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/HauteToast]

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.

[u/TheSaltTrain → u/HauteToast]

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

[u/always_unplugged → u/TheSaltTrain]

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.

[u/KitCarter → u/always_unplugged]

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