[HPforGrownups] That's an interesting theory

[Lucy Austin]

No: HPFGUIDX 37441

>>From: kellybroughton at netscape.net
>>The possibility of a missing child is very intriguing.... but there may be 
>>yet another explanation: the Weasleys just didn't want to have any more 
>>babies with Voldemort running around.

>The only real problem with this theory is that Ron is several months younger 
than Harry, thus Voldemort very likely wasn't just running around, he may 
well have been at the height of his power. We don't know Ginny's birthday, 
but she's at least six months younger than Harry, but even with a late 
birthday, she had to have been born before Harry defeated LV the first time, 
otherwise she'd be two years behind him in school, as Harry was fifteen 
months old when LV was defeated. This says nothing about Fred or George, who 
may well have been born into troubled times as well...do we have any canon 
about when LV started to raise his big stink?

J


At the risk of reopening the age debate, I must say I still think it extremely unlikely that anyone is younger than Harry in his year. As a July 21st birthday, I was ALWAYS the youngest in my year, and someone with a July 31st birthday would almost certainly find that he was also the youngest. I think Ron is several months older, not younger.

Lucy the Drifty

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]