Lucius vs. Arthur

[jodel at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 44639

Catlady writes:

>>Yes, except I don't believe that Lucius is old enough to have been in 
school with Arthur. My own personal timeline has Lucius born in 1950, 
Sevvie/MWPP/Lily born in Sept 57 to Aug 58 year (Lexicon has 1960), and 
Arthur and Molly (whom I believe to have been in the same year at Hogwarts) 
old enough that Molly remembers Ogg, the gamekeeper before Hagrid, which *to 
me* means the gamekeeper more than 50 years ago. They don't LOOK seventy ... 
neither does McGonagall! To me, Tom Riddle and Minerva McGonagall and Hagrid 
and Arthur and Molly had overlapping times as students at Hogwarts. <<

Whereas, I, can easily see both Malfoy and Weasley having been born during 
the late Grindlewald era. Say for simplicity, around 1940-45. (red letter 
year, that...) As I say, I do see Lucius as being a good deal older than 
Narcissia, and Arthur as having started his family early. 

Until we get some clearer statement on the age of the two oldest Weasley 
brothers it will be difficult to set any solid anchor points in the timeline, 
however.

As to the Weasleys, I am finding it more and more curious that we haven't met 
any Weasleys *other* than Arthur's and molly's own children. If Draco's 
hand-down slurs about having more children than one can afford is not a 
pointed slur specifically aimed at Arthur himself, where ARE they? You would 
think that they would at least be mentioned in passing, but no, the only 
Weasley relatives that I can recall ever having been mentioned, ironically, 
is the squib 2nd cousin (on Molly's side) that "no one talks about". Did they 
all immigrate to Australia?

I am begnning to wonder whether Arthur might be much the same kind of "sole 
survivor" that Harry is.

-JOdel