Weasley's ages

[Lionel English]

No: HPFGUIDX 93820

In the chat, Rowling says Charlie's 2 years older than Percy, but 
qualifies this with she's bad at math and she doesn't have her notes 
with her.  So the 2 year figure can't be taken as definitive, but it 
can be assumed that it is her intention that the age difference is 
not meant to be significantly larger than that between any of the 
other siblings.

We know Charlie was not at Hogwarts in PS/SS, when Percy was a 5th 
year.  Rachel also makes a convincing argument that he wasn't there 
the prior year, as Wood was captain that year, and Charlie was a 
Quidditch captain.  So Charlie was at least 4 years ahead of Percy, 
and must be at least 3 years older than him.  This is the smallest 
reasonable age difference we can manage between them, and the other 
statements that seem to make some implications about Charlie's age 
must be reconciled around them.

Gryfindor hasn't won the Quidditch cup for seven years before POA.  
Gryfindor hasn't won the Quidditch cup since Charlie left (according 
to Fred & George in PS/SS).  Gryfindor hasn't won the cup since 
Charlie Weasley had been seeker (POA).

These three statements, together, are the problem.  If Rowling truly 
doesn't intend for Charlie to be that much older than Percy, which 
the chat implies, then she has made a mistake with one or more of 
the above.

For me, the most problematic is Fred & George's statement that they 
haven't won since Charlie left.  The last statement doesn't preclude 
the fact that Charlie could have played additional seasons after 
that winning season.  This would allow Charlie to have left two 
years before PS/SS, and for his winning season to have been three 
years before that, when he was a fourth year.  Perhaps a number of 
other good players graduated that year, and despite his skill he 
couldn't field a winning team for the next three years.  Fred & 
George's statement is the only problem with this theory.  The only 
way I can see to reconcile it is to assume that, although the 
passage clearly states they're talking about the cup, perhaps 
Rowling meant to have them say or imply that they hadn't won a 
*game* since Charlie left--perhaps the year before PS/SS was really 
that bad.  Or perhaps the twins misspoke, and meant to say this 
instead.

The other alternative, if Gryfindor really hadn't won since Charlie 
*left*, is that Rowling overstated the length of time it had been 
since they won the Cup--perhaps it was only four or five years 
instead of seven.  But I like this theory less--if it really hadn't 
been that long, then I can't see them making such a big deal out of 
how long it had been since they won.

Lionel, just back from his honeymoon and following up a week late.