Ron is Dumbledore and Flamel--due to time travel...

[rotsiepots]

Dumbledore does have a scar above his left knee that resembles the London Underground, however, I doubt he could have got that from breaking his leg. The map of the London Underground is immensely complex -- it must have been quite an accident, rather than a standard broken leg, that gave him that scar.

Besides, we don't know what leg Ron broke, do we? It's never mentioned.

[whizbang121]

It does sound like it must be the result of magic. And if Ron came up with such a scar, he would have been running around with his pants let rolled up to show it to everyone, at least in the common room.

[Perdita]

whizbang121!!

Re: Scar
Bone fractures are an internal injury, so you wouldn't see a scar on the skin.

[Aseldar]

I don't believe it. Why? Because he would have known about Cedric's death and Sirius's, and tried to save them. Simple.

[rotsiepots]

Originally Posted by Perdita

whizbang121!!

Re: Scar
Bone fractures are an internal injury, so you wouldn't see a scar on the skin.

I don't want to get overly unpleasant, but some breaks are so severe that the bone pierces the skin, so that there are external injuries too. As we don't know the nature of Ron's break (it seemed rather unpleasant, though) I don't think we can discount this entirely, but it seems unlikely.

Anyway, if Ron had a scar above his left knee in the same shape as the tube map, then he probably wouldn't recognise it for what it was. He's a bit Muggle ignorant, that one.

[Drker2000]

I don't believe it. Why? Because he would have known about Cedric's death and Sirius's, and tried to save them. Simple.

I'm not supporting the idea, or anything like that, but. . . .

The entire thing would make sense if Dumbledore never remembered anything. He's so different from Aberforth, and someone could have planted memories into his mind that made up for the first fourteen to twenty years of his life.

So someone could have overpowered Ron -- after he had traveled a hundred or so years into the past -- put a very strong memory charm on him, taken his time-turner(or whatever strange device he could have been using), and left him, for some reason.

Of course, he then became Dumbledore.

[CRH_Ravenclaw]

I agree that Ron and Dumbledore have many similarities, but I think that coming to the conclusion that Ron IS Dumbledore is going a bit too far . . . it would mean that Dumbledore is a Weasley (which is hard to imagine) and Ron's mom had to give birth to Ron twice. Dumbledore is wise and powerful, and that not exactly the words that define Ron . . .

[DarkMark90]

Ron and Dumbledore have many similarities, just because they have similarities doens't meant that they are the same person. I've heard this several times, and it still is too far-fetched to be true, especially if some of the most commonly discussed proof is the scar on the leg and the broken leg.

[CRH_Ravenclaw]

er, DarkMark, that is almost exactly what I said . . . please READ, especially the post before your's . . .

[Perdita]

Originally Posted by rotsiepots

I don't want to get overly unpleasant, but some breaks are so severe that the bone pierces the skin, so that there are external injuries too. As we don't know the nature of Ron's break (it seemed rather unpleasant, though) I don't think we can discount this entirely, but it seems unlikely.

Oh yeah, I know about those fractures, but Ron's fracture was not described as such. If it were that severe of a fracture, I'm sure JKR would have described it. That's quite a big detail, if it was that serious. Think about it. There would have been blood all over Ron's leg and on the bed if the bones did puncture his skin. That is quite messy and not something that Harry and Hermione would have overlooked, no matter how urgent the situation was with Black and Peter.

So, it seems to me to be quite a stretch to speculate that Ron probably got the scars from his leg fracture, which was probably so severe that it puntured the skin, even when JKR never described it as such, just to make one connection between Dumbledore and Ron.

[springthing4]

how could ron go back in time as dumbledore? he would have to kill the dumbledore he was taking the place of, or explain the situation to him, and then dumbledore lives his life as another person...this theory sounds like such an easy way to tie everything together. i do think that timetravel might have something to do with the last 2 books, but not to this extent.

[vmonte]

I'm not the only person who believes that Ron=DD. Many people have been coming up with the same theory. Check this website out:
http://www.knight2king.net/Knight2King/Personal56.html

[shanobyl]

Originally Posted by vmonte

I'm not the only person who believes that Ron=DD. Many people have been coming up with the same theory. Check this website out:
http://www.knight2king.net/Knight2King/Personal56.html

after reading that excellent essay, im convinced!

[Furienna]

I don't know, I'm not convinced until I see JKR putting it down in writing. There are still things which have to be explained. like, how can the goofy Ron we know and the brilliant Dumbledore we know be the same person? I don't think Ron is up to do many things that Dumbledore have done.

[Azimuth]

Originally Posted by www.knight2king.net

Several people have pointed out how odd it was that Ron didn't make Harry or Hermione the King in the chess game. Not only does Ron have to keep himself along with Harry and Hermione safe, he has to also make sure the King isn't taken out, otherwise the game is over. Wouldn't it be more prudent to defend three pieces instead of four? Yes, of course it would, but prudence was not JKR's intent. Her intent was to construct a metaphor.

If that so was her intent, then she wouldn't have let it change for the movie. In the movie, Harry and Hermione take up the roles of pieces whose squares are empty. They had to take those places - Ron didn't 'make' them do anything.

[Jane Granger]

Originally Posted by Azimuth

If that so was her intent, then she wouldn't have let it change for the movie. In the movie, Harry and Hermione take up the roles of pieces whose squares are empty. They had to take those places - Ron didn't 'make' them do anything.

The change in the movie seems like a minor mistake to me -- it looked fit only
because there're 3 of them, but what about Querill? could he have won
a game with 2 pieces missing? If so, then the game Ron played was not that
great after all.

[jigglypuff]

I also have a problem with the scar thingy. Ok so DD has a scar above his left knee that looks like the London Underground. And Ron broke his leg in PoA. But just a broken leg would not have left Ron with such a scar. In order for him to have a scar he would have had to have a compound fracture (where the bone breaks through the skin). Never in PoA is Ron's broken leg described as a compound fracture.



"...on the floor beside him, clutching his leg, which stuck out at a strange angle, was Ron." pg 338



"Everything was covered in a thick layer of dust except the floor, where a wide shiny stripe had been made by something being dragged upstairs." pg 338



No mention of blood? Doesn't sound like a compound fracture to me.



"Lupin hurried over to Ron, bent down, tapped Ron's leg with his wand, and muttered, 'Ferula'. Bandages spun up Ron's leg, strapping it tightly to a splint. Lupin helped him to his feet; Ron put his weight gingerly on the leg and didn't wince."



Ron was able to put weight on his leg? There is no possible way Ron would have been able to put any weight on his leg if he had sustained a compound fracture, not to mention Ron would have lost a good amount of blood and probably would have been close to going into shock.



The evidence we have about Ron's injury just does not support what has been assumed in the Ron/DD theory.

[Furienna]

Well no, that scar seems to have occured by magic, maybe Grindewald gave Dumbledore that scar back in the day.

But then, it seems strange that Dumbledore says he had Berthie Bott's candy in his "youth". Though youth is a relative term, Berthie Bott is said to be born in 1935, and even then when she was born, Dumbledore sure wasn't able to be considered young, probably not even by himself (he was at least middle age already in Riddle's diary in COS). Him going back in time when he was young might be the answer to that.

[jigglypuff]

I don't see how this theory could possibly be true. There are just too many flaws.



Ron's broken leg didn't cause any scar.



Maruader's Map: we don't even know if this map would show someone who has gone back in time. Ex. - Lupin didn't see Harry and Hermione when they went back in time in PoA



JK Rowlings comments about Ron never becoming a teacher. Dumbledore was the Transfiguration teacher



how do we even know if there is a time-turner that can go back in time 100-150 years? The only one we've seen was able to go back in time an hour at a time. And how would Ron get his hands on such a powerful time-turner (assuming one even exists)



Professor Marchbanks comments about how brilliant Dumbledore was in his Transfiguration and Charms N.E.W.T.s. Well, she also tested Ron in many of his O.W.L.s. If Ron and DD are the same person, then wouldn't professor Marchbanks have noticed that Ron looks exactly like the young Professor Dumbledore. She remembers how great he was with his wand...why wouldn't she remember what he looked like?



Jk has only 2 more harry potter books to write. how is she going to tie this into the plot? It would take a great deal of explaining and I just think it would take away from the story as a whole. I don't think JK would want to draw our attention so far away from what these books are supposed to be about. They're not about harry's best friend going back in time and becoming the greatest wizard ever. They're about HARRY and the struggle to overcome evil.

[Boris_the_Bewilder]

I reread that "Knight2King" thing and while I agree that the chess game in Book 1 does portent bad things happening to Ron (I think he dies), the whole time-travel stuff just seems tacked on and totally unjustified.

One other thing about time-travel that would be a problem. If Ron travels back in time when he is 17 years old, then he has to still be 17 when he arrives where ever he is going. (If he loses one year in age for each year he travels back in time then, obviously he wouldn't exist before 1980.) So if Marchbanks remembers DD in school as the OOTP says, then DD can't be Ron -- Ron would be too old looking to fake his way all through Hogwarts again.