The REAL Reason the Weasleys Are So POOR (They're CURSED) - Harry Potter Theory

Welcome to Harry Potter Theory. Today we’re discussing a rather SINISTER theory that might finally provide some answers on the Weasley family's elusive financial status. This theory challenges previous interpretations of their poverty and reaches beyond the conventional conception that ‘there just isn’t enough to go around’ in such a big family. It’s a dark one and I guarantee you haven’t heard this one before- I think you’re going to agree with me.

Let’s dive in.

▼ PODCAST (SPOTIFY)

▼ PODCAST (APPLE)

▼HARRY POTTER THEORY EXTRA CHANNEL (MORE CONTENT!)

▼MYTHOLOGY CHANNEL

▼MAILING ADDRESS
HP Theory
PO BOX 37584
North Vancouver RPO The Quay
BC
V7M 0G4

Join this channel to get access to perks:

Please LIKE / SUBSCRIBE / SHARE to support the channel

Leave your video ideas down below!

Thanks!

All content falls under fair use: any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner.

[texanplayer]

"I married a Weasley and became a millionaire"
"Cool, and what were you before?"
"A billionaire"

[craxd]

I think it more that the purebloods didn't allow them to succeed, especially in the ministry. Arthur's department was seen as a dead-end department where you were placed when they wanted rid of you. After all, it was only Arthur and “Ol' Perkins” in their department. Then, you have to remember that Arthur was promoted under Scrimgeour, and later, under Shacklebolt.

Fred and George were very successful, and so were Bill, Charlie, and even Percy.

Molly and Arthur's huge problem, which rubbed off on Ron, was that they never wanted to be seen receiving any sort of help or handout. Their curse was pride.

[scottleitner]

The curse is entirely possible, but it doesn't explain why Fred and George made a lot of money and were able to buy things like the dragon jackets. And although it's not said, Ginny probably made good money being on the Holyhead Harpies and working as the Dailey Prophet's Quidditch correspondent. I think the real reason is your first theory: Fudge and Arthur didn't get along so he never made as much as he should have, and having a large family, it had to be incredibly tough. As for the kids not chipping in, I suspect that Arthur and Molly told them not to, because Harry himself wanted to help them out but Arthur and Molly were too proud to accept handouts.

[grec.]

From a technical aspect, i think jkr wanted to reflect that Weasley's wealth was beyond of being rich. Harry had a lot of money, but he found a home in the burrow. The Dursley's were well off but treated him poorly, whereas the Weasleys didn't care much about being millionaires, they cared more about love, respect and integrity. Harry needed that warmth in his life to be able to feel fully loved.
Is a good thing Ron kept inviting Harry to his home . Those summers there were so amusing to read about.
Long live the Weasleys 🧡

[lesbobz]

The whole point of the Weasley family was that they were rich in every way except money. They were mainly happy (except Ron who hated being "poor"), they were very close as a family. They always had each others backs, they always had enough to eat (if you have a single item of food you can multiply it, you just can't create it out of nowhere).

The Weasleys were the perfect example of what Harry thought family SHOULD be. Unlike the Dursleys, they did not value material things, they valued each other.

[cjhan]

They have 7 kids and 1 government job. That’s why they are poor.

[malloryjones]

Umm, seven kids on one middle class income? It was never a mystery to me why they had financial problems.

[rodneywilson]

I remember their financial status getting better.
It seemed clear to me reading the books, financially things got better as Arthur got promoted and kids left the house.

I also disagree about the kids helping financially. The family was getting by, and when a kid moved out it was easier.
So I can’t imagine Molly and Arthur accepting money from their kids while they could still provide for the family.

[BastiatC]

The Weasley's financial woes seem to disappear after book 4, with the extinction of the Crouch family. Fred and George get 1000 gallons at the end of 4 and start their business in 5, in six they open their own shop and Arthur get promoted. I put forward that whatever curse there was laid by a member of the crouch family, and tied to their line. There's a Charis Black who married into the Crouch family and whose sister was disowned for marring a Weasley.

[saintzeroinfinity]

“Money does not bring you happiness” clearly the Weasley family took that to heart.

[pjschmid]

Poor financial management is often a trait that runs in families, even in the “Muggle world“. It’s because it’s a learned skill, and if the parents lack that skill they often pass on their poor financial management skills to their offspring. Particularly in a society as insulated as the magical world, I can see how traits like that would perpetuate through the generations.

[sepmus]

It's plausible given the context. But here are some other points:

1) as purebloods, they were awfully insulated from the outside world so they would be that much more limited in their options for earning money.

Which raises this question: are wizards allowed to engage in commerce outside the wizarding world? If they are, then there would be so many ways to use magic to become rich; but even without doing that, there is the option of investing. It is insane that wizards keep their wealth locked in vaults!


Which leads to the more obvious answer:

2) The book reflects a naive understanding of money and economics because that's all the author wanted to develop. The books were written for children, who generally don't get the world of investment and profit explained to them, and rarely want that.

Let's face it: they are wonderful stories, but the whole concept of magic is not workable; don't ask too many questions.

[stephenm]

It's more of a social pecking order sort of thing. Arthur does not follow certain rules wen it comes to muggles. So others at work make things difficult for him. They have a house and are a functional family. Being broke is a temporary situation.

[macwelch]

Their financial woes didn’t get better since Arthur couldn’t stay off Molly 🤣

[nimzi]

They had 7 kids, a 1 parent income.I wonder why they were poor....

[Lgunt]

A very interesting theory, but I do suggest one modification: the Weasley‘s fortunes seem to improve markedly towards the end of the series. Fred and George seem able to multiply the money Harry gives them for example. This could be explained if they were cursed by someone of a bloodline on a downward trajectory. I see one option for this: the line of Slytherin dies out with Tom Riddle and their upturn in fortunes seems to coincide with the destruction of the first of his Horcruxes (Daily Prophet prize draw) and accelerates with Weasley‘s Wizard Wheezes as the rest are hunted down. Other notable candidates are the House of Black, however they survive through Narcissa in the Malfoy family.

[patrickdematosribeiro]

I am not sure whether Arthur's relationship with Fudge is the problem with his salary. It is repeatedly mentioned that the department he leads is pretty unimportant, but that he loves the job. So he probably chose an unimportant, probably not very well paid job he loved over a better paid job that wouldn't allow him to interact with muggles.

[shanethewatcher]

If one of them was a curse breaker....

[lolat]

That's a curse carried by a lot of Muggles, too. As for who cursed them, I'd say the Malfoys. The Malfoys never fail to bring up the Weasley's poverty and seem to take great pleasure in it.

[okamireader]

I honestly don't really think the Weasleys are cursed apart from a mismanagement of money that is still relatively normal.

To be fair, we don't know what the Wealseys home life is like as the series goes on other than what was shared in the books. In all honesty, we got indications in the first book, as well as a clearer picture in the second, and then more explanations as to why as the series went on.

As you said, Arthur Wealsey was the provider of the family while Molly was the primary caregiver. Arthur worked for the Ministry, but due to extreme projudice and bigotry from his colleagues, especially from Cornelius Fudge, he was not given fair respect or sufficient compensation or even recognition for his work ethic and his morality as a person in general.

In all honesty, I did think the prize money they won should indeed have gone towards their expenses and yet they used most of it on their trip to Egypt, and I think whatever was left over went towards their children's school supplies, like Ron's new wand

But as the elder Weasley kids grew up and moved on, they all found their own lines of work as well as built their own lives, what with Bill becoming a curse-breaker, Charlie a dragonologist, and Percy working in the ministry while the twins left school with style and opened a successful joke shop.

Now, B, C and then later P moving out and having careers of their own likely lessened the family expenses to some degree, I get this feeling Arthur and Molly might have declined money from them (apart from Percy who wasn't speaking to them nearly three years). I think Bill and Charlie, and later Fred and George, would surely have offered to help their parents financially but given Arthur and molly's characters I feel they would have refused the money as a matter of principle, or at least they would only have accepted small amounts of money from them and only in exceptionally severe cases of financial troubles. Arthur and Molly are good parents, who gave their children love, guidance, boundaries, basically everything good parents should give to their kids in order to help them grow up into good people so they could eventually move on to lead their own lives.

Yes, their home wasn't some rich and fancy manor like the Malfoys' but it was full of love and comfort and safety.

And who's to say they remained impoverished for their entire lives?

Ron worked as an auror for a time until he retired and chose to work with George at his joke shop, albeit in a seemingly part-time manor, since it seems Ron was the primary caregiver of his children, Rose and Hugo, while Hermione was busy a lot being Minister of Magic, which surely would have given her a stipend of payment.

Not to mention economy can be a roller-coaster of ups and downs and isn't always stable, so expenses can rise or fall with the times

As for Gareth and Matilda Weasley, they probably faced similar situations in their time that their descendants did in their own