Name scheme and Missing Weasley Children

[m.bockermann at t-online.de]

No: HPFGUIDX 37273

Hi Athena! Hi everybody else!


You know, I kind of suspected that there had to be a scheme with names
starting with B, C, F and G. But I was thrown off-track by the questions of:
where is A (Arthur!) and what about Percy and Ron.

What your saying makes sense, especially if you think about the fact that
among all these traditional (British traditional?) names like Bill, Charlie,
Fred and George, Percy or Parceval kind of... sticks out. Edward or Edward
Percival would make much more sense. Maybe there is another Edward in a side
branch of the family and the family took on to call him Percy to avoid
confusion. And/or... Percy is the kind of person who'd decide that Percy is
much more intersting than "Edward" or "Eddy" and insist on being called
Percy.


<<<Then when it comes to Ron, he might have a similar first/second name
scenario.  How about his first name was Harold and the Weasley's called him
Harry for almost the first two years of his life.  Then when Harry Potter
became so famous, they felt that it best to call him by his second name in
deference and honor of The Boy Who Lived.

Ron is Harry's most loyal friend. But, as we have seen in GoF, he is also
frustated at always being second. If you are right... that would be hard on
Ron's ego, wouldn't it? He, I like it when there is pressure on characters.

And you are right. If there were Bill, Charlie, Edward, Fred and George,
people would start missing the D, Ron or no Ron.

Besides, we know that Ron is short for Ronald... at some time an angry Molly
calls him that, IIRC. Can't remember where, exactly, but it supports the
idea that the Weasleys are not using each others full name... except if
somebody is in *big* trouble. Now, if all of this is true, I'd hate to know
what would make Molly angry enough to call Ronald or Percy with their full
name.

Greetings,
Barbara Jebenstreit