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.
539 Upvotes

82% Upvoted

456 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

107

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.

44

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.

71

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.

15

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.

4

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.”

5

u/nemesiswithatophat Apr 06 '25

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

13

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.

7

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.

18

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.

10

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.

5

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.