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