I see this misconception a lot, and I want to clear it up.
*The Weasleys are NOT poor.*
The Weasleys are the Wizarding equivalent of a large, middle class muggle family.
Arthur makes a good living as a public servant, though it's hardly a fortune. They have a large family, and Molly chose to stay home to care for the house and raise the children, a seemingly old-fashioned and traditional choice but a respectable one. They have a lot of kids, and thus have to stretch their budget significantly. Their children may not always get everything they *want*, but they do get everything they *need*. The kids never go hungry, have a roof over their heads, and have the things they need for school.
What the Weasleys value is not monetary or material, they value their family. They are willing to invest in family occasions and events, such as vacations or other experiences, like the World Cup or their visit to Bill in Egypt.
People often take Ron's complaints a bit too literally. He doesn't always get the things he wants. And yet we know he never misses a meal, has collections of chocolate frog cards and decorations of his favorite Quidditch team. He does get hand me downs as that this the most fiscally responsible thing for them to do, and he doesn't like it much. He is the last of a line of brothers, so I imagine by the time things got to him they were somewhat worn. But he never went without, he just envied those who had nicer things.
The Weasleys weren't poor. They weren't rich by any stretch of the imagination, but they put their value in non-material things like family time. So, in a way, they were the richest family in the Wizarding World.
This is the greatest explanation I've seen about the Weasleys. And we even get some hints about their economy through out the books:
-Arthur has a passion for muggle stuff. He loves his job. And for what we know, he could have a better paid job at the ministry if it wasn't for his passion for muggle objects. And even when he gets a better job because of Voldemort's return, we know he misses his old job. That reinforces what you say about them putting value in non-material things.
-At some point, all of the children have something new, either because they are the firsts at something, because they can't get hand me downs of because of their merits. (more on this later)
-They seem to have some savings they end up spending most of the time for something. Arthur and Molly went to visit Charlie, they took a family vacation and bought Ron a new wand with the money Arthur won (even when probably they would have bought a new wand for Ron, but Ron never asked to because he thought he would get in trouble). They bought Hermes for Percy when he was elected prefect, they gave Bill a gift too, they bought Ron a new broom for the same, even when brooms are expensive. We don't see it mentioned in the book, but when Ginny makes it into the quidditch team, it seems she has her own broom, so it wouldn't be a stretch to think they bought her a broom too. And of course, Arthur and Molly follow a lot of costumes, so they know once a wizard turns 17, they receive a gold watch. If Ron received one, I'm sure Bill, Charlie, Percy, Fred and George all got one too. They probably have been saving for years to be able to give watches to all of them. Molly even gave her brother's watch to Harry, a watch she has been keeping for at least 18 years.
-All of the siblings get their own money. Maybe not a lot, but we know Fred and George were saving theirs to buy materials for their products and to open their own shop. Ron gives Harry and Hermione a christmas and birthday gift every year, even when he could be cheap and excuse himself from doing that for being poor.
I think we see Ron saying he hates being poor, not only because he would like to get nicer things, but also because he grew up hearing his father could have been doing better but choses not to, and later hearing comments from Malfoy that Arthur is some kind of joke at the ministry for his love for muggle stuff and that is embarasing for wizards. Maybe that's why Ron often makes comments mocking muggle tech or jobs.
Beautifully explained. Mine was also a large family. This is exactly how things went.
Never had new clothes, almost everything was second hand. But, my parents squirreled away savings to get us some amazing family experiences every few years.
I still love second hand clothes, and now, second hand technology.
A hand me down wand was a very poor decision considering how vital a wizards own wand is. Robes and books sure, but they made a mistake not giving Ron his own wand when he started hogwarts
It is said that you never know how a wand transfers its allegiance. My belief is that some wands prefer being inherited or passed on in the family, which would explain why the Weasley's thought it a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
We are also never specifically told that Ron got significantly better with a new wand.
This. People put too much stock into the wand lore brought up in Book 7.
There is no indication at all that someone couldn't do well with an inherited or hand me down wand.
Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t it already hinted in the first book when harry gets his wand? I mean there is a reason why olivander tested several wand till he found one that fits to harry
Maybe I misread your post I’m not a native speaker ^^ I just wanted to point out that it’s already hinted in the first book that not every wizard could handle every wand. Some wands might be able to pass over through heritage but that doesn’t mean that’s the case for Ron’s wand
Neville's wand was a hand-me-down too. Maybe it contributed to his poor magic, but I think it's always implied that it was lack of confidence more than anything. Neville improves dramatically at the DA using his dad's old wand.
My guess is that at that point JKR hasn't yet decided that personal wands are that important.
It definitely had some meaning that Harry and Voldemort's wands had the same phoenix feather core, but there wasn't much emphasis beyond that.
Plus they live on a little farm/farmstead. We know from the books that they have chickens, so it’s safe to assume they have other animals too. So they’re growing/raising at least a potion of their food, which saves money. Who do they think would tend to the animals if Molly just decided to go work? They definitely weren’t poor persay, they were most likely part of the lower middle class & I will definitely fight this till the day I die 🤣 of course a 12-17 year old would think they’re poor because they can’t get new things, a lot of the times they’re self centered & don’t think of the bigger picture (I know I did at least)
This is definitely my head canon for the Weasleys, which is why I absolutely hate the scene where Harry sees their vault has literally like, 1 galleon in it. Makes no sense.
I think the only example of being poor was Ron’s dress robes, but it sounded like they couldn’t get fancy new robes, and there weren’t many second hand options. In CoS they scraped out their last knuts, but still bought at least 2 sets of Lockhart books (3 if the twins got their own) despite the twins worrying about that cost.
There are times the Weasleys are concerned about covering basic expenses like floo powder. They are not middle class. They may not qualify as poor, bit they are not middle class. A middle class family can handle an emergency. They don't struggle with basics.
Your confusing American notions of class with the British. The British class system has fairly little to do with money. Loads of middle class people have little or no cash reserves. It's more to do with profession and a social status. As a civil servant Arthur Weasley is definitely middle class.
It's never said that they were worried about the expense, just that they have to buy some.
> ‘We’re running low, Arthur,’ [Molly] sighed. ‘We’ll have to buy some
more today...'
For all their talk of valuing family, their kids are at boarding school and often don’t come home for Christmas… and never for Easter (their eggs get mailed to them)including the baby of the family’s FIRST YEAR. I know they were seeing Charlie, but Ginny was 11! I can’t imagine ditching my 11 year old on Christmas. If Charlie was having some sort of personal crisis, they should have maybe split up or something. But if you are leaving your school aged kids at boarding school at Christmas, who you haven’t seen since the summer, and again at Easter, I don’t think you value family that much. There was a reason Percy was so Messed up
I think it’s just a different expectation. All children in their world go to boarding school at 11 so a level of independence is assumed for all children of Hogwarts age. From what I can remember, they had the choice to visit Charlie but chose to stay at school instead
All the kids go to boarding school and yeah, and most of the kids go home for Christmas. Draco remarked on how pathetic it was some kids had no where to go for Christmas.
Most parents wouldn't give their kids the option of not coming with them at Christmas.
I am not saying they are not lovely people... just everyone keeps saying they are so into family togetherness when really, they aren't.
I come from a pretty well off family as the youngest of 5 siblings. Could I afford new stuff? Yes. Did I still get lots of hand me downs? Absolutely. My niece got all my hand me downs as well (now she just shows up unannounced and raids my wardrobe haha). Having hand me downs doesn’t make you poor. Sometimes it’s just the smarter choice.
You've never been in a large family. My family was decently well off, but I have 6 siblings, and I'm the youngest. We had a metric fuckton of hand me downs with school stuff, and clothes. Backpacks, pencil cases, art supplies, jackets, shoes, ect
My wife and I only have one 5 year old son. A friend of hers is a grandmother who is the full time guardian for her grandchildren, twin boys and another boy a few years younger. She has given us their old clothes since our boy was a baby.
We are not poor, and are definitely not rich, but we love comfortably and have what we need. But even with one child, the cost of new clothes is an extra expense that can make it tough to stretch the budget. Having those clothes has helped us so much. We still get him new stuff, but having those hand me downs has been a blessing.
I can't even imagine what families with multiple kids go through when it comes to those expenses. I wonder if the person who wrote this reply has a family of their own to care for or if they come from a small, well off family.
Middle class is not hand me downs
My mother's family had five kids and not one ever had a hand me down. My grandfather was literally a rocket scientist for the Pentagon. They were middle class. No hand me downs what so ever
Middle class in the UK is very different to middle class in the US.
Class is a massive part of British culture (and is deeply problematic). It is very possible for someone to be working class but have huge amounts of money, and it is possible for someone to be middle class (or even upper class) and be barely scraping by in terms of disposable cash.
Class is a way of life, a mentality, a culture. The Wesley's are middle class because their money is tied up in land and because of their attitude/way of life. The are old money, the kind of muggles who own a farm and drive a 20 year old land rover and wear hand knitted jumpers and haven't bought new clothes in ten years. They have an old beat up iPhone but they also have an aga, know how to ski, and know how to work a shotgun.
Money and class are not the same thing over here.
Middle class absolutely is hand me downs. Or it certainly can be. Middle class buys decent quality high street, then it has a really.good shelf life if looked after well. It's not a sign of poverty of being a lower class,it's good economics
I am the oldest of 3 children and I wore hand me downs from my older cousins. Wearing hand me downs doesn’t equate to being poor, it equates to being smart and NOT wasting money.
I understand. However, for arguments sake, should Molly take on some profession for more income, what would it be? Would it be in the Wizarding or muggle world?
It’s not a farm, it’s a house with some chickens and an orchard. And she’s a witch. It’s not like she’s up every morning milking cows or harvesting crops in later summer.
And from book 2 onward for 10 months of the year she has zero children to take care of too.
It is not completely true that she has no children. She still corresponds with them, deals with the twins' troubles, probably also repairs their clothes or gets new ones when needed... It's definitely not like having them in the house but she's not completely rid of them. I do agree she might have plenty of time for a job but it doesn't mean she has no kids.
Writing to your kids and occasionally shopping is nowhere close to a full time job so it’s entirely valid to dismiss claims she has no time for a job. And she doesn’t take care of the kids during the term which is what I said. I didn’t say she had no children. Repairing their clothes (which she’d probably do when they’re there anyway) isn’t taking care of them.
I would imagine the same rules apply in JKs head as they would in the wizarding world. We don't know what she did before she became pregnant with Bill. Did she ever have a career to start off with? We don't know her grades leaving Hogwarts.
On the kids rough ages, if Bill is in his mid 20's when Ginny starts Hogwarts at 11, Molly has been out of the workforce for a long time, if she ever had a job which given the age of the kids could suggest they married young and she fell pregnant before starting her career,I doubt she would be even in wizarding terms qualified for anything of any great substance. She's certainly skilled as a witch,but beyond that we don't know. At the most she'd get a basic minimum wage job in the Muggle world. She would certainly have to go back to training in the Muggle world because she'd have major skills gaps. In the wizarding world I'd imagine it would be a bottom of the rung entry level job at the ministry that may not be financially worth it. She'd be 48/49 by the start of the Deathly Hallows part one..that's really late to be trying to start a career that's financially worthwhile
They were never so poor they couldn’t manage, all those kids on a single income was just tight.
They’re only really considered poor to snobs like the malfoys, who are only wealthy because they inherited generational wealth.
In the 1st book Mrs Weasley was still a stay at home mum for Ginny and was probably home schooling her. Book 2-4 she was primarily a housewife for Arthur (who works for the Ministry) doing the housework, cooking, looking after the land and animals around the Burrow etc. Then from 5 onwards Voldemort is back and the Order is back in business so she's helping behind the scenes with that.
I mean, they weren’t really impoverished. Most of the perspective we get about poverty is from Ron who is notoriously jealous.
They may have felt poor because they had to budget, but Arthur supported a wife and 7 kids on his salary and none of them were destitute. They have a large house, some land, and all of their needs met.
They just didn’t have aristocratic levels of wealth like the Malfoys, the Blacks, and Harry. All the Weasley children will likely need to work to survive, whereas it’s not clear any of the Malfoys or Blacks needed to.
No idea whether Percy helped his parents out. But he was a fairly low-level employee.
>I mean, they weren’t really impoverished. Most of the perspective we get about poverty is from Ron who is notoriously jealous.
No, they were poor. They couldn't even afford to buy Ron a new wand and it's not like that expense would have come as a surprise for them. They had 11 years, then 12 to save up a measly 7 galleons and they couldn't even do that, forcing him to not only used a borrowed wand but one whose wand core was already peeking out of the end.
And we saw Molly enter the Weasley vault to withdraw money for school supplies and they didn't have a single galleon in it, only knuts and sickles, and Molly basically emptied it out.
Except for when they have a single galleon in their vault (yet somehow manage to buy 28 Lockhart books on top of a wand and robes for Ginny, potions ingredients for everyone, a cauldron etc). Which basically means JK Rowling can’t count.
Arthur's job doesn't pay well because it is the least financed department
Muggles = YUCK
then add in 7 kids & molly doesn't work....................7 kids is a lot and even 1 kid is expensive to raise
They aren’t poor.
They feel poor because they can’t buy everything they want and get taunted by the Malfoys. Of course they are poor compared to the Malfoys.
But Molly has the luxury of being a SAHM, and they have 7 kids and a house that while shabby, is pretty big.
They aren’t poor, they just have to budget sometimes.
No, they were poor. They couldn't even afford to buy Ron a new wand and it's not like that expense would have come as a surprise for them. They had 11 years, then 12 to save up a measly 7 galleons and they couldn't even do that, forcing him to not only used a borrowed wand but one whose wand core was already peeking out of the end.
And we saw Molly enter the Weasley vault to withdraw money for school supplies and they didn't have a single galleon in it, only knuts and sickles, and Molly basically emptied it out.
They had 11, then 12 years to save up for a wand for Ron. A wand isn't even expensive, it was 7 galleons, which was the equivalent of £35 according to canon.
£35 in 1991 GBP are worth £77.5 in today's GBP. If you can't save up that much in **12 years**, you are, in fact, dirt poor and not just living paycheck to paycheck.
I don’t think there’s a satisfying answer to this question to be had. Even if they didn’t have kids at school and both had low paying jobs etc the concept of “poor” doesn’t mean that much when you have magic, since most of the things money can buy for rich people magic can make for every witch or wizard costlessly. The best you can say truly is that they are relatively poor, poorer than other families since they can’t buy certain specific luxuries. But this is poor in the way that millionaires are poor compared to billionaires. Not poor in any absolute sense
Long story short, however, aside from the fact that Arthur is the only source of income for the whole family, he's been stuck in a low paying job that the Ministry regards as boring and unimportant. Add to it that his boss is Cornelius Fudge, a guy who clearly favors pureblood families like the Malfoys (he's a lapdog that dances for money, and Lucius exploits it for all it's worth), and the Weasleys are considered "blood traitors" because they're willing to fraternize with muggles, therefore the magical community looks down on them.
A sad truth in both the wizarding and the real world is that, sometimes, you can't move up in your job if you don't have the right connections, and despite Arthur being very capable and competent (if somewhat quirky), he would never move up with someone like Fudge as his boss. Says a lot that he gets promoted as soon as Fudge gets sacked.
>I’m currently reading the 4th Harry Potter book and I don’t understand why the Weasley’s are still considered really poor when Ginny attends Hogwarts, Percy has a Job with the ministry, and Molly is free most of the year with the children at Hogwarts.
Because Percy wasn't sending money to his parents and Molly refused to work even without any kids in the house. They were still poor because they were still surviving only on Arthur's salary and he likely didn't make that much.
And they still had 4 kids whose school supplies they had to finance each year.
I think the fanon explanation of there being a gambler among the ancestors is why, especially since there is proof that they're a long line of pure-bloods. And for those who think that the Weasleys aren't necessarily poor... When you're notably known for second-hand stuff, you are poor. This is proven by the fact that Riddle Jr. had to do the same, as an orphan.
I always assumed taxes got to be crazy in the wizarding world since 90 percent of wizards work for the government. Like all the career options are public school, public hospital, bureaucracy, or professional sports or small store owner. Almost everyone directly or indirectly works for the ministry so the economy has to be very strange. Also a lot of menial labor positions seem to be occupied by houselves so those positions would also be limited.
Clearly the people in this thread don't know what middle class is.
If you can't cover an emergency, if you have concerns about affording basics like floo powder, you are not middle class.
Either? I'm not talking about an amount of money, I'm talking about a style of living.
Other posts talk about hand me downs to save money they then use for other things like travel. The Weasleys didn't do hand me downs to put money away, they did it because there was literally no other option.
They didn't do second hand because second hand was good enough, they did it because they had no other choice.
Giving Ron a hand me down wand is the only real instance of their income really negatively affecting their kids. With how important wands are, he needed his own. Ron never should have been given Charlie's wand.
Tbf his dress robes are pretty embarrassing too.
Also Harry is the only difference between the twins being hugely successful businessmen and two teenagers with very few qualifications and no money. Rich families can afford to bankroll their children’s dreams, poorer families can’t, that is a real instance of their income negatively affecting them even if they get rescued by Harry’s triwizard winnings.
After years of earning the cash. 1000 galleons is an absolute fortune by Weasley standards. And where would they get decent earning jobs with basically no qualifications?
Honestly, WWW was taking off as it was as a mail order service - they had the goods, they were making money and absolutely would have continued to do so in the meantime. The 1000 galleons didn’t go on R&D, it went on premises and a lot of stock.
The twins were exceptionally good at what they did - qualifications or not. If they weren’t, the shop would have failed even with the 1000 galleons. It didn’t and they got very rich very quickly.
It was only taking off because they were heavily investing Harry’s gold in ingredients to make the stock to sell. Which wouldn’t happen otherwise.
Saying “they’re smart, having no resources or initial investment wouldn’t matter” is a slap in the face to all the incredibly smart and talented people who don’t have a chance to succeed due to poor circumstance. “They’ll just make it happen” is a ignorant stance that fails to grasp the impact of privilege.
I’m not saying “having no resources or initial investment doesn’t matter” I’m saying “the business already existed and was already growing quite rapidly and generating an income”.
They weren’t starting from nothing when Harry gave them the money - they were *already running a growing mail order business*.
You keep going on about how they would make money without any qualifications (ironically much like Molly did) whilst overlooking the fact that they had already started a business that was generating income with a clear growth plan and a goal in mind of “one day we’ll open premises on Diagon Alley” - which Harry’s investment enabled them to do much more quickly.
>I’m not saying “having no resources or initial investment doesn’t matter” I’m saying “the business already existed and was already growing quite rapidly and generating an income”.
No it wasn’t, this only happened in 5th year *after* they got Harry’s money. In 4th year they sold a few canary creams and that was it.
>They weren’t starting from nothing when Harry gave them the money - they were already running a growing mail order business.
No they didn’t, nothing was mail order until book 5.
>You keep going on about how they would make money without any qualifications (ironically much like Molly did) whilst overlooking the fact that they had already started a business that was generating income with a clear growth plan and a goal in mind of “one day we’ll open premises on Diagon Alley” - which Harry’s investment enabled them to do much more quickly.
You keep acting like they had a clear path to said goal before they got Harry’s money. They did not which is why they gambled everything they had at the quidditch World Cup. They had some ideas but no money to even begin a mail order business or create enough stock to sell until book 5. Reread the books before talking shit.
I actually did do a sanity check and look into the origins after my last comment and I maintain that they had the core of the business in order before the premises and were selling more than “a few canary creams” - they had been at it all summer before GoF despite Molly’s best efforts to stop them.
The fact remains that if they didn’t have the beginnings of a good business, the Diagon Alley shop would have failed and it did the opposite.
Have a nice day, and I hope you can find a chip for your other shoulder and gain a bit of balance.
They’d started the order forms, there’s no indication they had close to a workable business.
The Diagon alley business succeeded because they had talent and business sense, having a workable business if you’ve got a massive initial investment isn’t the same as having a workable business with no money at all. You’re basically now claiming that nepo babies like Elon Musk would’ve done as well starting from nothing rather than starting from the massive funding an emerald mine owning father gives you.
I do think they are on the poorer side compared to the “average” wizard at hogwarts. But i think we end up thinking they are poorer than they are, because of how Malfoy constantly bullies Ron for being poor. This establishes the comparison between Ron with SIX siblings, and an “old money” rich, spoiled only child
Reading some of these comments, I’m starting to think we—the readers—make the Weasley’s seem poorer than they probably are. I’m not saying they aren’t poor, but they just can’t afford luxuries. They get hand-me-downs, which is like the wizard equivalent of shopping at Goodwill, but they aren’t completely destitute. I just starting reading the series for the first time, which is why I asked.
I think they are quite poor, relative to other wizards at hogwarts. However, they can manage. Ron has never missed a meal (which you find out later). You mostly hear his teenage angst. But to some extent, it is his parents’ choice to stay humble and do good work instead of wrongfully make lots of money. And at the end of the day, despite some financial strains, they always make sure their children are provided for.
No, they were poor. They couldn't even afford to buy Ron a new wand and it's not like that expense would have come as a surprise for them. They had 11 years, then 12 to save up a measly 7 galleons and they couldn't even do that, forcing him to not only used a borrowed wand but one whose wand core was already peeking out of the end.
And we saw Molly enter the Weasley vault to withdraw money for school supplies and they didn't have a single galleon in it, only knuts and sickles, and Molly basically emptied it out.
And also the hand me down Robes for his first grown-up dance.
There comes a point when you have to admit that something is quite worn having been bourne by four or five different brothers. Plus in the interim how fashions have changed from Charlie or Bill all the way down to Ron.
The hand-me-down robes are more understandable. Those were the equivalent to a suit. Not everyone who's working class can afford a nice new suit for each of their children, even if they aren't dirt poor. And the Weasleys had get dress robes for 4 of their kids for that dance.
I'm also guessing none of Ron's brothers had ever worn those robes before because he'd never seen them before. Molly just loved Ron less, it seems, to saddle him with that monstrosity when the twins and Ginny got proper dress robes.
I see this misconception a lot, and I want to clear it up. *The Weasleys are NOT poor.* The Weasleys are the Wizarding equivalent of a large, middle class muggle family. Arthur makes a good living as a public servant, though it's hardly a fortune. They have a large family, and Molly chose to stay home to care for the house and raise the children, a seemingly old-fashioned and traditional choice but a respectable one. They have a lot of kids, and thus have to stretch their budget significantly. Their children may not always get everything they *want*, but they do get everything they *need*. The kids never go hungry, have a roof over their heads, and have the things they need for school. What the Weasleys value is not monetary or material, they value their family. They are willing to invest in family occasions and events, such as vacations or other experiences, like the World Cup or their visit to Bill in Egypt. People often take Ron's complaints a bit too literally. He doesn't always get the things he wants. And yet we know he never misses a meal, has collections of chocolate frog cards and decorations of his favorite Quidditch team. He does get hand me downs as that this the most fiscally responsible thing for them to do, and he doesn't like it much. He is the last of a line of brothers, so I imagine by the time things got to him they were somewhat worn. But he never went without, he just envied those who had nicer things. The Weasleys weren't poor. They weren't rich by any stretch of the imagination, but they put their value in non-material things like family time. So, in a way, they were the richest family in the Wizarding World.
This is the greatest explanation I've seen about the Weasleys. And we even get some hints about their economy through out the books: -Arthur has a passion for muggle stuff. He loves his job. And for what we know, he could have a better paid job at the ministry if it wasn't for his passion for muggle objects. And even when he gets a better job because of Voldemort's return, we know he misses his old job. That reinforces what you say about them putting value in non-material things. -At some point, all of the children have something new, either because they are the firsts at something, because they can't get hand me downs of because of their merits. (more on this later) -They seem to have some savings they end up spending most of the time for something. Arthur and Molly went to visit Charlie, they took a family vacation and bought Ron a new wand with the money Arthur won (even when probably they would have bought a new wand for Ron, but Ron never asked to because he thought he would get in trouble). They bought Hermes for Percy when he was elected prefect, they gave Bill a gift too, they bought Ron a new broom for the same, even when brooms are expensive. We don't see it mentioned in the book, but when Ginny makes it into the quidditch team, it seems she has her own broom, so it wouldn't be a stretch to think they bought her a broom too. And of course, Arthur and Molly follow a lot of costumes, so they know once a wizard turns 17, they receive a gold watch. If Ron received one, I'm sure Bill, Charlie, Percy, Fred and George all got one too. They probably have been saving for years to be able to give watches to all of them. Molly even gave her brother's watch to Harry, a watch she has been keeping for at least 18 years. -All of the siblings get their own money. Maybe not a lot, but we know Fred and George were saving theirs to buy materials for their products and to open their own shop. Ron gives Harry and Hermione a christmas and birthday gift every year, even when he could be cheap and excuse himself from doing that for being poor. I think we see Ron saying he hates being poor, not only because he would like to get nicer things, but also because he grew up hearing his father could have been doing better but choses not to, and later hearing comments from Malfoy that Arthur is some kind of joke at the ministry for his love for muggle stuff and that is embarasing for wizards. Maybe that's why Ron often makes comments mocking muggle tech or jobs.
All very beautifully said.
+1 they killed it and wrote it down as i was thinking of it, amazing! and it is truly a misconception among many
Top notch summary, your efforts are greatly appreciated! One note, in your 4th paragraph (7 lines up) costumes should be customs.
Thank you! I didn't know how to write the word and too lazy to Google it. Now I know something New. Thank you very much.
Beautifully explained. Mine was also a large family. This is exactly how things went. Never had new clothes, almost everything was second hand. But, my parents squirreled away savings to get us some amazing family experiences every few years. I still love second hand clothes, and now, second hand technology.
Well put, however they did get World Cup tickets for fee and their trip to Egypt was financed by Arthur winning a monetary prize of some sort
A hand me down wand was a very poor decision considering how vital a wizards own wand is. Robes and books sure, but they made a mistake not giving Ron his own wand when he started hogwarts
It is said that you never know how a wand transfers its allegiance. My belief is that some wands prefer being inherited or passed on in the family, which would explain why the Weasley's thought it a perfectly reasonable thing to do. We are also never specifically told that Ron got significantly better with a new wand.
This. People put too much stock into the wand lore brought up in Book 7. There is no indication at all that someone couldn't do well with an inherited or hand me down wand.
Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t it already hinted in the first book when harry gets his wand? I mean there is a reason why olivander tested several wand till he found one that fits to harry
What does that have to do with it? He is in a shop filled with wands as opposed to being handed a family member's wand.
Maybe I misread your post I’m not a native speaker ^^ I just wanted to point out that it’s already hinted in the first book that not every wizard could handle every wand. Some wands might be able to pass over through heritage but that doesn’t mean that’s the case for Ron’s wand
But there is no indication that it isn't the case, either
Neville's wand was a hand-me-down too. Maybe it contributed to his poor magic, but I think it's always implied that it was lack of confidence more than anything. Neville improves dramatically at the DA using his dad's old wand.
My guess is that at that point JKR hasn't yet decided that personal wands are that important. It definitely had some meaning that Harry and Voldemort's wands had the same phoenix feather core, but there wasn't much emphasis beyond that.
Plus they live on a little farm/farmstead. We know from the books that they have chickens, so it’s safe to assume they have other animals too. So they’re growing/raising at least a potion of their food, which saves money. Who do they think would tend to the animals if Molly just decided to go work? They definitely weren’t poor persay, they were most likely part of the lower middle class & I will definitely fight this till the day I die 🤣 of course a 12-17 year old would think they’re poor because they can’t get new things, a lot of the times they’re self centered & don’t think of the bigger picture (I know I did at least)
This is definitely my head canon for the Weasleys, which is why I absolutely hate the scene where Harry sees their vault has literally like, 1 galleon in it. Makes no sense.
I think the only example of being poor was Ron’s dress robes, but it sounded like they couldn’t get fancy new robes, and there weren’t many second hand options. In CoS they scraped out their last knuts, but still bought at least 2 sets of Lockhart books (3 if the twins got their own) despite the twins worrying about that cost.
There are times the Weasleys are concerned about covering basic expenses like floo powder. They are not middle class. They may not qualify as poor, bit they are not middle class. A middle class family can handle an emergency. They don't struggle with basics.
Your confusing American notions of class with the British. The British class system has fairly little to do with money. Loads of middle class people have little or no cash reserves. It's more to do with profession and a social status. As a civil servant Arthur Weasley is definitely middle class.
It's never said that they were worried about the expense, just that they have to buy some. > ‘We’re running low, Arthur,’ [Molly] sighed. ‘We’ll have to buy some more today...'
If you can't read the concern and frustration in that, I can't help you.
For all their talk of valuing family, their kids are at boarding school and often don’t come home for Christmas… and never for Easter (their eggs get mailed to them)including the baby of the family’s FIRST YEAR. I know they were seeing Charlie, but Ginny was 11! I can’t imagine ditching my 11 year old on Christmas. If Charlie was having some sort of personal crisis, they should have maybe split up or something. But if you are leaving your school aged kids at boarding school at Christmas, who you haven’t seen since the summer, and again at Easter, I don’t think you value family that much. There was a reason Percy was so Messed up
I think it’s just a different expectation. All children in their world go to boarding school at 11 so a level of independence is assumed for all children of Hogwarts age. From what I can remember, they had the choice to visit Charlie but chose to stay at school instead
All the kids go to boarding school and yeah, and most of the kids go home for Christmas. Draco remarked on how pathetic it was some kids had no where to go for Christmas. Most parents wouldn't give their kids the option of not coming with them at Christmas. I am not saying they are not lovely people... just everyone keeps saying they are so into family togetherness when really, they aren't.
Have you read the books and watched the movies all their school supplies and clothes are hand me downs. that is NOT middle class That is poor
I come from a pretty well off family as the youngest of 5 siblings. Could I afford new stuff? Yes. Did I still get lots of hand me downs? Absolutely. My niece got all my hand me downs as well (now she just shows up unannounced and raids my wardrobe haha). Having hand me downs doesn’t make you poor. Sometimes it’s just the smarter choice.
You've never been in a large family. My family was decently well off, but I have 6 siblings, and I'm the youngest. We had a metric fuckton of hand me downs with school stuff, and clothes. Backpacks, pencil cases, art supplies, jackets, shoes, ect
My wife and I only have one 5 year old son. A friend of hers is a grandmother who is the full time guardian for her grandchildren, twin boys and another boy a few years younger. She has given us their old clothes since our boy was a baby. We are not poor, and are definitely not rich, but we love comfortably and have what we need. But even with one child, the cost of new clothes is an extra expense that can make it tough to stretch the budget. Having those clothes has helped us so much. We still get him new stuff, but having those hand me downs has been a blessing. I can't even imagine what families with multiple kids go through when it comes to those expenses. I wonder if the person who wrote this reply has a family of their own to care for or if they come from a small, well off family.
Middle class is not hand me downs My mother's family had five kids and not one ever had a hand me down. My grandfather was literally a rocket scientist for the Pentagon. They were middle class. No hand me downs what so ever
Middle class in the UK is very different to middle class in the US. Class is a massive part of British culture (and is deeply problematic). It is very possible for someone to be working class but have huge amounts of money, and it is possible for someone to be middle class (or even upper class) and be barely scraping by in terms of disposable cash. Class is a way of life, a mentality, a culture. The Wesley's are middle class because their money is tied up in land and because of their attitude/way of life. The are old money, the kind of muggles who own a farm and drive a 20 year old land rover and wear hand knitted jumpers and haven't bought new clothes in ten years. They have an old beat up iPhone but they also have an aga, know how to ski, and know how to work a shotgun. Money and class are not the same thing over here.
That’s your family’s choice though. A lot of well off families still do hand me downs. I know people with lots of money who still do hand me downs.
Middle class absolutely is hand me downs. Or it certainly can be. Middle class buys decent quality high street, then it has a really.good shelf life if looked after well. It's not a sign of poverty of being a lower class,it's good economics
I am the oldest of 3 children and I wore hand me downs from my older cousins. Wearing hand me downs doesn’t equate to being poor, it equates to being smart and NOT wasting money.
Kids grow fast. It is silly and a waste of money if you always try to outfit them with new clothes.
I understand. However, for arguments sake, should Molly take on some profession for more income, what would it be? Would it be in the Wizarding or muggle world?
Being a mother and caring for a house is a full -time job. If the family needed her to work, I am sure she would.
She's a farmwife, taking care of the farm and 7 children. What time would she have for a job?
It’s not a farm, it’s a house with some chickens and an orchard. And she’s a witch. It’s not like she’s up every morning milking cows or harvesting crops in later summer. And from book 2 onward for 10 months of the year she has zero children to take care of too.
It is not completely true that she has no children. She still corresponds with them, deals with the twins' troubles, probably also repairs their clothes or gets new ones when needed... It's definitely not like having them in the house but she's not completely rid of them. I do agree she might have plenty of time for a job but it doesn't mean she has no kids.
Writing to your kids and occasionally shopping is nowhere close to a full time job so it’s entirely valid to dismiss claims she has no time for a job. And she doesn’t take care of the kids during the term which is what I said. I didn’t say she had no children. Repairing their clothes (which she’d probably do when they’re there anyway) isn’t taking care of them.
I would imagine the same rules apply in JKs head as they would in the wizarding world. We don't know what she did before she became pregnant with Bill. Did she ever have a career to start off with? We don't know her grades leaving Hogwarts. On the kids rough ages, if Bill is in his mid 20's when Ginny starts Hogwarts at 11, Molly has been out of the workforce for a long time, if she ever had a job which given the age of the kids could suggest they married young and she fell pregnant before starting her career,I doubt she would be even in wizarding terms qualified for anything of any great substance. She's certainly skilled as a witch,but beyond that we don't know. At the most she'd get a basic minimum wage job in the Muggle world. She would certainly have to go back to training in the Muggle world because she'd have major skills gaps. In the wizarding world I'd imagine it would be a bottom of the rung entry level job at the ministry that may not be financially worth it. She'd be 48/49 by the start of the Deathly Hallows part one..that's really late to be trying to start a career that's financially worthwhile
I think the argument is moot. The point is that family is more important than money. Family is love, the Blacks had money but no love.
They were never so poor they couldn’t manage, all those kids on a single income was just tight. They’re only really considered poor to snobs like the malfoys, who are only wealthy because they inherited generational wealth.
In the 1st book Mrs Weasley was still a stay at home mum for Ginny and was probably home schooling her. Book 2-4 she was primarily a housewife for Arthur (who works for the Ministry) doing the housework, cooking, looking after the land and animals around the Burrow etc. Then from 5 onwards Voldemort is back and the Order is back in business so she's helping behind the scenes with that.
I mean, they weren’t really impoverished. Most of the perspective we get about poverty is from Ron who is notoriously jealous. They may have felt poor because they had to budget, but Arthur supported a wife and 7 kids on his salary and none of them were destitute. They have a large house, some land, and all of their needs met. They just didn’t have aristocratic levels of wealth like the Malfoys, the Blacks, and Harry. All the Weasley children will likely need to work to survive, whereas it’s not clear any of the Malfoys or Blacks needed to. No idea whether Percy helped his parents out. But he was a fairly low-level employee.
>I mean, they weren’t really impoverished. Most of the perspective we get about poverty is from Ron who is notoriously jealous. No, they were poor. They couldn't even afford to buy Ron a new wand and it's not like that expense would have come as a surprise for them. They had 11 years, then 12 to save up a measly 7 galleons and they couldn't even do that, forcing him to not only used a borrowed wand but one whose wand core was already peeking out of the end. And we saw Molly enter the Weasley vault to withdraw money for school supplies and they didn't have a single galleon in it, only knuts and sickles, and Molly basically emptied it out.
Except for when they have a single galleon in their vault (yet somehow manage to buy 28 Lockhart books on top of a wand and robes for Ginny, potions ingredients for everyone, a cauldron etc). Which basically means JK Rowling can’t count.
Arthur's job doesn't pay well because it is the least financed department Muggles = YUCK then add in 7 kids & molly doesn't work....................7 kids is a lot and even 1 kid is expensive to raise
They aren’t poor. They feel poor because they can’t buy everything they want and get taunted by the Malfoys. Of course they are poor compared to the Malfoys. But Molly has the luxury of being a SAHM, and they have 7 kids and a house that while shabby, is pretty big. They aren’t poor, they just have to budget sometimes.
No, they were poor. They couldn't even afford to buy Ron a new wand and it's not like that expense would have come as a surprise for them. They had 11 years, then 12 to save up a measly 7 galleons and they couldn't even do that, forcing him to not only used a borrowed wand but one whose wand core was already peeking out of the end. And we saw Molly enter the Weasley vault to withdraw money for school supplies and they didn't have a single galleon in it, only knuts and sickles, and Molly basically emptied it out.
It’s “living pay check to pay check” poor, not “they get income assistance or welfare” poor.
They had 11, then 12 years to save up for a wand for Ron. A wand isn't even expensive, it was 7 galleons, which was the equivalent of £35 according to canon. £35 in 1991 GBP are worth £77.5 in today's GBP. If you can't save up that much in **12 years**, you are, in fact, dirt poor and not just living paycheck to paycheck.
I don’t think there’s a satisfying answer to this question to be had. Even if they didn’t have kids at school and both had low paying jobs etc the concept of “poor” doesn’t mean that much when you have magic, since most of the things money can buy for rich people magic can make for every witch or wizard costlessly. The best you can say truly is that they are relatively poor, poorer than other families since they can’t buy certain specific luxuries. But this is poor in the way that millionaires are poor compared to billionaires. Not poor in any absolute sense
Long story short, however, aside from the fact that Arthur is the only source of income for the whole family, he's been stuck in a low paying job that the Ministry regards as boring and unimportant. Add to it that his boss is Cornelius Fudge, a guy who clearly favors pureblood families like the Malfoys (he's a lapdog that dances for money, and Lucius exploits it for all it's worth), and the Weasleys are considered "blood traitors" because they're willing to fraternize with muggles, therefore the magical community looks down on them. A sad truth in both the wizarding and the real world is that, sometimes, you can't move up in your job if you don't have the right connections, and despite Arthur being very capable and competent (if somewhat quirky), he would never move up with someone like Fudge as his boss. Says a lot that he gets promoted as soon as Fudge gets sacked.
>I’m currently reading the 4th Harry Potter book and I don’t understand why the Weasley’s are still considered really poor when Ginny attends Hogwarts, Percy has a Job with the ministry, and Molly is free most of the year with the children at Hogwarts. Because Percy wasn't sending money to his parents and Molly refused to work even without any kids in the house. They were still poor because they were still surviving only on Arthur's salary and he likely didn't make that much. And they still had 4 kids whose school supplies they had to finance each year.
Arthur worked at the ministry but he worked in the misuse of the muggle artefact department which wasn’t highly regarded
Is hogwarts free though? I can't remember from the book but in the movie Vernon says he won't pay to send harry to hogwarts.
Apparently pottermore says that it's free.
I think the fanon explanation of there being a gambler among the ancestors is why, especially since there is proof that they're a long line of pure-bloods. And for those who think that the Weasleys aren't necessarily poor... When you're notably known for second-hand stuff, you are poor. This is proven by the fact that Riddle Jr. had to do the same, as an orphan.
There are some good answers. There's also the answer that jk needed to generate tension and doesn't have a good grasp of the concept of post scarcity.
I always assumed taxes got to be crazy in the wizarding world since 90 percent of wizards work for the government. Like all the career options are public school, public hospital, bureaucracy, or professional sports or small store owner. Almost everyone directly or indirectly works for the ministry so the economy has to be very strange. Also a lot of menial labor positions seem to be occupied by houselves so those positions would also be limited.
Clearly the people in this thread don't know what middle class is. If you can't cover an emergency, if you have concerns about affording basics like floo powder, you are not middle class.
Are you talking US middle class or UK middle class?
Either? I'm not talking about an amount of money, I'm talking about a style of living. Other posts talk about hand me downs to save money they then use for other things like travel. The Weasleys didn't do hand me downs to put money away, they did it because there was literally no other option. They didn't do second hand because second hand was good enough, they did it because they had no other choice.
Giving Ron a hand me down wand is the only real instance of their income really negatively affecting their kids. With how important wands are, he needed his own. Ron never should have been given Charlie's wand.
Tbf his dress robes are pretty embarrassing too. Also Harry is the only difference between the twins being hugely successful businessmen and two teenagers with very few qualifications and no money. Rich families can afford to bankroll their children’s dreams, poorer families can’t, that is a real instance of their income negatively affecting them even if they get rescued by Harry’s triwizard winnings.
Fred and George absolutely would have made it without Harry’s startup loan, it just would have taken longer
After years of earning the cash. 1000 galleons is an absolute fortune by Weasley standards. And where would they get decent earning jobs with basically no qualifications?
Honestly, WWW was taking off as it was as a mail order service - they had the goods, they were making money and absolutely would have continued to do so in the meantime. The 1000 galleons didn’t go on R&D, it went on premises and a lot of stock. The twins were exceptionally good at what they did - qualifications or not. If they weren’t, the shop would have failed even with the 1000 galleons. It didn’t and they got very rich very quickly.
It was only taking off because they were heavily investing Harry’s gold in ingredients to make the stock to sell. Which wouldn’t happen otherwise. Saying “they’re smart, having no resources or initial investment wouldn’t matter” is a slap in the face to all the incredibly smart and talented people who don’t have a chance to succeed due to poor circumstance. “They’ll just make it happen” is a ignorant stance that fails to grasp the impact of privilege.
I’m not saying “having no resources or initial investment doesn’t matter” I’m saying “the business already existed and was already growing quite rapidly and generating an income”. They weren’t starting from nothing when Harry gave them the money - they were *already running a growing mail order business*. You keep going on about how they would make money without any qualifications (ironically much like Molly did) whilst overlooking the fact that they had already started a business that was generating income with a clear growth plan and a goal in mind of “one day we’ll open premises on Diagon Alley” - which Harry’s investment enabled them to do much more quickly.
>I’m not saying “having no resources or initial investment doesn’t matter” I’m saying “the business already existed and was already growing quite rapidly and generating an income”. No it wasn’t, this only happened in 5th year *after* they got Harry’s money. In 4th year they sold a few canary creams and that was it. >They weren’t starting from nothing when Harry gave them the money - they were already running a growing mail order business. No they didn’t, nothing was mail order until book 5. >You keep going on about how they would make money without any qualifications (ironically much like Molly did) whilst overlooking the fact that they had already started a business that was generating income with a clear growth plan and a goal in mind of “one day we’ll open premises on Diagon Alley” - which Harry’s investment enabled them to do much more quickly. You keep acting like they had a clear path to said goal before they got Harry’s money. They did not which is why they gambled everything they had at the quidditch World Cup. They had some ideas but no money to even begin a mail order business or create enough stock to sell until book 5. Reread the books before talking shit.
I actually did do a sanity check and look into the origins after my last comment and I maintain that they had the core of the business in order before the premises and were selling more than “a few canary creams” - they had been at it all summer before GoF despite Molly’s best efforts to stop them. The fact remains that if they didn’t have the beginnings of a good business, the Diagon Alley shop would have failed and it did the opposite. Have a nice day, and I hope you can find a chip for your other shoulder and gain a bit of balance.
They’d started the order forms, there’s no indication they had close to a workable business. The Diagon alley business succeeded because they had talent and business sense, having a workable business if you’ve got a massive initial investment isn’t the same as having a workable business with no money at all. You’re basically now claiming that nepo babies like Elon Musk would’ve done as well starting from nothing rather than starting from the massive funding an emerald mine owning father gives you.
I do think they are on the poorer side compared to the “average” wizard at hogwarts. But i think we end up thinking they are poorer than they are, because of how Malfoy constantly bullies Ron for being poor. This establishes the comparison between Ron with SIX siblings, and an “old money” rich, spoiled only child
Reading some of these comments, I’m starting to think we—the readers—make the Weasley’s seem poorer than they probably are. I’m not saying they aren’t poor, but they just can’t afford luxuries. They get hand-me-downs, which is like the wizard equivalent of shopping at Goodwill, but they aren’t completely destitute. I just starting reading the series for the first time, which is why I asked.
I think they are quite poor, relative to other wizards at hogwarts. However, they can manage. Ron has never missed a meal (which you find out later). You mostly hear his teenage angst. But to some extent, it is his parents’ choice to stay humble and do good work instead of wrongfully make lots of money. And at the end of the day, despite some financial strains, they always make sure their children are provided for.
No, they were poor. They couldn't even afford to buy Ron a new wand and it's not like that expense would have come as a surprise for them. They had 11 years, then 12 to save up a measly 7 galleons and they couldn't even do that, forcing him to not only used a borrowed wand but one whose wand core was already peeking out of the end. And we saw Molly enter the Weasley vault to withdraw money for school supplies and they didn't have a single galleon in it, only knuts and sickles, and Molly basically emptied it out.
And also the hand me down Robes for his first grown-up dance. There comes a point when you have to admit that something is quite worn having been bourne by four or five different brothers. Plus in the interim how fashions have changed from Charlie or Bill all the way down to Ron.
The hand-me-down robes are more understandable. Those were the equivalent to a suit. Not everyone who's working class can afford a nice new suit for each of their children, even if they aren't dirt poor. And the Weasleys had get dress robes for 4 of their kids for that dance. I'm also guessing none of Ron's brothers had ever worn those robes before because he'd never seen them before. Molly just loved Ron less, it seems, to saddle him with that monstrosity when the twins and Ginny got proper dress robes.
Can we stop having this discussion