Talk:Weasley family/Archive 1

Miscellanea

Congratulations on finaly putting in Cedrella, Ignatius, and ect., but I'd like to stress the Sirius stated that he and Molly are not related but are ncousins by marraige. ignatius is Molly's paternal uncle. And Aunt Murriel is a Prewett - Ginny was the first girl born into the Weasly line in many generations.

Ummm, Fleur and Bill aren't married yet, so we shouldn't say she is part of the family and have her on the family tree. We can say they are engaged, but they she (and her sister) are not yet part of the family. Also, I am changing the part about why they are blood traitors. I think it is obvious--they have lots of muggle and half-blood friends and are part of the Order of the Pheonix, not to mention Mr. Weasleys love for muggle objects.

Hey, would that be Mafalda Hopkirk you are talking about? The person at the Ministry who sends Harry his notices whenever he performs magic at the Dursley's is named Mafalda Hopkirk. Look on pg 21 in Chamber of Secrets or 33 in Order of the Phoenix. Those are the pages in my American editions anyways.

Mafalda should be a Slytherin? A Muggle-born? Impossible! Kenwilliams 11:25, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tom Riddle was half-blood and he was in Slytherin. For the last time, not having pure blood doesn't exclude you from Slytherin.

• Shouldn't she be listed as a half-blood? According to the Death Eaters' logic (and this is the same formula the Nazis used) even having one Muggle grandparent will cause the person in question to be labelled a half-blood. Since Mafalda's father is a Squib, she has two pureblood wizard grandparents - her maternal family I am assuming to be all Muggle. Judging from this she should be a half-blood. Just a technicality I thought to bring up, but what does everyone else think?

Should Mafalda stay?

Mafalda doesnt really exist. She's not a character, she is not alive in the Harry Potter Universe. I think she should be removed from such a prominent position in the Article since her current position would suggest to a reader that she is an actual Weasley cousin, when in reality she was just a proposal that never came to fruition. Perhaps we could include a trivia section at the end saying something like "In the early drafts of Goblet of fire the Weasley's had a cousin (the daughter of Molly's Squib accoutant relative) who would have begun Hogwarts in Ron's fourth year. She would have been according to JKR, "A nosy slytherin".TonyJoe

As I mention above, there is a character with the name of Mafalda Hopkirk, but I don't know if it is the same Mafalda. She is the person at the ministry in charge of regulating underage magic.

• It's possible that your thinking of Griselda Marchbanks, who's a professor and owl examiner, she's been on the Knight bus a couple of times I think and the testing of course. Their both kind of similar names i guess, maybe that's it. Mafalda is a totally diffrent (though not really existant) character. There's a link to Jo's comments on her in the external link section of the article. TonyJoe 17:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Nope, I'm not mixing up names. Look on pg 21 in Chamber of Secrets or 33 in Order of the Phoenix. Those are the pages in my American editions anyways. The signature on the letters from the ministry of magic clearly say "mafalda hopkirk" TonyJoe

• • shrugs*, I guess. But still, wouldnt the fact that the name mafalda has been given to another character reinforce the idea that Mafalda Weasley doesn't exist and thus shouldnt be listed as an extended family member, but instead a proposed character and thus a peice of trivia? The existance of Ms. Hopkirk seems to suggest that Mafalda Weasley has deffinitely ben scraped. I'm going to get rid of her box. TonyJoe 06:33, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

If she is a distant relative like suggested, she might not have the same last name, but you too could be right. I wasn't saying it was the same mafalda, I was actually wondering if anyone knew if they were one in the same. JKR could have put Hopkirk in book 2 anticipating to elaborate in book 4, which just never happened, which would suggest she is a real character.

Title

Why isn't this at Weasley family? I see no reason for the "f" to be capitalized. --Merovingian (t) (c) 06:47, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Copy Edits

I started copyediting this page. Please let me know what you think. GinaDana 22:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them

Should the Puffskein mentioned in the liner notes for Fantastic Beasts be included?

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is fairly canon, and the notes made next to the Puffskein entry indicate that: "I had one of them once; what happened to it?" "Fred used it for bludger practice." It's kind of hard to distinguish whether Harry or Ron is the owner, but shouldn't it be mentioned?

It seems more likely that the thing belonged to Ron, since it wouldnt be the first time that the Twins have disrespected Ron's property (Teddy bear). I think that it belongs to Ron and I agree that it should be added.TonyJoe 22:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Ron is short for what?

"Percy" is short for Percival and "Ron", or more properly, "Rhongomynyad", is the name of Arthur's spear in Welsh legend."

Is there any proof for the Ron of the books being named for this rather than for (say) Ronald? Several of the Potter fan websites do claim this, but it doesn't help their credibility when a couple of entries down they also repeat claims made by a long-gone website that "in the days of the Monarchy" Percival was a name reserved for the British upper class and that commoners using the name would have been punished. Erm. What?

--Telsa 15:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I've seen the changes, and I still don't understand. Where is there any proof that the first name Ron has, in the Harry Potter books, anything to do with Arthur's spear? Ron, as a first name, is generally short for Ronald, a name which has nothing to do with matters Arthurian.

I am not questioning that the Mabinogion mentions Rhongomyniad/Rhongomynyad. I am not questioning that the Brut mentions Ron/Rone. (Incidentally, the pluralisation of "later chronicles" implies there is more than just this one chronicle which names it: what are they?) I am questioning why this article takes it for granted that there is a deliberate connection to be drawn between the name Ron and the spear in order to create an Arthurian association. "Ron is one name for a rather obscure article associated with Arthur" is one thing. "And JK Rowling intended this to be significant" is quite another.

I am sorry to appear so stubborn about this, but all the "some faint Arthurian connections" and, now that I look, "many of the names can be ascribed to royalty" stuff seems highly speculative and totally original research. None of it looks verifiable at all.

Dear me, and I only came here to disambiguate the mention of Welsh in the paragraph in question. I am now strongly of the opinion that neither of those paragraphs should exist without a lot of work (not just "here's a reference connecting it to Arthur" but instead "here's a definite indication from the author that this connection is entirely deliberate"). But if you must keep this stuff in, might I suggest Welsh mythology or Welsh literature or even the story Culhwch and Olwen itself as a better link than the disambiguation page the article currently links to?

Telsa 13:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. None of it makes any sense, is entirely speculative, and especially the bit about their names being ascribed to royalty; half of it is a stretch. I vote the entire thing be deleted until it can be written with sources and a bit more information. Megan 17:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Agree, I also think the two paragraphs should be removed, they are not encyclopedic in the slightest. Death Eater Dan 17:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the offending paragraphs, since there seems to be a sense of agreement. If anyone can find articles or interviews with Rowling that confirm their names are supposed to be slightly tied to Arthurian stories, feel free to put the paragraphs back in! Megan 07:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Hours after Megan removes them, they are back, with the edit summary If we limited "name origin" speculation only to verified sources, only Dumbledore's last name would be listed. WP:V, WP:CITE and WP:RS suggest to me that verified sources are exactly what Wikipedia wants. For example -- and again -- how have one instance of "Rhongomyniad" and one of "Rone" become "many chronicles"? If you are going to claim many, please cite many of them. Speculation on name origins looks to me like original research (see WP:OR) and thus not supposed to be here. So I am taking them back out again. --Telsa 09:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Geoffrey of Monmouth also calls Arthur's spear "Ron" (p. 217 of the Penguin edition of the Historia Regum Britanniae, if you want to check), as does Wace [1]

The question is, when is it speculation and when isn't it? For instance, Rowling has never actually said that Draco Malfoy's last name was based on the French mal foi (bad faith), or that his first name was based on the name for a dragon, snake or the Roman lawgiver Draco, or that Voldemort's name means "flight of death" (or for that matter, "theft of death" or "flight from death") or that Sirius Black was named after the Dog star (hence his dog transformation), or that Argus Filch was named after Hera's watchman, or that Fluffy was based on Cerberus, but these things are listed in Wikipedia as established. As far as I'm aware, the only name origins Rowling has officially confirmed are Hogwarts (named after hog-wort), MacGonnagall (Named after William Topaz McGonnagall), Dumbledore (archaic name for a bumblebee), Fleur Delacour (flower of the court), Snape and Dursley (both the names of English towns). Everything else is technically speculation. If you get rid of the Weasley name speculation you'd have to get rid of the rest. Serendipodous 10:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Since no one has seen fit to answer my objections, I am reinstating the paragraph, with as much speculation removed as possible. I have included sources for my information and used a line from another Weasley article as my opener. Serendipodous 18:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Ignatius Prewett is NOT the father of Molly Weasley

Ignatius Prewett was/is childless. However, Molly and Sirius are cousins by marriage so Ignatius is most probably an uncle of Molly -- but not her father!!! Someone, please correct the family tree.

I see no reason for the monstrous family tree to be there... make it smaller maybe?65.101.172.161 15:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The idea with a family tree is that you should be able to see the relatives of some person or persons, if it were shortened it wouldn't be much to see. I mean, everybody knows the names of the Weasley siblings and their parents while persons like Gideon Prewett and Septimus Weasley makes it more interesting. Have you ever seen the Black family tree, Sirius, Regulus, Bellatrix, Andromeda, Narcissa and Phineas Nigellus are almost the only one who actually are known.

I move the family tree lower down, though anyone who think it should be at the top are free to change it.

I have corrected the family tree and insert that now on the top of the page.

Muriel and Ginny

Is 'Great-Aunt Muriel' Molly's great-aunt, or Ron and co's great-aunt? Also, is Ginny indeed 'the first female in seven generations', which I saw somewhere, or 'several generations', which I saw elsewhere? 195.93.21.106 21:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You want this link to JKRs offical site where it says:

Ginny (full name Ginevra, not Virginia), is the first girl to be born into the Weasley clan for several generations.

The italics are mine. Incidently if it had been either if their parent's great-aunt then she woudl posibly have said "great-great-aunt" though some people don't bother with such things. Given the context it coudl be from either side of the family though it is strongly implied that GInny is the only living female weasley otehr than by marrage. Dalf | Talk 00:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)