Percy at Kings Cross
Why should Percy be at Kings Cross if his daughters don´t go to Hogwarts?
--Rodolphus 16:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- How do we know they don't? Just because we don't see them doesn't mean they're not there. -- 19:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
That´s what I mean.
Percy´s family was present on Kings Cross. So, at least one of the children was ready to start at Hogwarts. Molly is the oldest daughter, so she´s either in the same age as Albus Severus, who was born in 2006, or older then him.--Rodolphus 19:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
That's really unlikely that she got the male name of her father as middle name? Where is the source? Harry granger 19:16, September 1, 2011 (UTC)
"Percy´s family was present on Kings Cross in 2017. So, at least one of the children was probably ready to start at Hogwarts. Molly is the oldest daughter, so she's either in the same age as Albus Severus, who was born in 2006, or older then him."
1. DH epilogue says "Harry thought he heard Percy....." so we cannot be positive he was even there.
2. If there, Percy could have been by himself or to see one of his nieces or nephews off .
3. Percy could have married as early as 2000. For all we know, Molly could be 16 years old and Lucy could be 15.
If the above sentence is proven elsewhere, please correct the grammar/spelling to:
Molly is the older daughter, so she's either (remove in) the same age as Albus Severus, who was born in 2006, or older than him."Wonka2011 00:01, September 30, 2011 (UTC)
Possible image of Percy's children
This photo Two girls in the lefthand background should be a canadate for visual shots of Molly and Lucy. We already see in the epilogue that Harry/Ginny's kids and Hermione/Ron's kids sit together, and they seem very comfortable around these 2 girls, indicating that they know the girls already. Since the only other known applicable children of the next generation are African-British (George/Angelina's) and therefore we can tell are not either of these girls, I propose that we consider this picture as a canadate for a picture of Molly and/or Lucy. Thoughts? Is my logic sound? DisturbedLemon (talk) 03:21, January 27, 2013 (UTC)
I always thought they were Victoire and Dominique; Victoire, given that her mother is blonde, is most likely blonde too and we know she was there. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 00:00, October 23, 2013 (UTC)
Should this page really be called Molly Weasley II? If Audrey and Percy had called a child "Audrey" she would not be "Audrey II" as her mother is only a Weasley by marriage, just like Molly. Thus, this Molly would be known as Molly Weasley; she's not a Prewett and her grandmother is her namesake after marriage, but the elder Molly was not a Weasley by birth, so the II doesn't carry. It didn't for "Lily Potter, nee Evans" and "Lily Luna Potter" who would both be known as "Lily Potter", so why does it here? HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 23:57, October 22, 2013 (UTC)
- But what alternate title would you suggest? Per policy, Molly Weasley (I) must be at that name; that is the name she is most frequently referred to in the series (in fact, I don't think she is ever directly called Molly Prewett, only indirectly). In Lily's case, it was decided by community consensus that she is more commonly known in the series as an Evans than a Potter, thus freeing up the page name "Lily Potter" for Harry's daughter. If this wasn't the case, then Lily Potter would currently be at Lily Potter II as well. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 02:06, October 24, 2013 (UTC)
- Aye, but per the policies in this wiki, characters are known by the most frequently used name for them; Lily Evans - only called Evans by James in OOtP and Slughorn and Snape in HBP and DH - was more commonly known as Lily Potter (Hagrid even refers to her and James as Lily and James Potter when ranting at Petunia in the shack in Philosopher's Stone) and thus, should be under the "Lily Potter" page. However, as I've said, the "II" would not carry for the YOUNGER Molly because the elder wasn't a Weasley by birth; if Arthur died and she remarried she would be "Molly [new surname]' and thus not a Weasley by name anymore; if anything, we should put the elder Molly under "Molly Prewett" and have a disambaguation page for both Molly's. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 02:14, October 24, 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, I mistook policy. By current policy, articles should be titled by the most recent name they are called in the books. As I've noted, Molly the elder is never called Molly Prewett in the books, thus Molly Weasley is the only title that can be used for that page. Changing the title of either of these pages thus would require a change in policy. As for the inconsistency with Lily Potter's pages, I will bring this up on her talk page tout de suite. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 02:38, October 24, 2013 (UTC)
- Then, we have a problem; by the terms of I and II the II should not be on the younger, but we cannot put I on the elder as that doesn't belong either. Is there a way we can work around the problem and have 2 "Molly Weasley" or have "Molly Prewett" for the elder, despite the policy? HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 02:43, October 24, 2013 (UTC)
- As I've already stated, this is a policy issue, not an issue with this page (which, as of currency, has no issues policy-wise). You'll need to discuss this requested change either on the forum or the policy's talk page, as it affects multiple articles. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 02:50, October 24, 2013 (UTC)