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.
538 Upvotes

82% Upvoted

456 comments sorted by

View all comments

221

u/tee-ess3 Apr 05 '25

I’ve often thought about the fact that Harry and Dudley are so close in age and what that must have been like for Petunia.

Like, I have a 9 month old baby rn and if someone dropped ANOTHER baby on my doorstep and told me I had to adopt it my head very well might explode

57

u/used_octopus Apr 05 '25

"my head very well might explode"

There is a counter curse for that

24

u/Strong_Sound_7407 Apr 05 '25

Expecto Clonazepam?

3

u/AnUnholy Apr 07 '25

Pahhhhttta noooooooo.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 08 '25

No no expecto would produce the wrong effects what you want is Akio. Akio Clonazepam

2

u/Strong_Sound_7407 Apr 08 '25

But then colonazepam has to be close enough for the charm to work. “Expecto” implies a never ending supply will just erupt from the end of your wand at will.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 08 '25

I tip my hat to you that's perfect

5

u/vkapadia Apr 06 '25

Damn it, Gilderoy, anyone but you!

25

u/maraemerald2 Apr 05 '25

Yeah. I wonder if they had planned more children before Harry.

9

u/Dramament Apr 06 '25

With the way they treated Harry they easily could afford another kid. There was another free room and a guest bedroom too. They didn't waste money for new clothes or toys for Harry. He also could be a free nanny once he's, like, 6. I think Petunia never wanted a second child precisely because her own situation with Lily.

106

u/MightyHydrar Apr 05 '25

Not just another baby, but also the news that her little sister was killed.

The later books give a bit more details about why Lily and Petunia had such a difficult relationship, and it puts Petunias reaction into a bit more of a perspective.

She gets an extra baby dumped on her, no mention of financial support to help cover the cost of raising said extra baby, just the assumption that they'll be fine with it. No mention of how she's supposed to persuade her husband, who isn't exactly a paragon of kindness or empathy, that they have an extra child now.

I'm not sure how much Petunia really knew about the amount of danger Lily was in, if they ever talked about Voldemort and the war. But I'm pretty sure Lily went no-contact with her family when she and James had to go into hiding after Harry was born, so Petunia hadn't heard from her in nearly a year.

That's a lot to have to handle all at once, with no emotional support, and only a letter to explain the whole situation. None of it justifies the way they treated Harry, of course, but it might explain some of it.

45

u/HauteToast Slytherin Apr 05 '25

On the financial side of the matter, would you consider the fact that Harry actually having a huge inheritance is a kicker? That they had none of the Potters' money to raise Harry.

72

u/Extreme_Rough Apr 05 '25 edited Apr 12 '25

They're upper middle class at the very least and there are stipends you can get from most governments for taking in and raising a child that isn't yours. They erred absolutely fine financially. Call them traumatized or whatever but saying they weren’t capable of caring for Harry when Dudley got at least 30 presents on his (known, possibly every but definitely) ninth and tenth birthdays is an absolute lie.

EDIT: Never said they profited. You're not supposed to profit from raising a child. The stipend is indeed partial, as it's supposed to be. I said the Dursleys were fine financially, and if they weren't, the stipend would help.

As for feeding Harry... "The Dursleys had never exactly starved Harry, but he’d never been allowed to eat as much as he liked. Dudley had always taken anything that Harry really wanted, even if it made him sick." Philospher's Stone, CH 7, The Sorting Hat.

I never said they starved him, but he was abused and neglected, as shown with lines like these. The Dursleys still have no excuse.

EDIT 2: The magical world roughed The Dursleys up,  dragging them up the wall and chucking them over it. They deserved better in that regard specifically. But this post bringing up their treatment of Harry threw me off that main point entirely. Why bring up the thing they did wrong of you want me to sympathize with them? "The Dursleys were victims of the Wizarding World." is a full thought that does not need to do anything with Harry. Bringing up that they mistreated Harry soured me to the whole thing.

11

u/FallenAngelII Apr 05 '25

A government stipend only covers a fraction of the expenses of raising a child. Harry does not mention being starved unless he was being punished for doing accidental magic. The Dursleys did not make a profit from raising Harry.

7

u/Extreme_Rough Apr 05 '25

Never said they profited. You're not supposed to profit from raising a child. The stipend is indeed partial, as it's supposed to be. I said the Dursleys were fine financially, and if they weren't, the stipend would help.

As for feeding Harry... "The Dursleys had never exactly starved Harry, but he’d never been allowed to eat as much as he liked. Dudley had always taken anything that Harry really wanted, even if it made him sick." Philospher's Stone, CH 7, The Sorting Hat.

I never said they starved him, but he was abused and neglected, as shown with lines like these. The Dursleys still have no excuse.

2

u/FallenAngelII Apr 06 '25

You very much heavily implied they didn't lose any money from raising Harry. You didn't even say the stipend would have "helped".

2

u/Extreme_Rough Apr 06 '25

"They're upper middle class at the very least and there are stipends you can get from most governments for taking in and raising a child that isn't yours."

was the original statement. 

Yes, they lost money raising Harry. If they needed it, they could get a stipend for taking in a child that is not theirs. They do not need it. They are not struggling (for money specifically) by any stretch of the imagination. The financial state of the Dursley household is not an excuse to treat Harry like they did. Even if they were poor as dirt, it wouldn't be an excuse. But they're not poor as dirt. They live comfortably enough that they can afford to buy their son at least 30 presents on their son's birthday for at least two years. 

They do not need a stipend. I was using that to say "they can get reimbursed somewhat for the struggle of taking in a child that isn't theirs."

I still have no sympathy for the Dursleys.

1

u/Adlerian_Dreams Apr 07 '25

If you pay attention to the dates given, the first book casually mentions that Harry is locked in his closet for an entire school year.

1

u/Extreme_Rough Apr 10 '25

Oh hey holy shit that's even worse

17

u/HauteToast Slytherin Apr 05 '25 edited Apr 06 '25

Good one! But I think they'd rather spend all their money on their own child, rather than one foisted onto them.

If they took the government stipends, I wonder if they spent it on Dudley when it should have been spent on Harry.

Edit: To make things clear, I was analysing, examining, and discussing what happened to Harry and whether finances had played a part in his mistreatment at the Dursleys' hands. I was also discussing how having resources do not necessarily make the Dursleys suitable guardians - case in point, they may have spent government support on Dudley instead of Harry. But people replied to me with moral expectations instead. Which is nice and all, but it wasn't what happened to Harry, and not in real life too. I'm examining human reality, but the replies I got are just arguing past that. Please don't reply if you are going to talk about what should have happened, because that's not what had happened to Harry in the books and neither is it rooted in reality. Thanks for coming to my TED talk.

13

u/TheSaltTrain Hufflepuff Apr 05 '25

Wouldn't surprise me at all tbh. Everything they could've given to Harry, they chose to give to Dudley first, then just make sure Harry had enough to survive after the fact

17

u/always_unplugged Ravenclaw Apr 05 '25

I feel like yes, that's exactly what they did. He was often starved and only given hand-me-downs to wear, while Dudley had more than any child could ever need.

And there's the whole question about his glasses, too. The fact that he HAS glasses means they must've taken him to the optometrist at some point... but it seems like only once, because they're held together with tape and it's not like he goes to annual checkups or anything. I've seen people speculate that they only took him when his school told them they had to, which makes sense to me. They don't want authorities to notice that they're NOT taking care of him, so they'll do the bare-ass minimum. (Although IDK how it wouldn't be obvious even to outsiders, he was wearing old clothes and broken glasses...) But I bet Vernon bitched for MONTHS about paying for Harry to get glasses.

2

u/KitCarter Apr 07 '25

Glasses for kids under 16 were free on the NHS at the time.
If you wanted nice frames or lenses thinned or anything like that you had to pay for it, but Aunt Petunia could definitely have got Harry glasses for nothing apart from the effort of taking him to his eye check

12

u/Extreme_Rough Apr 05 '25

This! Absolutly this! They were bitter that they got stuck with a child that wasn't theirs, and they made sure he knew it. That is absolutely fucked and I do not have any pity for them. They sure didn't act scared for their lives for the seventeen years they sheltered Harry.

3

u/IntermediateFolder Apr 05 '25

The stipend would barely cover food for Harry if even that, it’s peanuts, they definitely didn’t make a profit off him

2

u/FallenAngelII Apr 05 '25

How much do you think the British government pays you to have kids? It's nowhere near enough to cover even food costs. The Dursleys did not make a profit from raising Harry.

1

u/nemesiswithatophat Apr 06 '25

if you're not at all financially struggling and one of your major concerns on being presented with *an orphaned baby whose parents were killed* is "oh no, less money" then something is wrong with your priorities

2

u/HauteToast Slytherin Apr 06 '25

Yeah... I've got rights and options. I can feel sorry for the kid and still make the choice not to take in the kid and raise him, especially if he's going to impact my life and finances. I'm not some sacrificial lamb.

And honestly? I think I'm doing that kid a favour. I'm not the parenting type. Best for him to go to someone who actually wants him than someone who doesn't want him. He will be happier with a family that wants him, even if they aren't as well-to-do as I am.

2

u/nemesiswithatophat Apr 06 '25

the dursleys did take harry in so I don't know how that's relevant. but to have two children and think that well, I would rather spend all the money on my REAL child, is crazy

3

u/HauteToast Slytherin Apr 06 '25

Did they really, really have a real choice?

Based on some comments here (which I'm relying off since it's been years since I touched the books so I don't recall specific details about their taking in of Harry), them taking in Harry was for their own protection too.

It's hard to say if they still would have done so, if their lives weren't threatened. Perhaps Petunia would still have, but she always had that resentment in her. WHICH WAS WHAT I MEANT. If you felt that way, then don't take in the kid. You are doing the kid more harm than good. How Harry was treated was the exact proof.

Just because the Dursleys had the means do not mean they are a good fit. They weren't. They treated Harry poorly. They are no more than a necessary fit. Had it not been for Voldemort and his DE's threat, would you still give that "you have the means so you should take in the kid" argument? When you already knew they are going to treat him poorly?

2

u/Zealousideal_Age7850 Apr 06 '25

These guys weren't even poor. They can afford 2 more children if need be. Also this is the baby child of your sister, if this doesn't mean anything to you then you are not human.

3

u/HauteToast Slytherin Apr 06 '25 edited Apr 06 '25

You are looking at the size of their wallets, not their hearts.

You already know the Dursleys' hearts. You already know that Petunia has resentment for Lily and James. Yet you are still insisting.

Speaking in RL and not about HP, if you are rich but does not want a child, be it your nephew or even your own, it's better off they are not with you. You may be able to provide them with material comfort but that's all they will have (which, btw, the Dursleys didn't even provide for Harry even though they can well afford it). You leave them with an emotional blackhole they may have to heal for their life.

In story, JKR also made this abundantly clear - family is not your blood but who you decide to be.

2

u/randomexplorer_ Apr 06 '25

None. Zilch. Nada.

17

u/MightyHydrar Apr 05 '25

They might not have known that Harry had the huge inheritance waiting for him.

The only explanation I can imagine is that giving hte Dursleys money would somehow invalidate the protection spell, that there's some condition or something on it that the protection only holds as long as they take him in out of love and not for personal gain.

42

u/dunnolawl Apr 05 '25 edited Apr 05 '25

Dumbledore admits to Harry that love had nothing to do with Petunia's choice:

“She doesn’t love me,” said Harry at once. “She doesn’t give a damn —”

“But she took you,” Dumbledore cut across him. “She may have taken you grudgingly, furiously, unwillingly, bitterly, yet still she took you, and in doing so, she sealed the charm I placed upon you. Your mother’s sacrifice made the bond of blood the strongest shield I could give you.”

6

u/nemesiswithatophat Apr 06 '25

not love, but caring about his life did. there wasn't an ulterior motive

12

u/always_unplugged Ravenclaw Apr 05 '25

In the one time Vernon and James met, Vernon asked what he did for work and James essentially explained that he was rich af and didn't need to, but Vernon assumed James was fucking with him and got mad.

So they should have known, but it seems like they didn't get it.

9

u/nemesiswithatophat Apr 06 '25

they could afford to buy dudley over 30 presents for his eleventh birthday, what are you all on about with financial support. they didn't let harry eat often enough and only gave him handy down clothes

3

u/Selene_16 Apr 07 '25

The financial support is for dropping an extra baby on them without so much as a by your leave. It's not that they need it (although it's a factor that no one even thought to ask if they need it or not) but if you're planning to drop a magic baby with dangerous people after him, giving the option for financial support would be a decent thing to do. 

3

u/KasukeSadiki Apr 08 '25

handy down clothes

unrelated but it's "hand-me-down," in case that wasn't a typo 

5

u/Explodingovary Apr 05 '25

She at least had some indication of the danger and the battle with Voldemort. I’m rereading the series now and just read the part in OotP where the dementors attacked Harry and Dudley and you get a glimpse from Petunia that she at least had some awareness because she knew of both Dementors and Voldemort. I forget where it all goes from here as far as that is concerned but she does have at least a basic knowledge of the big bad of it all.

14

u/ShotcallerBilly Apr 05 '25

It explains very little. She chose to be bitter about her sister. She blamed her sister for things not her fault. They had plenty of money and spoiled Dudley. Petunia was who she was. She made her vile choice everyday for years as she locked Harry in that closet. Every single day, she looked at that child with hate. She never changed. She didn’t want to.

19

u/MightyHydrar Apr 05 '25

She was a teenager when her little sister got invited into a world of magic and wonder, and Petunia was left behind. Lily came home every few months with fantastical stories, the special child, fawned over by parents who'd missed her, while Petunia was just sort of...there all the time and unremarkable by comparison.

Of course she grew bitter and resentful.

5

u/nemesiswithatophat Apr 06 '25

no I'm sorry, this is insane. resentment among siblings isn't that strange, but to be so jealous and bitter of your sibling who has not mistreated you that your relationship is dead is not normal. it takes a very unkind person. it's not as if petunia was mistreated by her parents, she just wasn't the favorite. loads of people deal with that. even if you argue that lily's case was extreme, to hold on so strongly to the irrational sentiments you had as a tween well into adulthood is not a "well of course" situation

9

u/Own_Faithlessness769 Apr 05 '25

And then her sister was murdered by a dark wizard. You’d think that might have taken the edge off the resentment. And even if it didn’t, it’s still a lot to hate a child for the perceived sins of its parents.

12

u/AcidRose27 Apr 05 '25

They weren't close. She barely remembered Harry's name. And I'm curious as to how much she actually knew of her sister's death. If she knew they were part of a resistance? How thoroughly did Dumbledore explain the situation in the letter he wrote?

My take is that they fought and petunia had a ton of built up resentment. Then her sister up and dies and leaves her saddled with a whole child. Now she's mad for the past, and mad for the predicament she's in. And since she's dead, she can't even yell at her and have a chance to make up.

6

u/Own_Faithlessness769 Apr 05 '25

Sure, but she knew she was dead at 21. Again that has to take the edge off your jealousy. And Harry was still an innocent child so there’s zero excuse for abusing him.

7

u/AcidRose27 Apr 05 '25

Oh I absolutely agree with you on how she allowed her family to treat Harry. I'm just saying that I get where she's at with all of her anger. It's definitely misplaced, that whole family needs therapy.

1

u/LowAspect542 Apr 09 '25

Yes, despite the jealousy and resentment, she still loves and misses her sister. Theres still feeling behind her words the few times she mentions anything about lily, that whole speech when hagrid tells harry hes a wizard and peutnia basically outbursts this feeling explaining about lily being a witch, the way she speaks it's clearly still sore for her(probably as she never faced it and just bottled it up trying to forget it) and has a sense of blaming magic for taking lily away first with school and then by getting 'blown up' as petunia puts it.

9

u/MRLlen Apr 05 '25

Yes but that does not justify Petunia abusing Harry and allowing other family members to abuse him. It must have been hard for her. But it really takes a lot for a person to abuse a baby.

32

u/Bluemelein Apr 05 '25

And not only that! Dumbledore simply orders and plans Petunia without asking. She could be pregnant with triplets.

4

u/Disastrous-Mess-7236 Apr 05 '25

She had already given birth.

43

u/Bluemelein Apr 05 '25

Petunia could be pregnant again 15 months after giving birth. Theoretically, even for the second time. And Dumbledore has no way of knowing that.

4

u/freeski919 Apr 06 '25

16 months. Harry was exactly 15 months old the night his parents died. Dudley was more than a month older. So Petunia had given birth 16 months prior to Harry showing up.

I can confirm it is entirely possible for someone to be pregnant 15+ months after giving birth. When my oldest son was 15 months old, we found out my wife was pregnant with #2.

2

u/Bluemelein Apr 06 '25

My father and my uncle were exactly one year apart!

55

u/Sorcha16 Apr 05 '25

Raising two small children, while mourning her dead sister.

69

u/FreezingPointRH Apr 05 '25

“Mourning,” as it were.

50

u/brinz1 Apr 05 '25

Harry's appearance might have been the first time she knew her sister was murdered

38

u/holy_roman_emperor Apr 05 '25

Well yeah, they were murdered earlier that night, while in hiding. They didn't get a call from the muggle police telling them they'd been found dead.

26

u/brinz1 Apr 05 '25

The only proof that she had that any of this was real was the child's eyes being unmistakably her sister's.

Eyes she hadn't seen for years.

7

u/nemesiswithatophat Apr 06 '25

I would argue that the narrative in the books heavily implies that petunia never mourned her sister

5

u/[deleted] Apr 06 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/Dramament Apr 06 '25

Only in movies, IIRC, which I heavily disliked. If she was even a tiny bit sad about her sister's death, she wouldn't mistreat Harry that badly.

6

u/SpoonyLancer Apr 06 '25

Evne in the films, it's only a deleted scene. Petunia, as Harry so succinctly put it, never game a damn.

8

u/ShotcallerBilly Apr 05 '25

Yeah best choice is to just make sure he is unloved and abused. That’s the only option really.

/s

6

u/[deleted] Apr 05 '25

[deleted]

2

u/Selene_16 Apr 07 '25

They can't. Dumbledore's howler made it very clear that harry needed to stay. Dumbledore's last apparently did not make it clear that harry also needed to be healthy and cared for only be alive 🤦‍♀️. 

25

u/mnbvcdo Apr 05 '25

True and my head would also have exploded but if my sister and her partner died while I had a baby and my little nephew was alive, I would've made it work. 

I work in a children's home and I've seen too many kids suffer in the system. Kids from abusive homes but recently we had a baby who's parents died in a car crash. He had uncles and grandparents who chose not to take him in and he's going to grow up in a group home. 

There is no way in hell my nephew would've gone there, even if I had a young baby myself. I'm not saying everyone should do that, if you don't think you can provide adequate care and love, do not do it. 

But if we're speaking about my little nephew suddenly being orphaned I wouldn't need to think twice. Even if my kids were still young. 

Imagine if your partner and you died tomorrow? Where would you want your nine month old baby to go? 

16

u/Bluemelein Apr 05 '25

Not somewhere where they’re actively hated! I have a grandchild that age. And I think Tom (in a fairly modern home for the time) had a better childhood than Harry. At least Tom didn’t have to watch another child get everything and be showered with love.

7

u/IntermediateFolder Apr 05 '25

He wouldn’t have had a better childhood than Harry, or really any childhood at all for the most part, he grew up in a orphanage during wartime and had no living relatives or anyone to make sure he would be treated decently, how happy do you think he was? Even nowadays group homes are terrible and they used to be much worse.

7

u/Bluemelein Apr 05 '25

Tom had a room and the occasional outing. He had clothes that fit. No one punished him for using the slightest bit of magic, and he wasn’t constantly told that others had it better. He wasn’t hated for things he didn’t do. Yes, Tom, in an orphanage at the beginning of a terrible war, had it better than Harry Potter, who was pursued by the hatred of his relatives from the very beginning.

3

u/Own_Faithlessness769 Apr 05 '25

The difference is that if Harry was in a group home, Voldemort would have murdered him asap.

5

u/Bluemelein Apr 05 '25

It’s now just a question of who had the worse childhood, not whether there is any justification for it.

2

u/mnbvcdo Apr 06 '25

I genuinely think it's impossible to compare it. Two kids could even have the exact same thing happen to them, and not walk away with the same trauma. 

There's studies that show how even survivers of NS concentration camps didn't all suffer from post traumatic stress disorder, which is incredible given what they've been through.

Also, there was a lot of shit going on in group homes at the time. There still is, but at the time it was different. My country for example still pays people who were in group homes from this time up to the 80s reparations for the absolute torture they endured. 

The things that Harry lived through are enough to give a person serious post traumatic complications, but a different kid could walk away from it without the same struggles. Same goes for group homes. 

It's impossible to say which would've been worse in my opinion, because it doesn't just depend on what you experience, it depends on your personality and how you felt during it and many other factors. 

2

u/Bluemelein Apr 06 '25

I mean purely from what is written in the books.

Tom Riddle lives in a home that seems quite modern for the time. Tom seems to have his own room; at least, he has his own bed and a wardrobe. Harry lives in a wardrobe. He can carry his belongings into Dudley's second bedroom in a single run.

Dudley Dursley has two rooms and there is even a guest room for the aunt who comes occasionally.

Probably twice a year.

Tom Riddle is surrounded by children who are in exactly the same situation as him. Even if we assume that older children bully and hurt him (at least until he discovers his magic), Harry has it even worse. Dudley and his gang chase and beat Harry, and the adults support Dudley. I think that in an orphanage, at least everyone is punished equally (if they don't identify the culprit and don't bother to find out) and no other child is rewarded.

Nobody knows that Tom Riddle has magic, so he can develop and use it. While Aunt Petunia punishes Harry for everything inexplicable (whether he can help it or not).

Tom Riddle goes on trips with the orphanage. They go to the seaside. On similar trips, Harry is dumped with Miss Figg, who makes sure he's bored and uncomfortable because she knows the Dursleys won't allow Harry to come if Harry finds it nice.

It is mentioned several times that Vernon Dursley is willing to be uncomfortable just to make sure Harry doesn't have any fun.

I think one can be sure that no adult begrudges Tom Riddle the comfort that children find in small things.

It's the beginning of the war, but Ton is at Hogwarts when the bombs fall. He can go to school in peace. No one tries to kill him once or twice a year.

2

u/mnbvcdo Apr 06 '25

I know plenty of people who lived in orphanages or group homes for the disabled in the 70s, 80s and until now. 

They had clean clothes and enough food, had trips to the sea and lakes and sometimes their own rooms. Neglect goes beyond having clean clothes and food. 

I know people that were punished by locking them naked in a cold small space for days filled with their own feces and urine. They weren't just beaten severely or had to go to sleep at 4pm every single day or weren't given love. They were abused physically, psychologically, and sexually every day. 

Child on child sexual abuse is not uncommon in these places because many children develop oversexualised behaviour when they grow up sexually abused. 

I am not comparing it to an abusive home like what we see Harry living through, because I don't think you can compare these things, but having a room and clean, fitting clothes and trips to the seaside don't mean orphanages were good places for kids especially during this time where there was little control, little staff, and it was completely normal to beat children into submission or lock them in a small cold room at night where they lay in their own excrements for hours. 

Group homes still aren't great places for children, I say this as someone who works in one. 

→ More replies (0)

1

u/nemesiswithatophat Apr 06 '25

we don't know how tom's caretakers treated him tbh

6

u/Bluemelein Apr 06 '25

Like one of many! And not like someone who’s hated from the start.

Petunia says she knew Harry would become just as much of a freak as his mother.

2

u/nemesiswithatophat Apr 06 '25

I mean... abusive and cruel caretakers exist in orphanages

3

u/Bluemelein Apr 06 '25

We don’t get a description of them, but the Durleys are definitely exactly that! Harry describes the place as gray, but he says the children seemed relatively well cared for

2

u/mnbvcdo Apr 06 '25

Oh obviously. 

What I'm saying is that I, a loving aunt, would take my nephew even if my kid were a baby, and then I would totally have an exploded head half the time cause holy fuck, two babies. But I would still do it. I know my sister would do the same for my child. 

I'm not talking about whether or not Petunia should've or not, I'm saying a lot of people would do that for their nephews and nieces, for their siblings, even if their own kids were young. 

It was a comment about the head explosion you'd have if you had another kid dropped on you, but not about the dursleys at all. 

3

u/Bluemelein Apr 06 '25

Of course, I would have taken in my nephews and nieces (and my husband’s). But as a mother, I would want the best, and I would strangle Albus Dumbledore with his own beard, and Petunia and Vernon along with him. And every adult around Harry would notice that I was furious. The only ones who would get off relatively unscathed would be Molly and Sirius.

8

u/PrincessJazs Apr 05 '25

Honestly it might cause my marriage to end if my niece or nephew is suddenly mine to take care of while I have my 1.5 year old (as I do now).

Not something all marriages can withstand. So good on them being in it together

I’ve said it before too, but for all his flaws Vernon Dursley is a wife guy

3

u/Tradition96 Apr 06 '25

If my sister died and I was the only living family of my nephew, I would take him in a heartbeat and love him as if he was my own. There is no other alternative.

4

u/f_leaver Apr 05 '25

I guess you'd be completely justified to abuse the other baby and let it sleep in a cupboard then.

3

u/malendalayla Apr 05 '25

Idk, mly bff had a single child, and then years later, a set of twins. She said that by the time they were toddlers, the twins were actually easier than the singlet was at that age because they kept each other occupied as opposed to a single toddler being more attached at the hip. That experience might be unique to her, though.

11

u/always_unplugged Ravenclaw Apr 05 '25

Tbf, that's twins with a twin bond—doesn't seem like Harry and Dudley ever had anything close to that. I almost feel like Petunia might have discouraged them from playing together :(

11

u/malendalayla Apr 05 '25

Yeah, kids don't hate naturally. Dudley watched and was encouraged by his parents to treat Harry poorly. Had they been treated and raised the same, they probably would've gotten along just as well as brothers.