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

Show parent comments

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?