#arthur weasley critical

[mirrorofliterature]

oliver wood thinking 'I'd fight molly and arthur if I ever saw them' in my fanfiction

because I can

falling from dusk into dawn

My Oliver Wood masterpiece. Drained from the war but ready to fight anyone for Percy's honor. Actually verbally smacks down Fred and George.

But what about Percy's subpar parents?

Well, he also wants to fight them.

.

It takes a few seconds for Oliver’s brain to catch up, to realise that it is Percy speaking, before blinding rage floods him and he is on the verge of apparating to the Burrow to give Molly and Arthur a gift. But he stays, because Percy needs him...

Percy: “I have so many nightmares about Fred dying - he was so close to dying, my brother almost died, and so everyone was focused on Fred recovering. Fine, whatever, I get it. I’ve never been the priority in my family. But it’s nearing months now since Fred recovered, and still they treat me like an outsider. Maybe I will always be an outsider in my own family. But for fuck’s sake, Ollie, I’m sick of my parents acting like they never did anything wrong.”

“I know,” Oliver says, because what else can he say? Molly and Arthur are shitty parents, none of this new information, but it is still painful.

...

Oliver has a vendetta against Molly and Arthur Weasley, which he would fight them over but unfortunately, it would be uncouth. Oliver cannot simply invite himself to their home and start berating them. But he does fantasise about it, on occasion, ever since he was young and Percy first cried himself to sleep, unable to keep up with his mother’s crushing expectations.

.

Percy has always been a bit - well. Resistant to being spoiled, even when Oliver yearns to. A combination of growing up being poor and having his parents not properly tend to his needs because he was the ‘easy’ child.

[fanfic-lover-girl]

Bookstore scene: The tale of the 2 manbabies

First of all, let me preface with this: to me, the Weasleys are low class. Not in terms of wealth but in terms of how they carry themselves. Someone can be poor and carry themselves with poise and elegance. And someone rich can act as if they belong in the gutter with the riff-raff. In Jamaica, we say this saying by Professor Rex Nettleford "A butu in a Benz is still a butu".

This is not me saying the Weasleys are a horrible family (not the best either) or that the Malfoys are saints. I just hate the conduct of the Weasleys in general. I have seen some people on Tumblr praise how they act but I am not one of them.

Like father, like son - Reacting with physical violence when provoked by words

“Not as surprised as I am to see you in a shop, Weasley,” retorted Malfoy. “I suppose your parents will go hungry for a month to pay for all those.” Ron went as red as Ginny. He dropped his books into the cauldron, too, and started toward Malfoy, but Harry and Hermione grabbed the back of his jacket.

“Clearly,” said Mr. Malfoy, his pale eyes straying to Mr. and Mrs. Granger, who were watching apprehensively. “The company you keep, Weasley . . . and I thought your family could sink no lower —” There was a thud of metal as Ginny’s cauldron went flying; Mr. Weasley had thrown himself at Mr. Malfoy, knocking him backward into a bookshelf. Dozens of heavy spellbooks came thundering down on all their heads; there was a yell of, “Get him, Dad!” from Fred or George; Mrs. Weasley was shrieking, “No, Arthur, no!”; the crowd stampeded backward, knocking more shelves over; “Gentlemen, please — please!” cried the assistant, and then, louder than all —

Props to Arthur for lasting longer, I guess. Barely. How embarrassing, starting a fight in front of children in a public area like a hormonal teenage boy. Molly said it best:

“A fine example to set for your children . . . brawling in public . . . what Gilderoy Lockhart must’ve thought —”

It's not an admirable trait for a man to be so quick to use his fists to solve conflicts. It may sound romantic but it's an express ticket for your man to end up in jail.

Two men acting like children

Also, look here:

“Well, well, well — Arthur Weasley.” It was Mr. Malfoy. He stood with his hand on Draco’s shoulder, sneering in just the same way.

Arthur is such a wonderful family man that he launched himself at Lucius while he was standing near his preteen son. He could have hurt Draco in the scuffle. The cynical part of me thinks Arthur doesn't give a damn if a child was hurt in the process of him acting like a teenage punk.

And why is Lucius wasting his time mocking the Weasleys? Does he not have better things to do? He's not exactly teaching his son proper manners either.

Just look at this man baby:

He was still holding Ginny’s old Transfiguration book. He thrust it at her, his eyes glittering with malice. “Here, girl — take your book — it’s the best your father can give you —” Pulling himself out of Hagrid’s grip he beckoned to Draco and swept from the shop.

Throwing books at a little girl like Lucius isn't a grown-ass man. Exiting the scene like a humiliated highschool mean girl. No wonder Draco is like this. Goodness.

[arkadijxpancakes]

Yes. The Weasleys had too many kids. An analysis. (Part 1 of 2)

Everyone who read Harry Potter read about the prejudices regarding the Weasleys: They all have red hair, are poor and have more kids than they can afford. Insert a sneering Malfoy here.

The books were adamant that that was not the case. The Weasleys are depicted as the best family in the books. (Just look at the others. The Dursleys were narrow-minded, bigoted and abusive. The Malfoys were bigoted terrorists. The Lovegoods were weird. Let’s not even start about Merope and Riddle.)

However, if you look closer, the prejudices have some truth to them: They had more kids than they could afford. However, money isn’t the issue here, not really.

Yes, the Weasleys are clearly depicted as members of the working class. They don’t have much money and fall back on second-hand stuff a lot of the time. Ron in particular is shown to be using hand-me-downs in book one.

However, they don’t live in abject poverty. The family owns their own home on their own land. They have a garden to grow their own vegetables and they have chickens. This means that food scarcity shouldn’t be a big issue for them, because they can produce a lot of it on their own. (Magic should make this even easier, because they can use it for the gardening stuff. And if we assume that you can duplicate food, this should keep everyone well-fed.)

The main issue when it comes to money isn’t that they don’t have anything. They have clearly enough money to stay comfortably over water. They just don’t have enough money to buy all the fancy shit the wizarding world uses as status symbols. (Like racing brooms and dress robes.)

Could things be better, money-wise? Sure. But one can have a loving, comfortable childhood, even with second-hand clothes and working class food. So no. It’s not about the money.

It’s about time. 

And it's also about how the parents divide that time (and the work that comes along with it.)

The Weasleys follow a family structure one would expect from a muggle family of their time (the second half of the 20th century): Arthur is the one who goes out to work and earns money, while his wife Molly is a stay-at-home-mother who takes care of their home and kids. It’s also just their nuclear family that lives in the burrow. There are no other relatives (no grandparents and no aunts or uncles, either) living there.

I find this a little bit weird, tbh. The nuclear family (parents and kids) living alone, without any other relatives and with the father as the sole breadwinner, is a pretty new development. The practice only really established itself after the Statute of Secrecy went into effect. It developed first in the upper classes (who used this to flaunt their wealth) and in urban centers (where there was no space to live together with your extended family.) Before this, living with one's extended family was very common, especially in rural areas, where it was beneficial to stick together. The Weasley’s don’t really have a reason to live as a nuclear family. There is no need for wizards to follow the Muggle trend, and things were different before the statute. Living with other, adult family members would also be beneficial, especially for Molly. And the books do suggest that the extended family is quite large, so “They don’t live with other relatives, because they don’t have any” doesn’t fit their situation either.

This is a common theme for Rowling, by the way. She tends to ignore the extended families of her characters, whenever it is possible. The numbers of grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins that get mentioned in the book is incredibly low. (The only character who seems to have close connections to his extended family is Neville – and that’s because the other members of his nuclear family are completely absent because of health reasons.)

Anyway. When we look back at the Weasleys, this leaves Molly basically as a tradwife. (Minus the religious baggage.) But let's start at the beginning. 

(Note: I will focus on the books in this. I don’t consider the games canon and will not use them as a source.) Arthur and Molly were born around 1950. We know that he went to Hogwarts from 1961 to 1968. They were close enough in age to start a relationship while still at Hogwarts, and they married shortly after graduating. For this to work, she must have been in his year or maybe the year below or above.

Bill was born in 1970 and was followed by six siblings, the last who was born in 1981. So from the age of ca. 20 to the age of ca. 33 Molly was either pregnant or nursing at least one baby at any given time. (There might have been a short break in that pattern between Charlie and Percy, but it only got worse after that.)

As I said before, Molly and Arthur seem to have a very traditional division of labor between them: He works at the ministry and earns money, she takes care of their home and kids. This means that Molly has drawn the short end of the stick.

While Arthur is working one job 9-5, Molly has to work three jobs and at least one of them is 24/7. Let’s pick them apart:

Her first job is to take care of the home. Molly cleans the house and does the laundry. It is also very likely that she is not only responsible for cooking, but for food production in general. This means that she takes care of the garden and chickens. This would be pretty exhausting, if not for her magic. She can likely cut down on time and effort by using magic for most of those tasks.

On top of this, she is also producing at least some of the clothing her family wears. We don't see her sewing, but she knits a lot. She is using magic for that, too.

Her second job is to raise their kids. Molly is their primary caregiver and does most of the parenting. This is a difficult job to begin with, but there are seven of them. This is where her workload starts to stretch her thin. It can’t be easy to do the laundry, while Ginny needs to be fed, Bill and Charlie are arguing in the backyard, and the twins have just vanished. Magic is less helpful here, because a lot of the work requires her to interact with her kids. She can’t really flick her wand to speed that up.

On top of that - and this is where things get even worse - there doesn't seem to be any kind of elementary school in Wizarding Great Britain. At the very least, the books do not mention any form of primary education and Hogwarts seems to be Ron’s first school. But Hogwarts still requires its students to be able to read, write and do math. Having some education about the Wizarding World couldn’t hurt, either.

However, someone has to teach the kids. And this someone is probably Molly, because Arthur is at work, and they don’t have the money for a private tutor. They cant sent their kids to an elementary school, because there is none. (And they obviously did not send them to a muggle school.) 

So this is her third job. This is another job she can’t really speed up with magic, because she can’t hex the knowledge into her kids’ brains. (Or at least I hope she can’t, because everything else would be disturbing.)

This means Molly has to take care of their home, produce their food, take care of their kids and teach them elementary school-stuff. All while being pregnant and/or nursing for circa 13 years straight.

Her workload just isn’t doable for a single person. It might have started off okay, when she only had Bill and Charlie, and it probably got better once most kids had left the house to study at Hogwarts. But the years in between must have been hell. And she did not really have any help to do it.

Arthur was off to work most days and seems to spend quite a lot of time on his hobby. Additionally, he just doesn’t seem to be all that involved as a father and seems to take care mostly of the fun stuff. 

His parenting style is much more relaxed than Molly’s, too. He’s probably the parent the kids go to when they want to do something their mother would say no to. This, of course, makes parenting even harder for her, because she doesn’t just have to deal with the kids, but also with Arthur’s parenting decisions. There are no other adult family members around to help her, either. They also don’t have the money to hire help. (No wonder Molly dreamed of having her own slave house elf. It would have allowed her to drastically reduce her workload. It’s a really disgusting wish, but I understand where it comes from.)

This is where the family dynamics probably took their first severe hit: It’s very likely that Molly’s workload left her with more work than she was able to do consistently. Whether Arthur pulled his weight in that regard is questionable (and he was at work for most of the day anyway.) She also had no other adults to help her, so she probably offloaded her workload elsewhere: her kids.

Yes. I think it is very likely that the Weasleys parentified their kids, especially Bill, Charlie and Percy. We don’t see it with Bill and Charlie, probably because they had already left the house when Harry meets the family. Still, it’s a little weird that both of them went to live so far away from home. Yes, sure, exploring tombs in Egypt and taming dragons in Romania is fun and exciting in and off itself – but being so far away from home that mom can’t rope you into household chores and babysitting duty is probably a really nice bonus. It would also relax their familial relationships quite a bit, because moving away gives them control over when and how they want to engage. (And it’s probably easier to be the fun big brother to your younger siblings when you aren’t required to watch and control them every day.)

We do see it with Percy, however. He looks after and take responsibility for his younger siblings a lot, especially at Hogwarts. You can see it in the way he looks after Ginny and how he’s constantly at odds with Fred and George because they refuse to follow any rules.

Fuck, he still does this after the big row with his father. Yes, the letter he sends to Ron is pretty obnoxious, but he still wrote it. He did not need to. At that point he had cut all contact, after all. He clearly cared for his younger brother and wanted to look out for him, even if he did it in the most annoying way possible. It would be interesting to know whether he also wrote to Ginny or the twins or not.

Also, did I mention that the Weasleys have too many kids?

They have too many kids.

It’s a numbers game, really. The more kids you have, the more time you have to use for household chores (you need to clean more, wash more, cook more, etc.) You also have less time to spend time with each kid individually. This is especially true for quality time – so time that isn’t spent on chores or education. Time that is spent playing and talking with each other, just to enjoy each other's company.

Molly is already working three jobs. She doesn’t really have any opportunity to spend time with her kids equally. She’s too busy looking after the home and teaching the older ones, while watching the younger ones and making sure the twins don’t burn the house down. 

I just don’t see her spending quality time with her kids regularly, because of this. It’s just difficult to talk with Charlie about his favorite dragons or read something to Percy or to play with Ron, when there is always someone else who needs her more. Full diapers. Empty stomachs. Unyielding stains of unknown origin on Arthur's work robes. A sudden explosion on the second floor. And probably everything at the same time and all the time.

So yeah. Chances are that her attention and her affection can be pretty hard to come by at times. (To a certain degree, this also applies to Arthur, because he is away from home so much.)

Let’s look at the timeline.

It probably starts pretty harmless:

1970 - Bill is born, and he’s the only kid for two years. Yeah, it’s Molly’s first child, and she is a really young mother, but she is a stay-at-home-mum, and it’s just one kid. It’s mostly her and Bill who are at home, and her workload isn’t all that big, because she can use magic for most stuff. The war has started, but it probably hasn’t kicked into overdrive just yet, so this shouldn’t affect her too much either.

1972 – Charlie is born. Molly’s workload is expanding, but things should still be pretty manageable. Also, they don’t have another kid for almost four years. This allows Molly to adjust to caring for two kids. She can also relax from both pregnancies and births. If it wasn’t for the war, this might be her favorite years as a mother.

When Arthur is involved in parenting Bill and Charlie, it’s probably on the weekends. I can imagine him taking them out to do fun stuff, so their mother can get some rest. It’s probably a great time for him, because he can bond with his boys. I can’t see him do much more than that, though. Molly has a handle on things, and interfering could be seen as overstepping.

1976 – Percy is born. This is probably the moment, where the attention-distribution in the family gets a little bit wonky. Molly has three kids now, and it’s the middle of the war. Bill is almost six, which means that she has to start teaching him, while simultaneously nursing Percy and keeping Charlie entertained/away from trouble. This is probably still manageable. She can wait a little longer with teaching Bill, so she can teach him and Charlie together. She can also hand him (and maybe Charlie) over to Arthur, so he can teach him/them on weekends.

Additionally, Arthur is probably still taking Bill and Charlie out for some bonding-fun-time. However, the war is in full swing now, so leaving the house gets increasingly dangerous. Their trips will get shorter and stay closer to home. They will happen less frequently, too. He will also end up working more because of the war, doing overtime much more frequently. When he is home, he is going to be exhausted, as a result.

1978 – Fred and George are born. The attention-distribution in the family falls off a cliff.

This is when Molly's workload starts to become overwhelming. Charlie will be 6 at the end of the year, Bill will be 8. She has to start teaching them, if she hasn’t already. Otherwise, Bill will not be ready when he starts Hogwarts.

And on top of everything, Molly has to take care of the twins. She has to do everything that needs to be done for a newborn – times two.

So her workload explodes. Molly is raising five kids, now. She needs to educate Bill and Charlie, nurse Fred and George, and has to make sure Percy doesn’t fall to the wayside completely. She also has her household chores that aren’t related to her kids. The war is still raging on. Arthur is probably tied up at work most of the time, and when he is home, he’s exhausted. And Molly will be pregnant again in a year. (Really, why do they have so many kids during a war? One or two, I would understand, but this is getting irresponsible.)

This is probably the time when Bill has to take over at least some chores, not just to learn how to do them, but to take some pressure off of his mother. This might not be parentification yet, but it will get worse over time. I assume he has to look after his younger brothers a lot.

On top of all that, it is increasingly hard to shield the kids from the war. At least Bill and Charlie are old enough to understand that things are really, really wrong and scary. And there is not much Molly can do about it.

1980 - Ron is born. The twins are already old enough to open cupboards. Molly is not having a great time. She probably hands over Percy to Bill and Charlie (“Go, play with your little brother!”), so she can take care of baby Ron while keeping an eye on the twin shaped chaos that is growing by the day. She will be pregnant again in a couple of months.

Bill (who will be 10 at the end of the year) and Charlie (8) still require teaching. Percy (4) isn’t old enough just yet, but he will be, soon. (And, let’s face it: It’s Percy. Chances are that he wants to learn, even now.)

The war is still in full swing. Arthur is still overworked and underpaid. Everyone is tired and scared. This also affects the kids. There is probably a lot of pressure on Bill as the oldest brother to watch over his younger siblings, to make sure all of them stay safe. They don’t spend much time outside their home, because it’s just too dangerous to do so.

Around 1980/81 is also the time when Molly’s brothers Fabian and Gideon die. (Gideon can be seen in the photograph that was taken of the Order before James and Lily went into hiding, so he was still alive back then. But we know that he dies soon after the photograph was taken.) Molly never talks about her brothers in canon, but this must have been horrible for her.

1981 – Ginny is born. They are seven kids now. Fabian and Gideon will be dead by the end of the year (if they aren’t already.) Molly’s workload is at its peak, while her ability to pay equal amounts of attention to her kids is at an all-time low. She’s grieving, the rest of her family is in danger, and Arthur is stuck at the ministry. This means that she will likely lean on Bill’s support even more. As Charlie is 8 now (and will be 9 at the end of the year), Molly might consider him old enough to help, so he might see an increase in responsibility, too. At this point, we are in parentification-territory.

With each day, the twins grow more into the troublemakers we see in canon. This sucks away attention and affection from their siblings (simply because they need to be watched and disciplined).

I think the following years are very formative for the family dynamics between the kids. It’s probably less pronounced for Bill and Charlie (who are stuck with chores and babysitting-duty and will leave for Hogwarts soon-ish) and Ginny (who gets more attention because she is the youngest child and only girl). It’s worse for the others. Percy, Fred, George and Ron are basically in direct competition for their mother's attention. I think the dynamic develops as follows:

Fred and George are active and pretty extroverted. They explore a lot and start to play pranks on their family members. This is overall harmless, but Molly has to pay attention to them, to make sure that no one accidentally gets hurt. From this, the twins learn that they can get Molly’s attention by causing trouble, so they will lean into it even more.

This sucks away attention from Percy and Ron. It causes Percy to veer hard into the opposite direction: He tries to gain Molly’s attention by following all her rules and fulfilling her wishes. This earns him her affection and will turn him into her golden child in the long run. It will also put a strain on his relationship with the twins, because Molly compares them a lot, especially when angry. This will cause Percy to perform the “Good boy”-role even harder (because he doesn’t want to be treated like the twins), while they start to resent him on some level.

Ron on the other hand is still too young to affect the family dynamic on his own. He internalizes that his mother cares more about his siblings and that there is nothing he can do about it.

The only good news: At the end of the year, the war ends. This will bring a lot of relief. (It’s short term relief for now, things will need some time to go back to normal.)

However, the end of the war also means, that Percy gets a pet. Either late in 1981 or early in 1982 he (or another member of the family) finds a rat that is missing a finger on its front paw. Percy keeps him and calls him Scabbers.

We all know who Scabbers is, of course. I just want to highlight how fucked up this situation is. Percy is 5, when he adopts him. Because he was a little kid, he probably took him everywhere without a second thought – into the bathroom, into his bed, you know, everywhere. There is probably no part of Percy’s body Scabbers hasn’t seen. Percy probably told him everything, too, all his worries, all of his fears. It’s just creepy.

And keep in mind, Scabbers – Peter – is not just a random wizard. He is a Death Eater and mass murderer. We don’t know if he ever hurt Percy (there are fanfics that do explore that possibility). He probably didn’t, but the idea alone is nightmare fuel.

To get this back on track: This could have impacted the sibling-relationship, too. It depends on whether the other kids were allowed to keep pets.

With that, we are done with the war and with Molly’s time being pregnant. The family dynamic is already fucked up – and it will get worse, as the kids get older. However, this post is long enough, already. So we’ll take a break here. Next time, we will look at how the dynamics shift, once the kids start to go to Hogwarts. See ya!

[percyposting]

Now while I am of course critical of them as characters, I’m not that crazy about when people, when talking about Percy and his family, either put all the blame on one side or the other. Like, when people who don’t take the time to understand Percy’s perspective will say he was unjust and didn’t love his family and a scorn upon the Weasleys, which is obviously a very black and white and incorrect perspective on his character which literally is incorrect when you reference the canon. But on the other hand, I don’t always agree with some of the ways people defend him, either, because a lot of those statements are also black and white; for example when people say Arthur is a terrible father, or that Percy’s siblings are unwaveringly cruel, or that Percy didn’t make any mistake/he was imperiused. I especially hateeeee that last theory specifically because it really undermines everything that he was going through during the course of the story and does more damage to his character than anything. He made the choices he did not because he’s a bad person but because he was like nineteen and wasn’t being listened to and he was being manipulated by the individual Minister’s he worked under because they were targeting his biggest weakness which is that he comes from a poor family that have been labeled as ‘blood-traitors’ and because of that, he was not born with as many opportunities that others are, and this clearly effects him as he brings it up during his argument with Arthur. He blames Arthur for their struggles, while he is wrong about this it’s not like he’s given much help to see why he’s wrong. Percy is naive and believes he’s smarter than he is (not slander of course, like these are very reasonable things to be as a 18-19 year old) so it leads to him thinking he understands how the world works but really he’s stuck in this box his government/society has built around him. And I think the rest of the Weasley’s are only a tad bit more enlightened, because they don’t seem to recognize this. They just don’t realize that Percy is just as much a victim of this system as they are, and can’t help but point fingers and resent one another.

I wouldn’t say any one of the Weasley’s are really at any major fault here. Percy misunderstands that the reason he’s struggling is not because his father’s lack of effort in his work or in providing for his family, but it’s because his father is actually a decent employee but the institution he works for will never give him any benefits or a raise because they hate him and his family. This is one of the major reasons for Percy’s split between his family, and it’s not his fault, nor his family’s fault, it’s the fault of the pureblood aka oppressive and corrupt society that they live in that actively promotes their downfall. Along with any other person that doesn’t match their blood purist beliefs.

I don’t think any of the Weasleys hated each other. I believe they loved each other VERY much, and the forces actively and canonically working against them nearly succeeded in tearing their family — but in the end they ultimately failed because that the Weasley’s truly do love each other and never wanted to be split apart. That’s what I think people miss when they attempt to defend one or the other: they misunderstand that no one is the villain but corruption, manipulation, and misplaced blame. Percy was young and tricked into believing something hopeful after his entire future was almost crushed (Barty Crouch Snr’s death and the subsequent investigation). Arthur didn’t want to believe his son would actually align himself with the enemy and tried to get Percy to understand the truth, but this only causes more friction because he goes about it wrong, instead insulting Percy’s capabilities, which are his most tender subject. And Percy’s siblings grew up in a loud, chaotic house where there wasn’t enough validation to go around, so they accidentally began resenting each other as time went on, most of the time because one was getting what the other wanted or (like Percy getting constant praise and attention for his academic achievements while the twins watch, waiting to be scolded for ‘not being successful like Percy.’) These are common family difficulties! They’re very realistic. And I don’t think it points to anyone being the bad guy, just that they may have said and did some bad or hurtful things, but by the end of the book most of these things are resolved because the Weasleys find each other again and go “I’m sorry, I love you, and I forgive you.”

[hchollym]

How do you feel about the 'locking Percy into a pyramid' "prank"? I dunno why, but that specific one has always pissed me off.

I recently saw a post on Screen Rant listing 5 of Fred and George's pranks that were funny & 5 that were cruel, and they listed shutting Percy in a pyramid as funny... I almost screamed. 😡

It's definitely crossing the line. I don't care if Percy could have used magic to escape (which is debatable) or if the twins wouldn't have left him in there for long (which I doubt anyway); it's still wrong.

Bill's entire job is breaking curses at these pyramids; ergo, the pyramids are dangerous. Even if they've checked that this specific pyramid was safe, you never know for sure. There could have been dormant curses that became active in an enclosed space (i.e. when the door was shut) that could have effected Percy.

Not to mention that there could have been spells to prevent the use of certain magic in the pyramids, so Percy may not have been able to get out. He could have run out of oxygen or a part of the ceiling could have collapsed from suddenly closing the door (that's not supposed to be closed), and Percy could have been seriously injured.

I also don't think they would have gotten him out quickly. I fully believe they would have left him there and made some excuse to their family that he went back to the room to study for NEWTs (which his family likely would have believed).

Plus, it would have been terrifying for anyone to be locked in a pyramid, and causing genuine fear is not what I would consider a funny joke.

That being said, I don't actually think the twins intended to hurt Percy or put him in danger (just to be clear, that still does not make it okay). This is an unpopular opinion, and I know it sounds strange, but hear me out: I think the twins literally have no concept of cause & effect.

They don't seem to recognize that behavior = consequences (I don't mean consequences as in a punishment; I mean the consequences to other people that are effected). They compartmentalize their actions as being one-and-done jokes that don't have any lasting effects, and part of that is because they are incapable of taking responsibility. They know it's not fun to get in trouble, but it's never their fault when it happens; it's Percy's for being too dramatic or Ron's for being too sensitive, etc.

I headcanon that Fred & George both have ADHD (though Fred's is slightly more severe), because they have many characteristics of it (and ones that I see commonly in my students). That is not to say that all people with ADHD act this way, but it can certainly be a symptom of it. Since people with ADHD struggle with executive functioning skills, this can manifest in ways such as having trouble connecting "right now" to the future or having difficulty understanding why they hurt somebody's feelings.

This has been a pattern with Fred & George, even at a very young age (i.e. when they turned Ron's teddy bear into a giant spider), and that's why I tend to think that they have ADHD, and unfortunately, some of their traits were exacerbated by Molly & Arthur's parenting. Molly & Arthur were never consistent with them; sometimes they were punished for behavior (by Molly), but other times they were rewarded with positive feedback such as laughter (by Arthur). When children aren't held accountable for their actions consistently, it makes it very difficult to create a connection between actions, consequences, and remorse. This becomes an even bigger problem when the child is not neurotypical.

Anyway, this turned into a bit of a rant (sorry), but the point is, this "joke" was completely out of line, regardless of their motives.

Thanks for the ask! 😊

[cixxsxturn]

weasley siblings and their favourite taylor swift album (according to me, if the books were set in more modern times)

bill: he likes lover a LOT. he gets teased about it but my guy over here is a hopeless romantic and has lover (the song) as his most played on spotify wrapped. he was a 1989 stan before lover came out 100%. his favourite songs are lover and daylight. he knows all the taylor drama and was avidly listening to debut, which was what got percy into taylor swift a few years later.

charlie: reputation. this was his first taylor album and he loves every song. when he first went to work with dragons, this was the latest album and he knew percy liked it, so he downloaded and listened to it on repeat so that they could talk about it. in his free time, he probably annotates the shit out of the lyrics of different songs. his favourite songs are ...ready for it? and i did something bad. his second favourite album is midnights. he was hella hyped for the release as he hoped for rep vibes. it didn't really happen but he adores it all the same.

percy: evermore stan. he lives, breathes, dies this album. his thinks the best song on the album is ivy due to the lyrics, but he enjoys right where you left me the most. he doesn't listen to it's time to go much bc the song hits a bit too hard for him. his second favourite album is between folklore and reputation. folklore for the lyrics, and reputation for the album's cohesiveness. he, too, annotates taylor's music.

fred: in public, he says his favourite is red, but he actually likes debut the most. he can't explain it, but the youth in taylor's voice and the lyrics are just something he really enjoys. his favourites are a place in this world and our song. his red favourites are starlight and message in a bottle.

george: his top two are red and folklore. where his twin is more active when he listens to taylor, george prefers to study to taylor. he keeps the volume fairly low and kinda vibes while he gets shit done. his favourite song on red is begin again and on folklore it's hoax.

ron: speak now. 200%. a personal hc of mine is that percy was practically a parent to his younger siblings, and percy used to sing never grow up to them when they were younger. he never really listened to taylor's music, but as he grew older and re-bonded with percy, he started to listen to speak now again. he thinks he has grown out of never grow up, and thoroughly enjoys innocent and mine, the latter which becomes one of hermione's favourites as well. his second favourite album is red, which is hermione's favourite.

ginny: she doesn't like taylor swift bc of the extent of the internalised misogyny 💀 BUT when she moves out, she becomes a fearless girlie. her favourite songs on the album are fearless and the way i loved you. her second favourite album is lover. she connected to the man on a spiritual level and, despite what people say, she adores you need to calm down.

bonus (don't scroll if you like molly and arthur)

molly: little miss misogyny does NOT like taylor swift. she slut shames like it's nobody's business

arthur: doesn't care. he's a bit busy being negligent.

[mors-mvrdre]

I said what I said.

I love them but the parenting techniques need a software update askajdkwjsiw

[shanastoryteller]

Happy Birthday Shana!! Can I suggest Percy and Tonks? I hope you have a wonderful day 🌻

Tonks isn’t worried about Arthur. They’ve met, several times, and he’s always hurried and distracted and warm. She’s not sure he’s figured out that she’s dating his son yet, but Percy doesn’t really tell people things.

Case in point.

“Crouch is missing?” she frowns. “Should we do something about that? Should I do something about that? Missing people are supposed to be jurisdiction, more or less.”

He shakes his head. “The going missing is pretty standard, it’s the length that’s getting a little concerning. If he’s not back by the time the Triwizard Tournament is over it might be worth looking into. I’m just saying don’t mention my long hours to Mum.”

“Right,” she says uneasily. Percy’s mother. Who’s a Prewett and notoriously not as easy going as her husband.

“You don’t have to come to lunch with my mother if you don’t want to,” he says, and sounds like he means it. “She’s just going to criticize me for thirty minutes and not even really mean it and she might do the same to you. Don’t take it to heart. She doesn’t remember half of what she complains about.”

Tonks wonders how often Percy changed something in response to one of his mother’s throwaway comments before he realized that she hadn’t noticed and hadn’t cared. “Don’t be ridiculous. Of course I’m coming. What color should my hair be?”

She’s expecting him to say blonde or brown or even to match the infamous Weasley and Prewett red, but he kisses her cheek and says, “Her favorite color’s blue.”

She doesn’t imagine blue hair is going to endear her to Molly at all, but Percy knows she prefers something fun and vibrant and isn’t asking her to do anything else, even for meeting his mother.

Tonks locks the door to Crouch’s office with a wave of her hand and sees how long she can distract Percy from his work with something a little more than a kiss on the cheek.

Right now her personal record is eight minutes and thirteen seconds, but she has a good feeling about this one.

[therealvinelle]

Can I hear your opinions on rita skeeter?

You know how some stories have that only sane man, the one person who isn't impressed by our dashing main characters or who's living in a different genre and rated story? The one, typically a fan favorite, character who has a fundamentally different perspective. They can also, shortly put, be the "this is stupid and you're stupid" character.

The NBC Hannibal show has Freddie Lounds ("I'm a bad, bad man", Will threatens her. He is then surprised when she runs a feature on the FBI hiring a creep to come to crime scenes and pretend he's a serial killer.) The Vampire Diaries had Elijah (he isn't a great example of this, but legacy fans will remember all the jokes about how the reason the writers never put him in episodes was because he'd have solved all the characters' stupid problems within twenty minutes and there would be no plot for the rest of the season. Elijah was perceived to be living in a different type of show than the rest of the teen drama cast), and there are some who think that this was Snape for Harry Potter.

They are wrong.

Rita, my dove

Let's take a look at a few things Rita prints over the course of canon, where we have an insight into what actually happened and know precidely what she printed. I have my copy of Goblet of Fire with me, it's in Norwegian so I'll be translating back to English but I trust that's alright.

The Quidditch world cup incident

What we know happened:

The British Ministry was responsible for the event. It was highly prestigious, with foreign leaders attending and people from all over the world camped out near the stadion. After the first match there's celebrations, which turns into a riot. Tents are set on fire, people are chased through the camp grounds, and there's total chaos where nobody knows where their loved ones are. The riot soon turns into a homage to Voldemort, with rioters in Death Eater uniforms tormenting the Muggles living nearby and someone putting up the Dark Mark.

Arthur Weasley, who works in the Department of Misuse of Muggle Artifacts (which is admittedly part of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement), is sent to make a statement on the Ministry's behalf to the terrified witches and wizards hiding.

What Skeeter reports:

Headlining "TERROR AT THE WORLD CUP" (me translating), with an image of the Dark Mark, Rita Skeeter writes (this is Arthur skimming): "Ministry blunders... culprits not apprehended... lax security... Dark wizards running unchecked... national disgrace..." (original English from the wiki)

A full section (and this is me translating again): "If the terrified witches and wizards who waited for information while they hid in the woods had hoped for any sort of reassurance from the Ministry of Magic, they were sorely disappointed. A department spokesman, who only showed up long after the Dark Mark had appeared, claimed no one had been injured but refused to give further information. It remains to be seen if this statement will quell the rumors that several bodies were seen being recovered from the woods an hour later."

Verdict

All of this is accurate, except the last sentence.

Nobody was killed in the incident. However, Skeeter was acting on the information available to her, and she makes it clear this last part is unconfirmed. Further, I'm going to come out in her defense and say that Skeeter, writing an article critical of the Ministry in a community with a very loose sense of free speech, can't take Arthur Weasley at his vague word and should refer to her own sense of judgement when deciding whether the rumors are credible enough to print or not.

As it is, a riot in a crowded area at night with people who dressed like Death Eaters, where the Dark Mark was fired into the sky, where mass panic erupted, in a world where children can produce deadly magic with their wands, could easily have led to casualties. I don't think it was a far leap for Skeeter that people might have died, and the Ministry didn't want to admit as much.

Notice her phrasing (and yes, I know you're reading my translation) when she talks about the Ministry: "It remains to be seen if this statement will quell the rumors that several bodies were seen being recovered from the woods an hour later." Not, "It remains to be seen whether the rumors that several bodies were seen being recovered from the woods an hour later were true.", or any type of phrasing indicating that the truth will out. Only rumors that may or may not be quelled.

Knowing that the Wizarding World doesn't appear to be a functional nor accountable democracy, that things like statistics likely don't exist (who will be your statistician if there is no basic math education? How will wizards interpret statistics if they don't understand basic maths, what use are error margins and percentages to them? This is important, because without statistics there is also no need to collect numbers - how many students take the core classes, how many are employed after X years, how many citizens die in a given year and of what causes... you see where I'm going with this), and that Arthur gets so defensive when reading legitimate criticism of his Ministry (not even his department or jurisdiction, mind, and Skeeter anonymized him), indicates a fraught understanding of governmental accountability and transparency.

In other words, who can say if anybody died that night. Arthur himself had gone to bed with his family as soon as the chaos was under control, and there was no tally after the riot, no controlled evacuation, nothing. Skeeter wasn't wrong for publishing what she herself clarified was speculation, either way I'm hard pressed to see her as a villain for putting the Ministry under pressure, in fact I have to wonder if this kind of pressure is necessary to get them to admit things they'd otherwise shove under the carpet.

Back to Arthur Weasley. In response to this article he says to his family (me translating again): "Molly, I must go to the office. Killing this is going to take some time."

Now, I know real governments have to cry over scandals that take time to move past as well: however, what are people upset over? What's the scandal?

Oh, yes, that the Ministry wasn't able to prevent a riot at a large sports event, flubbed completely once it had begun, and failed to give the people any kind of useful or timely information. All of that is true. The only part that isn't true, would be dispelled if they'd only put out a statement saying "no one was killed". The only reason why one such statement wouldn't work is if Ministry statements are not considered trustworthy - and this is where we return to the above.

So far, so good on Rita Skeeter, and so bad on Arthur who, going by this section, questions the Ministry less than Bellatrix Lestrange questions Voldemort.

Interlude: Percy and the vampires

While the article about the World Cup is read, Percy jumps in with an anecdote about Skeeter.

"That woman is always out to slander the Ministry," Percy said angrily. "Last week she claimed we waster our time fooling around with cauldron thickness when we should be extinguishing vampires! As though it is not expressedly stated in Guidelines for treatment of non-wizard halfhumans that-"

I'm not going to make any guesses as to what precisely Skeeter's criticism was, because Percy is angry and venting to his family, which doesn't make him likely to present her argument fairly. Who knows what, specifically, she criticized and why and what she asked for in her article. What we do know is that she questioned Ministry priorities and resource allotment, and Percy takes it personally, he gets angry about it. Hostility and defensiveness is the gut reaction.

More damningly, "that woman is always out to slander the Ministry" implies no one else is doing it.

Your star is rising, Rita.

Oh no, post got long

And this is the part where I'd go on to her interview with Harry and subsequent articles, and later on Dumbledore, but I'm realizing that would make this post a very long and decentralized mess.

Will cover it in follow up posts: today is for Rita vs. the Ministry and how the Weasleys think Muggles are so quaint with their democracricy and freedom of speech, teehee that's silly.

[tedwardremus]

Anti-Molly Weasley rhetoric often mirrors second-wave feminist critiques of the housewife role, which sometimes characterized stay-at-home wives as perpetuating women’s "enslavement." However, these critiques overlook the fact that domestic labor is essential, legitimate work. Rather than abandoning the role of the homemaker, the focus should be on restructuring or abolishing patriarchal systems so that those who choose a career in the domestic sphere are adequately compensated and supported.

Though the Weasleys may struggle financially, they remain a loving, supportive, and respectful family. Notably, none of the Weasley children express resentment toward Molly, whose role as a homemaker is central to their family’s strength. Ron’s insecurity about his family’s wealth is not a reflection of his parents but rather part of his personal growth and character development.

The Weasleys never go hungry, they have a house with full amenities and enough to provide shelter, food, and gifts for Harry, Hermione, and anyone else staying at the Burrow.

Criticism of Arthur for not pursuing a higher-paying job is equally misguided. In a world rife with anti-Muggle prejudice, Arthur’s dedication to protecting Muggles and advocating for anti-muggle baiting and torture is a testament to his values. The Weasleys are one of the few pureblood families that are outspoken and committed to their progressive values. Walking away from that work for financial gain would undermine the very qualities that make him a respectable character. The Weasleys, in many ways, embody the core themes of the series: they protect Muggles, befriend werewolves, and offer their home to those in need. To criticize them is to misunderstand the heart of what the books celebrate.

[mirrorofliterature]

harry: and percy ignored arthur! his own father!

*conveniently ignores that it takes two to tango*

[whinlatter]

That brings up an interesting point. Since you seen to be a canon girlie, do you think/feel that Hermione DOES become Minister?

What do you make of Harry being Head of Magical Law Enforcement?

thank you for this question anon! i do think it's very plausible hermione becomes minister of magic. i think it's equally plausible that harry becomes head of magical law enforcement. mostly because, well:

basically: i think both characters' career trajectories are in keeping with the politics of the series as a whole - eg. the goodies are all liberal, pro-state, non-revolutionary moderates who support a gradualist reformist agenda rather than a radical re-imagining of societal organisation. i also think both career options track with who each character is in canon (or rather, who the teenage versions of these characters might become as adults). and i think most of the reasons people are disappointed by either idea, and especially by harry coming 'a cop' then rising up the ranks to run law enforcement, is because they are putting their own more radical ambitions around social justice onto characters that would be poor vehicles for them.

on hermione - i don't know how many people have huge issue with the idea of hermione as minister of magic. i imagine the complaints with this idea come from people who a) like hermione and think hermione's politics as a teenager - identifying systemic injustice and labour exploitation of a subject people - jar with the idea of her settling within a political system that upholds and enforces that structure and others like it, or b) people don't like hermione as much and who think she would be too unpopular to get elected. to the former group, i'd trot out the arguments made far better than people other than me: that hermione's support for the house elves mostly boils down to a bit of a saviour complex and 'be nicer to your slaves', which is not especially radical position, and also point out the ministry's institutional culture seems to reward high-achieving technocrats with establishment credentials (or at least, prior records of academic and professional achievement), and i could see hermione riding that train straight to the top, especially on wave of post-war reformism with diminishing anti-muggleborn prejudice. (the wizarding world also loves a good (and bad) law and is extremely vigilant in enforcing them to a fault. hermione jean granger absolutely loves a rule. it's a match-made in heaven. it is - i fear - giving keir starmer).

to the second point, as i talked a bit about here, the wizarding world does not seem to be a democracy. so hermione wouldn't even need to be especially popular to get the top job. i personally love the idea of hermione quietly parking her commitments to representative democracy to get a bit of good labour legislation passed, or even thinking about wizarding democracy in victorian terms (as long as you're representing what you think the enlightened citizenry want, you're gucci). i mean honestly, what do the masses know! ignore em, queen. they're all kind of pureblood racists anyway!

on harry: i have a feeling it's harry's trajectory that most pisses people off. and i absolutely get it! people hate cops, and harry appears to become one, after spending a lot of the series raging against how shit senior leadership at the ministry of magic tend to be. while i do see the argument that teenage harry has strong criticisms of the ministry for its officials' self-interest, corruption and lack of accountability for their many miscarriages of justice, the truth is that a) harry never really associates being an auror with representing the ministry of magic as an institution, that b) he thinks of lots of characters who work in and around the ministry of magic, including in law enforcement, as agents of good (arthur weasley, kingsley, tonks, mad-eye, amelia bones) and c) harry at no point shows himself interested in thinking about ideology, about political systems, or about a more developed worldview beyond a deep sense of right and wrong and a need for justice. i think harry would like being head of magical law enforcement much less than hermione would like being minister, and i could see him finding the job enormously frustrating both for how much politicking it likely requires and for how little field action it would require. but i don't think that means it's out of character for him to rise up the ranks in pursuit of a more effective justice system and eventually take the top job as a means to an end.

the only other thing i'll say is that i do think there is something a bit culturally specific about imagining these two characters we think of as morally good actors taking up roles within the state to try to work for what they feel to be positive reform and progressive causes. the state appears quite neutrally in the hp series: it's a tool to be picked up and used to affect political change. this reflects its author's worldview, the political moment in which it was written (eg. under blair's new labour), and a longstanding dimension of real-life centre-left social democratic british politics usually expressed, at various times and to varying extents, by the political programme of the labour party throughout its history (to say nothing of a wider european context). it's not an inherently problematic political worldview (it is a core social democratic and socialist principle; it is also my own view of the state...), though ofc it can become so in the wrong hands. for instance, it's a consistent through-line in jkr's political evolution and a staple of her practically single-issue dangerous anti-trans politics even now - terf politics is a lot about wielding the state to remove legal protections from trans people, stop them from accessing health care etc. but the idea of the big state and of laws and government as a positive interventionist tool does colour hp as a text in lots of ways and is reflected in the worldview of many of its characters with which the reader is supposed to side. and i don't think we should overlook that.

conversely, hp is also a series devoid of political movements, and certainly of a meaningful far-left ideology or political sphere. and that's important to remember too if we're interested in canon coherence: hp is a liberal text in that it seemed plausible for its author to vacate a great deal of politics from her world-building. and i think that is, regretfully, worth remembering when we're claiming hermione should have been a trade union agitator or harry should have been an acab abolitionist organiser or whatever.

[carewyncromwell]

Okay, I blame @maleliddell for making me think about this, but...this Lunar New Year marks the year of the Dragon, right? And the thought occurred to me that Charlie would be so disappointed if it turned out he was not born in the year of the Dragon, so I looked it up. And when I did, I found out something that just cracks me up.

Charlie was born in 1972...year of the Rat. As in Percy's-pet-Scabbers Rat.

So yeah, definitely sad Charlie, knowing he wasn't born in year of the Dragon. But to rub some salt into the wound, you want to know which Weasley was born in the year of the Dragon?

PERCY.

Yes. The least outdoorsy, hot-tempered, and wild of all of the Weasleys was born in 1976, a year associated with Charlie's favorite magical creature. Sorry, I just find that absolutely hysterical. 😂

(The other Weasleys' Chinese zodiac signs under the cut, just for kicks!)

Arthur ~ 1950 ~ Year of the Tiger

confident, brave, magnetic, idealistic, thrill-seeking, arrogant, selfish; symbolizes bravery

Molly ~ 1949 ~ Year of the Ox

diligent, gentle, hardworking, reliable, patient, materialistic, stubborn; symbolizes diligence

Bill ~ 1970 ~ Year of the Dog

helpful, honest, trustworthy, unselfish, pessimistic, anxious, timid; symbolizes protection

Charlie ~ 1972 ~ Year of the Rat

ambitious, charming, talkative, resourceful, private, frugal, critical; symbolizes wisdom

Percy ~ 1976 ~ Year of the Dragon

outspoken, energetic, generous, intelligent, perfectionistic, egocentric, impatient; symbolizes authority and good fortune

Fred and George ~ 1978 ~ Year of the Horse

amusing, enthusiastic, independent, persuasive, irresponsible, moody, opportunistic; symbolizes indomitable spirit

Ron ~ 1980 ~ Year of the Monkey

entertaining, intelligent, optimistic, sociable, fickle, secretive, unpredictable; symbolizes cunning

Ginny ~ 1981 ~ Year of the Rooster

adventurous, charitable, funny, loyal, argumentative, boastful, self-involved; symbolizes punctuality and fidelity

[riverwriter]

HP fanfic rants (Hermione Edition)

What is with the need to shoehorn Hermione into the Weasley family?

She didn’t spend any significant time with them until she was fifteen, and she only started spending time at The Burrow because it had become Order headquarters.

Fics with Fifth Year Hermione thinking of Arthur as her “second father” after he’s injured make me cringe.

This is not a criticism of the Weasleys, it’s just that once she became close to them, Hermione was past the age of looking for a surrogate family, especially when she had one of her own.

[hchollym]

Percy Weasley & Sansa Stark Parallels

This post is going to be more for me than anything else, because I doubt many people are interested in this very specific topic, but I couldn't resist.

Percy & Sansa are two of my favorite characters in literature, and the more I started to think about it, the more I realized how much they have in common. I know that sounds strange, and don't get me wrong, there are some key differences (Sansa was definitely more of an innocent victim - the poor girl was only 11 years old), but they do actually have a lot of similarities as well!

I'm going to link some posts/metas about Percy, just in case someone wants to see extra support for my claims, because I feel like Sansa is a little bit more obvious/self-explanatory in canon.

Basics

They are both tall redheads (which doesn't mean anything, but it is a fun coincidence). 🙂

They are both unfairly hated by fandom because of the POV trap (Harry & Arya).

Personality

They are both feminine (see this post about Percy).

They both love reading, and neither of them are very athletic.

They were both naïve and trusted the wrong people because they didn't know any better. Unfortunately, they were both raised by their fathers to trust in something that wasn't trustworthy (the Ministry of Magic - see this post about Percy - & the idea that most men/knights are honorable).

They are both romantic in nature (Percy writing love letters & Sansa reading love stories). Interestingly enough, both of them are the first siblings in their families to be given a storyline that involves a romantic relationship/betrothal & yet both of their oldest brothers end up getting married first (which is not a bad thing; it's just an observation).

Family/Background

They were both the "perfect" child who had high expectations placed on them from a young age ("Sansa was a lady at three, always so courteous and eager to please."), yet they were also ignored the most because they were "easy" compared to their siblings (see this post on Percy's relationship with his mother).

This is why their acts of "rebellion" (Percy disowning his family & Sansa going to Cersei) were so unexpected. They were always so well-behaved until they finally felt pushed over the edge:

“What do we want to be prefects for?” said George, looking revolted at the very idea. “It’d take all the fun out of life.”  Ginny giggled.  “You want to set a better example for your sister!” snapped Mrs. Weasley.  “Ginny’s got other brothers to set her an example, Mother,” said Percy loftily. 

suddenly changing to:

“He went completely berserk. He said — well, he said loads of terrible stuff... And he packed his bags the same night and left. He’s living here in London now.”

&

"It was for love," Sansa said in a rush. "Father wouldn't even give me leave to say farewell." She was the good girl, the obedient girl, but she had felt as wicked as Arya that morning, sneaking away from Septa Mordane, defying her lord father..."

They were both usually the odd one out with their siblings, who all had a closer bond with each other than with Percy/Sansa. Their siblings also looked down on their interests because they couldn't relate to them:

“We’re trying to standardize cauldron thickness. Some of these foreign imports are just a shade too thin — leakages have been increasing at a rate of almost three percent a year —” “That’ll change the world, that report will,” said Ron. “Front page of the Daily Prophet, I expect, cauldron leaks.” Percy went slightly pink.

&

Sansa would have sighed and shed a tear for true love, but Arya just thought it was stupid. 

They were also the target of their siblings' pranks/mischief:

“I shudder to think what the state of my in-tray would be if I was away from work for five days.” “Yeah, someone might slip dragon dung in it again, eh, Perce?” said Fred. “That was a sample of fertilizer from Norway!” said Percy, going very red in the face. “It was nothing personal!” “It was,” Fred whispered to Harry as they got up from the table. “We sent it.”

&

"Arya started it," Sansa said quickly, anxious to have the first word. "She called me a liar and threw an orange at me and spoiled my dress, the ivory silk, the one Queen Cersei gave me when I was betrothed to Prince Joffrey."

They were both resented by their younger sibling(s), who each happen to be about 2 years younger than them (Fred and George & Arya):

"...we never had trouble like this from Bill or Charlie or Percy —” “Perfect Percy,” muttered Fred.

&

Sansa had the grace to blush. She blushed prettily. She did everything prettily, Arya thought with dull resentment.

Ironically enough, their parents usually let those siblings get away with a lot more than Percy or Sansa would have been allowed to get away with (see this post on Molly & Arthur's lack of discipline with the twins):

None of which stopped Arya, of course. One day she came back grinning her horsey grin, her hair all tangled and her clothes covered in mud, clutching a raggedy bunch of purple and green flowers for Father. Sansa kept hoping he would tell Arya to behave herself and act like the highborn lady she was supposed to be, but he never did, he only hugged her and thanked her for the flowers. That just made her worse.

Circumstances/Storylines

Their fathers failed them (though not on purpose) when they needed them most (Arthur yelled at Percy and accused him of spying instead of calmly helping Percy see that he was being used & Ned refused to explain why Sansa's betrothal was being called off). This directly led to their acts of rebellion.

As a result, they were both taken advantage of by people in power (Fudge & Cersei) and separated from their family. Initially, this is what they both thought they wanted (Percy chose to leave & Sansa wanted to remain in King's Landing with Joffrey instead of returning home), but they both ended up regretting it (after losing their innocence and naivety) and wanting their family back.

They were both young, and yet they were judged for not knowing something that even the adults didn't know (Percy didn't notice that his boss, Barty Sr., who he barely knew, was under the Imperious Curse, while Dumbledore failed to notice that his old friend was actually a Death Eater using a Polyjuice potion & Sansa thought that she could trust Cersei while Ned believed that he could trust Cersei enough to warn her to leave town without her retaliating against him).

While they were separated/alone, their mothers were really the only ones doing anything to try and get them back (Molly visited Percy & Catelyn freed Jaime).

They both had to play their part in politics under a corrupt government. They both originally wanted to be a part of that system (eventually becoming the Minister of Magic & eventually becoming the queen). They ended up realizing that the people in charge were not as noble and well-intentioned as they thought.

They learned to be more careful about who they trusted, and they adapted to survive (Percy in a Ministry controlled by Voldemort & Sansa with the threat of Cersei, Jeffrey, and Littlefinger).

They both lost a brother. 😭

He and Ron had both grabbed Hermione and pulled her to the floor, but Percy lay across Fred’s body, shielding it from further harm.

&

Robb had died at a wedding feast as well. It was Robb she wept for. 

They both reconnected/made amends with the sibling(s) that initially resented them (Sansa and Arya will meet again and work things out in the books - fight me):

“I was a fool!” Percy roared, so loudly that Lupin nearly dropped his photograph. “I was an idiot, I was a pompous prat, I was a— a— ” “Ministry-loving, family-disowning, power-hungry moron.” said Fred. Percy swallowed. “Yes, I was!” “Well, you can’t say fairer that that,” said Fred, holding out his hand to Percy.

In Conclusion

I just found it interesting that two of my favorite characters - who seem very different - have so much in common. I'm sure that says something about me! 🤣😊