Weasley deaths

[karenkyla3]

No: HPFGUIDX 53288

"psychodudeneo" 
<psychomaverick at h...> wrote:

> I think the unlikelyhood lies in the number of Weasleys more than 
> anything. I could see two to three getting the axe, but killing 
> every single one of them - including the ones that are scattered 
> (like Bill, Charlie, and possibly the Twins at this point too) 
seems 
> like a lot of trouble for Voldy or his cronies to go through for 
> Potter's SIDEKICK. (snip)> 

Now Me:

Well, in this theory, if you read back, Ron isn't just a 'sidekick'.  
The reason the Weasley's would have to be dead is so that Ron is the 
heir (the eldest or only child) of Hufflepuff.  Hermione the heir of 
Ravenclaw (she's already from the information we have, an only 
sibling) and Harry as the heir of Gryffindor.  We were speculating 
that if in fact Harry is the heir of Gryffindor as the evidence 
points to, who were the other heirs? (we know Voldy is heir of 
Slytherin).  Under the assumption that these would be Ron and 
Hermione, Ron must be made an only or oldest child to be the heir - 
thus the killing spree.  So you see, within the parameters of this 
theory, Ron isn't a 'sidekick' but an equally important force.  

Taking a slightly different perspective, in order for Ron to be an 
heir, he must be the eldest of his siblings.  Instead of killing them 
all, could the same effect be achieved by not making them siblings?  
Suppose Mrs. Weasley had had an affair, and it was the father's 
bloodline that carried the heir of Hufflepuff?  Which brings up 
another question - who?  Theoretically it could be anyone who isn't 
important at all, but interesting that Dumbledore had red hair.  

Stacey

CONSTANT VIGILANCE!