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

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 115618


I (Carol) wrote:
<snip> [JKR]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? <snip>

> 
> Lawless replied:
> This has been running through my mind over and over, because I
always had Charlie pegged as three to four years older than Percy
before she answered this question, but that odd comment from Fred in
Chapter 9 of PS/SS made me halt:

<snip> "We haven't won since Charlie left," <snip rest of quote>
> 
> Now, if Charlie is three years older than Percy, that means that in 
> 90'-91', he would've been in his seventh year at Hogwarts, which is
the year before Harry came.  By Fred's comment, Charlie won it in his
seventh year of school, but if it was 90-91, that wouldn't make sense,
since it would be just last year for them.
> 
> Unless, of course, Charlie left Hogwarts early - which is unlikely,
as we would've most likely heard about it.  Not completely unheard of,
but I don't think Charlie Weasley did leave Hogwarts early.
> 
> But let me go out on a limb here, and say, perhaps Charlie is three
years older than Percy - BUT - four school years above him.  Their
birthdays are as such that Percy is probably a bit old for his year
(his attitude in school can attest for that!) and/or Charlie is a bit
young for his.  And it  makes Charlie's last year at Hogwarts as being
89'-90', which is acceptable for Fred's comment.

Carol responds:
I agree with you up to this last paragraph. It's very unlikely that
the best Seeker Hogwarts ever had (before Harry), good enough to play
for England, according to McGonagall, would desert his team and leave
school early to chase dragons, or that he would be allowed to work
with dragons without some NEWTS as well as OWLS to prove his skill.

But I don't think Percy is old for his year. In fact, I think he's
young for it. Most wizards learn to apparate at seventeen, when they
come of age. Percy makes a big deal of his newfound ability to
apparate at the beginning of GoF, when he has just left school. This
suggests that he has only recently turned seventeen, either at the end
of the school year or during the summer. (I'm assuming that students
who've turned seventeen are given lessons in the theory of apparation,
and though they can't apparate on Hogwarts grounds, are perhaps given
lessons off-campus, say in Hogsmeade.) Either that or Percy turned
seventeen just after the school year began and had to wait till he was
almost eighteen to learn. If that were the case, I don't think he'd be
showing off quite so much. (BTW, JKR hasn't mentioned his birthday on
her site, so either he hasn't had a birthday between May 15 and
October 14, or he's off her list of good guys who merit a happy
birthday wish.) 


Lawless wrote:
> <snip> Now Nick is the first one to tell us about the Slytherins
six-year winning spree in Chapter 7 of PS/SS:
><snip quote>
> 
> Now since Gryffindor first-years aren't on the Quidditch team, and
Nick is asking for their help, then the house championship must refer
to the House Cup, separate from the Quidditch Cup.
> 
> But it appears otherwise, we run into a problem with Quidditch vs.
house championship. <reluctantly snip excellent evidence>
> 
> Apparently, by that, the Quidditch season influences who wins the
House Cup.  How?  It seems that teams get house points for winning
matches (and I assume house points for playing spectacularly) as Percy
shows us in Chapter 11 of CoS:
<snip quote>
> 
> And winning the Quidditch Cup also gives (I assume) house points -
or if not, it influences the House Cup, as we see in Chapter 22 of
PoA: <snip quote>
>> 
> So Charlie won the Quidditch Cup in his seventh year, but Slytherin
still had enough points to win House championship for the last seven
years (probably care of Snape ;P).  But our problem isn't solved YET.
 In PoA, we have a very incriminating statement made by Wood in
Chapter 15:
> 
> "Gryffindor hasn't won [the Quidditch Cup] for seven years now."
> 
> Rowling just likes the number seven a bit too much, because by that 
> statement, the last time Gryffindor won the Quiditch Cup was in 
> 87'-88'!  And that completely outright contradicts Fred's statement
in PS/SS if Charlie is 3-4 years above Percy.
> 
> Luckily, there's not really any conflicting House Cup/Quidditch Cup
themes in GoF/OotP, so we can begin to conclude what we've learned.
> 
> But things don't add up.  So here's four possibilities:
> 
> 1) Fred's original statement is wrong - hey, it was the first book,
Rowling is allowed to make a mistake or two, right?  Fred probably
should've said  something that agreed to this statement in Chapter 15
of PoA:
> 
> "The whole of Gryffindor House was obsessed with the coming 
> match.  Gryffindor hadn't won the Quidditch Cup since the legendary
Charlie Weasley (Ron's second oldest brother) had been seeker."
> 
> It confirms that Charlie Weasley won the Quidditch Cup, but not that
he won it in his last year.  He would've won it last in 87'-88' to
agree with Wood's statement in PoA.  That also corrects the "it was
just last year" problem with Charlie's age, so we can assume he is
only three years above Percy, again, and that he won in his fourth
year.  A bit young, yes, but not unheard of.  Assume that he's four
school years above Percy, and it puts him in his fifth year - which
considering Wood was captain in his fifth year, again, it isn't
completely bogus.
> 
> 2) Wood's statement is wrong, because Rowling is bad at math and has
a number seven-orientated mind (and I can see how she'd assume it was
seven years, by a trick of the mind when dealing with school years
like  this).  We can assume Fred is true, though we would still have
to put Charlie at four school years above Percy at Hogwarts.
> 
> 3) Both Fred AND Wood were wrong, and Charlie is just three years
above Percy, and won the Quidditch Cup in his seventh year of
Hogwarts, which  would also agree with the statement I quoted in
option 1.  Rowling made some mistakes, oh well, it happens.
> 
> 4) Sometime between PoA and now, Rowling has decided to close the
age gap between Percy and Charlie, but that originally Charlie was a
bit more than three years older.  She changed her mind, and won't own
up to it. =P
> 
> While option 1 clears things up a bit more nicely, I'm going to
probably assume that option 2 is probably what happened.  I would also
go for 3, and 4 is a worst-case scenario.
> 
> Whew, that was a bit longer than I thought.  Hope this helps, Carol.

Carol responds:
Thanks for all your trouble, which certainly explains why I've been
confused about Charlie's age *and* the House vs. Quidditch Cups
despite numerous readings of all the books. I agree that JKR is
addicted to the number seven, and it's abundantly clear that she's bad
at math. I think, unfortunately, that she doesn't check to make sure
that her statements are consistent from book to book.

I think you're right the "trick of the mind" in option 2, but I'm
going with option 3, chiefly because I can't imagine Gryffindor losing
with Charlie on the team, or Charlie not playing every year he could.

Carol, with apologies for very inadequate snipping, but you went to a
lot of trouble and I liked your post