blamebrampton

SOME otherwise attractive, amusing and intelligent flistees of mine have been impugning the studliness of the lovely Arthur Weasley! And look, I get it, they're young. They have this thing in their heads that says 40+ is old and dull. I dare say that I thought that way, once. And the films do not help. Mark Williams is a fine character actor, but he is not the greatest looker in the world, and he does give the role a bit of a fuddy duddy edge.

But think about what we know of Arthur in the books: he has seven children, across ten-odd years, so clearly he goes like the clappers. His children are all attractive, with at least one, Bill, being wildly good looking. He's brave, having spent his twenties and then his forties battling the evil that is Voldemort even though he could easily have hidden behind his blood status. And he's romantic, falling in love with Molly and with Muggle tech, and with the idea of a better wizarding world.

When we meet him, he's 41, and at the close of canon, he's 48. I'm 43, and Mr Brammers is 41, George Clooney is 49. All eminently shaggable, let me tell you!

In conclusion, let me suggest that the films have given people a misleading mental image of Arthur Weasley, just as they have of thirtysomething Harry and Draco, and twentysomething James and Lily. Rather than thinking of the lovely but not so studly Mark Williams ...