Arthur Weasley

[abigailnus]

No: HPFGUIDX 37179

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., m.bockermann at t... wrote:
> 
> Abigail suggested that Arthur Weasley might have been an auror. While I
> don't have much to proof against it, I am not convinced. If that was the
> case, wouldn't Ron know about it? And he is not the kind to keep silent
> about it. And to be honest... while I think the world of Arthur, I don't
> think he is auror kind of material. Too... nice? He doesn't even get really
> angry with his kids (see the twins in HP4), so where does he hide the
> fierceness that I (personally) associate with an auror.

Well, I don't have much proof for this theory, but that's never stopped me 
before!  I agree that Arthur doesn't present as very tough in the books 
(although I don't think that toughness should be displayed as fierceness 
towards his children), but I think I can account for that.  I see Arthur as Lupin, 
but with less Edge (and minus the licanthropy, of course.)  He's a normal, 
kind man who is usually very gentle, but with a core of pure Toughness.  
In the right situation, I can imagine Arthur as a fine auror - level-headed 
and not too trigger-happy - the kind of auror Mad-Eye Moody might take to.  
Fierceness, in this case, might not be the most desirable quality.  
Also, bear in mind we've never met a *real* auror, only fake!Moody, who, 
as Elkins says, has some personality problems of his own.

I think Arthur displays a cool enough head in the few professional situations 
that we see him in, to convince at least me that he could once have been 
an auror.  I see him as a sort of battle scarred soldier - this works especially 
well if at some point in his career he was hit with an Imperius curse, which 
is a horrible violation even if you don't end up doing something evil.  When 
the war was over, all he wanted was to return to his family and live a quiet, 
normal life, collecting plugs and protecting muggles - perhaps his affection 
towards them stems from seeing so many of them killed by Death Eaters - 
he feels protective of them.  I think a man who has seen the horrors of war, 
who probably witnessed horrible atrocities commited by his enemies and 
no doubt saw many friends and collegues killed, would relish the quiet life, 
and be very reluctant to let that kind of ugliness back into his home.

As for whether the kids know, the younger Weasly children - Percy through 
Ginny - would have been much too young to understand what was going
on around them even if they did remember it 14 years later - Percy, the 
oldest, would have been 4 or 5 years old.  If Arthur really didn't want 
to talk about his career before the fall, they might never suspect anything.  
We've seen many times in HP (and in the real world) that children take a 
long time to question their surroundings and especially their parents.  For 
young children, even Ron's age, parents have just always been there.  If 
Arthur Weasly has headed up Misuse of Muggle Artifacts since Ron was a 
small child, then in Ron's perspective he's probably always done it.

As for the older children, Bill and Charlie would have been about 8-10 when 
LV fell (although that's a bit of guesswork, more about that later) so they 
prsumably would have known about Arthur's job *if* he mentioned it at home.  
If Arthur cherished his home as a sanctuary from the ugliness of his work, 
he might never say anything about it in front of his children.  Or he might 
have made it clear after the fall that he wouldn't brook any discussion of 
his previous job with the younger children, and Bill and Charlie would have 
caught the hint.  After all, as Elkins said, the wizarding world has made 
discussing the war with Voldemort a great taboo, so Bill and Charlie might not 
have perceived the enforced silence as anything out of the ordinary.  

Finally, there's the simple fact that we've seen next to nothing of the older 
Weasly children.  Harry only meets them at the beginning of GoF, and then 
they have more pleasant things to discuss (namely Quidditch) than what 
their father did during the war, however, when Harry asks, at the end of 
the scene I quoted in my previous message, who Mad-Eye Moody is, 
Charlie answers:

"He's retired, used to work at the ministry, ... I met him once when Dad took 
me into work with him."

This can be read both ways, I know.  And if Arthur was indeed an auror it 
raises the question of what he was thinking bringing his young son to work, 
but it does suggest that Bill and Charlie might know more about their father's 
life before the fall of Voldemort than they've let on so far.

> What is certain Abigail, is that you are right about the relationship
> between Arthur Weasley and Moody. Judging from the reactions of Arthur and
> Molly, Moody has a special place in their heart. Maybe not because he was a
> colleague, but because he gave testimony that Arthur was indeed under the
> influence of the Imperius curse and could not be faulted for his actions.
> That would explain their friendship and places Arthur under the curse
> without making him an auror. What do you think.

Or perhaps Moody was respnsible for breaking the Imperius curse placed 
on Arthur - if such a thing is possible, I imagine Moody would be the one to 
do it.  That would put Arthur strongly in his debt.  Like I said in my previous 
message, I see no conflict between Arthur-with-Imperius and Arthur-as-auror, 
so either way, this works for me.
> 
> Elkins, with your last paragraph you really confused me, I'm afraid. I must
> admit that I haven't found anything festering in their family dynamic.
> Missing Weasley children? What did I miss? Do you mean that there was
> another Weasley child that died during the reign of LV? Is that the reason
> why Crouch senior continually calls Percy by a wrong name?

Elkins is referring to a theory that's been running around for a while, that there 
was a eighth Weasly child, between Charlie and Percy, who died during the war.  
There are two main arguments for this theory as I understand it (I've never seen 
it laid out properly so this is just stuff I've picked up over the past few months.  
If anyone finds any mistakes or omissions I apologize.)  

The first is the disparity of age gaps between the younger Weasly children (Percy 
through Ginny) and the older ones (Bill and Charlie).  Ginny is only a year younger 
than Ron, who is two years younger than the twins, who are two years younger 
than Percy (keep in mind that when I say "a year younger" the only information 
I have to go on is Hogwarts years.  We have no idea what the cutoff date for a 
Hogwarts school year is - are you in your first year if you've turned 11 during the 
previous year, or if you're going to turn 11 in the coming year, or something in 
the middle?  So the gaps could be larger or smaller, but no bigger than 3 years.)  
Bill and Charlie, on the other hand, are described as being in their twenties in GoF, 
and there's sufficient evidence to suggest that Bill could be as old as 25 (again, 
this is very fuzzy.  The evidence about Bill and Charlie's ages is as solid as the 
evidence about Harry's birth year, or the number of children in Hogwarts - that is 
to say, not at all.  The consensus seems to be that the older children are in or close 
to their mid-twenties, and for the sake of this theory it's necessary to assume that.)  

This leaves a gap of several years between Charlie and Percy's births, and given 
the short gaps between all the other children, some people have suggested that 
there was an eighth child who died during the war and whose mention is too 
painful for Arthur and Molly.  This theory lends extra poignancy to Arthur's 
description of coming home and discovering the Dark Mark floating above your 
house, knowing that everyone inside was dead (as mentioned in chapter 9 of GoF).  
As Elkins says, given the reluctance to talk about the dark days, Arthur's very 
emotional reaction might suggest a personal experience of that sort.

> I promise I am going to read chapter 9 of GoF. But if I ask really nice,
> with sugar and cream, could you explain to me what FEATHERBOAS is and what
> kind of theory is behind it? Please?

FEATHERBOAS, as I understand it, and here I really should leave the stage 
to Elkins or someone else but since I'm showing off with my knowledge of 
one theory I might as well show off with my knowledge of another (does 
anyone remember those carefree days when all you had to do to be a HP 
scholar was have encyclopedia-like knowledge of canon?  These days the 
true scholar has to know all the various thoeries and commentaries.  It's like 
being Talmudic scholars with cool acronyms.)  is the insignia of those who 
believe that in order to prove his intentions to Dumbledore when he tried to 
return to the side of the angels, Snape was forced to arrange an ambush 
of Death Eaters, and that this ambush was very bloody - possibly the very 
ambush in which Dolohov, Travers and Mulciber were caught and Rosier and 
Wilkes killed (there are several permutations of these names, and every 
FEATHERBOA wearer struggles to include more in his or her ambush to 
make it Bigger.)  The FEATHERBOAS themselves were made from the 
feathers of Hedwig, Errol and Pigwidgeon, by, I think, Tabouli, and placed 
around Elkins' (?) unconcious form in order to shame her into giving up her 
bloodthirsty ways.  She had a rather averse reaction to them at first, but now 
seems to wear them as a badge of honor.  (Once again, I apologise if I got 
the names wrong.)

Yup, this is a wacky bunch.

Abigail