Not All Weasley's are Weasley's

potioncat willsonkmom at msn.com
Sun Jun 20 02:53:21 UTC 2004


No: HPFGUIDX 102100


 
> Snow again:
> As far as changing the name I don't think it was meant to hide the 
> boys as much as protect them from the knowledge that their father 
was 
> killed by Voldemort. If the boys grew up knowing that this was what 
> happened to their father they may have set out early-on to avenge 
> their father's death. Also, this name change would mean that Molly 
> would be spared of having to keep the memory of what happened to 
her 
> (probably brother) alive. 
> 
>Potioncat:
Snow, I think you have a good theory. But I think it's a "Let's wait 
and see.." one.  On your side are the episodes you mentioned earlier 
that in this fiction by JKR could be foreshadowing (or would that be 
postshadowing?)  

As an adoptive mother myself, I would think that if the Weasleys 
chose to "take in" their nephews they might also choose to raise them 
as their own sons.  Therefore the change of names and use of Mum and 
Dad.  Although I don't know how adoption works in the UK. (As a 
mother who has children by both adoption and birth, I know there is 
no difference in the love for them.)

 You could also make the argument that given the way WW adults use  
secrecy around kids in general, the twins might not be told about it 
until grown. Although in another post, someone brings up that Ron 
doesn't react at reading about the Prewitts death and he should at 
least recognise the names.  (Although maybe he's keeping secrets like 
Neville does.)

However, one argument against it is that the twins, Ron, and Percy 
favor Arthur Weasly while Bill and Charlie favor Molly.  

Potioncat






More information about the HPforGrownups archive