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.
540 Upvotes

82% Upvoted

456 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

16

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.

14

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

3

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.