De Bunked: The Weasley's Weren't Actually Poor

[TheSonofruss]

Percy was the only one that didn’t understand what wealth and riches don’t mean you are not rich

[kaimagnus]

I've always said this.

Arthur was the soul income with Molly being a stay at home mother. And not once did any of their children go hungry or not have what they needed. Sure, there were a lot of hand-me-downs, and they couldn't often afford unnecessary luxuries, but they ALWAYS had whatever they needed. They weren't by any means poor. They were not financially rich by any means but they weren't poor.

[jimeno]

I never thought they were poor. They were middle class (maybe on the lower side) but when compared to the Malfoy’s wealth, they looked very poor. It’s like comparing a regular family to the Kennedy’s

[Ascension]

I always assumed they weren’t poor they just had an excessive amount of mouths to feed.

[astrinymris]

The Weasleys were so short of money that they had to wear hand-me-downs, couldn't afford to buy Ron a new wand when he started school, and had to buy really horrible dress robes for the Yule Ball for him. Saying, "but they were rich in love" doesn't change the fact that the Weasleys were objectively poor.

Mind you, it has to be said that they didn't manage the resources they had wisely. They buy Percy a new owl to celebrate him being made prefect while making Ron forego getting his own wand at Ollivander's. They literally win the lottery and blow most of it on an expensive Egyptian vacation instead of saving it for their children's future economic needs. And Arthur Weasley obviously spends money on his illegal Muggle hobby instead of prioritizing his kids' needs. I can't decide if this a subtle commentary on Rowling's real world political beliefs that poverty is caused by poor decision making rather than societal factors or simply her notorious tendency to throw continuity overboard to drive her current plot.

[frankiemia]

They had 7 children.
You can earn a reasonable income and be poor if that’s spread between 9 people!

[tathoiclassicalindianbollywood]

The Weasleys are a quintessential working family - Arthur has a job, Molly invested her time in bringing up strong, moral, honest children and they never burdened their children with their financial expectations, which in turn meant that Bill and Charlie are already off to the careers of their choice at the start of the story, and the rest of the children also come off their own as they grow up throughout the series. However, they also have very little if any monetary savings, and therefore live paycheck to paycheck, which is why Harry saw them Molly scooping out a single galleon and a handful of other change from the Weasley vault. This was perhaps a reflection of the author's own experiences growing up, as she went to university which strongly influenced her portrayals of Hogwarts, but she also struggled financially when she writing the book series.

In comparison, the Malfoys represent the 'old money' families she had met at uni and other points in her educational life. Neither Lucius or Narcissa work or have any paid employment (and I don't think being a school governor counts, as in the UK school governorship is a voluntary position). However, they inherited vast amounts of wealth as an old wizarding family, and therefore are able to yield an unhealthy amount of power even in a world where Voldemort is believed dead. Even as a former accused Death Eater, Lucius is able to get close to the Minster for Magic, essentially the heart of political power in their universe.

So many people criticise the story for being 'neo-liberal' but it forgets these very real critiques of power structures that are not vulnerable to fascist control, but are effectively reinforcing such regression into evil.

[alkahinat]

I always felt they weren’t really poor, they were so rich in character, morals and values
A very rich family 🪙✨

[ambzerambzer]

It is interesting to point out that the Weasley’s weren’t poor, they were all hard workers and had enough to get by they weren’t even really just scraping by either they just weren’t materialistic or spoiled.

They weren’t poor they just weren’t rich, I think the Weasley’s are a very inspirational family because TBH things should be reused and reworked, if something ain’t broke why throw it away and buy new? It’s a waste. Sufficiency is important

[eranshachar]

I agree with your points. It wasn't a question of money, it was a question of how well they managed their money. Allow me to give you a small constructive criticism because you have one mistake- The money Harry gave the twins was a gift not a lawn. Also Percy said something interesting that might be right. He said Arthur had no ambition for being in the same job for years. The family traitor did had a point but he just failed to understand Arthur loved to be where he was.

[TheRealBullyMaguire]

The Malfoys are poor and The Weasleys are billionaires in the ways that matter

[vivianwallwood]

great to see you back, been too long since you've posted anything

[ninecatsandaboxofwine]

If you have that many recessive phenotype kids (gingers, some with blue eyes) you're already rich beyond measure.

[niaselah]

The Weasleys are the best family. Harry who grew up lacking both: money and love saw it very clearly from the beginning they were the wealthy ones and not the ones lacking

[Longshanks]

I don’t really think the ways we can rationalise how rich they actually were actually matters as that’s not really the point.

The point is that the Weasleys and Malfoys are both quintessentially English families but coming from polar ends of the class system in England. Rowling is using the wizarding world as a parallel to our own and exploring that dynamic through these characters to show the differences and similarities between them by placing these two families in a dynamic you wouldn’t normally see because they’d typically go to different schools. But because Hogwarts is the only one, it means there’s a lot more inter-class communication than there would be in the Muggle world, and certainly more than families like the Malfoys would prefer.

So it doesn’t really matter what sum is in the Weasleys bank account or how much they could technically own, their role in the story is to represent the lower end of the totem pole of English families; financially deprived and arguably too many children but with more love and affection on each child than the one sole inheritor like Draco could ever dream of in spite of all his material wealth.

[rhodaleader]

According to J.K.Rowling
Education at Hogwarts is paid for by The Ministry of Magic so it's free for everyone.
I do like your videos and this is a great way to see how much The Weasley family is rich in so many ways as richness in life is not always about monetary value 🌟

[schipperkeandcats]

They where a big family i bet if molly and Arthur only had 2 kids at max they be having more money left bc Arthur stil has a job

[futuresonex]

You were reaching a bit on this one. Also, other than Harry loaning Fred & George the money to start their joke shop, when did Harry ever give the Weasleys money? He certainly would have had he believed that they would have accepted it, but I don't recall him ever actually giving them any money.

As for the Weasley's financial status, they weren't really poor. They just had more kids than they could afford.

[maxchase]

I have noticed the video is different in terms of editing. It felt like an old school movie (and a bit like a horror movies due to the shaky text boxes 😅). I have not seen it before, but well done, it looks very good.

[EowynG]

I did not like that this was not a conspiracy theory-type debunking... but as great and very thorough exposé it got me listening 'til the end.

More, please! :)