Arthur Weasley as Auror and Missing Weasley

[m.bockermann at t-online.de]

No: HPFGUIDX 37193

Hi everybody!

Thanks to Abigail and catlady_de_los_angeles for their answers about the
Missing Weasley inquiry and arguing on the behalf of the Arthur-as-an-auror
and Arthur-as-imperiused theories. You are growing a believer here, you
know. ;-)

Abigail, if I understand you correctly, there are two main arguements for
the Missing-Weasley-theory: the age gap between Charlie and Percy and the
horror with which Arthur Weasley talks about the Dark Mark.

Personally, I find these arguements already convincing. But if these are the
two main arguements, I might have found another. If I am correct, JKR gives
us a hint right at the *start* of the series, making her the one-and-only
Queen of Dropping Hints.

Remember the *first* real conversation between Ron and Harry in the Hogwarts
in HP1? (Sorry, I don't have my English version at hand so I have to
retranslate. I'm going to look it up, but I doubt that much content was lost
in either translation.)
Harry: ".... I wished, I three wizard brothers, too." "Five," said Ron. For
some reason, his expression darkened. "I'm the sixth in my family who is
going to Hogwarts... ."

Up to now, I always thought the meaning of this was obvious: that Ron is
annoyed because of his bad starting point. He is neither the oldest - making
him responsible and reliable, as is often associated with older siblings.
Nor has he the advantage of the twins of having a "special buddy", nor does
he have the cuteness bonus of the youngest. He only gets hands me downs and
he is suffering from the fact that everyone has high hopes for him - but if
he succeeds, it's nothing special. He is adequatly frustated by this. This
interpretation is reinforced later in the series, again and again, when Ron
is frustated by the poverty of his family or his place in the family.

But if you assume that there has been another Weasley child, the statement
takes on a double meaning (even in the retranslation). The shadow on Ron's
face would then be the result of thinking of a sibling he never knew. Note
that he is *not* saying: "I'm the sixth child." He *says*: "I'm the sixth in
the family to go to Hogwarts". The sixth to go to Hogwarts is not
necessarily the sixth that has been born, however.

At this point of time, Ron and Harry hardly know each other. There is no
reason that Ron would tell Harry about the dead sibling, like: "Five. It
might have been six, but the same person that killed your parents and caused
your scar killed one of my brothers." That would neither sound like Ron, nor
like anybody else who is getting to know a near stranger. Later in the
series, Ron and Harry have no reason to speak about the subject again. And
such a subject usually does not come up in casual conversation.

If I'm correct, then this scene contains as much of a double meaning, as the
scene with Remus Lupin in HP3.

Sudden, unexpected and/or violent death has a way of imposing many
repercussions on a family. Those repercussions can be often felt for a
*long* time, I believe. A personal example: in my family, three family
members died in a car crash, ten years before I was born. That happened more
than thirty years ago, but it *still* influences us in many ways: our
travelling speed, choice of cars and the opinion about how quickly one needs
to get from here to there.

Ron, to our amusement, has exhibited a deep superstition. He might not take
Trewlany very seriously, but he does believe in signs. If somebody in his
family died a violent death and there had been - by chance or design -
something that could/should have warned the family or a Dark Mark floating
over the house and thus announcing a violent death... then I suppose that
would cause considerable superstition in such a family. The death of Uncle
Bilius and the grim would be just oil for a fire that is already burning
brightly.

I'm already leaning very far out of the window, since I'm speculating wildly
here. Let me lean a little farther... If Arthur Weasley had been an auror,
his family would have been a target for attacks by Deatheaters. If he
ingnored the warnings and continued with his work, the death of one of the
children might have been an act of revenge or "Deatheater justice". The
Weasley's might consider Arthur's work as the cause of the death, if even
indirectly. That in turn would explain why Arthur does not speak about his
past work. Double that explanation, if he was indeed under the Imperius
curse and did something then that left one of his family without protection.

Elkins suggested that Moody/Crouch jr. was mean and sadistic when in DADA he
addressed those Gryffindors that have suffered under the Unforgivable
curses: Ron, Neville and Harry. Maybe his sadism shows at another time as
well? Remember that he suggests that Harry would be a good auror? He does so
in Ron's earshot, indirectly (but not necessarily unintentionally) causing
him to wander if he would be a good auror, too. That would be cruel, don't
you think? Waking the wish in a child to be something that caused his family
a disaster.

It would be, as if Arthur Weasly had been a fireman, who could not prevent
one of the family dying in a fire. And Ron, being instigated by Moody to
become a fireman, not knowing that his father had been one and failed.

OK, I know I don't have much to support this. On the other hand, it does not
contradict any known facts and it is in keeping with a topic JKR considered
essential in the series: death.

Greetings,
Barbara Jebenstreit (who admits to loving tragic and dark theories but
wishes you folks a great weakend, anyway :-) )