OOtP: <Spoiler> Why Weren't the Weasleys in the Order?

[dragonelle01]

No: HPFGUIDX 66145

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "snufflesnbeakie" 
<bhauersperger at h...> wrote:

> But why would the Weasleys not have been in the Order the last 
> time?  They would have been old enough, they are obviously staunch 
> supporters of Dumbledore, they are disliked by death eaters - 
surely 
> they would have been members.  This seems like a huge contradiction 
> to me.
> 
> Any theories?  If it's been previously discussed, I'd really like a 
> reminder of what was thrown out!

If the original Order recruited people in the same way that the 
current one does, the Weasleys might have have simply been out of the 
Order's sphere of influence.  The Marauders would have graduated 
Hogwarts relatively recently at the time of the first war-- therefore 
they might have felt a stronger allegience to Dumbledore than Arthur 
or Molly, who would have graduated at least 10 years earlier (based 
on the ages of their eldest children).  Apparently a lot of people 
who sympathized with Voldy's pureblood-only campaign never joined the 
Death Eaters, and I'm sure the situation was the same for the good 
guys.  We do see that Molly, at least, has relied on the popular 
media for "credible" information (ie the Witch Weekly article on 
Hermione).

Also, I'm under the impression that neither Bill nor Charlie would 
have been quite old enough to attend Hogwarts at the time of the 
original war (they'd have to be in their early-to-mid thirties by now 
if they had been, and I don't get that thirtysomething vibe from 
ponytailed Bill).  Now that the elder Weasleys have 4 children at 
Hogwarts, all of whom consort with the famous Harry Potter, they're 
undoubtably receiving a different and more accurate perspective on 
things.

Just my 2 cents,
Tracey