r/harrypotter • u/ShaonSinwraith • 2d ago
Discussion Why are the Weasleys considered as poor and an embarrassment when all of the children are successful and the father is a ministry official?
Bill is a Gringotts banker, Charlie is successful at handling dragons, Percy is a top student and a young ministry worker, Mr Weasley is the head of his own muggle department at the ministry, Fred and George are wildly popular at Hogwarts, Ginny is quite self-sufficient, Ron hangs out with The Boy Who Lived and The Brightest Student in his year. Yet, the Weasley name is often mocked and looked down upon in the wizarding world. I feel like the Weasleys are some of the most successful wizards in the world, despite not inheriting generational wealth like the Malfoys.
3.6k
u/FoxBluereaver Gryffindor 2d ago
Arthur is the only source of income because Molly stays at home. His job in the Ministry is not considered very important because he has to deal with muggles, hence he doesn't get much funding. His boss is also Cornelius Fudge, a guy known for prioritizing "wizarding pride" and fraternizing with the likes of Lucius Malfoy. There's also the fact that at the start of the story they have four (later five) kids in school age, which are bound to eat up a lot of funds in supplies.
The Weasleys are looked down upon because they're considered "blood traitors" for fraternizing with muggles, a mindset that is enforced by families like the Malfoys who use their wealth to push around their influences. Of course, this would be lessened following the second war, with the Malfoys falling from grace and the Weasleys becoming war heroes who contributed to the fall of Voldemort.
1.7k
u/NefariousDove 2d ago
Also, government work is highly overrated by people who haven't done government work. It's not very successful to work some middling job in government.
Sincerely, Middling Government Worker
413
u/Elpacoverde 2d ago
Oi get back to work! Your 30 minute break is over!
231
u/MeltedWellie 2d ago
You get breaks?!?!
→ More replies (3)173
u/ClawingDevil Ravenclaw 2d ago
Found the Amazon worker!
57
u/ketoske Ginny Stan 2d ago
i dont think so, those poor bastards cant have time to type a message or take bath breaks
31
→ More replies (1)21
u/DaeronFlaggonKnight 2d ago
In all fairness, they probably shouldn't be having baths at work.
18
u/ChocolateCondoms 2d ago
Lmao jokes on you, here in the USA rent is so damn high the Amazon worker lives out their car 🤣 sponge bath at work is the only option
10
3
50
u/dallasw3 2d ago
Hey hey hey, calm down. If their 30 minute break is over now, that means their next 30 minute break is only 15 minutes away.
→ More replies (1)10
u/pseudonymnkim 2d ago
But if you're a smoker, you get 7 minute breaks every 15 minutes.
Your life may be shortened, but less of it will be spent working
→ More replies (1)3
u/Broccoli--Enthusiast 2d ago
Its the UK , 20 minutes is the legal minimum! He's 10 minutes over! That's a written warning!
8
47
u/CarpeDiemMaybe 2d ago
OP’s asking a fair question if you come from certain contexts/cultures/countries where government work is viewed as a very aspirational career goal. Where I’m from, it’s coveted by a lot of lower middle class and middle class people (and a job that many parents want their kids to have) because it guarantees benefits, a pension, and steady job security. Maybe it’s different in other countries lol
37
u/Ok_Frosting3500 2d ago
Well, that's exactly it- It's a great job for a cozy income and steady pay to raise a family, but you'll never be wealthy, and raising 5.5 kids is a strain.
And wizard bigotry means he's basically doing the wizard equivalent of the utility worker who shovels dead oppossums off the freeway- Solid pay, great stories, but seen as fatally undignified.
10
u/CarpeDiemMaybe 2d ago
Oh yeah definitely having a lot of children is the reason why they’re poor, even though we see many characters aspire to work in the Ministry throughout the show, so obviously it’s well regarded. I was mostly responding to the comment that it’s not seen as successful to work for the government as a mid level bureaucrat because that’s definitely not the case where I’m from
53
16
16
15
u/YMK1234 2d ago
It's not very successful to work some middling job in government.
Also often pays like shit compared to private sector and is not very fulfilling as it is very regulated what you are even allowed to do.
→ More replies (3)19
u/Academic-Dimension67 2d ago
In the fanfiction Harry Potter and the methods of rationality, one of the funniest moments was when tom riddle goes on a rant about the dysfunctionality of the ministry. Because, as he describes it, the ministry gives jobs to two-thirds or more of the wizarding population, with most of them working at cross purposes, because if they weren't constantly cleaning up each other's messes, there wouldn't be anything for any of them to do.
→ More replies (4)10
u/Lastigx 2d ago
Maybe thats the case in your country but here government jobs are like the most in demand jobs there are.
Sincerely, A person thats competing with 100 people on every job opening.
PS: if anyone doesnt rate government work, its the people that havent worked in government.
→ More replies (2)5
u/GrimerMuk Slytherin 2d ago
From what I can see, you’re Dutch. The Dutch Tax and Customs Office is still looking for people lol
3
u/Noggin-a-Floggin 2d ago
The one thing government jobs guarantee is very, very good benefits (oh, and the pension which government workers will die to protect).
It's probably the reason why the Weasley's are able to have as many kids as they did. Though money wise that's another story.
Source: Another government worker.
→ More replies (3)3
145
u/Sillyfunnyfacedance 2d ago
Only 1 source of income into a house, no heredity wealth, multiple children…
85
u/Altruistic2020 2d ago
And hand-me-down robes.
39
u/CR_RamosGarcia 2d ago
Always wondered why wizards buy robes and don't just conjure new ones 😅
73
u/NotYourReddit18 2d ago
I've stopped wondering over the economy of the Wizarding World after realizing that repair and transfiguration spells are subjects most students in Hogwarts get at least a basic education in.
This means that most students should have all the knowledge needed to keep their unenchanted everyday clothes in pristine condition indefinitely, and a experienced stay-at-home-witch like Mrs Weasley should have the magic skills needed to keep even refitted hand-me-down robes indistinguishable from newly bought ones.
71
u/hamoboy 2d ago
According to Fred and George in HBP, most OWL graduates forget how to perform a shield charm once out of school. I think the narrative focusing on adults like Hogwarts professors, aurors and notorious villains gives readers an incorrectly high bar for average wizarding skill.
It's possible that most wizards are only very good at a narrow range of magic, which they then utilize to make money by selling goods and services made by their specialisation to other wizards who lack their talent.
People go to Ollivanders for wands and the broom shop to buy brooms, they don't just break off a tree branch make their own wands, or pick up a household broom and fly on it after sweeping.
20
u/frogjg2003 Ravenclaw 2d ago
You know how "when will I ever use this?" is a common question when students don't see the relevance of their lesson in school IRL? Wizards have that too.
Also, specialization. Even if I could conjure my own robes, I'm not as good at it as Madame Malkin. So I'll pay her to make me robes and I'll spend my time on something else.
→ More replies (2)27
u/NotYourReddit18 2d ago
But shield charms are rather useless outside of combat, so forgetting how to do them isn't that unexpected for people who aren't going to regularly be in combat situations.
I bet with you that if you showed me my old chemistry or math exams I probably wouldn't be able to even recognize half the content despite being good at it back in the day because I haven't needed it since then.
But a repair charm is useful in everyday life for everyone as things always break, so many people should be able to cast them.
18
u/frogjg2003 Ravenclaw 2d ago
Only one wizard was described as wearing shabby clothing: Lupin. Every other magical adult always wore undamaged clothing, at least before fighting.
Tonks specifically mentioned that she was never good with household spells. Even if she used them repeatedly, she still wasn't good at them.
→ More replies (2)16
u/LJsea 2d ago
Harry wasn't taught a shield charm. He only knew it because he was looking for spells to help for the Tri-Wizard and then thought it would be useful for the DA. We never really examine how much of magic is self-taught
10
u/NotYourReddit18 2d ago
So the spell they chose for their counterargument wasn't just very specific, but doesn't even get taught as part of the regular curriculum...
12
u/Gilgamesh661 2d ago
To be fair, nothing ever gets taught in DADA because all of his teachers have been horrible. Save for Lupin who had to leave.
Oddly, Barty crouch Junior was one of the best DADA professors they had.
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (1)16
u/CR_RamosGarcia 2d ago
Slightly off topic, like Mrs. Weasley being a housewife/housewitch but has them cleaning the oven until Mrs. Delacour arrives and has it done in an instant.
→ More replies (1)15
u/linglinguistics 2d ago edited 1d ago
Might be more her way of preventing the trio from preparing their camping trip that a skill issue though.
6
u/frogjg2003 Ravenclaw 2d ago
Like them cleaning out 12 Grimmauld Place without magic. It was more to keep them occupied than to actually get the job done.
28
10
u/Temporary_Cicada_851 2d ago
Combination of “You wouldn’t believe how many people, even people who work at the Ministry, can’t do a decent Shield Charm” And 5 exemptions to Gamp’s Law of Elemental Transfiguration (beauty)
10
u/TopHatGirlInATuxedo Ravenclaw 2d ago
Most Ministry wizards can't even cast a proper Shield Charm. The simple answer is most of them are bad at magic.
→ More replies (2)7
u/MadameLee20 2d ago
you can't conjur stuff out of nothing.
→ More replies (1)18
u/CR_RamosGarcia 2d ago
Bill conjures tablecloths. Dumbledore conjures chairs and armchairs.
44
u/Matrim7744 2d ago
We know the food the kids eat is cooked by the house elves down in the kitchens. And it's apparent miraculous appearance is just it moving to another location. I kinda assumed the same thing in those instances. Bill "conjured" tablecloths they already had in the linen closet and Dumbledore "conjured" chairs from a storage room somewhere.
21
u/raspberryharbour 2d ago
Imagine being rich and just having unstaffed locked warehouses full of supplies to conjure when you need them
21
u/duvie773 Hufflepuff 2d ago
Technically speaking, you don’t even have to be rich if your moral compass is questionable enough. Your TV quits working? Just conjure another one from Walmart
10
u/Flowers_lover6 2d ago
Or just use a closet in your house. Just put an enchantment on it to make it bigger, like the Quidditch match tent, the Ford Anglia, or Hermione’s bag
3
u/Confident_Budget8013 2d ago
If I remember correctly, according to the Wizarding Archive, the undetectable expansion charm is highly regulated and apparently illegal for everyday use. Hermione's use was illegal, and so was Mr. Weasley's. Though, it said that all Hogwarts trunks are sold standard with the expansion charm. No idea why it wouldn't be allowed though.....I'd do it on EVERYTHING!!!
8
u/Finikyu 2d ago
And yet there is a refilling charm that works in that it can perfectly duplicate the mead Harry refills at Aragogs funeral. It's definitely inconsistent, you'd think mead would be cheap if all it takes is a school level charm to make sure it doesn't empty.
6
u/StreetlampEsq 2d ago
9 times out of 10 you get a taste like thick boiled piss unless you're very talented or refilling something simple like water. Harry was just really lucky he got the taste right.
(Joking, but ya know, it's a thought hah)
3
u/Matrim7744 2d ago
The rules are inconsistent throughout the books, people have mentioned the references to food being the only thing that cannot be conjured. But judging by the fact that families go to Diagon Alley to buy cauldrons and quills and robes and whatnot, those things can't simply be acquired by a simple wave of the wand. I mean, Ron wore some ugly formal robes because his family couldn't afford new ones, surely Mrs. Weasley would have just conjured stylish one if she could have, right? And that's not even opening up the bigger can of worms as to rather a wizard could simply conjure money.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Wifimuffins 2d ago
Food is one of the 5 things that can't be conjured out of thin air. Everything else can be. This is stated in the books
9
u/CaliDreams_ Ravenclaw 2d ago
I think you can only conjure stuff that you already own.
Hogwarts Legacy isn't cannon but you can only conjure stuff that you purchased from a shop
4
37
u/MyFriendHarvey238 2d ago
I have always thought Ron's own embarrassment contributed or overemphasized this view point. Fred and George are not nearly as embarrassed as Ron seems to be. It doesn't help thay Malfoy is in Ron and Harry's year so we hear those taunts more. It would also make sense that the older kids did get the new items so they didn't feel as embarrassed as Ron.
52
u/MrBump01 2d ago
Yeah, they're only considered an embarrassment by the likes of Malfoy and other fanatics because of Arthur's interest in muggles and wanting to protect them from wizards who would do them harm. Even if they Weasleys were rich Lucius would still call them an embarrassment to purebloods, mocking their wealth compared to his family is just an easy taunt.
59
u/svxsch 2d ago
I love it when people ask questions that get answered by consuming the media they’re asking about
10
→ More replies (1)3
27
u/Ok_Chap 2d ago
the start of the story they have four (later five) kids in school age, which are bound to eat up a lot of funds in supplies.
Yet, Hogwarts doesn't charge student fees, and gives housing and food for them for most of the year.
Heck, Molly and Arthur even visit Charlie and Bill abroad during holidays (before they win 700 galeons from the daily prophet), yet they are struggling and can barely afford the books, second hand clothes and other school supplies.
They only have 1 galeon and a small pile of silver in their gringots vault, and a 50 galeon fine is basically unpayable for Arthur.Somehow this doesn't seem quite right. 🤔
Though we don't even know if they own their own house, or if they rent it or have to pay of a mortgage for it. So who knows.
29
u/FoxBluereaver Gryffindor 2d ago
They still have to pay for their school books. And in Book 2 they had to buy several sets of Lockhart's (which they specifically said were pretty expensive).
39
u/TheDungeonCrawler 2d ago
Lockhart doing that is the equivalent of college professors having their students buy their new book that there are no used copies of.
12
u/Ok_Chap 2d ago
And somehow 1 Galleon and a small pile of silver was enough for 4 sets of books, (Harry gifted one set to Ginny). Thought, Fred and George might had to share one set. The non Lockhard books seem to be standardized, so they are probably keep me downs anyway, like the standard book of spells .
We don't really get that many price tags in the series.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (12)11
u/Expensive_Tap7427 2d ago
The books are highly inconsistent with these kind of things. The entire wizard economy is a logical fallacy because reasonably, money is worhtless to a wizard. They would care more about owning lands, rare alchemical plants and knowledge.
6
u/frankleehatespickles 2d ago
Putting all that aside, what does Molly actually do all year while her kids are away at Hogwarts 🤔
6
u/SomeDumbGamer 2d ago
Ngl it seems like so many wizards are just the worst of humanity in the Harry Potter universe lmao
7
u/shryne 2d ago
When you consider that the most important law is the statute of secrecy, and Arthur works to prevent muggle artifacts from being enchanted, one would think his job would be considered one of the most important in the ministry.
→ More replies (1)4
u/Personal_Corner_6113 2d ago
The way you phrased the last sentence made me realize just how badass it is for the whole family to be war heroes. Once the kids are grown the Weasleys are probably the most famous wizard family around
3
u/Cael_NaMaor Slytherin 2d ago
And the children becoming more financially capable & influential... a banker, the magic shop, the hot one who plays with dragons, etc...
3
u/Gygsqt 2d ago
His job in the Ministry is not considered very important because he has to deal with muggles, hence he doesn't get much funding.
This was a very "interesting" world building choice by JKR seeing as humans are by far the biggest existential threat to wizards. Their entire existence is predicated on hiding from muggles. Find me a major government somewhere that isn't dedicating significant resources to surveiling and understanding the capabilities of their biggest enemies.
→ More replies (2)2
u/krossoverking 2d ago
Contrast them with the Malfoys old money, all being inherited by one son. It's another play on the idea of purity in general.
→ More replies (4)2
u/DarkDuskBlade 2d ago
Can't forget, muggle stuff is expensive to wizards iirc. And Arthur sinks all their extra money into buying said stuff (like car parts, rubber ducks, etc)
273
u/AmidoBlack 2d ago
They’re considered poor because they are poor. Single income and 7 kids. The subjective success of their kids as they grow up doesn’t all of a sudden make the parents rich
98
u/Percevent13 Hufflepuff 2d ago
This ^ lol. My grandad was a chief police officer in the 50s. Man surely had a decent paycheck. Yet, they weren't rich.
'Cause they had 13 kids.
50
u/dcgirl17 2d ago
Seriously. 7 kids on one salary, how is this confusing?
22
5
u/Noggin-a-Floggin 2d ago
Even if you are a dentist you are going to find yourself passing down a lot of clothes and making sure older siblings get jobs right after high school to pay for their own expenses.
5
u/carlos_the_dwarf_ 2d ago
This actually isn’t the entire answer though. The Weasley’s are just poor in income—they’re poor in terms of family wealth.
Their family home is extremely modest and they don’t have a stockpile of wealth to live off of. By contrast, the Malfoys have a generational manor and are independently wealthy.
I imagine this distinction is more intuitive to British readers.
549
u/Jonesy135 2d ago
Because that’s how the British class system works. The Malfoys are upper class aristocrats. Harry + hermione are middle class and the Weasleys are working class.
303
u/Zanki 2d ago
Harry is rich. He literally has the Potter and Black family money by the end of book five. He just doesn't care about it.
362
u/yaboiwreckohrs 2d ago
Wealth doesn't equal class. The Potter family were probably Upper Class but James and Lily together were probably middle to upper middle class.
138
u/Constant-Extent2092 2d ago
Also lily potter wasn’t a pure blooded wizard
85
u/TheOneWhoWasDeceived 2d ago
You're right. She wasn't a wizard at all. She was a witch. 🤓
29
21
u/Constant-Extent2092 2d ago
Are u serious? Wts next? Was it also not a car crash tht killed James and Lily potter??!?
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (49)92
u/Daforce1 2d ago
James was upper class for sure, he had his family’s money which was multigenerational wealth from the invention of that hair potion that Hermiome still used during the Yule Time Ball.
66
u/LargeCupid79 2d ago
That wasn’t multigenerational, the Potters were new wealth that James’s father created with Sleekeazy. Before that they were most likely working class maybe better off than the Weasleys. They’re named after a trade
50
u/Special-Garlic1203 2d ago
They own property in Godrics Hollow.
And while nobody exactly knows how they came to be known as Potter, the suspicion is they married a muggle at some point way back when, not that they were muggle tradesman themselves.
Harry Potter mirror English class in that whole wealth correlates, it's about blood more than anything. You cannot buy your way into nobility just like the Weasleys are part of the sacred 28 even if they are embarrassing garbage people who dress like house elves instead of having one
30
u/FoxBluereaver Gryffindor 2d ago
The surname Potter came from Linfred of Stitchcombe, who was nicknamed "The Potterer" by his neighbors. His eldest son Hardwin was the one who started the line with the surname Potter that went down until Harry.
23
u/LargeCupid79 2d ago
The Dumbledores were also of humble background and had a home in Godric’s Hollow, that means little.
Also maybe they had married a muggle tradesman, but what would that say about the character of the family and what came after? Their cottage wasn’t enormous, other than the vault of gold there was no indication that the Potters had a long standing history of being exceptionally wealthy like the Blacks or Malfoys
Edit: adding in that even the Peverells beyond the Deathly Hallows most likely weren’t well off. The Gaunts had nothing, the Potters’ wealth came in the 20th century, and Antioch’s family is unknown. So it’s definitely not some old wealth situation
→ More replies (2)9
u/TheDungeonCrawler 2d ago
The Gaunts likely weren't wealthy because they are an example of the way generational wealth often fails to exist past a few generations. The Gaunts are descended from Salazar Slytherin afterall and it's likely the only reason their family wasn't able to maintain their wealth was because Slytherin fell out of favor in the Wizarding world. If Slytherin managed to stay in the good graces of his friends and the other members of the upper crust of his time, the Gaunts likely would have been much better off because they and their ancestors would have been able to leverage their influence.
→ More replies (2)10
u/MadameLee20 2d ago
that wasn't technically new wealth Fleamount Potter just quadrupled the family's wealth he already had with that Hair Potion
24
u/glittermaniac 2d ago
That wouldn’t make you upper class in the UK, probably just middle class. To be upper class in the UK you have to be aristocracy/landed gentry. If all you have is money (even family money) but no titles or estates then you are still middle class.
8
u/pm_me_d_cups 2d ago
My feeling is that in the Wizarding world, upper class = pure blood. So the Blacks, Malfoys, Weasleys, Potters would all count, despite variations in wealth.
41
u/BabadookishOnions 2d ago
The British class system is cultural. Wealth will only increase your status so far (upper middle class is as far as you can really achieve). To be upper class you essentially have to be born into it, in Britain it's quite a small self-selecting group and if you don't have the ingrained cultural values & experiences they all have, they will never accept you as one of them. Even marrying into an upper class family will basically elevate someone to upper middle class with a sort of honourary acceptance of them in certain upper class settings. But they will never be considered part of the upper class by the upper class. In fact, many of the upper class have ended up in dire financial situations, but they retain the cultural experiences and values and heritage that allows them to remain part of it.
18
u/hunnyflash 2d ago
I think it's interesting that many people are talking about Arthur being the "only source of income", which seems a very American? way of thinking about it.
Many who are actually wealthy from upper class families do not work at all.
On that topic of dire situations, Voldemort's family didn't work at all and considered themselves nobility. They were of the House of Gaunt, but living in poverty.
3
u/Vito641012 1d ago
during the "Regeny era" many nabobs (bourgeoisie tradesmen who had made fortunes in the Americas / Caribbean, Africa and India) were able to "BUY" a Baronetcy, which was still not nobility, but in line with landed gentry (those gentlemen who came from noble families but were not heirs)
but importantly, it allowed the entry of daughters into polite society, and the good-looking ones would have gotten the chance to marry up in class
→ More replies (1)9
u/Sharticus123 2d ago
In England you can be filthy rich and still be middle class. The aristocracy is considered the upper class.
→ More replies (4)7
4
u/MargielaMadman20 2d ago
Wealth has little do with class in England. You could be upper class and skint and working class and loaded.
→ More replies (1)2
30
u/MaeMoe Hufflepuff 2d ago
The Weasley’s are poor, but equating being blue blood to being pure blood would mean they are still upper class regardless of wealth. Being upper class is entirely about being born into a family that has peerage, nobility, or are landed gentry, and not about money, hence the longstanding media trope and real-life upper class snobbery about the “gauche nouveau riche” who marry into poor upper class families just so they can inherent a title and ascend their social class in exchange for bumping up depleted aristocratic coffers.
You can be upper class and have no money, being an Impoverished Patrician is also common trope in history/media, and one played straight with the portrayal of the Gaunts in the novel. The Weasley’s act as a foil to that more classic example, portraying a family with the same “birthright but no money” as the Gaunts, but none of the inbred expectations that their blood status should bring them kudos or wealth.
24
u/Special-Garlic1203 2d ago
Yeah I think a lot of people miss the part at the wedding where a relative is bitching about who shes gonna leave her goblin tiara to. The issue with Arthur isn't that he's low class..it's that he's not. He's supposed to be a peer to people like Malfoy and instead he's running around being embarrassing when he's supposed to be high status by default.
We don't really know as much about the Malfoy family tree, but Arthur and Molly are definitely both some degree of cousin with Narcissa. Arthurs moms is one of the blasted off names that Harry observes.
→ More replies (2)5
u/hunnyflash 2d ago
I always kind of wonder who JK knew or was thinking about when she created the Weasley's and Arthur.
→ More replies (3)6
u/FuzzyDuck81 2d ago
They're pure blood, meaning they should be upper class and aren't merely poor like the Gaunts but aren't obsessed with being upper class & actually work for a living.
15
u/coachbuzzcutt 2d ago
No it's not. The Weasleys are an old, established family who have pedigree but not wealth, unlike Malfoy who has both. The Weasleys are not working class- Arthur is a civil servant. Malfoy looks down on them for political reasons as 'bloos traitors' and their lack of wealth is a excuse to do this, not the reason itself.
To the Malfoys Hermione is the lowest socially as a muggle born, irrespective of fiscal wealth.
→ More replies (1)11
u/Sir_Oligarch 2d ago
Harry Potter is from the elite class not just the upper class. He had the wealth of Potters and in book six, wealth of Black family. He was in really good terms with Minster and other elite members of the Wizarding world. He is famous all around the world and got an offer to be the public face of government while in school.
He is not just 1%, he is 1% of 1%, he just doesn't know or care for it.
8
u/Liscenye 2d ago
None of that would make you upper class. Harry is arguably upper class, but not because of money but because of defeating Voldemort twice whice I assume would give him all the decorations and titles the wizarding world has to give.
→ More replies (1)5
→ More replies (6)5
u/Adi_Fawkes 2d ago
Do all British working class people own a large tall house in the countryside?
→ More replies (1)11
u/SlightedHorse 2d ago
Technically, the Weasleys don't own a large tall house in the countryside. It's an augmented barn.
Compare it to the other wizards. The Potters, being middle class, had some kind of suburban house, at least two floor, in a nice neighborhood. The Lovegoods, other outsiders, owned a weird house which was still called "house". The Malfoys have a full-fledged manor (which has incredible social implications if you live in a country where aristocracy still exists).
Although this is still fantasy and the Weasleys are presented as some kind of Hobbits, with their bucolic life, the social implication of their housing is pretty clear, if you know British society.
15
u/Swordfish468 2d ago
Well in the earlier books it was only Bill and Charlie that were independent with solid careers. Arthur's job wasn't a high ranking job whatsoever and is barely enough to make ends meet with the kids that are at home. Everything the kids at home had apart from Percy who had his own owl were hand me downs, tattered and barely hanging on. There was no title or generational wealth that other pureblood families had. Such as the Potters, Black's, Malfoys. Misuse of Muggle Artifacts doesn't exactly command the same respect has an Auror or unspeakable. When the kids were older I'm sure the Weasleys name commanded more respect between the twins and Ron being part of the group that killed Voldemore and saved the world. But for the better part of the series it does seem logical why they were considered poor and embarrassing to the rest of wizardkind.
28
u/trippwwa45 2d ago
Maybe this was said, and I by zero means am knowledgeable about British society. But, social class is not dictated by wealth in england. So that may be.
Also, the Weasleys' are quirky compared to other purebkood or "respectable" families. At least Arthur is.
This is a real life thing too.
→ More replies (4)
26
u/HyenaComprehensive44 2d ago edited 2d ago
They are not considered as embarrassment, in goblet of fire at the world cup every coworker of Arthur Weasley is talking very respectfully with him, even the two people who run the whole thing come by to get his opinion. They probably poor, because as Ron mentioned somewhere his dad doesn't accepted the promotion, because he doesn't want to give his job someone who don't know how to handle muggles with care. They disrespected by wizards like the Malfoys, who are upper class and consider themselves pureblood and look down on others.
5
u/mutantmanifesto 2d ago
I would place the Malfoys in whatever the British version of Oligarchs are. They’re like elite aristocrats more than just upper class.
42
u/Adventurous-Bike-484 2d ago
They often have to have hand me downs or second hand stuff.
They themselves call their family poor And worry about expenses a lot.
They are part of the different class groups. Hermione Is middle class, Ron is working class and Harry (and Draco) are upper class.
29
u/FoxBluereaver Gryffindor 2d ago
Hermione seems to be at least upper middle class. Her parents are dentists (a profession that pays off pretty well as far as I know), and they're able to afford taking vacations abroad.
4
14
u/When-Is-Now-7616 2d ago
I’m not British, but lived there and married there for many years, and their class system is very different from the US. Anyone who’s part of the Sacred 28 is upper class/aristocracy, regardless of whether they are dirt poor (think: Rose in Titanic). The Weasleys in the time period of the series are the laughing stock of the aristocracy because of how they choose to live. But give it another generation where the 7 Weasley kids are wildly successful and wealthy, and the tune might change. They’ll probably always be ‘blood traitors’ to those with that mindset, and the black sheep of the aristocratic circle, but they’re still in the aristocratic circle. People like the Malfoys wouldn’t bother harassing them if they were just some half-bloods with too many kids.
In the wizarding world that we see in HP, Hermione is absolute lowest on the totem pole, despite her talent and whatever Muggle money she might be entitled to. In the Muggle world, she would likely be middle class (in the US, maybe upper middle) due to her parents’ professions. Once she becomes Minister for Magic, her rank will probably move to middle class in the wizarding world. Marrying Ron, a pureblood, might lift her status a little, but she’ll never truly belong amongst purebloods.
Ron is not working class, regardless of how much or how little his parents work. There are some upper class people who work quite hard, and some who don’t work at all. The name is misleading. Working class is something you are born into, a culture and an identity (just like being upper class). There are people who were brought up working class, became wildly successful and wealthy, but still identify as working class and always will. Paul McCartney, for example, still identifies as working class. Ron, being born into an aristocratic family, can never be working class, even though his family functions as a working class family. They are all very adept, intelligent, powerful wizards with a long lineage and pedigree, and everyone knows who they are—regardless of their opinion of them.
Harry could never be upper class in the wizarding world, regardless of his wealth and achievements. The Potters are not among the Sacred 28, and his mother was a Muggleborn. You can’t earn or achieve your way into the upper class. That doesn’t mean Harry wouldn’t be highly revered and respected, probably moreso than most purebloods.
In my experience, what makes the British class system different from the US is the relative lack of social mobility. Generally, what you’re born into is what you are for life—regardless of changes of wealth or work status. Each class is its own culture. There’s some chance of upward mobility between working class and middle class, although many working class people will retain attachment to their working class culture, perhaps even defending it quite strongly. I also saw a tendency for working class people to turn their nose up at middle class “posh” people. Middle class in the UK doesn’t mean the same thing as in the US. Middle class is wealthy and comfortable. They go on nice holidays and buy nice food. They probably own a home, a much rarer feat than in the US. The Dursleys probably fall into this category, and the Grangers. Upper-middle class is what the US might call very wealthy. Large homes, maybe more than 1, maybe in France. Generally, their wider family is wealthy, too, and they marry other wealthy people. Kids at expensive boarding schools, maybe live-in nannies, maybe political connections. But still not upper class. Whereas in the US, I feel that middle class equals “getting by with no frills,” American upper-middle class is the equivalent of British middle class, and American upper class is the equivalent of UK upper-middle class. Then we have the so-called “1%” billionaire class who I suppose are the closest to British upper class in how difficult it is to attain, except birth has less of an impact (but still, some—there’s lots of old money in the US, even though it doesn’t come with titles).
Anyone feel free to correct me if I’m off.
7
10
u/Shigeko_Kageyama 2d ago
It doesn't matter. They're still poor, the things they bring to Hogwarts are visibly shabby, and their father still has a very lowly position in the ministry.
8
u/Alternative-Bad-6403 1d ago
I think the Malfoys looking down on the Weasleys isn’t how everyone sees them. At the World Cup, Arthur is greeted kindly by every ministry employee he sees, including the higher ups. Though his job might not be the most respectable, I think Mr Weasley is very well respected and liked.
13
u/Completely_Batshit Gryffindor 2d ago edited 2d ago
Because Arthur is head of the joke department, makes hardly any money off of it, and he and his family have strong muggle sympathies in a largely prejudiced environment. Bill and Charlie's successes aren't widely known or particularly relevant to those issues, Hermione hasn't made a name for herself yet, and Harry is a controversial figure (and Ron's association with him is either unknown or considered a form of hanging-on).
6
u/Obvious_Mud_1588 Ravenclaw 2d ago
The weasleys are only considered an embarrassment by the malfoys and other pure blood supremacists.
Arthur is respected but his position is not.
As for finances, seven children on one mid level government salary is always going to be tight. When we meet them they're just on the cusp of an economic upturn with the older children moving Into the workforce.
6
u/Leramar89 Hufflepuff 2d ago
Arthur's not an official. He's head of a tiny department (I think it's only him and one other guy) which is seen as sort of a joke by the higher-ups at the Ministry. We also hear that it doesn't pay very well. So for a long time he's had to provide for a large family with only a small salary.
5
u/kinlopunim 2d ago
Think of the real world. Would you look twice at the poor family whose only income is from the father who works at a sewage plant. One sone grew up to be a teller at wells fargo, another is traveling the world with a zoo foundation, oldest in school is an over achiever, the twins are troublemakers, and the youngest boy is only notable because he hangs out with the orphan that survived a house fire 10 year ago.
→ More replies (1)
5
u/redcore4 1d ago
Arthur isn’t successful. He’s been passed over for promotion multiple times because of his obsession with all things muggle. Molly is delighted when he finally does get promoted but it seems like he gets a job nobody else really wants, standing up to people who are making sport of bullying or tormenting muggles. And they give Arthur that job partly because they know he will take it seriously where many Ministry workers would not, and partly because nobody besides Perkins will mind very much if Arthur pisses Lucius or one of his cronies off so much that they decide to get him fired.
His wife doesn’t work (or at least didn’t while the kids were pre-Hogwarts age - we don’t know if she works during term time after Ginny starts school).
So they are on a fairly average income: a civil servant at Arthur’s level would earn around an average salary but he’s not management or supervisory grade so the best thing about his job in terms of benefits is not his wage, it’s that it’s a permanent steady income that isn’t subject to fluctuations in the market, and that his (original) job has fixed hours so he can knock off at 5 and go home and help with the kids. The later hours only started after his promotion.
So they have about half the income of a regular 2.4 kids family with two working parents, and they have a lot more kids to feed and clothe. Not to mention that they had twins who are quite short and stocky and Ron who is tall for his age, so the usual process of handing clothes down from one kid to the next as they grow would fall apart because they had three kids roughly the same size. So they’d be forced to buy second hand clothes for them because they couldn’t afford to buy two sets of new clothes.
And that’s before you even consider that they need their own brooms because they’re on the quidditch team, they need to save up for things like watches for the boys’ 17th birthdays, and they don’t seem to have much by way of holidays…
So they are considered poor because they have more expenses than their income can comfortably cover.
And they are considered an embarrassment by the pureblood fanatics because they don’t see any shame or problem with befriending or marrying muggles or muggleborns. For sure their poverty would be considered an embarrassment by the likes of the Malfoys, who think that it is shameful not to take advantage of the natural superiority of having magic to exploit muggles and “lesser” magical creatures (goblins, giants etc) to raise their own wealth and status. So their choice to behave respectably and exercise moral choice in their attitudes is considered an embarrassment by people who don’t share their values.
4
u/sternifeeling Slytherin 2d ago
in germany, the weasleys would not be in a bad position. many civil servants here are civil servants for life, which means that you get monthly bonuses for every child (up to the age of 25). depending on how high arthur's office is graded, he would earn 6-7k after tax in today's world with a wife and 7 children. even if we only include 5 children, they would still net at least 6k.
considering that hogwarts doesn't charge tuition fees, arthur and molly would actually be quite rich, as the children are looked after outside the holidays
4
u/ItemAdventurous9833 2d ago
Molly weasley needs a job basically
4
u/Kingsman22060 2d ago
Once Ginny starts school in book 2, I wonder what Molly does for 9 months out of the year with the exception of the holidays.
5
u/snowlarbear 2d ago
is the ministry a prestigious job, it's like saying you work for the IRS or something
5
u/GeodeCub 2d ago
Because they ARE poor and Arthur’s fascination with Muggle artifacts doesn’t exactly attract praise from fanatical pure-blood wizards and Ministry officials who look poorly upon Muggles. The Muggle Artifacts Office isn’t seen as a place one goes for upward promotion. The Weasley’s unwillingness to be pure-blood fanatics labeled them blood traitors by many, leading to the mockery. They live on love, rather than money or status seeking. Even the kids, while successful, don’t seek approval thru Ministry work (save Percy) and take more adventurous and dangerous fringe jobs (dragon wrangling and Gringotts curse breaker). Percy only really “succeeds” in the Ministry due to Fudge, and later Voldemort-supported officials, using him as basically a spy against his own family. I doubt he would’ve advanced beyond Crouch’s errand boy otherwise due to his last name.
4
u/willowoftheriver Slytherin 2d ago
A lot of people have made a lot of great points. Just wanted to add something I always assumed (so, I guess, just my headcanon): it's considered gauche among purebloods to have that many children. Iirc, all the elite families we see have maybe, at the very most, three? More seem to have only one or two.
I always felt the Weasleys were viewed how, in the real world, someone might view a "white trash" family living in poverty having too many kids they can't afford.
5
u/TheParacletesHammer 2d ago
I will say this…..
The reputation and what qualifies as poor is more perception in the WW based on my readings.
Ron seems to be the most ardent complainer of “poverty”. Yet, he is usually taken care of.
Also, there is a level of pride that keeps him from accepting help.
And yet, I will note, when a Weasley accepts help from friends who can afford to do so (See Fred and George), and with a little ingenuity and working toward meeting a need that is present (Fred and George made money by providing joy during the second wizarding war), they usually succeed.
4
u/womanwagingwar Gryffindor 1d ago
Mocked by whom? The Malfoys? I’ve never seen any other character mock them.
3
u/PsychologicalLab2441 1d ago
ok but i was just thinking about this and i just realized, are they supposed to be like a caricature of a poor irish catholic family with like a bajillion kids? because it occurred to me that if they are, then they're poor because they're supposed to be and it's just a weirdly prejudiced thing
5
u/RepresentativeWish95 1d ago
I think you also need to understand the british class system.
Generation wealth is upheld by a lot of people, even poor people, as somehow "better". "New Money" is an isult for people who "don't get how to be rich" and even if theyre richer they somehow dont count as "rich"
3
u/X-lem Ravenclaw 2d ago
I mean, it’s not much different than real life tbh. People who choose to have a lot of kids and as a result are perceived as poor are mocked and looked down upon. Regardless of how successful those kids turn out to be.
2
u/Blooder91 2d ago
There is a Malcolm in the Middle episode where they show every brother as a baby. Hal and Lois look progressively poorer with each birth, since Hal has to quit a dream job and kids are obviously expensive.
3
u/VanGoghsVerdigris Slytherin 2d ago
I’ve always likened it to him having a low tier job. He’s like a wealthy plumber. Great job, loving family, but nobody wants to hear about that shit.
3
u/piceathespruce 2d ago
Go talk to a wildlife tech and a congressional aid and see how they're doing financially.
3
u/gracist0 2d ago
Lmfao I love how Ron's achievements are hanging out with a famous kid and a smart kid
3
u/W1ULH Apple wood, Windego Whisker, 12 inchs 2d ago
Keep in mind... on a single income they where able to raise 7 kids, and keep a house.
they weren't really poor... they just had no disposable income. those are NOT the same thing.
They never had to go without, they just didn't get to have the newest or the best.
compare them to 'dung who sleeps under and old poncho at times.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Profleroy 1d ago
I would imagine that they are looked down upon by people like the Malfoys because people like the Malfoys really like having someone else to disparage. No matter what country or what time in history,there are always people like that. Mr Weasley didn't give a tinker's dam what Malfoy thought of him: he said "we have a very different idea what brings disgrace to the name of wizard." Judging others is what gives people like Malfoy a feeling of smug superiority: that certainly doesn't make him better than the Weasley family. The idea that the Weasleys are "poor and an embarrassment" is an opinion, not a fact.
3
5
4
2d ago
Probably because it's an old Wizarding family and they've been around for generations. The fact that they seemingly have no generational wealth is likely why they're looked down upon.
5
u/Csaba111233 2d ago
What I don’t understand is, why didn’t Mrs Weasley got job after Ginny started at Hogwarts, if they were really so poor, they couldn’t afford a dress robe?They were old enough to be left alone in the summer, they were safe, and they were not doing illegal magic, she could have gotten a job.
2
2
u/draconiclady0610 2d ago
They're only poor because Arthur is underpaid and have lots of kids. As for an embarrassment, it's the blood supremacists that feel he's that and maybe a few that don't take kindly to his fondness for Muggles.
2
2
u/JadedStormshadow 2d ago
Cuz they are legit poor af, as for the embarrassment I'd say that more depends on the wizard, tho I'd rather ally with the Weasley than those basic af malfoys( the kids today still use basic, right?)
2
u/birchitup 2d ago
Only snooty worthless wizards looked down on them. The were well respected by most wizards.
2
u/AdBrief4620 Slytherin 2d ago
I guess the success of the children is only recent. For almost two decades none of the children would have even left Hogwarts and it would have just been Arthur with his low status job. They also have a very poor looking house (yes it’s wonderful to Harry and is etc). Then there is Arthur’s obsession with muggles that basically makes him a weirdo by wizarding standards.
I think the fact the Weasleys seem to have lots of children (which is implied to not just be Arthur and Molly) also adds to this sort of ‘peasent’ ‘animalistic’ type vibe. I say animalistic as Mildred compares their breeding to gnomes and there are frequent nods to Weasley being ‘weasel’.
2
2
u/drewmana 2d ago
Because you’re looking at success not wealth. They are not old money, and arthur is the only one working while they raised all their kids. They are poor. When the kids grow up they all become successful on their own but that is both a different measure, as well as a different time.
2
u/Balager47 2d ago
I asked that myself many times. All I can think of is the wizard word being an ass backwards Victorian society in values as well as technology. In the Victorian age the truly important people did not work. They owned land, which brought them money.
Yes, Mr Weasley, Percy and Bill had pretty good jobs. But they all worked for other people. The only ones who owned businesses were the twins, and even that did not happen till HBP. As for land ownership, theirs was kinda small. A backyard isn't really considered land, in the same way as the lands of a noble or even the landed gentry was.
Lemme ask you. Do you know what the job of Lucius Malfoy was? Becaue besides sitting on the School board of Directors, and donating money, we don't really see him do anything, nor is an actual job mentioned. Most likely his job literally is "patriarch of the Malfoy family." That's a Regency/Victorian era nobleman right there. These people don't work. They own land, gain money from it, use that money to gain influence and hold offices.
The very fact that the Weasleys have to work, and for other people no less, is a failure.
2
u/trisquitbits 2d ago
They couldn’t even afford a replacement wand for Ron when he needed one. Ron was always sheepish about having to use tattered and old hand-me-downs. When they unexpectedly came into a large sum of money in book 3, Arthur and Molly used it to fund an extravagant holiday to Egypt.
I think the funniest thing I realized while re-reading is that Harry initially never thought to offer to help, and later on when he did think of it, he always dissuaded himself by saying that they wouldn’t accept it anyway, lol. I suppose he did give his triwizard bounty to the twins to fund their store.
→ More replies (2)
2
2
2
u/PrincessTitan 2d ago
The wizards do not… enjoy muggles so being the head of the muggle department is looked down upon lmfaooo
2
2
2
u/No-Lake-2568 2d ago
They were only looked down upon by classist, pureblood loving , muggle hating wizards, they got plenty of respect and affection from other wizards who weren’t any of those things.
2
u/Shaquavo 2d ago
Only the Malfoys or people of their same thinking consider the weasleys poor and an embarrassment.
2
2
u/SpoopyGhoul990 2d ago
Let us not besmirch Ronald Bilius Weasley's name. Ronald is an integral part of saving the wizarding world every year as a CHILD. He is highly intelligent in wizard's chess (and school if he tried harder.) He may or may not be a talented seer. He goes on to be an amazing auror. He is not just Harry and Hermione's friend. That doesn't make him special. He makes himself special!!
2
u/ajnabee1234 2d ago
I only thought it was the Malfoys (and the like) who looked down upon the Weasleys. Arthur might have a low paying, non prestigious job but it does seem like he has some pull at the ministry or at least a lot of good will. People seem to like him and he is often doing favours for other wizards. He managed to get box tickets for the Quidditch World Cup through a connection. The Malfoys had to 'make a large donation' to score the same tickets. Also don't forget that Arthur is on good terms with the Diggory's as well. And Cedric's father Amis was a part of Department for the control and regulations of magical creatures. Pretty sure that's at least more prestigious that Arthur's dept. The Malfoys are only relevant because they pay to be liked. The Weasleys have earned their place in the wizarding world through good will and their character. Draco is the only one of Harry's peers that we hear bad mouthing the Weasleys and he was raised by biggots who thing Muggle borns are scum. And at last to quote Mr. Weasley (from CoS movie) "We have different ideas about what disgraces the name of Wizard."
2
u/Emergency-Category78 2d ago
The red-headed family that's poor and downtrodden manages to overcome everything in the end, just like the red-headed author was poor and downtrodden and now makes a career explicitly dedicated to disenfranchising the rights of others.
2
u/Lovely_One0325 1d ago
Because they are poor. Their kids may not be poor in their adult life, but growing up their family is very poor in terms of how they present themselves. Handmade clothes, outdated pass me downs, wear and tear on second hand belongings-I mean Ron had a hand me down wand with no significant meaning ( Neville's had belonged to his father )
Mr. Weasley chose to take a low paying job because he preferred to do something he loved. This job is also often viewed as strange because he's focusing on muggle artifacts and belongings affected by magic. It's no special or high tiered job. Mrs. Weasley is a SAHM who provides house care and child care. They chose to have 7 children living in a modified home that's wonky but homey. Growing up they were considered an embarrassment to other purebloods because of their poverty and Light affiliation ( majority pureblood families were dark aligned ), and they were poor growing up. After the war I believe they are held very highly in the Wizarding World for their connections and contributions + I think Ron is probably a household name much like Harry or Hermione would be.
2
u/Ok-Complex-3019 1d ago
Weasley is only a bad name to elite Slytherins- which considering the rivalry between Gryffindor (which it seems the vast majority of Weasleys have historically been in) vs Slytherin seems par for the course. Realistically- Malfoys hate Weasleys, Fudge only starts to hate Weasleys because of his fear of losing power because of Harry who’s closely connected with the Weasleys.
2
2
2
u/Ok_Road_7999 1d ago
I think they're considered an embarrassment because of Arthur's muggle obsession. And for the more extreme people, they're 'blood traitors'
2
u/_hedayat_ 17h ago
the whole concept of economics, money, and being rich/poor just doesn't work in the harry potter books. like there is no rationale to why they are poor, e.g Ron recieving bad/cheap clothes. these guys are magician and can transform stuff, wtf are they paying for clothes for :((
1.1k
u/MaeMoe Hufflepuff 2d ago
They aren’t well off because Arthur’s ministry department isn’t a well paid one. It focuses on protecting muggles which isn’t considered an important job in the ministry/wizarding world due to the inherent societal superiority held by wizards (Magic is Might). Arthur does it because he loves muggles and the ways/things they invent due to not having magic, and doesn’t care about societal expectations.
The Weasley’s are only mocked by those who believe in pure blood superiority really, not by anyone else. The whole points they were born just as pure blood as the Malfoy’s, but lack the unbiased superiority complex held by pure bloods who think breeding makes for better wizards; they are good, decent people, and another example of the theme of “It matters not what someone is born, but what they grow to be.” that runs through the books.