Charlie Weasley's age (Was: JKR update re: Colin)

[elfundeb2]

No: HPFGUIDX 115069


JustCarol:
> But, yes, she is human, as she
> has shown a number of times with inconsistencies like the date of 
Sir
> Nick's death or the number of students at Hogwarts. And her 
statement
> that Charlie is three years older than Percy may take care of his 
not
> being Seeker when Harry entered Hogwarts, but it still doesn't 
resolve
> the problem of its being seven years since Gryffindor won the
> Quidditch Cup. Charlie was the best Seeker Hogwarts ever had before
> Harry, yet Gryffindor never won during the whole seven years he was 
on
> the team? Or am I misremembering McGonagall's words and the time 
frame
> here?

The sentence I focused on was the lament in PS/SS that Gryffindor 
hadn't won the cup "since Charlie Weasley left."  So, according to 
JKR's calculation of their relative ages, that would have been last 
year (as of PS/SS), leaving no intervening time period for Slytherin 
to have won.  If that's the case, then why can't McGonagall look 
Snape in the face?  

I think it would have been better to leave the inconsistencies alone 
for now.  All these silly and inaccurate explanations take away from 
the stories.  When the books are done, she can hire some good editors 
to go back and edit the complete work for consistency.  That's what 
Tolkien did.

Debbie
who is astounded that as brilliant a storyteller as JKR can be that 
bad at maths