[HPforGrownups] Re: A Weasley by any other name...[was: Second Daughter Theory]

[Barb]

No: HPFGUIDX 45537


Dave asks:  Ooooo!  Good point!  But if the alphabetical thing is valid, why does it break down with Ron and Ginny?


Me:  Because it's NOT valid!  Nothing in canon supports it.  See below.

 

jodel at aol.com wrote:
Ron is Horace Ronald (makes as much sense as Edward Percival, although I suppose there is always Heyronimus[sp?]) and Ginny is Iphagenia (or Imogene)?

  
Me:  Okay, now people are just making stuff up!   Ron is Ronald (hence the sign "Ronald's Room" hanging on his door).  Ginny's name may be Virginia or may not, but it is the most likely thing.  Percy's name may or may not be Percival, but it most certainly is NOT Edward, or anything else beginning with 'E,' according to the books.  Bill's name is most likely William.  Why do folks feel the need to denigrate JKR by attributing an alphabetical theory of naming the Weasleys to her?  Give her more credit than that!  She has shown far more of a propensity to name people things that have significant meanings.  She could have been thinking of William the Conquerer when she named Bill, or she could have a friend named Charlie who likes animals, or she could have been inspired by King Arthur when naming Arthur Weasley, and so on.  (These theories, unlike the alphabet theory, are at least plausible and fit her usual naming patterns.)  It could just be that she likes the names she selected for the Weasleys for no particular reason, just as her favorite boys' name is "Harry."  Since this rather dubious theory requires so much convoluted dissembling and wanton destruction of JKR's canon, why continue to espouse it?

 

--Barb

 


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Psychic_Serpent
http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos, & more
faith.yahoo.com

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