Weasley's ages

[rorogersmc]

No: HPFGUIDX 92904

<Snip from Lionel: I can't remember off hand, but I think Wood simply says he saw Charlie play.  This seems to imply that they did not play together, but does not rule out the possibility entirely.  We don't know for sure who the Gr seeker was the year before Harry started; but it seems highly unlikely that it was Charlie.  This means that Charlie was already gone that year, or was there but didn't play.  The former seems more likely.  So we either need to push Charlie's age back one more year, or consider that he left after his sixth year. Still close to what Rowling said, and without violating anything else.>

I have to agree with some of the statements in Lionel's reply, and disagree with others.   Maybe not disagree, but, oh I don't know
 just read on and you'll see where I'm going with my ideas.   Also, I am going by SS US Paperback Ed. 1999, so if quotes are different in other books, and therefore lead to different conclusions, sorry in advance. (Also, pgs are from paperback ed and may not be same as Hardcover.)

1) Charlie seeker 2+ years before Harry.  Ch 6 (pg 99)  "Bill and Charlie have already left – Bill was head boy and Charlie was captain of Quidditch."  Ch 9 pg 152) "Heaven knows, we need a better team than last year.  Flattened in the last match by Slytherin, I couldn't look Severus Snape in the face for weeks."  Ch 11 (pg 185) "We know Oliver's speech by heart," Fred told Harry, "we were on the team last year."  Charlie was the Gryffindor captain, but couldn't have been captain the year before PS/SS because Wood was captain then.  So the latest he could have been captain and therefore seeker, is 2 years before PS/SS.  Also, the year before PS/SS the Gryffindor team lost badly to Slytherin, which causes me to believe it was the first year that Charlie wasn't playing for the team.  However, it is possible that there is even more than 2 years difference between Charlie's last year, and Harry's first.  Since he was captain it is unlikely, if not impossible that Charlie would have been at Hogwarts the year befor PS/SS but not played.

2) Charlie leaving after his sixth year.  No way.  One, Mrs. Weasley would have had a FIT, and she seems to regard Charlie as a very good example, so my guess would be he didn't do anything so disagreeable as leave school early.  Two, Charlie was captain of Quidditch, and as such must really have liked playing.  Unlikely he would give up a year of playing at school, when he wasn't planning on going into Quidditch as a career.

By my thinking Charlie would have been at least 4 years ahead of Percy, making him at least 3+ years older.  As far as I know, nothing in any other books contradicts this, but it does seem to contradict what the *wonderful* JK Rowling said in response to a question in the recent online chat.  Something we have to keep in mind is that JK Rowling has to deal with thousands of details, many of which we as readers will never even know.  At the chat, which was only an hour long, she was answering questions off the top of her head, and could have misremembered her own notes on the ages of the Weasleys.   She even electronically cringes at having to do math to figure out their ages.  As much as what JK Rowling says is important, what she writes is more important. I guess my point in all of this is that until something in future books gives a different age for Charlie, it makes more sense to me to calculate his age by PS/SS, then by what JK Rowling recently intimated.

Rachael, who thinks JK Rowling is one of the greatest writers of all time, but hey, these little inconsistencies do crop up.