Dumbledore's age.

[Zara]

No: HPFGUIDX 176570


> CathyD:
> Unfortunately, it only makes it worse as she has already stated, in 
2000, that he was about 150 years old.  Making up new stuff now, 
because she made mistakes in the past, doesn't solve the problem that 
she didn't make up the backstories right in the first place.  

zgirnius:
I find that it might be easy to misspeak when trying to say "115", 
and end up saying "150" instead. The words differ only by the 
presence of a final consonant sound in the former, in English.

>CathyD:
> Just like Grindelwald's death in DH contradicts a confirmation JKR 
made, in 2005, that he died in 1945, and that he died in 1945 for a 
specific reason: "Is it coincidence that he died in 1945," and I said 
no. It amuses me to make allusions to things that were happening in 
the Muggle world, so my feeling would be that while there's a global 
Muggle war going on, there's also a global wizarding war going on." 
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet-anelli-
3.htm

zgirnius:
Your mileage may vary. But it seems to me that whether Dumbledore 
killed, or merely defeated, Grindelwald in 1945, is a choice Rowling 
should have been free to make while writing DH, just as she decided 
to spare Arthur in OotP. I am sure GW was dead, in her original 
outline, hence the interview response back in the day. She probably 
decided, while writing DH, that she wanted the point clearer, that 
Voldemort was wrong to kill Snape in so many different ways, so 
having the wand pass without a murder/killing several times made more 
sense.