Weasley twins

[Freeman, Louise Margaret]

No: HPFGUIDX 80358

>>This may well point towards a greater role for Ginny (her relationship 
with
Tom in CoS and her development in OoP could point towards this) but there
has also been a fair bit of speculation that there is a 'missing' Weasley
(because there seems to be a larger gap between Charlie and Percy than
between any of the others) - if it's true this would make *Ron* the seventh
son ....<<

I am new to the list so I don't know the extent to which this has been 
discussed previously, but I thought I'd add my two cents regarding the 
Weasley children.After reading OotP, I'm speculating that the Weasley twins 
are not true twins, but some sort of single entity magically split in two.  
The 
constant togetherness and the fact that their own mother can't distinguish 
between 
them is one thing, but they even appear together dead in her 
boggart-induced vision.  Mothers of twins would be expected to see their 
sons as individuals, even if most others don't. 

But what clinched it for me was when both of them were banned from Quidditch 

even though only one attacked Malfoy.  No one, the twins included, seemed 
outraged or shocked at the injustice of this, (Ginny mentions it later, but 
almost as an afterthought). Not even McGonagall, well known for both her 
strict-but-fair discipline policies and her staunch support of the 
Gryffindor Quidditch team. Does she know something we don't about them?  
Maybe they have to function as a unit, rather than simply choosing to do so.

My second speculation is a bit wilder, that they aren't real Weasleys.  
When teasing Mrs. Weasley about not being able to tell them apart in their 
first appearance on the Hogwarts Express (SS/PS) they joke, "Honestly, 
woman, you 
call yourself our mother?"  OK, maybe that's just a smart-mouth remark.  But 


in OotP, when Ron is made a prefect, Mrs. Weasley exclaims "...I don't 
believe it! Oh, Ron, how wonderful! A prefect! That's everyone in the 
family!" to which George replies, "What are Fred and I, next-door 
neighbors?"  It's hard to believe *Mrs. Weasley* would make a statement like 

that without there being something to it. And I've learned to take Wealsey 
boy jokes seriously.

When Dumbledore was fiddling with his mysterious silver instrument that gave 

him two smoke snakes and muttered, "Naturally, naturally, but in essence 
divided?" the first thought that came to me was the twins.  I'm still rather 

puzzled by that scene (as I'm sure JKR intends us to be) but here's my 
thinking...  we see a snake divided (the essence of Slytherin?)...  what if 
there is some sort of "essence of Gryffindor" divided between George and 
Fred?  They are, after all, probably more Gryffindor-suited than any other 
character. Harry "would have done well" in Slytherin while the Sorting Hat 
considered placing Hermoinine in Ravenclaw.  (It wouldn't surprise me to 
learn, eventually, that it considered Hufflepuff for Ron...  he has the 
loyalty/hard worker traits in a way that the twins do not.) But the twins 
seem suited only for Gryffindor, they have neither the ambition of Slytherin 

(joke shop career plans), the book-smarts of Ravenclaw (witness their poor 
OWL results) or the work-ethic of Hufflepuff). 

How this would match up with Harry being the presumed heir of Gryffindor, 
I'm not sure. But it has me thinking.  

Louise