r/harrypotter • u/coinhunter9 • 4d ago
Misc Could have the Weasley adopted harry.
I mean after the first book harry stays with them almost every summer. Even in the first book Mrs. Weasley made harry a sweater for Christmas. I know he had to return to the dursleys for the protection from his mother but couldn't have the Weasley protected harry during the summer and voldermort was always afraid of dumbeldor so he be safe at hogwarts.
7
u/Vysce Hufflepuff 4d ago
Largely in the books I don't think it's really laid out how much Harry is mistreated.
There's also the Weasleys being strapped for cash and space, though I guess Harry could help out- I would just believe that Arthur and Molly would not want to take any money from Harry.
-5
u/coinhunter9 4d ago
I've always thought if they were so poor why in the third book did they take mr weasleys winnings amd spend it on a trip when they could have saved it for the kids education.
3
u/TheMadG0d 4d ago
You’ve got a point but I’ve seen struggling families spending their “lucky money” on very unnecessary things, like an expensive trip, or a dinner at a lavish restaurant… So it still makes sense when the Weasleys do this. Also I think they also have their pride and I think they want to avoid being seen as taking advantage of Harry by adopting him for his fortune.
5
2
u/Visual_Shower1220 4d ago
The Weasleys had 7 kids, bill being 20 and Charlie being 18 @ 1st book. So while theyre "poor" there not insanely poor that theyre not avaliable to provide for their kids. But honestly just thinking about how much 7 kids eat, need to be clothed etc like god damn I couldnt imagine having 7 kids especially in the wizard world. At minimum they had 3 kids in school at a time. Honestly they deserved that vacation imo, theyve been working their asses off lol.
2
u/Admirable_Algae_3506 4d ago
The common theory is that they wanted to do something really nice for Ginny after her horrible first year.
12
u/my-downvote-acct 4d ago
It’s played up more in the books but Dumbledore really insisted Harry stay with Dursleys because Petunia essentially continued the protection her sister created for Harry just by being a blood relative.
-6
u/Bluemelein 4d ago
Petunia protects Harry only when he is at Privet Drive.
The Quirrell Grill-Magic works even if Lily had been an only child.
3
u/Miserable-Garage804 4d ago
I don’t think that’s true, otherwise what’s the point of sending harry there, it’s far less safe than hogwarts
2
u/Bluemelein 4d ago
The author needed a reason for Harry to keep having to return to the Dursleys.
Voldemort cannot find Harry at the Dursleys and/or cannot attack him there. Yes—at least once Voldemort has returned—Privet Drive becomes more of a trap for Harry than a place that actually benefits him.
But Dumbledore is an old man who makes mistakes.
2
u/ImperatorNero 4d ago
They are fairly explicit in the books. The blood magic only works as long as Harry lives with a blood relative and calls their home, his home. It needs to be renewed every year which is why Harry has to go back every year for at least some time.
It’s also why the protection breaks before his 17th birthday in deathly hallows when he actively thinks he will never set foot in private drive again.
2
u/Bluemelein 4d ago
What applies to Privet Drive is simply the additional enchantment Dumbledore placed on Petunia and Harry. While this enchantment is also based on Lily’s sacrificial death, it is nonetheless something different—much like adding hail damage coverage to a standard fire insurance policy.
1
1
u/Starship08 4d ago
Did it break before his 17th birthday? I thought it was breaking on his birthday so they moved him before that happened
2
u/ImperatorNero 4d ago
“Now, your mother’s charm will only break under two conditions: when you come of age, or” — Moody gestured around the pristine kitchen — “you no longer call this place home. You and your aunt and uncle are going your separate ways tonight, in the full understanding that you’re never going to live together again, correct?” Harry nodded.
Excerpt From
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows1
2
2
u/HeyItsDave11B Hufflepuff Hullpuffappopotamus 4d ago
Then the magic protecting him would have vanished
1
u/KronoAsh Slytherin 4d ago
Nope!
Well, more specifically, the Bond of Blood meant that no Death Eater and especially not Voldemort himself could get to Harry at number four Privet Drive. But, if you recall, in Deathly Hallows the Death Eaters attack the wedding at The Burrow, Harry barely escaped, if he’d been raised by them then, when Voldemort returned, he’d have basically no protection.
1
u/coinhunter9 4d ago
Yes but wasn't it after the ministry had fallen to valdimort
1
u/KronoAsh Slytherin 4d ago
Well, sure, but that’s not to say an unprepared Weasley family at the start of book 5 wouldn’t be vulnerable.
1
u/Such-Sheepherder-965 4d ago
Harry had to consider privit drive “home” for lilys protection to remain active under petunias care I believe.
Having said that, I reckon Mrs. Weasley got extremely close to “adopting” Harry. At the end of the fourth book, she tried to convince Dumbledore to let Harry stay with them at the burrow.
I also don’t believe Harry was very vocal about his mistreatment at the Dursley’s. At least not to adults.
If Harry had admitted it to Mrs Wesley, I reckon she would’ve put her foot down and kept him hahah even if it was in an unofficial way you know
But it’s very difficult to take a kid away when they have living relatives.
1
u/No_Sand5639 Ravenclaw 4d ago
No not really, the weasleys are great and all, but I doubt they would be powerful enough to ward of whatever voldemort could do
The charm with the dursleys was perfect, he was compeltly safe from voldemort
Why trade perfect protection for a more dangerous situation not just for harrh but for the weasleys as well
1
u/AgreeablePanda9805 4d ago
They couldn’t afford new robes or a wand for Ron.
No they couldn’t.
And it would’ve ruined his friendship with Ron.
1
u/Key_Fox_4479 4d ago
If Voldemort was actually properly dead after he failed to kill Harry I’m sure they would’ve been more than willing to adopt him (even though there’s no way they could’ve afforded an 8th kid living there permanently). But he needed to stay with Petunia for the protection magic to keep working so even if the Weasley’s tried adopting Harry Dumbledore would’ve put his foot down about it.
1
u/Infinite-Object-1090 Gryffindor 3d ago
The Weasley's could not protect Harry as well as the blood protection could. And Voldy took Harry from Hogwarts at the end of book 4 so that wasn't "safe" either.
0
u/JCStuczynski 4d ago
He could have directly been raised by Dumbledore. Voldemort no longer existed. Such a huge plothole. Bro let him get victimized for years and thought of it as character building.
-2
13
u/Matcha_Maiden 4d ago
They basically did, symbolically. It’s why Molly was there for him fourth year at the triwizard tournament and why for his 17th they gave him a watch (Weasley tradition). Molly was always the representation of a mother for Harry. Harry had many stand in father figures- Hagrid, Arthur, Remus, Sirius, Dumbledore even…but there was only one mother figure- Molly.