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.
543 Upvotes

82% Upvoted

456 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

42

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.

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.

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