical misuse of muggle artifacts office, got a raise, and got more kids.

That's what *I* think. :)

[Barbara Kennedy]

You know maybe we are assuming the wrong parent was wounded during the War against Voldemort. If one of the Weasleys were wounded it could have been Molly as likely as Arthur, even if she was an "innocent bystander" during some fighting.

EDIT: If Molly did lose a baby [miscarriage], that could have been how it happened.

Boy, I even depress myself with that thought.

[Filius Flitwick]

Well, at the height of his power Percy, the twins, and Ron were all toddlers and babies. So, there must have been some reason why they picked up the pace towards the end after that big delay.

[Barbara Kennedy]

Maybe whatever happened during the 8 year lapse caused them to decide they wanted a large family?

[Girl]

It could be that after their first two children they waned a break. They then felt that they wanted maby another child. It could be that after Percy they wanted a girl and kepted trying till they got Ginny.

[smartypants]

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. Simple explanation with no strange unfounded theories needed. :)

I tend to favour the simple solutions. ;)

[jordmundt6]

Okum's (sp.) Razor, eh? Well, that's probably it.

[lorna]

I think that's Occams's Razor -- which generally goes something like this - when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well
the simpler is likely the correct one.
That is from a book by my favorite non-fiction author the late Carl Sagan

[jordmundt6]

And it's been quoted/ripped off by countless others since it was written.

[hybrd]

not to be off topic... but what if JK reads the forums and looks around for ideas? lol... she could be coming up for a new weasley right now....

[Barbara Kennedy]

I think we all assume that she does visit the forums under a secret name. So be polite. lol

[lorna]

She may visit and probably has a little giggle at some of our "plans"
for her characters.
I suspect many have little in common with her plans.

[jordmundt6]

Well we already know that she discarded a Weasley cousn so new characters are not out of the question.

[Barbara Kennedy]

Goodness, I hope they don't. I've read some doozies, and probably came up with some really wild ones myself.

[bennett88133]

I read an article somewhere about her saying how she does go online and talk in chatrooms and such... she said she hadn't ever done that before writing about Tom Riddle's diary, but that it was a lot like that because you put in your questions and get answers back from people you don't usually know very well...

[Prof.Aze]

Hi Guys...

I've got something to say about this. Though it's not my own thoughts. I got this from one of the fan fics i've read. I can't really remember the title and the author. so it goes like this.

The Weasleys have 8 children all in all. And Bill isn't the eldest. The eldest was Katherine. The subject was brought about by Ginny and Percy. Ginny found a luggage in the attic which belonged to Katherine. Ginny didn't know who Katherine is so she went to ask Percy about it. Percy told Ginny that Katherine was their eldest sister and that she went missing and eventually died during an overnight stay at her friends house. It was during the reign of Voldemort. Percy then explained to Ginny about the age gap between Charlie and him which is 8 years. Percy said that when Katherine dissappeared Mrs. Weasley was frustrated. Then after so many years Mrs. Weasley came back to her senses and told Arthur that she wanted to have more children to make her forget about Katherine and she particularly wanted to have daughter. So thats the ending of the fan fic.

For me i also think that this is what really happened. After reading the fan fic, i really believed it. :clappy:

So guys i hope i offered you something. :o

[supernatural]

personally i like remos explanation that molly took bill and charlie and hid while arthur stayed around to fight- i think it sounds like something they would do-
also would you really consider bringing another child into such a dangerous world???
i know some people would've gone ahead with it anyway- but it could explain the gap. i dont think either were seriously injured in the fight against V, otherwise i'm pretty sure we would've noticed war wounds.

But i'm open to suggestions- if mrs rowling decides that there is room for this missing character then so be it!!!
:cool:

[smartypants]

The problem with that is that ALL the Weasly kids are born *before* the end of Voldemorts reign, so that argument just totally fails. In fact, the break of eight years start a bit before Voldemort comes back from his travels and starts building a power base.

That theory sounds very appealing and nice, but it just doesn't fit with the timeline.

[wendelin_the_weird]

I know several familes with seven or more children, and when you have a large family like that, there is a very large chance that you will lose a child (miscarriage *shiver*). Or we could go with the theory that there is eight years between Charlie and Percy. . . I know familes that have lots of kids and they kept trying to have another child but for some freak reason they couldn't. Then three years later, I've got a new baby cousin, five years between the second youngest and the youngest, who's just about to celebrate her first birthday (yahoo! *jumps up and down*). So either they couldn't have a child between Charlie and Perce, or there was a miscarriage *shiver*.

[smartypants]

Another thing could very well be that they had decided to only have two kids. And then Percy came along by mistake, and they changed their mind.

[wendelin_the_weird]

I don't think they had Percy by 'mistake'. Maybe Mrs. Weasley just wanted a girl and Percy came, then Fred and George, then Ron, then she got her girl. Or maybe they just wanted a big family when they got to Charlie.

[Gred]

Not sure if this has been voiced but im in a hurry could they have had a child and it was a squib so they shipped it away and for a while they were afraid that they would get another squib so they temporarily stopped trying to have a child

[miri]

I don't think that theory has been mentioned...

The thing is though, magic doesn't manifest itself immediately. The age depends on the child. Neville can remember when his family thought he was a squib, so chances are he was about 7 when his uncle dropped him.

1) They wouldn't have had the child, then realised it was a squib immediately

2) I just don't see them abandoning one of their children...

[jerb]

I don't think the Weasley's would abandon a child because it was a squib!Think about the people you're talking about; Arthur is absolutely fascinated by muggles. They are not the Malfoys.

[Raven]

Maybe the child died. I mean, aren't there illnesses in the Wizarding world?

[Shells Bells]

One thing that I know is that people just don't discuss losing a child as a general topic of conversation.

It's not exactly after dinner chit chat material. I tend to believe that the Weasley's lost a child. The reason that it probably hasn't been brought up is that there has been no reason to bring it up. If Molly lost a baby, I don't think that she would bring it up things like that can be very painful to remember especially if you care for children as much as the Weasleys obviously do.

I think that if and when the time is right JKR will fill in that 8 year gap for us. I know several large famlies. The most common thing that I've seen is not that there is a gap in the middle, but there is a gap . . . . at the End!!! What is called a change of life baby. You think that you're all done with diaper duty and Whoops!!!! Here we go again. :o :eyebrows:

[miri]

One of my friends parents did that. Then when her youngest sister was wee (about 1 and a half) her mum got pregnant again... My friend was 18 when that happened, and I think her oldest sibling was at least 10 years older than her...

[jerb]

But it could just be that there is a gap. There is six years between me and my sister and we're the middle two of four. I also know of a family that started adopting children when their youngest was 13 or so. I think it is just a gap with no real reason behind it.

[smartypants]

Bingo.

[sarcasticx514]

I think they just had a gap. My oldest sister and I are 16 years apart, me and my older brother are 12, and my yonger brother and I are just 2 years apart. Maybe they did it the same way my mom and dad did it.

[tomluva9]

After reading through 7 pages of posts on this topic me conclusion is....
If the Weasleys DID lose a child, then then Dark Mark theroy makes sences(sp?) to me.

[wendelin_the_weird]

I am the eldest child of four. There is two years between me and my oldest younger sister and four between my youngest sister and I, and ten and a half between my little brother and I. Miscarriages happen. Nothing you can do about it. It hurts. But you go on with your life hoping that you get a new brother or sister. So there probably was a miscarriage between Charlie and Percy. But you don't talk about it with anyone, even if it is famous Harry Potter. That?s personal. Cheers:whistle:!

[Girl]

I don't believe this whole losing a child idea. Just because there is a gap between children doesn't mean that the Weasleys lost a child. I have a friend who is 10+ years younger than her older sister. Her parents just didin't want more child at the time but after many years wanted a another child.
It could be that after having to take care of two babies the Weasleys wanted a break. It's hard work to look after children and babies. They might have felt that two was enought at that time. But then after Bill and Charlie had grown up, Mrs weasley might have started missing looking after a child. She then decided that it was time for another baby. After Percy she wanted another child because since Bill and Charlie were so much older Percy would need a brother or sister around his age. They then had the twins. After that they might have wanted a girl and kept trying til Ginny came.

[Capella]

I do believe this. It'd be different if there was a slight gap between each of the kids - but there's only 4 or 5 years separating Percy to Ginny, and I think Bill and Charlie are probably close in age too.
The big gap sticks out like a sore thumb. Why would JKR put in such a space in an otherwise close in age family? I think there's gotta be some reason for it, and the lost Weasley idea makes most sense to me.

[harlle15]

i agree with timmay oK! i think that she lose a child or maybe the child had been miscarriage or had been kidnapped by some kidnappers or dark wizards...

[harp230]

It is definately odd that there is such a large gap. If they did not lose a child along the way there is some other reason. From a historical perspective, They have two children before Voldemort starts making big trouble. The years early in his troublemaking no children, Then in Voldies later and worst years 5 children? Keep in mind that Ginny was born before Voldie fell. What the reason is who knows? but there must be some reason.

[FawkesBox]

I agree with harlle15- there has to be something more. Perhaps that child got in with the death eaters and is in Azkaban? Maybe that's the identity of the unnamed fourth in the GoF pensieve trial- are there any physical descriptions of him?

[remus81]

There are a lot of really good ideas on this thread, but I'm not sure that I am down with all of them.

1-I think there is definately some reason why there is such a large gap in Weaslet ages. I don't think that they just decided to stop trying, and then all of a sudden have 5 more. I would tend to agree that there is a missing child. I think it perfectly reasonable that Harry doesn't know. He really doesn't know much about the Weasley family. He knows names and faces (though he didn't learn faces until GoF). But he doesn't ask many questions and the Weasleys don't offer a lot of free info.

2- The Weasleys would never go into hiding. Look at how Molly steps up in GoF. She wouldn't hide. And they would never sell, adopt, or get rid of a child. Malfoy knows they are the Weasleys because they have more kids than they could afford, and so it seems a Weasley trait to have a big family. They would not have stopped reproducing for financial reasons.

3-I don't think that Molly would miscarry. Disease and ailments seem to not be a part of the wizarding world.

4- Off topic, but in an interview JKR said she doesn't go on line to HP sites. I understand, she's done great with her own imagination, and I imagine it might hinder her if she had all these ideas rolling in from everywhere.

Just a few thoughts....... probably not even worth 2 cents anymore with the state of American currency.... ah to be British.......

[Doggy]

I've heard a theory (I'm not sure if I believe in it myself). It might already be written here, but I didn't have the energy to read all the posts. Sorry...

The theory is that the Weasleys gave their kids names in alphabetical order.
A: Arthur (I know that doesn't make sence)
B: Bill (could be named after his uncle Bilius)
C: Charlie
D: D-something Percy/unknown child
E: E-something Percy/unknown child.
F: Fred
G: George.

Then, the "unknown child" is killed/kidnapped, and the Weasleys don't like the alphabetical idea any longer, so they give their next kids the names Ron and Ginny, just names they like (luckily, what if they named Ron Harry?)

[MsSnape]

It would be very interesting if there was a missing Weasley. I really don't see much foreshadowing of it though. However, any hints of that would come from Mr or Mrs Weasley. It is likely the kids don't know, or don't know the whole story. Ron sometimes says things to Harry that indicate a certain amount of knowledge, but he doesn't say anything until he feels compelled to for some reason. I haven't really noticed much coming from the Weasleys that would be indicative of such a secret. Nor do I see what Voldemort would have to gain by killing just one child. Arthur wasn't exactly an auror and was probably fairly junior in the ministry at the time. When Voldemort was originally in power he didn't control the Ministry openly. He had some moles in there, but didn't actually run. Now in future books he may be in a position to run it. Especially given the atmosphere at the end of the last book.

[chrissy2crazy]

It is somewhat likely... and there is a definate pattern in their names.

:) :p

[~BrandyTook~]

Hmmm... I think that there could be a missing child. There is a lot of evidence towards it, but there is also a lot against it. It does seem odd to have children who are all so close in age with such a large gap in the middle. Bill and Charlie are close. Then there is a huge gap. then all the rest are close. There may be a reason, and it may just have happened. But it is a very interesting theory. The only thing is that I haven't noticed any foreshadowing like there would noramlly be. But maybe it's going to be a huge surprise. It would explain some things. We'll have to wait and see.

[Rowena Ravenclaw]

Originally posted by Doggy (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=374245#post374245))
B: Bill (could be named after his uncle Bilius)

I sure hope not, for his sake (and the Weasleys' overall, since if he's really William, it takes away that bit of evidence).

Definitely a good thing Ron didn't end up being named Harry, though. Can you imagine how much more resentful he'd be if people kept calling his name and it turned out they only wanted to talk to Potter?

[mafiawizard]

Ok, I've searched and didn't find any thread on this.

We know that there is an age gap between Charlie and Percy. 8 years to be exact. Why is that? Is it possible that Mr and Mrs Weasley lost a child? In the battle against Voldemort maybe? (too mush stressed caused a miscarriage?)
We know Mrs Weasley is a very protective mother. Maybe the loss of that child is the cause of it.

OR maybe, that age gap is due to Mr Weasley being wounded during the war.

What do you think?
They probably were too busy to have children at that time. Or maybe Bill grew up and they wanted another baby and were craving another baby. If the Weasley's had lost a child I am sure the Ron would have told Harry and Heromonie by now. They have been friends for five years.

[Raven]

I've read lots of messages on the Weasleys and the Age Gap between Bill and Percy. There was a bit of discussion about this in "Something Fishy about Charlie Weasley" over on the Prophecy board, but since I wanted to discuss this specifically I thought I would create a thread on it and place it here. I've run five different searches and have come up with nothing, so here it is, my theory on the Age Gap.

To sum up what we do know, there is about 8 years age difference between Percy and Bill, and this is in a family that had five children in five years (Ginny was in her second year when Percy was in his seventh year). We don't know how far apart Bill and Charlie are in age, but that is irrelevant here. Roughly 16 years separate Bill from Ginny.

What if Bill and Charlie are not really the children of Arthur and Molly Weasley? What if they are actually Molly's or Arthurs nephews, and were adopted into the Weasley family after their parents were killed by Voldemort?

[jordmundt6]

You want to check out the thread "Did the Weasleys Lose a Child" which should be on this board. It was discussed ad nauseum just before Book 5 came out. Sorry, can't give you a link.

Edit: Sorry, this does seem to be a new spin on an old question. Why if they share so many characteristics of Arthur and Molly both would you consider them as cousins rather than kids? Plus, Charlie graduated when Ron was six and would have been born in the middle of the fray. If anything this makes very little sense because the Weasleys are in their late sixties minimum (they were in school before either Hagrid or Filch took up their positions and Hagrid became Keeper of the Keys and Grounds 50 years before Harry's second year of Hogwarts). If anything, the last five kids were born a little late, wouldn't you say?

[Kaonashi]

There's lots of families where huge age gaps between children exist. For all we know, Bill may have been a "love child" and Charlie born soon after. At that point, maybe they wanted to chill a bit and have Mr Weasley get more established on his job. Happens all he time. i think that if Bill or charlie weren't their kids it would be a little bit too obvious, since all the Weasleys have red hair,freckles, adn other identifying traits that make people say "There's a weasley!"

[Barbara Kennedy]

I found the thread jordmundt6 was refering to.
Did the Weasleys lose a Child? (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=6613)
I tried a search first but it wouldn't show it. I found it by doing a manual page-bypage search.

[jordmundt6]

Thanks so much Barbara. But again, if the Weasleys are at least the same age as Voldemort, why did they start having kids around age 50? after what looks like maybe a 10 year gap or close to it? It doesn't match trying not to have kids during the war. If anything, they were busy bunnies during the war's deadliest years. Ron and Ginny were born the year before and the year of Voldemort's first demise. Also, Fred & George were born just as Voldemort's power began to reach its peak (four years before his demise). Hmm, maybe we found the Weasleys' secret stress-relief formula? :D :elaugh: :blush: :tu:

[harp230]

Well the weasleys do not have to be that old. Mrs Weasley remembers when Ogg was gamekeeper. She never says that Hagrid wasn't his assistant or something at the time she was in school.
Also Ginny would have been born within a year of Voldies first demise.

[dobby_rocks]

Maybe they decided to not have any. Then Mrs.Weasley wanted a girl. And they had Percy. The the twins. and then they had Ron. And then finally Ginny and stopped there.
That is really possbile a few years ago i caught a show on 20/20 or dateline about a family that was having their 9 or 10th child. but the thing is that they had all boys and they wanted a girl so they kept on having kids till they go their girl then i bleive the mother got her tubes tied


I think that if they had another child and he or she died, Ron would have already mentioned. Then again if it had been miscarage maybe they (mr and mrs. weasly) didnt tell anyone about it.

As far as Mrs. Weaslys age when she started having kids , wizard dont have same life span as we do in our life typical age to have kids is 24 to 36 but maybe in their life time its 35 on or something. Plus niether is a rule just some document stitictis i read in the paper few weeks ago a women who had 15 kids. Her youngest was the same age as her first grandchild

[ginnybatbogeysyou]

Could Mr Weasley's speech in GoF about coming home and finding the Dark Mark "hovering" over your house have any relevance to this theory?

P.S. The full quote from Mr Weasley is the following:

"Just picture coming home, and finding the Dark Mark hovering over your house, and knowing what you're about to find inside..."

I find that quote very suspicious, because if Mr. Weasley only heard about it, he wouldn't tell it with so much emotion.

Maybe one kid / several kids were killed by Voldemort, and the younger ones were never told about it, becasue Molly and Arthur didn't want to be reminded about it. That is the only explanation that makes sense to me, because Ron has always been very open about everything; even the accountant-cousin.

[jordmundt6]

Harp--eh, not so sure about that. She said that Ogg was the gamekeeper before Hagrid. She didn't say "Hagrid was his assistant back when I was at school." Plus, even if she had, that would mean that she would have to have been 11 fifty years before Book 2. 50 + 11 = 61. That's her MINIMUM age and that's too low to match her comments about Pringle. Remember they haven't used the whip this century and Pringle used the whip and chains on Arthur, liberally. He still has the scars. When I initially read that, that said to me that they were in school in the 1890s which would mean that they're only about 50 years younger than Dumbledore. Which would really be HOLY :censored:! I mean WOW! :wow: And Ginny is a year younger than Harry. She was born the year OF Voldemort's demise, as I said (or I thought I said) earlier.

[harp230]

My point is that we can not deduce their age based on Ogg being the gamekeeper because we do not know when Hagrid took over the job. In reading I assume you mean that Hagrid took the job immediately after he was expelled. We do not know that for sure. My point is yours that Mrs. Weasley did not say "Hagrid was his assistant back when I was at school". So we just do not know either way.
Interesting thoughts on Pringle though... that will take some thinking....

[Barbara Kennedy]

The Harry Potter Lexicon has a very good timeline that could answer all these questions about threir ages.

[smartypants]

I find that quote very suspicious, because if Mr. Weasley only heard about it, he wouldn't tell it with so much emotion.

Maybe one kid / several kids were killed by Voldemort, and the younger ones were never told about it, becasue Molly and Arthur didn't want to be reminded about it. That is the only explanation that makes sense to me, because Ron has always been very open about everything; even the accountant-cousin.

It is not necessary to have had a kid killed by voldemort to be upset of the prospect of his return.

[smartypants]

Remember they haven't used the whip this century and Pringle used the whip and chains on Arthur, liberally. He still has the scars.

Hang on, did they really say they hasn't used the WHIP in a century?

[ginnybatbogeysyou]

It is not necessary to have had a kid killed by voldemort to be upset of the prospect of his return.

No it's not, but I wasn't saying that. I said you can read in Mr. Weasley's reaction that he must have seen the dark mark somewhere, because he talks about with emotion that you don't see with somebody that has read about the dark mark, like Hermione did. She reacts scared, but Mr. Weasley reacts different, more moved.

[jordmundt6]

Smarty--y'know I'm not entirely sure either but it should be either in SS during the first mentions of Filch (Harry's first week at school) or in CoS when Filch drags Harry into his office. Also, notice that OotP is the first time Filch is allowed to use the whip and he brandishes it around randomly trying to catch the rebels unawares.

[Raven]

Harp--eh, not so sure about that. She said that Ogg was the gamekeeper before Hagrid. She didn't say "Hagrid was his assistant back when I was at school." Plus, even if she had, that would mean that she would have to have been 11 fifty years before Book 2. 50 + 11 = 61. That's her MINIMUM age and that's too low to match her comments about Pringle. Remember they haven't used the whip this century and Pringle used the whip and chains on Arthur, liberally. He still has the scars. When I initially read that, that said to me that they were in school in the 1890s which would mean that they're only about 50 years younger than Dumbledore. Which would really be HOLY :censored:! I mean WOW! :wow: And Ginny is a year younger than Harry. She was born the year OF Voldemort's demise, as I said (or I thought I said) earlier.
I think Jordmundt made a great point. Tom Riddle the memory says, "Dumbledore seemed to think Hagrid was innocent. He persuaded Dippet to keep Hagrid and train him as gamekeeper..." (last chapter of Chamber of Secrets)

Riddle goes on to say how he decided to leave the diary preserving his 16 year old self in there so that somebody else could continue his work. Being 16 means that Riddle was either in his fifth or sixth year.

We know from Dumbledore later on in the story that right after his seventh year Riddle started to travel and began his transformation into Voldemort.

My point is, that if Riddle the Memory knew that Hagrid had been kept on, then the action must have taken place before Riddle left Hogwarts. Therefore, Jord is correct. Mrs. Weasley MUST be at least 66 years old.

[Barbara Kennedy]

I think Jordmundt made a great point. Tom Riddle the memory says, "Dumbledore seemed to think Hagrid was innocent. He persuaded Dippet to keep Hagrid and train him as gamekeeper..." (last chapter of Chamber of Secrets)

Riddle goes on to say how he decided to leave the diary preserving his 16 year old self in there so that somebody else could continue his work. Being 16 means that Riddle was either in his fifth or sixth year.

We know from Dumbledore later on in the story that right after his seventh year Riddle started to travel and began his transformation into Voldemort.

My point is, that if Riddle the Memory knew that Hagrid had been kept on, then the action must have taken place before Riddle left Hogwarts. Therefore, Jord is correct. Mrs. Weasley MUST be at least 66 years old.

This information comes from The Harry Potter Lexicon's Timeline (http://www.hp-lexicon.org/timeline_main2.html#1900-2000).

Voldemort was born around 1926 or 1927, I've seen both quoted.

Hagrid was expelled from Hogwarts in 1943 and BEGAN training as Gameskeeper that year. He did not become the grounds keeper for some time after that.

Dumbledore became Headmaster c. 1970.

Charlie Weasley was born in 1967.

I just pulled a few pertinent dates from the site. You can find more there.

[Raven]

Perhaps Witches can't have children until they are older than they are when the leave school.

But that can't be right because James and Lily had Harry the same year Dudley was born. Granted we don't know how old Petunia was, but we do know that Snape (who was in the same year as James and Lily) was 35 or 36 as of the last book. Since that is the age that James and Lily would be if they had lived, then Lily must have had Harry very young.

My point: Charlie is 27, meaning Bill is at least 28. Why would Molly wait until she was in her mid thirties to have kids?

This is just weird...and interesting.

[jordmundt6]

That happens today. That needs no supernatural explanation (my parents were in their thirties before they started having children).

[Discordia]

I just assumed that they never had more children. Maybe they stopped at 2 and than decided to have more? I never thought of the possbility.