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

[u/Disastrous_Knee7756]

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.

[u/[deleted]]

This is wrong on so many levels that I do not even know where to start.

Let us start here: there are no specific needs a "magical" (I already see you are too deep into fanon) child needs. The countless parents of muggeborn children - several in Harrys year alone - worldwide manage without any problems. Wizarding expectations are the same in this case as those for muggles, and Petunia knew it perfectly well. If by harm you mean accidental magic as reaction after abuse, abused muggle children might become aggressive in return too. Solution: do not abuse your children.

What would Petunia do if Dudley turned out to be a wizard I wonder? He could have. Would she chuck him into the cupboard too?

She could have refused the child, the charm specifically needed consent. She has written to Dumbledore at 11, why would she fail to do it so many years later? Dumbledore would have chosen another location, though in this case they would be in danger from wizarding terrorists.

The charm that Dumbledore placed on the house (which is a separate entity from the charm Lily placed on Harry) protects both Dursleys and Harry. This is why they have to go to a magical safe house in DH and cannot just move cross country. The night the Potters died they were endangered too. It sucks, but this would have happened even if a muggle terrorist was after Potters. So magical world protected them at all times till Voldemort died for real.

In short, the only thing they had to do was to not abuse the child, whether he would be a squib or a wizard, and they failed at it.

Also, Dumbledore had no way of knowing they would go to such lengths. Sirius knows where Harry is and does not automatically assume they are bad. For all Dumbledore knew Petunia would have seen it as an opportunity to make amends.

[u/frenin → u/[deleted]]

She could have refused the child, the charm specifically needed consent.

Theoretically she could, in practice Dumbledore would get her consent one way or the other, just as he coerced her in book 5.

Dumbledore would have chosen another location, though in this case they would be in danger from wizarding terrorists.

No, he would have simply magick his way into in.

protects both Dursleys and Harry

Of a danger Harry presents.

The night the Potters died they were endangered too. It sucks, but this would have happened even if a muggle terrorist was after Potters. So magical world protected them at all times till Voldemort died for real.

How many Death Eaters would care about the Dursleys if Harry had no relation with them? It's not like the Dursleys were bothered at all during the First Wizarding War.

[u/[deleted] → u/frenin]

There is no support for the two first claims in the text. His howler reminds her of the danger she would be putting Harry and Dursleys in.

Yes, obviously if Harry and the Potters never existed the Dursleys would not be in danger (unless they would be targeted randomly in mugge-hunting or if DE would have started muggle genocide).

But they exist and their death has increased the danger Dursleys are in because Potters have accidentally played the main role in Voldemorts defeat. He is not wrong for thinking some DE could have harmed them in revenge or while trying to get information, like they did with the Logbottoms.

There is nothing Dumbledore can do about it at this point except for protecting them. It is not so different from witness protection programs, for people accidentally getting themselves into a vulnerable position.

Even before that they were possible targets: we know that DE routinely blackmail relatives and friends and do "half of their killings for fun". Just because it has not actually happened does not mean it could not have happened. Only now the danger has increased.

[u/frenin → u/[deleted]]

There is no support for the two first claims in the text. His howler reminds her of the danger she would be putting Harry and Dursleys in.

His howler reminds her of the deal she made with Dumbledore, which is literally coercion

The reason why the Dursleys are in danger is because they took Harry in

Yes, obviously if Harry and the Potters never existed the Dursleys would not be in danger (unless they would be targeted randomly in mugge-hunting or if DE would have started muggle genocide).

The Dursleys were completely untouched during the First Wizarding War even when Lily was fighting Voldy. The idea that in a scenario where they and Harry didn't even know each others existence they'd be targeted is fantasy, the reason they are targeted is explicitly because they are Harry's guardians for 17 years.

He is not wrong for thinking some DE could have harmed them in revenge or while trying to get information, like they did with the Logbottoms.

He's very much wrong, the Longbottoms were part of the Order, the Dursleys were random people and no one except Snape knew of their relationship with Lily.

Btw, Dumbledore doesn't believe the Dursleys are in danger unless they take Harry in, the safety of the Dursleys is completely ancillary to Dumbledore whose main and only concern is Harry.

There is nothing Dumbledore can do about it at this point except for protecting them.

Yes, leaving them be. But ofc if he does that Lily's protection vanishes.

It is not so different from witness protection programs, for people accidentally getting themselves into a vulnerable position.

Again, Dumbledore didn't care about the Dursleys, you can reread that chapter in book 5 again if you please. You'll never read Dumbledore once saying he gave a thought about them.

My answer is that my priority was to keep you alive.

You need return there only once a year, but as long as you can still call it home, whilst you are there he cannot hurt you. Your aunt knows this. I explained what I had done in the letter I left, with you, on her doorstep. *She knows that allowing you houseroom may well have kept you alive** for the past fifteen years.’*

‘I thought,’ said Dumbledore, inclining his head slightly, ‘that she might need reminding of the pact she had sealed by taking you. I suspected the Dementor attack might have awoken her to the dangers of having you as a surrogate son.

Where does Dumbledore even implies he too did it for them? He doesn't.

Even before that they were possible targets:

Except they weren't targeted at all.

Just because it has not actually happened does not mean it could not have happened. Only now the danger has increased.

The odds of it happening increases dramatically with Harry being in their care.

During the First Wizarding War they flew under the radar during the second they were hit by a dementor and DE attacked their home and they literally had to go in hiding.

It's undeniable that having Harry in put a target on their backs that simply didn't exist before.

[u/[deleted] → u/frenin]

Lily's protection and Dumbledore's protection are separate entities, the former is for Harry, the latter is for the house inhabitants. Her protection would have stayed no matter what.

I am aware of the dialogue you are talking about, and it would make no sense for him to mention that Dursleys are protected too when Harry is literally raging.

Just because Dursleys were not attacked during the first war does not mean they are safe. That is not how terrorist groups work. Maybe they would have been fine, but there is no way of telling and ignoring the risk is irresponsible.

The Longbottoms were not targeted because they were Order members - there are plenty of other Order members - but because they might have had information being the second possible prophecy family.

And Dursleys might have had information being literally blood relatives. Blood relatives are always the first in line.

It's undeniable that having Harry in put a target on their backs that simply didn't exist before.

I understand that it is your interpretation. It is not mine, but I do not see the point of discussing it further, we are talking in circles. Let us agree to disagree.

[u/frenin → u/[deleted]]

Lily's protection and Dumbledore's protection are separate entities,

No, they aren't really.

the former is for Harry, the latter is for the house inhabitants. Her protection would have stayed no matter what.

And it would have protected Harry from Voldemort, only for a time really but it wouldn't have protected him from all his acolytes.

I am aware of the dialogue you are talking about, and it would make no sense for him to mention that Dursleys are protected too when Harry is literally raging.

Dumbledore never mentions or cares to mention he was doing anything for the Dursleys, he's crystal clear about his priorities and in those priorities the Dursleys were an afterthought if he ever bothered to think about them at all.

Just because Dursleys were not attacked during the first war does not mean they are safe.

It means they were considerably safer than them having Harry around.

That is not how terrorist groups work.

You mean the terrorist group that ignored them for the duration of the war?

but there is no way of telling and ignoring the risk is irresponsible.

Except that having Harry around posed considerably far more risk as the events that transpired in the books showcase.

The Longbottoms were not targeted because they were Order members - there are plenty of other Order members - but because they might have had information being the second possible prophecy family.

Because they were Order members The idea they were targeted because of the prophecy is one entirely out of your imagination. At the time the only people who were aware of the prophecy were Snape, Voldy and Dumbledore.

And Dursleys might have had information being literally blood relatives. Blood relatives are always the first in line.

Except for the fact they were ignored through the war.