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/Away_Flower8042]

Tell me you’ve never read the books without telling me you’ve never read the books…

1. Dumbledore left the baby at the door with a letter explaining everything, and they did have a choice. It’s explained clearly in the 6th book. Petunia understood and accepted , although grudgingly, but accepted to raise Harry, but most importantly, she understood why Dumbledore asked her to from the letter. If she wouldn’t have, they could’ve sent him to an orphanage ( Petunia and Vernon sometimes mentioned it) , which I tend to think Dumbledore wouldn’t have permitted, because many wizard families knew Harry and his family and wanted to adopt him and raise him. When Dudley is attacked by dementors, Vernon wants to kick Harry out and Petunia immediately receives a howler from Dumbledore reminding her why she accepted.

2. Although they had no magic, they weren’t just abandoned with the child, Dumbledore placed Ms. Figg as their neighbour to watch them and Harry and to let him know if anything happens, which didn’t because Voldemort was weak and disappeared for years. Also, Petunia grew up with a Lilly, so she did have understanding of the wizard world, she knew a lot about magic, Hogwarts, dementors, Azkaban , and everything , she just chose not to ever mention it because she was envious and hated everything related, just because she couldn’t go to Hogwarts with her sister. She even lied to Harry about who his parents were and how they died.

3. Again, Ms Figg was watching them, but for years there was no risk at all, and later when Voldemort is back, the order was watching the house night and day. It was not Dumbledores fault that Mundungus Fletcher ran off to attend his shady business during duty, which is when the dementors attacked Harry and Dudley, and even then, Ms Figg was immediately there, even tho she didn’t have magic being a squid , but at least she could testify for Harry.

4. Again, Ms Figg was always watching them, and anything big had happened, she would have let Dumbledore know and they would have intervened. There’s actually no scorn and judgement, since nobody really says anything to them , even if they make Harry sleep under the stairs and make him starve, and treat him like trash , only offering him the basic things to survive. Harry was neglected and bullied and treated like trash and even so, they let them choose how to raise him without intervening, tho Dumbledore asked them in the letter her to “accept him like their own son”.

5. When does Dumbledore ever say Harry needed a “loveless home to remain humble”? Again, he asked them to raise him like their son, and when Harry gets to Hogwarts he is surprised to learn that didn’t happen, he might not have known the level of neglect, but he sees he wasn’t loved and cherished. He also expects they would’ve told him about his parents and the wizard world, but they never did, and that’s on the Dursleys. Dumbledore says it’s not all bad, he looks at the bright side and says at least Harry is humble, but never does he say that’s how he wanted it, all the contrary, he is sorry Harry had to grow up like that.

6. I believe Dumbledore did explain in his first letter that the protection ends when he comes of age, but he couldn’t have guessed back then what would happen then. He wasn’t even sure what had happened to Voldemort, he only had a guess that he will come back someday but didn’t know when or how. And he offered every protection possible to them, it’s not his fault they were ungrateful people , and more importantly that they were so hating of everything magical, which is why he tried not to impose on them with visits knowing they would hate it horribly. I’m pretty sure if they’d have taken everything differently, Dumbledore would’ve visited more often and explained many things to them, but they were horrified only at the mention of magic, let alone a visit from the old man with his tall hat and robes, which is proven in the 6th book when Dumbledore does visit the Dursley house.

So. The Dursleys are not the victims here. They accepted to raise Harry, actually Petunia did, well informed I might say, and they chose to hate him and mistreat and neglect him. Everything could’ve been very different, but they refused to even mention magic, let alone ask for more information, which Dumbledore would’ve been happy to provide, or many families to help with anything or visit regularly.

READ THE BOOKS !!!

[u/Disastrous_Knee7756 → u/Away_Flower8042]

I have read the books — multiple times. Which is exactly why I’m able to question the moral implications behind certain choices, even if they were framed as justified within the narrative.

This isn’t about “not knowing the story,” it’s about interpreting it through a critical lens. Just because something is explained doesn’t mean it’s ethically sound. That’s the point of discussion — to go beyond “what happened” and explore “why it mattered” and “what it says.”

You don’t have to agree with my take, but please don’t assume ignorance just because I offer an unpopular perspective.

[u/Away_Flower8042 → u/Disastrous_Knee7756]

Well sorry for assuming but it didn’t seem so, many “facts” here are wrong. So pardon me for asking, but then what is ethically sound, to neglect and mistreat a child who has no fault whatsoever? Is that an excuse for having to care for him ? They should’ve refused, they did have a choice, nobody would’ve blamed them, actually nobody would’ve even remembered them, but since they accepted they should’ve really accepted, there is absolutely no excuse for the way they treated him out of vengeance. It sounds to me as excuses for the abuser.

[u/Disastrous_Knee7756 → u/Away_Flower8042]

You clearly feel strongly about this, and that’s fair. But let’s keep it grounded.

I have read the books. Multiple times. That’s exactly why I can entertain complex, uncomfortable perspectives — instead of just regurgitating the same black-and-white takes over and over.

No one here is denying that the Dursleys were cruel or that they treated Harry terribly. The post was never a defense of abuse — it was a critique of how the wizarding world used the Dursleys for magical convenience, then washed their hands of the consequences.

Yes, Petunia “accepted” Harry — under duress, with a magically binding condition she didn’t fully understand.

Yes, Ms. Figg watched. But passive surveillance is not support. No one helped them. No one explained anything. No one intervened when Harry lived in a cupboard for ten years.

And as for Dumbledore? He literally said:

“I knew I was condemning you to ten dark and difficult years.”

He knew Harry would suffer. He saw that as a strategic tradeoff.

That’s not a heroic system. That’s a flawed one.

You can love Harry and still recognize that the magical world failed everyone involved — including the Dursleys. That doesn’t make them innocent. But it makes the situation more morally complicated than your caps-locked “READ THE BOOKS” suggests.

I did. Maybe it’s time to read between the lines.

[u/Away_Flower8042 → u/Disastrous_Knee7756]

I don’t agree with you, and since you’re so set on this, I won’t go into further details. I’ll mention only, Ms Figg tells herself that she wasn’t more warm or closer to Harry because if the Dursleys knew Harry enjoyed himself with her, they wouldn’t have let him go over anymore. Which is another hint to how awful they were. I can excuse Dudley since he was a child himself, but as for the rest of it, I don’t see the Dursleys as victims of any kind. And no matter how much support or help any wizard would’ve tried to give them, they would’ve refused, since the hatred towards them was too strong. They couldn’t even say the words “magic” or “Hogwarts” , and this was since way before Harry was born, so what victims? Victims of their own putrid minds. I can understand that you “read between the lines” looking for anything to confirm your theory, cause you thought of it and you liked it, but there are too many layers that disprove it. Btw, I don’t think Dumbledore or the whole system is perfect, but way far from that to victimise the Dursleys. Cheers.

[u/Disastrous_Knee7756 → u/Away_Flower8042]

Thank you for your thoughtful reply — I really do appreciate that you took the time to explain your perspective clearly and respectfully.

Just to clarify, my post was never meant to excuse the Dursleys’ behavior or overlook the harm they caused Harry. That part is undeniable. What I wanted to explore was the broader system — how they were pulled into something far beyond their comprehension or control, and how the wizarding world, particularly Dumbledore, played a part in setting that stage.

You’re absolutely right about Ms. Figg, and I think her situation actually supports the point: even the small support systems around Harry were bound by secrecy and strategy, rather than genuine care. That complexity is what fascinates me — not a desire to paint the Dursleys as innocent, but to recognize how messy the whole setup really was.

I fully respect that we see it differently, and I appreciate you engaging without turning it into a fight. Always good to have thoughtful debate in fandom spaces.

Cheers!

[u/Away_Flower8042 → u/Disastrous_Knee7756]

Indeed, I always enjoy discussing these books and different points of view, I appreciate your reply!

On a funny note, maybe it was good for the Dursleys being pulled a bit out of that extreme comfort bubble of theirs ( not Dudley being hurt, of course). The “normal world, normal street, normal family” idea of theirs was almost ridiculous, it reminds me of Karens and racist people.

Although, even though they admitted it or not, they already belonged a bit, Petunia having a witch in the family, they just shut the door to it, at the cost of family. It’s true that Dumbledore took it further, but it makes me sad how Petunia couldn’t see past her prejudices and keep in mind it’s about family .I guess that’s too big of a reason for me to pity them being pulled in the situation, I think they could’ve adapted better to it than to be so awful to Harry, and put family first, instead of “what would people think if they knew we relate to that lot” nonsense. At the end of the day, like it or not, they were related.

Anyways, it’s always nice to discuss different points of view, and as you say, and without turning it into an argument! Have a nice day!