Why did Arthur and Molly Weasley not join the original iteration of the Order of the Phoenix, during the First Wizarding War? We know that they were definitely old enough to join (it is stated in the Goblet of Fire that the Whomping Willow was planted after Molly left Hogwarts, and we know that it was planted in Lupin's first year).

So why did Arthur and Molly not take part in the original order, and its resistance against Voldemort?

2 Answers 2


There is no direct canon information (books, interviews, pottermore that I checked).

However, by the time Harry's parents were murdered, Weasleys already had 6.5 kids (F&G were 2 years ahead of Harry, Ron was same age, Ginny 1 year younger). Wikia gives the date range as

Bill was born in 1970, which is approximately when the war began, and Ginny was born in 1981, two months before the end of the war

Having 5-6-7 small kids to raise kind of puts a damper on most people's most activities, be it social life, or participation in secret orders.

  • 84
    Ugh, if I had a nickel for every secret order I couldn't join because of the kids...
    – Nerrolken
    Jul 9, 2015 at 18:01
  • 18
    @Nerrolken - I'll settle for a nickel for every time I didn't get to engage in intimate adult recreational activity because of the kids... Jul 9, 2015 at 18:12
  • 22
    @DVK you'd either have a lot of nickels or a lot of kids. Jul 9, 2015 at 20:35
  • 1
    Make that a galleon. Jul 10, 2015 at 9:49
  • Ron was about Harry's age during the fist wizarding war. Having to look after an infant while taking part in a war would have been very difficult for Molly.
    – rah4927
    Jul 10, 2015 at 13:22

Building on @DVKs answer, JKR has confirmed on her own website that Gideon and Fabian Prewitt (both of whom were members of the original Order of the Phoenix) were in fact Molly's older brothers:

"No one lived after he decided ter kill 'em, no one except you, an' he'd killed some of the best witches and wizards of the age — the McKinnons, the Bones, the Prewetts.

Although there's no canon confirmation one way or another, it's a distinct possibility that they were instrumental in Molly not becoming a member of such a dangerous organisation, basically vetoing their baby sister from joining.

We see a similar occurrence in the books, with Molly seeming to bar Ron, Harry and Hermione from becoming full members.

  • 13
    Ughm... Did you read the same Harry Potter that I did? :) When did anyone manage to succeed in getting Molly to do anything other than what she WANTED to do? Jul 9, 2015 at 18:13
  • 9
    @DVK - Arguably, the death of her older brothers could have been the spur into action that she needed to get more involved.
    – Valorum
    Jul 9, 2015 at 18:19
  • 1
    A "baby" sister... with 6.5 kids?
    – algiogia
    Jul 10, 2015 at 12:21
  • 3
    @algiogia - I can assure you that that's irrelevant :-)
    – Valorum
    Jul 10, 2015 at 13:13
  • 2
    My brother, who is seven years younger than me and the youngest of my siblings, is now over a foot taller than me. I still call him "shorty" and "small-fry." Nicknames stick, especially for the "baby" of the family, even long after they are relevant.
    – Zoneman
    Jul 10, 2015 at 19:08

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.