Weasley Is Our King

An original editorial by Jeannine Lawler-Szostak.

When the title was first announced, I was convinced Neville was going to be the Half-Blood Prince. This was primarily because he was the background character that was always hovering in the foreground. Rowling wouldn't let us forget him. Neville's Gran could be hiding some secrets, couldn't she? Perhaps Neville was adopted?

But since the J.K. Rowling we all know and love is not all too caught up with the obvious, and loves to throw lots of red herrings our way, I decided this subject required closer scrutiny. Besides, what else is there to do while we anxiously await the release of Book 6?

I began to realize that Neville would have enough of his own story line if details of the Prophecy were ever revealed (and it was never really said if Neville himself heard the Prophecy or not). Besides, he is really coming into his own. He was too OBVIOUS of a choice.

Who, then, is the least likely person to be a "suspect"? Someone whose name I have never seen on any of the lists. The foreground character that is always in the background: Ronald Weasley.

I know, I know... *laugh* ...the Weasleys are PURE-bloods. The title says HALF-bloods. But the book's title says nothing about it being half-WIZARD-blood. Could it not be that it is half-ROYAL-blood??? On Arthur Weasley's side... (And it's not at ALL like J.K. Rowling to try to throw us off track....)

Since J.K. Rowling spends so much attention to the "little" things, like a character's name, let's take a look at the names in the Weasley family:

ARTHUR - Knights-of-the-Round-Table-Arthur?

BILL - Prince William?

CHARLIE - Prince Charles?

PERCY - Perceval was a knight at the table of King Arthur, who wins a sight of the Holy Grail (perhaps related to Percy's quest for power?)

FRED - King Frederick?

GEORGE - King George?

(Incidentally, when I ran a search for "King Frederick, there was a King GEORGE VI Albert (Albus...?) FREDERICK referenced too. Coincidence? Even we mere Muggles know there's no such thing!)

RONALD - this one got a bit tricky - when I ran a search for "Ronald", it came up with "Ronald McDonald". While McDonald's is the "king" of the fast food "empire" (and there's that whole "red HAIR" thing Ron Weasley and Ronald McDonald share [as in red herring....]) I didn't think that Rowling would make SUCH a bad joke. But delving deeper, the meaning of the name Ronald is from the Scottish Ragnvald, which is from Germanic Reginold; ragin = advice, wald = rule). A little TOO coincidental...

GINNY - whose real name is Ginerva, which is derived from Guinevere, from the legend of - you guessed it - King Arthur.

MOLLY - as for Molly (as in molly-coddle, definition "to surround with an excessive degree of indulgence and attention" [no, not our Molly!]), she married into the family, creating the "half-blood".

It's just way, WAY too much of a coincidence for the whole family to be named after royalty (be it real or "of legend") and not have that bear SOME significance.

Besides, can you just see the look on Malfoy's face if he has to obey Ron family's laws? And it would sure help the family out financially. A true "rags to riches" ending. Not to mention can you just see the look on Ron's face if he found out he was a prince? I can hear the gasp and see the eyeballs bulging incredulously now...

And this is a story line that could feasibly be brought up at any point in the story - life in Wizard London can be just as full of surprises as in the rest of the Muggle world. Maybe the Weasleys were keeping quiet for safety reasons? Or perhaps to allow the kids to have as normal a life as possible - who lived through the 80's and didn't get caught up in the (seemingly) MAGICAL fairy tale life of the British Royal Family (whose children, while aware of their status, try to live as normal a life as possible). And as we've all learned from that, not everything is as it seems....

There's just something about that song Malfoy wrote. Everyone sang or hummed it, even Luna. The words got changed - for the better. Buttons were made. Rowling mentioned it a lot, in a variety of formats. Gryffindor even has the KING of the jungle for its mascot. It's as if Rowling were throwing it in our face.

Besides, it sure would be poetic justice (license?) if Malfoy were responsible for the new "anthem" honoring the Weasleys. It really gives new meaning to the words, "Weasley is our King...."

Secondary Addition

I just read Rowling's description of the half-blood prince...

"(He) looked rather like an old lion. There were streaks of grey in his mane of tawny hair and his bushy eyebrows; he had keen yellowish eyes behind a pair of wire-rimmed spectacles and a certain rangy, loping grace even though he walked with a slight limp."

At first, I was crushed - I thought my theory must be wrong. But then I realized - perhaps the half-blood prince has another talent - he's an Animagus - a (Gryffindor) lion. (Change the focus of "OLD lion" to "old LION"). So they could be referring to how Ron looks when he first transforms. But what better animal for the "prince" to transform into than the king of the jungle! And Ron, being as tall as he is, certainly would have a loping (an easy natural gait of a horse resembling a canter, capable of being sustained for a long time) gait. Then there's that whole "slight limp" thing. We all remember when Sirius baited Harry into following him into the Whomping Willow passageway by biting RON's LEG, and we remember the "sickening crunch" it made when it broke.

The glasses just seem to be meant to lead us astray - thinking of Harry's glasses, leading us to think of James Potter. It is possible that Ron could get glasses at some point in his life, and perhaps when he transforms, the glasses remain on his face - the impression of McGonagall's do.

We also have never been told the color of Ron's eyes in the books. It is doubtful that they are yellow as Madam Hooch's are, since that would be something noteworthy, but has it ever been stated if the color of an Animagus' eyes change?

I think this description is just meant to throw us into a frenzy and to confuse us even more. To give us an "easy to identify" description, especially of such a well-known character, would give away the answer and ruin all the suspense and intrigue that J.K. Rowling has worked too hard to create.

The title refers to only one Half-Blood-Prince but there are seven Weasley children. The title does not exclude the possibility of there being brothers and sisters, it merely states that the focus is on the ONE prince, and since Ron would now be the only son left at Hogwarts, it is very likely that he would be getting the most attention of the brothers.

Finally, there's also the subtle reference on p. 111 in OotP (US version), when Sirius is talking to Harry about the Black family tree. It had just been noted that Arthur Weasley's father had married an unnamed female Black. Harry asks Sirius about why he left home. He says, "Because I hated the whole lot of them: my parents, with their pure-blood mania, convinced that to be a Black made you practically royal..." Awfully COINCIDENTAL choice of words, don't you think?

I stand by my theory that "Weasley is Our King...."

4/17/05

Posted by: Nicole

Discuss this editorial.