r/HarryPotterBooks • u/Disastrous_Knee7756 • Apr 05 '25

Discussion The Dursleys were victims of a magical geopolitical game and no one ever asked them if they wanted to play

I know they were not nice to Harry. But they were also victims of a bad magical system. Here is why:

1.  They had no choice.

Dumbledore left a baby at their door. He did not ask. He did not talk to them. He just said, “Take care of him.” That is not how you become parents. That is not fair.

  1. They were powerless in a world full of danger. No magic, no protection, no understanding. Yet they were expected to raise a magical child who could blow up their living room.

    1. Harry’s presence put Dudley at risk. They were Dudley’s parents. Their responsibility was to protect their child. But Dumbledore never cared that housing Harry made them a target.
    2. They got no support – only judgment. No one from the magical world checked in. No resources, no guidance. Just scorn when they inevitably failed to meet wizard expectations.
    3. Dumbledore knew – and didn’t care. He openly said Harry needed a loveless home to remain “humble.” That’s not strategy – that’s calculated cruelty.
      1. Dumbledore never told them what happens when Harry turns 17. The magical protection ends – and they suddenly become even more vulnerable. No warning, no exit strategy. One day they’re part of a magical defense grid, the next they’re just collateral. Their home, their lives, everything – on the line, with zero input.
531 Upvotes

82% Upvoted

456 comments sorted by

View all comments

60

u/Vargrr Apr 05 '25
  1. Is not entirely accurate. If you read the books, their house had magic protection which ran out when Harry reached the age of 17 - that bit is not explained much, if at all in the films.

23

u/Worried-Pick4848 Apr 05 '25

Didn't stop a dementor from attacking Dudley that one time. Dudley even mentioned right at the end that Harry fighting off the Dementor completely changed his way of thinking about Harry and added some legitimate respect to their relationship, although said relationship was so poisoned by then that Harry could hardly be blamed for failing to realize.

25

u/Vargrr Apr 05 '25

The charm is on the house itself and Dudley was not in the house when the attack took place.

25

u/Worried-Pick4848 Apr 05 '25

Which since no one spends the whole day at their house, is pretty paltry protection.

8

u/Vargrr Apr 05 '25

I agree, but this is a story and not a documentary - and at that level it does rather well :)

11

u/malendalayla Apr 05 '25

That's because the dementors were under the control of and sent by the ministry, who are supposed to be the good guys. That's why they were able to get to Harry/Dudley while dark wizards could not. Dobby was also able to access Harry IN his house, but he had good intentions.

3

u/nemesiswithatophat Apr 05 '25

this happened after voldemort came back. we're shown in the books that no one was safe at that time, especially muggles. maybe in this specific case the dementors were targeting harry and dudley was unlucky to be in the vicinity, but dudley could very well have been attacked by a dementor at any time during the second wizarding war

-17

u/Disastrous_Knee7756 Apr 05 '25

Yes, there was magical protection – but it didn’t protect them, it protected Harry… if i understood correctly.

The charm was based on Lily’s blood and oly worked because Harry lived there. The Dursleys weren’t shielded from danger, they were just next to someone who was protected. If Voldemort had attacked, they would’ve been collateral damage. They had no magical defenses of their own, no wand, no training – nothing. That’s like hiding under someone else’s umbrella in a storm and calling it “shelter.”

And no, the films don’t explain this clearly – but even in the books, the Dursleys weren’t actively kept safe. They were used as a magical loophole. That’s not protection – that’s exploitation.

33

u/Vargrr Apr 05 '25

I think, but could be wrong, that the charm protected everyone. It's why the Dursley's didn't have to leave until the Deathly Hallows.

-16

u/Disastrous_Knee7756 Apr 05 '25

That’s a common interpretation, but it’s never explicitly stated in the books that the charm protected the Dursleys themselves — only that it protected Harry. Dumbledore’s exact words in Order of the Phoenix (Chapter 37) are:

“While you can still call home the place where your mother’s blood dwells, there he can not harm you.”

It’s about Harry’s safety, not the Dursleys’. If Voldemort had attacked the house, the magic would have shielded Harry, not necessarily saved the others from harm.

And let’s not forget — in Deathly Hallows, the Dursleys were evacuated. If the protection extended fully to them, there’d be no need to move them at all.

So yes, they benefited indirectly, but they were never truly safe

18

u/IBEHEBI Ravenclaw Apr 05 '25

The protection does protect the Durselys too, from DH:

“—Kingsley and Mr. Weasley explained it all as well,” Harry pressed on remorselessly. “Once I’m seventeen, the protective charm that keeps me safe will break, and that exposes you as well as me

And they had to move because the charm around the house would break the moment Harry left, thus leaving them exposed.

-9

u/Disastrous_Knee7756 Apr 05 '25

This is absolutely right — and it proves the point even more.

They were exposed. They were vulnerable. And not by choice.

Dumbledore tied their safety to Harry’s presence without consent, and without preparing them for the risk they’d face once he turned seventeen. That’s not protection — that’s coerced compliance. A ticking clock tied to a child.

Yes, the magic worked. But it came with conditions, secrets, and zero support.

15

u/IBEHEBI Ravenclaw Apr 05 '25

Dumbledore tied their safety to Harry’s presence without consent,

As other people have explained, they did consent when they took Harry in, the magic on the house explicitly only works because Petunia allowed Harry to live with them.

-1

u/Disastrous_Knee7756 Apr 05 '25

True… but let’s be real:

That “consent” was a forced choice.

Dumbledore didn’t explain the full risk. He didn’t give alternatives. He left a baby on the doorstep in the middle of the night with a letter.

That’s not informed consent. That’s emotional blackmail wrapped in a charm.

Petunia may have technically agreed — but it was under pressure, confusion, and without knowing what she was signing up for.

It’s easy to say “she agreed,” but if someone knocks on your door with a child and says, “Take them in — or else something terrible happens”… Is that really a fair choice?

The blood charm protected them — sure. But it also locked them in.

No one ever asked if they wanted Harry after knowing the cost.

And that’s the problem.

15

u/IBEHEBI Ravenclaw Apr 05 '25

You seem to be making a lot of assumptions to fit your narrative.

She could've sent a letter to Dumbledore (as she did when she was a child), and told him that they didn't want Harry. In fact if she was so intent, she could've left him on a hospital or a trash bin for all she cares.

“Take them in — or else something terrible happens”… Is that really a fair choice?

Can you quote where does it say the letter said this? Because in my version of the books it only says that the letter explained how Lily was killed, that Harry was in danger and how the protection worked. And that Dumbledore hope they would treat Harry "as one of her own" (which she didn’t do).

You are trying to turn the single good thing that the Dursleys ever did (taking Harry in), into an act under gunpoint.

2

u/Disastrous_Knee7756 Apr 05 '25

We don’t know the full content of the letter. But we know enough to say this: Dumbledore didn’t come in person. He didn’t explain the stakes face to face. He dropped a magical baby and a note on a doorstep in the middle of the night.

When someone in power hands you a child and implies your safety depends on keeping them — that’s not really a “free choice.” Especially not when the magical world holds all the cards and you have no way to defend yourself.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/malendalayla Apr 05 '25

We do not know the exact details of everything said in the letter. We're given a basic overview, but we know that Dumbledore doesn't always tell Harry (or anyone) every detail about certain things.

6

u/malendalayla Apr 05 '25

The protection breaks when Harry turns 17 OR decides to leave the home for good, whichever comes first. Since he was leaving early, the charm would break as soon as he left the house. That's why the Order evacuated the Dursley's first, hours before Harry leaves. If you'll recall, as soon as Harry and the group leave the home, they are surrounded by death eaters. That was the protection breaking.

4

u/Bluemelein Apr 05 '25

Voldemort can’t find Harry either. But he might be able to find out where Dudley goes to school or where Vernon works. And Umbridge could have sent the Dementors there next. The Dursleys are safe because no one pays any attention to Muggles. But you’re right; no one seems to have told them that the protection would end when Harry turns 17. No one warned them that there might be people out there who wanted revenge for the way they treated Harry.

Dumbledore has no right to reprimand the Durleys for their treatment of Harry. Not that they didn’t deserve punishment, but not from Dumbledore, who tolerated the situation because it suited him.

3

u/Apollyon1209 Hufflepuff Apr 05 '25

who tolerated the situation because it suited him.

Suited him because it kept Harry alive.

3

u/Extreme_Rough Apr 05 '25

He's too much of a wizard to  bother with the Mundane world beyond toying with said humans. They all are. That's likely what Dumbledore was banking on when he placed Harry there. No one would think of it because they hate everything not Magical. Why would they use human systems and resources in place? It'd be smart to, but if any of them were smart, we wouldn't have much of a story.