I have a few ideas about who cursed them - provided that this theory is true. And it all comes down to the ancestors of two well-known families in the Wizarding World: the Blacks and the Malfoys. I believe that, at some point in their history, the Weasley Family was at least somewhat wealthy themselves, before having their wealth _stolen_ out from under them by either the Blacks and/or the Malfoys, who then subsequently placed a curse on them to ensure that the Weasleys would never again be able to attain the level (or greater level) of wealth they once possessed.
What if Voldemort created the Acromantula? In fantastic beasts and where to find them, it stays that: A) We first here about this species when voldy is weak and in the forbidden forrest and B) This animal was most likely wizard-bred. This species was meant to guard dwellings or treasure, but what about... Someone? The acromantula has near-wizard intelligence yet is untrainable. This info could be telling us that when he-who-must- not-be-named needed security and help, he transferred some of his power to make them. He wanted a distraction so that when harry wouldn't find him in the forbidden forrest. Voldemort may have even made Acromantulas a while back as some of them seem centuries old as in the past, he has been very strong. The species is NOW under watch of the department for control and regulation of magical creatures so maybe they thought of this too?
How can the Weasleys so poor when you can conjure food, or force seeds to grow quickly. Magic Manipulation is the best way of making money. Even more you can can magically convince normal non-magical people to give you company secrets in the stock market. Change coal to diamonds scientifically using magic force. They would even give you rundown country properties at no to low cost, which you sell it latter. The rules on magic seem apply to adults if you are caught.
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.
Their curse is not pride but moral & principle that’s what their pride is based on, not ego pride like Malfoy😅 Weasley are still up to par to the old moral code way of life!
I'm not even a fan and that much was obvious just by watching the movies 😂 There is no theory, just a single income from a government job and a bunch of kids? Of course they're gonna be poor.
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.
It's also possible that the curse ended with Arthur Weasley when Voldemort was defeated... I would postulate that the Malfoys were indeed the ones that cursed the Weasleys and that the two heirs of that bloodline, Lucius and Draco, had such profound changes of heart at that point in time, that they unwittingly lifted the curse.
@@valemadreelusername That doesn't explain Maltilda and Gareth though. Voldemort wasn't around during the late 1800's and the Malfoys probably wouldn't have cared one way or another about the Weasleys during that time frame.
But you could take Fred and George’s lack of sound financial management of the money they earned, for example buying frivolous expensive things, as another example of the way the curse works. Also, remember their gambling fiasco at the Quidditch World Cup. Yet another example of financial disaster for members of the Weasley family.
@@scottleitner4801 I understand that. I wasn't saying that Voldemort had anything to do with it. The main thing is that after Voldemort was defeated, the Malfoys were different - perhaps so different that they lifted the curse because they no longer felt animosity to the Weasleys.
@@pjschmid2251 We don't know the full extent of Fred and George's finances beyond the fact that they made money for years, even past Fred's death. They DID move away from the Burrow, living in the flat above the store. If they weren't making money, they never would have been able to keep the store going
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.
Although I agree with you for most, I do have to point out that Percy wasn't happy being poor either, probably more so than Ron. Ron, didn't like being poor but he never betrayed his family because of it. Yes, Percy was after power and prestige but that probably stems from the family always being looked down upon because of how poor they were.
@catterin7815 Yeah, I forgot about Percy. Not even the Weasleys considered him family at one point, but at the end, he came back and told them how wrong he was, shortly before Fred died.
It would be neat if we weren't talking about a curse, but a blessing. A distant Weasley ancestor makes a powerful bargain wherein his descendants would always be wealthy in all ways but riches. 😊
Why would Molley, being that powerfull, and having up to 8 month of free time(children either working abroad or at Hogwarts) never taking a job? Person can go crazy living in 4 walls all year, cooking. Bill worked at Gringotts, removing curses(it should be one of the most compensated jobs ever) There should really be some sort of curse. Thinking of it: Jinny - Potter wealth + quidditch team Bill - Delacur wealth + money when worked for Gringots Ron - Granger was Minister of Magic & Ron worked with George George - has one of the most popular magic candy shops Charly - dragon tamer (can't have poorly compansated job) Persey and Arthur - Ministry work tell me if family that consists of [Billionare, multy-millionaire , top Manager in millionair's company, millionaire, another millionaire and minister with deputy] may overall be a pretty poor in our world.
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.
this, it's not a child's responsibility to take care of their siblings. Bill, Charley, and Percy weren't obligated to pay for their younger siblings' needs. their parents had seven kids they should figure out a way to provide for them. also it wasn't the older kids' fault their mom didn't get a job.
A relative of mine, 1 generation back, was an animal tech for many years and then a failed chicken farmer. He refused all attempts at financial help from any of us. When his own son had to go on public assistance for a few weeks, for that whole time he would not speak to him. Harsh, maybe, but principled. I think Arthur W is in that mold. I think this thread is right, it's reflection of the British class system that JKR is spinning here, and a contrast of a (mostly) close-knit family, the kind Harry didn't have growing up, with the nobby racist snoots in Slytherin.
Really makes you wonder how wizards especially Mr Weasley of all people never heard of the muggle invention called birth control lol. If anyone needed it, it was this family
Also they don't value gold in the slightest. That's why they are willing to spend their new found fortune on visiting their family in egypt. The only ones who are slightly interested in money where the twins and even they spent most likely all their money on r&d because they liked to make new things instead of accumulating wealth.
Yea that's what I assumed lol. It didn't seem they were impoverished. Just seemed that they had too many damn kids and Arthur was working in the muggle affairs office not exactly ranking in the bank if you factor in all the prejudice. Also pretty sure the mom was a stay at home mom!
I think what prompted the theory and ultimately the video is the fact that in the Legacy game the Weasleys were poor centuries before the generation in the books.
That's just it though when you read the book you find out he had a chance for promotion and larger pay prior, he turned it down because he enjoyed his job so much. Arthur lacked ambition He wasn't particularly happy about his new job ,he was practically forced into even though it came with an nice pay raise. It is even commented how he misses his old job
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 🧡
I've read loads of fanfics where the Weasley family's caring for Harry (mostly Ron, Ginny, and Molly) was nothing but a façade so they could gain his trust and steal all of his money, properties, and whatnot for themselves thanks to the manipulations of an "evil" Dumbledore where he illegally creates a magical "marriage contract" between Harry and Ginny when they both become of age to marry so Ginny can become a black widow and "inherit" all of Harry's wealth, which would be placed with the Weasleys. But, this fails and Harry discovers that the Weasleys have used him and he destroys the marriage contract and completely cuts all ties with them, except for perhaps Fred and George, and presumably Bill and Charlie because they weren't supportive of an "evil" Dumbledore regardless of them viewing him as a god.
@@kryptonianpowers That's stuff thought up by dark, sick, unhappy, twisted people. Those are the same type of people who take children's cartoons and turn them dark. Some people are just sick in the head 😑
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.
Yes I bet the scared 28 pure blood families probably had expectations about marriage like prearrangements and there were issues if you broke that, being that Molly & Arthur both are pure blood families I’d bet they were supposed to marry someone else but chose love instead so were punished with poverty
If there is a curse, which I doubt, this is the best explanation I can think of because you're right, The financial situation does get better after the fourth book, especially Fred and George's.
@@holeeshi9959 Imagine the grocery bill with 9 kids. Just my Cat and I is 100 for bare necessity items and food / cat food and snacks for groceries and bills for the month is like 940 with bills to keep stuff on in the house electric gas water sewage car insurance medical insurance ect, not including medicines for my Anemia Carpel Tunnel Arthritis ect health issues. I make like 1300 a month after almost 13 years at one place.
Seriously bro if money cannot buy love do you know how expensive modern dating is? And don't forget about the other expenses on dates and by the way it should be money doesn't buy happiness but it is a factor to said happiness.@@MadonnaGrogan
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.
So ask yourself why they would need money for basic necessities when they could do magic. A family of Hogwarts graduates who can't magically mend clothes or change the style, or fix up their house or furniture is just incompetence. Hermione fixed Harry's glasses in the first movie before she even attended wizard school, so why can't a whole family of Hogwarts graduates do better magic?
@@edennis8578 Exactly anyone who can graduate Hogwarts has literally no excuse for living in a precarious shack, having worn out broken stuff, and not having resources. Just with magic we're shown them learning in Hogwarts they have no need for money.
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.
i agree, i think some people look too much into things! we need to remember its a story… not real life! we dont need to nitpick everything (although its still fun to theorise!) we just need to appreciate the world that has been created, even if its not entirely possible.
@@maizym7549 it's just a kids book and not very thought out in its world building; it isn't well written but well liked is all, and people like to fill in the plot holes to give it depth or excuse its lack of a cohesive execution.
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.
Why would that matter? The majority of your expenses, especially where kids are concerned, are food, rent and clothes. The Weasleys own a large property, so rent isn't going to increase with the number of children. They have magic, which in conjunction with said property could be used to easily create food and they have repair spells that enable them to keep any piece of clothing or equipment in service indefinitely. There is very little reason why the number of children could be responsible for them being poor
You don't need money when you can cast spells. For example, they learn transfiguration at school, but they couldn't mend their clothes, transform old fashioned clothes to something newer, or fix their house? That's just plain incompetent. In the first movie, Hermione fixes Harry's glasses with a simple wave of her wand and a word, and she hadn't even attended wizard achool, yet!
@@jindrichzitka6383 Pretty sure they have figured out potions that do the same thing. Besides that, unlike the idea that the world is over populated, it is known that wizards are more rare and getting rarer with each conflict so birth control is probably a stupid idea in their circle.
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.
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.
Perhaps it is akin to many that pursue a career in medicine due to an inherited genetic disorder or those that research psychology for self psycho analysis seeking improvement and become fascinated early on to the point of making it their career field. Let me clarify the field of study doesn't imply or suggest shared behaviors or symptoms that initiated anyone's interests in medicine or psychology. However, there is no shame in the driving force and passion behind one's choice of profession to be of a personal nature, either.
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.
You don't think having 7 kids and Molly not contributing financially to the family has anything to do with it? Its also a safe bet that the Weasley's contributed to the Order of the Pheonix regularly.
I'm not too familiar with that part of the story, but don't the Weasley's basically live at Grimauld Place for extended periods of time? Hermione spends several holidays there too iirc. It's really a misserable existence as a safehouse, though.
There is very little reason why the number of children could be responsible for them being poor The majority of your expenses, especially where kids are concerned, are food, rent and clothes. They own a large property, so rent isn't going to increase with the number of children. THey have magic, which in conjunction with said property could be used to create food and they have repair spells that enable them to keep any piece of clothing or equipment in service indefinitely.
@@TomsBackyardWorkshop So? it is also established lore that you CAN multiply existing food, and you can probably use magic for accelerated farming. They certainly have the land for it.
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
An interesting in universe explanation for what is clearly one of many glaring plot holes in the Harry Potter books. Although I think the Weasley children's successes put a strain on the blood curse theory. If it was true, they would also be affected, but all indications are that all of the Weasley kids were at least reasonably successful Along with the entire relevant plot holes of why witches and wizards spent so much on things like food they could just duplicate (which is stated to be possible) or clothes or other essentials. Repairing old or broken things should be trivial as well. You may not be able to duplicate gold, but normal expenses just wouldn't really apply to them
Repairing things is the way to make a ton of money. I'd buy the worst cars in the junkyard, repairo them, and sell them as mint classic cars. Others could do the same with other old things. All you have to do is make sure the muggles don't know how you are fixing those things. One thing to remember is this: Gold, just like paper money, isn't valuable in itself. It's just pretty (and can conduct electricity well, which isn't useful to wizards). It's that people think it's valuable and will give actual useful things in exchange for it. If all of the sudden, all the gold on this planet disappeared, it would be no great loss. Food, on the other hand, has a genuine, real (not imagined) value, as do many things that have genuine uses. The fact wizards can't make gold doesn't mean they can't make money. They could just create or fix things that they can sell.
It was said in the last book that if you had food you could duplicate it. Elsewhere it was said the full nutrition would be divided into the final quantity. So if you had 1 egg and magicked it into a dozen eggs, all 12 eggs would only have the same nutrition as one egg and you'd not feel as full and would eventually start to have health problems. I could see Molly doing that on occasion. But why didn't she repairo some things to make them look better, like the older books for Ginny. And didn't she know any spells to take out the hems of robes so they could be worn a little longer?
The twins were successful for a while. But what happened after that?? One of them dies. Percy turns slowly into a monster and Bill was bit by a werewolf and all hell broke loose at his wedding.
If it only applied to Arthur and Molly, and they knew that any money sent to their dad would be as though flushed down the vomiting toilet, the theory might work better.
Ginny married Harry so that would mean that Harry loose his fortune. This curse theory is not valid. Unless is it was, as some other commenter pointed out, inflicted upon them by the Crouches and after the Crouch family died out, the curse lifted somehow.... but I think curses can outlive the person who cast them.
I never really thought of them as “poor” they had little in the way of financial means, but it met all their needs. And they were extremely rich in what mattered.
I thought the same. Maybe since they’re such big family they just trying their best to stay under budget to the point they look cheap and poor. My behind the scenes theory is Molly and Arthur always donate and support other families who lost in 1st Wizarding War. They both were in the order of phoenix and their families as well, imagine how many people they knew personally that they lost, how many orphans or even older parents who lost their children and left to fend for themselves when they can’t really do example Naville and his grandma’s. There also funerals and hospital bills that they might have tried to help as much as they could. Molly and Arthur always seem to be able to afford what they need even they don’t feel easy about it, they never really seem like people who don’t have enough to spend but rather would like to spend where else they feel more important.
I personally started wondering about the Weasley's finances once the Goblet Of Fire came around. Arthur manages to get most of his family into the Quidditch World Cup & is able to buy his kids hats, scarfs, face paint & whatever else to support their favorite team, yet it takes an entire year for Ron to get a new wand, the kids always use / have hand-me-down clothes & books, etc. Heck, I'm still surprised that the Burrow house never collapsed & killed someone because of how badly it was built. It's just crazy that a former Azkaban prisoner who was also a Death Eater was so successful in the Ministry, yet Arthur was barely getting by while also working for the Ministry
Regarding Ron's wand- it didn't take them a year to save up for it. Ron never told his parents he broke it. Ron didn't want his mother to send another howler, on top of his being punished for wrecking the car. Like a kid who smashes their school tablet, and then tries to finish the year with it busted because he doesn't want to get in trouble for breaking it.
Bagman gave them the tickets for the game, Arthur didn’t purchase them & they had the best seats possible and met both teams. The Malfoy family were in the row BEHIND them. With regards to the bits they bought, the kids saved up pocket money for that stuff. The film skipped pretty much all of this. It’s stated in the books that Arthur was held back at the ministry because of his muggle obsession and then because of his affiliation with Dumbledore. This improved later in the series. Fred and George also disproves and theory about curses. Don’t forget, they have a single income family….
Were we ever shown a family that wasn't single income? (Does Narcissa work? Did Lilly once Harry was born?) Maybe Remus and Tonks for a time as a couple, but they were not shown as a family unit (and also complicated circumstances)... The twins liked to spend their money on expensive things, and beyond that they may have just had enough income to keep the shop running (and lived above their shop). Not sure if that would be a curse, but maybe a family streak of bad money management. Or good, because they lived in the moment, strong familial bonds over financial and fame prosperity. Maybe the wrong spot for this, but the video pointed out how in Legacy one of the family members was a teacher and how that did not help the family income - which doesn't surprise me, since, well, Remus. It didn't seem to me that being a teacher at Hogwarts came with a great income...
There's no indication any of the Weasley children we meet throughout the books suffer from such a curse. On the contrary, it's a huge point starting by the 5th book how much money the twins made and keep making from their business. And there's never any mention of Ginny dragging Harry into poverty after they married. It rather feels like their curse was suffering from being the contrast to the rich yet cold-hearted Dursleys and needed to stay that way for that reason alone.
A curse is possible, but, recent studies have shown that people in constant debt have their minds - their brainpower, if you will, consumed by those debts and bills to the point they make choices like the trip to Egypt over Barrow improvement, seeking lotteries instead of finding creative ways to cut expenses, etc. Or maybe the curse perpetuates that very circumstance?
Few things overlooked here. 1) Arthur was incredibly against receiving money from anyone ESPECIALLY his children 2) The Prewet’s died like pigs in slaughter agaisnt Voldemort and their wealth went with them. 3) Arthur’s departments are considered a ‘joke’ by nearly all wizards and specially the ministry and pure blood families thus they would be given a MUCH smaller portion of the budget allocated to them. And 4) The Twins do build up a GOOD amount of wealth so a curse isn’t that plausible. It’s mostly just being scorned and Arthur being picking a shitty department to build his career on
... My wife comes from a large family. Nine children, all told. They (my in-laws) are not wealthy. To claim that the income of children (some living countries away) should alleviate the parents' financial pressure betrays a lack of familiarity or understanding. As children move out, the burden lessens, yes, but that doesn't mean the children start sending their money home. Furthermore, the 'department' Arthur was supposed to head was two people. Including himself. That's not a department, that's barely an office. Anyone that cares too will also note that Arthur had to share the room he called an office with his subordinate, indicating that the MoM was not interested in funding his department well. To imply a large income based solely on his job title (while ignoring other clues) betrays, again, a lack of understanding.
The real world explanation was that the weasley's surname was inspired by the weasel, according to JKR they were considered sign of unfortunate in Ireland and UK or nasty animals but she was always fond of them, this idea was also combined with her desire for a big family. In the actual potterverse, even in their inclusion in the sacred 28, the weasley has for generations been a pro muggle union supporter and Arthur's mum was a member of the black family who went against the pro pure blood slytherin. With the black family's powerful influence as seen in Hogwarts legacy, they make sure the weasley clan was denied any form of success. For arthur's case is just so happen he is a muggle centric nut and his department was incredibly underfunded, even if he is the department head, it doesn't make much difference and is true Arthur's issue is pride, as he dislike being given hand-outs and wanting to earn his keep as he refuse the money from Bill and Charlie when they started making money.The family fortune did change as later on under Shacklebolt, the muggle department was given a much higher priority with Arthur as the head and with Percy, Harry and Hermione success as department heads (I do not count cursed child) and George and Ron being described as Rich by Reeta Skeeter with Weasley Wizard Wheezes
5:26. I'm sure they would have. But at the same time, I think Arthur and Molly would have flat out refused to use their children's income for themselves.
I don't think it's a curse. What tendencies you've described is the 'poverty mentality.' Husband has a low paying job that hardly pays the bills, stuff is neglected because of lack of money (like the house) until it gets expensive and take takes more money to repair, when a large amount of money does come in it gets blown on frivilous stuff because it feels like it will just be lost to everything anyway, so why not enjoy it? These bad habits and attitudes can be passed down to children too, which is why poverty can become multi-generational and sem like a 'curse.' It can become a cycle. It can be broken out of, but it takes changibg one's approach to money.
That's precisely why so many lottery winners later go bankrupt. I've also noticed that around tax refund season there's advertisements that say "Spend your tax refund here!" Things that poor folks have postponed buying because they're big ticket items get bought when there is a large windfall like a tax refund. If you cannot afford $600 for a nice new big TV most of the year and you get a $700 tax refund... that TV is going to be mighty tempting when you've had to deny yourself for all the rest of the year.
I think the Wesleys are focusing more on "sentimental" experiences instead of physical wealth status which is probably why they are constantly poor. Their expenses are more than their income essentially
Cute theory but no, if it was a bloodline curse, Fred, George, Bill, Charlie, Percy, Ginny, & Ron would of been affected. Fred & George stared Weasley Wizard Wheezes, and Ron joined in for a bit of a fun whenever he wasn't working as an Auror (Exceptional Money Potential), Bill worked for Gringots as a curse breaker (Exceptional Money Potential), Charlie Dragon Reserves (Very Good Money), Ginny did professional quidditch (Very Good Money) and Percy worked for the Wizengamot (Must be decent enough of cash to barely raise seven kids). The Weasley children mostly married working spouses (don't know if Angelina or Audrey had a career, but I suspect Percy met Audrey through work); Harry, Fleur, and Hermione had great jobs and strong family holdings. I think Arthur Weasley's household was rich in love and as a single earning household was always struggling to keep up. Arthur wasn't always a Department head, and didn't always receive a great wage. As a young family, I think they lived in debt constantly paying back collateral loans to Gringots with a high interest rate from the inception of the Family's early years, some of the early loans were probably defaulted on making the Weasley Family holdings a lot less and also the reason why further future loans would have a very high interest rate. I don't believe the Wizarding world has financial assistance or paid family leave with the birth of each child, making the strain even greater for the Weasley Family. In short, Arthur & Molly chose a future, rich in children verses strong holdings and relatively quiet household.
That still doesn't explain why they didn't use magic to improve their lives. They couldn't magically mend their clothes or update them? They couldn't magically fix up their house or furniture? They learn transfiguration at school; it's a family of Hogwarts graduates, so they should be adept at this stuff.
Hnn... Repairing clothes, yes, but updating might be more tricky. School supplies apparently can't be multiplied either for some reason or the shops that sell them would not be flourishing (and we know that at least the advanced potions book has not been updated for at least a generation). So sellers may simply already have some spells on their things to prevent multiplication and altering (like a magical license and copyright stamp). That's just my headcanon, tho. As for the house? Maybe that would require an in that department very skilled witch or wizard. Not everybody can expand a bag's inside (Hermione is an exception), so creating or expanding a whole house might require hiring and paying someone who learned and trained such a spell (just like architects and builders for muggles). So the burrow was yet another example of them cutting costs and slapping spells together for something that worked just well enough.
Definitely an interesting idea, with loads of good points, liek the Weasleys squandering most of their winnings on a trip to Egypt, and the much overlooked fact that Molly should be the sole benificiary of the Prewett family's fortune, though there's no telling how big that fortune would be so bringing it up doesn't provide much argument in support of the theory.
The Weasleys may not have always got what others thought they would want, but they always got what they needed. They had a roof over their heads, granted it was a shaky roof but a roof all the same, they had food on the table/in their bellies and they had an unconditional love for each other. This made them richer than any other family in the HP universe and it's also why we love them too. ❤️ Personally I'd have rather grown up in the Weasley family than in the Malfoys.
If things other than gold can be multiplied, why not just multiply regular objects and sell them to muggles? I think i remember reading in one of the books something about Hermione's parents converting dollars to galleons
Arthur and Molly would have to be very careful about using magic on anything intended for muggle use, as the muggle recipient would be unable to control or manage any magical functions or other magical elements of said item. There was actually a side story in the books Ron and the twins telling Harry about an incident involving a muggle made tea set that was owned by an old witch when the old witch died, the tea set wound up in a muggle antique shop and a muggle woman bought it and tried to serve tea with it as Ron and the twins explained "It was a disaster. Dad had to work overtime for over a week. The sugar tongs rammed themselves up one guy's nose and had to be surgically removed. Well, the tea pot sprayed, scolding hot tea on all the muggles, causing severe burn injuries." At no point was there any suggestion the old witch maliciously designed her tea set to attack muggles, just that the tea set had enchanted functions for serving tea, the tea pot was likely enchanted to replenish itself with fresh tea on command the sugar tongs were enchanted to rise from the sugar bowl carrying sugar cubes to the tea cups one by one on command. All with fine, well cordenatated precision that would make for a neat tidy and serene tea time if handled properly. But sadly, for that muggle woman and her friends, those magical functions require magical control commands, and that group of muggles simply didn't have the magical means to command those magical functions into proper order, thus leaving those enchanted items to simply run amok randomly rampaging out of control. So if Arthur and Molly want to sell magically fabricated or restored items to muggles, customer safety would require those items to be thoroughly stripped of any and all magical elements before being sold, which may be enough to rule out magical means of producing items or restoring old broken items as you would have to remove the repair/restoration reverting the item to it's old broken state.
Yeah, I also think that something like that was probably ...discouraged by the ministry because magically created items could have unforseen consequences for the muggles XD Especially Molly may have not liked such an approach, using magic for personal gain... Potentially upending at least some part of muggle economics may also not have been something a Weasley would like to do (would not put it beside the Malfoys, but they rather not interacted with muggles at all... Mundungus, tho... But he was already kinda on the ministry's radar XD).
My favorite theory as why they took egypt vacation is because Dumbledore told them to. At the time Sirius just broke out of Azkaban (and Dumbledore and the order dont know he's innocent yet) and is assumed to be going out to get Harry, and because the protective charm that Lily's sacrifice gave to Harry as long as he was at the Dursleys he couldn't be touched. Dumbledore wanted Harry safe so for his own protection told Aurthor to go somewhere with the winnings to prevent Harry going to the burrow for the summer.
No because Sirius broke out because he saw rons rat scabbers on the picture of their holiday on the daily profit and knew it was Peter pettigrew and he broke out to kill him
I think it's writing trope to show that money can't buy love, Harry has more money than he will ever need, but he has no family. While Ron has no money but has all the love he could need (the Weasley are not homeless and don't go hungry, so fall more middle class) and maybe they have big families because they love having them. You always have someone around who will always have your back.
I can imagine a depreciation curse. No matter their asset, it will depreciate. Their bank account loses money, their house deteriorates faster than normal, their clothes and belongings decay faster. So they have no choice but to spend cash the moment they get it.
when you read the book you find out he, Arthur had a chance for promotion and larger pay prior, he turned it down because he enjoyed his job. Arthur simply lacked ambition When he did get promoted He wasn't particularly happy about his new job ,he was practically forced into even though it came with an nice pay raise. One of his sons even commented how he misses his old job.
Of all the families, the Weasley’s would have been the one I would loved to have born into, financial hardship notwithstanding. The happiest, closest knit, generous, and most trusted members of my family tree are the poorest by material standards.
I think it's far more likely that Arthur and Molly simply refused to take any significant cash gifts from their sons (out of pride and principle), rather than the finances being mismanaged. Percy, Ron, and George were likely quite wealthy in their later life.
I don't really think it's any sort of curse. Fred & George managed to attain quite a bit of financial success after they opened their shop. I think it's just a case of, they aren't in with the proper crowds, it's not what you know, it's who you know. So they are not afforded much financial opportunity with the old guard of wealthy wizarding families. As for winning the lottery, it doesn't surprise me at all that they blew most of that on the vacation. Most people in the real world who win lotteries managed to blow it all quite quickly, because they just don't know how to manage money. Also, given what curses we have seen, and the most likely suspects, I think any curse placed on the Weasleys would have been a lot more vindictive than merely keeping them poor.
Couldnt it just have been that they didnt hoard money like dragons and that they would rather spend a family holiday with their children than keep the gold at gringots? And if it were a blood curse, they wouldnt have gone on to have successful careers. Furthermore, wizard vacations arent like muggle vacations, where the majority of your budget goes to accommodations and travel-remember the quidditch cup-and they still had enough to drop a pretty penny on new robes, wand, and other school supplies for their children afterwards. If they were cursed to be bad with money, they would have basically been the dursleys
..why the Dursleys? They lived well off, for middle class. Dudley got loads of presents and went to some fancy school... I agree with the living in the moment and family focus, that love is more important than (monetary) fortune. However there would still be at least somewhat bad financial management if they spent money on a months long vacation but barely had enough left to buy one of their kids a spare new wand. ...like, there's a bit of responsibility there to save up some knuts for the children's needs, necessities or unforseen emergencies / accidents. Keeping the kids grounded with handmade gifts and hand-me-down clothing is not a bad thing, but with so many kids putting a bit aside when you come into money might be a smart move, would it not?
As for the Quidditch Cup.. their tents were borrowed (which is why one smelled a bit funny) if I remember correctly, and the tickets were a gift. The kids at least had some pocket money, but the twins lost all of theirs on a bet (well, technically won, but lost their money anyway) and it was again Harry who paid generously for the more pricey event merchandise.
Now here’s the truth: When writing stories, it’s key to draw from real life when building characters. The concept of a poor large honest humble family is ingrained in our psyche. That was critical and the rest were mere details. In order the make the family more relevant, and important to the story line, he needed a significant role in the plot. He worked for the ministry of magic. The discrepancy of his wealth and his occupation was ignored in order to have a rich cultural experience utilizing a limited source of characters. Harry had a mountain of gold yet none of that was available to his aunt and uncle to raise him because they would have treated him better as his importance to foster family would contradict the way he was treated as an unwanted child. It was important to paint the character Harry as poor and humble so that getting the gifts would have more meaning. Rich in cliché themes that make the books so loved at the price of things not adding up. Keep in mind it’s a made up story about magic with no loyalty to logic. And if you can’t accept that then fine here you go… they lost all of there wealth in a fire and all the money the father makes goes to paying off the deed on there land. Feel better?
you cannot call a family cursed, if they are winning money on a lottery you have a family of 8? with 1 person bringing home an income. molly supposedly makes 0 money. which is actually hard to believe, you would think she'd have some sort of side hustle. poor money management. instead of buying the younger kids essential things (ron and the wand) they buy the older kids things they dont need. arthur, while a "head of department" was passed over multiple times in the books for a raise. they would give him a new title but not the raise. now this might of just been the movies, but i do remember the conversation . being a pureblood does not mean anything for money... just look at the gaunts you are also ignoring the easiest answer, j.k.rowling is not a good writer and didnt focus on those little details.
Ron’s wand was a plot device… and perhaps a teaching moment for Ron after he took his Dad’s car. I still think wearing hand-me-downs or wasting money on the latest interior design is perfectly OK. The Wesley children never went hungry and were more mentally healthy than the wealthy only child, Draco.
@@StrawberryShortcake12335 The Malfoys would have had inherited wealth, going way back, and the Weasleys didn't. Everything that the Weasley children ended up having came about through hard work and skill. None of that would have been possible without Molly looking after her large family.
It seems clear that the Malfoy s have some sorcery of active wealth. Like Harry does with the family potion royalties. Harry likely had more gold in his vault at the end of the series than he did at the start, the Black bequest not considered. The Malfoy's probably own property in diagon alley, and collect rents on it. Or wizarding homes they rent out. They may have partnerships in wizarding businesses. Most likely, they make loans. That gains interest and influence over the debtor. Plus other incomes from previous generations. They can not all have been insufferable bastards since the beginning of time.@@grokeffer6226
One thing that sticks with me about their situation, when the twins start being independent is when Bill's wedding came up, and their poverty isn't really mentioned after that point so I think they started paying everything off. Fudge blocked him from getting promotions on the advice of Malfoy, and once Fudge was gone he started making more, so that probably helped too. Another thing to think about, Charlie and Bill became independent just before Harry started School so they went from paying for 7 kids, to 6 (Charlie left that year) and then 5 by the end of the 1st year of schooling. They bought the broom after Percy had his first job and was becoming independent (4 left), and stopped having money issues once the twins became independent (Only Ginny and Ron left) So in my opinion it was having 7 kids and a SAHM on a salary that could only afford between 2-4 kids. Also, math classes aren't a requirement in the Hogwarts education so they had to figure out finances on their own while probably not having a good idea how math works.
Credit cards, It's all credit card debt. Even with all those incomes by Hollows they have a lot of back debt, all 4 mortgages on the house, back taxes, broom payments, payday loans. Eventually they could pay it all off, probably just another century or two.
It never made sense to me that they were that poor, because it seemed to have been since a very long time, like already with the first child. There were a bunch of reasons given, e.g. that he got put into a dead-end department and didn't earn that much, but it's not like they have to pay rent or anything, just the basic needs to run stuff. But if you really lack money, you can take care of most things (like fire, heat, light etc.) with just magic, meaning the monthly expenses should be really low. But maybe this is generally known and accounted for in magic related jobs, if everyone has less expenses you pay less. But what bothers me is that even the oldest son seemed to have had that poor lifestyle, meaning the logic of "it's because they have a lot of children" is not the reason. Heck, even with a lot of children, while school books accumulate to a lot, it's a 1 time expense per year compared to other costs that happen monthly. So assuming that everything we see is just true, my go-to assumption was that his low paying job is combined with poor spending based on his interest in muggle things. It...doesn't make the most sense since it's not like we see everything filled with expensive stuff, but it could be that wizard world currency converts badly to muggle currency. We do know it's possible from the Grangers, but we don't know at which rate - and since they presumably were well off (as dentists), it wouldn't have been mentioned if it was bad. And if none of that applies, then it would just be that the job pays really really poorly, he got stuck in it but can't get something better anymore.
things that are goblin made have a tiny bit of goblin agic in them. You can dublicate them (as you can wands and so on) but any goblin laying hands on them knows that they are duplicates and not worth anything. I think that the goblins used that fact to make a security measure out of dupliction of the objects. They alone would be able to tell, which one is real. Also...if you read the books it's always explained that dupkicted things are nit the real thing (do ntót work properly or fail easily) So I personally think that there is always some kind of "makers magic" in objects such as wands and aything that's worth something and while you can dupkicte the item, the magic insisde can not be duplicated
For the sake is putting a different theory out there: maybe the traits that keep them “poor” have less to do with a curse and more to do with genetic or characteristic hardwiring of the family since its inception. Remember that JK Rowling gave this most honorable family the name “Weasley” despite the connotation that weasels are dishonest, sneaky, and conniving. Family names are often connected to traits or jobs or positions held by a family. Looking at how an actual weasel is, here are some positive or neutral traits that speak to why the first and successive Weasleys may have been so-named: (1) Weasels are very protective of their homes and home territories, but only live together to mate and raise offspring. The young do not stay with the parents or help them out after reaching adulthood. Obvious connection to Weasley behavior and lack of inter-familial or inter-generational wealth sharing. (2) Weasels’ high metabolism requires them to eat 40% of their body weight every day - they don’t store food for future use, but eat until filled every opportunity they can. (Remember Ron tearing into 2 chicken legs at once at the banquet or eating Harry’s chocolate frog at hospital??) Similarly, the Weasleys make today’s ends meet without worrying about stocking up for tomorrow’s needs. (3) They draw enemies (even larger than themselves) or prey in close for the kill by acting in confusing or counterintuitive ways (the weasel “war dance”). Many folks are confused why intelligent, able people don’t accumulate wealth and thus underestimate them or their abilities. (Beatrix LeStrange vs Molly??) Maybe being “poor” is a weasel war dance of sorts that provides tactical advantage. (4) Weasels blend into their environment and some turn white in winter. The Weasleys often seem to care more about love, concern and support for others, etc. than fame or recognition for its own sake - goals that may be easier to accomplish for the poor than the rich, especially if your family is on the list of 28. So, in sum, maybe the poverty of the Weasley family over generations is less of an outside curse and more of a character trait that has allowed the bloodline to thrive over the generations. P.S. I’m NOT saying poor people want or try to be poor! I’m just offering a specific possible theory about the counterintuitive poverty of the Weasley family over generations.
😂 Great ideas that all sound like a regular middle class family borderline poverty. People who work for any government don’t get paid much. (Not talking about the politicians) Also, I might add, lots of people have the mentality of “having experiences over buying stuff”, and not many people find their houses horrible - they’re just used to it. About the kids who have paying jobs - with those salaries they can barely support themselves and most likely the parents would refuse the money from their children, it’s not uncommon in families all around the world. I love the comment section too! You guys have a great sense of humor and support! ❤
Being poor made them a better family, and the siblings much more close. Having lots of money just “gives” you everything, while having little money make you appreciate things more.
All HP Movies and Books Ranked from best to worst. Chamber Of Secrets Philosopher's Stone Deathly Hollows Part 2 Goblet Of Fire Half Blood Prince Order Of The Pheonix Prisoner Of Azkaban Deathly Hollows Part 1
Does being rich even matter to magical ppl? The Weasleys have: 1) a huge HOUSE that fits 9 ppl, and because of port keys and aparating, in a prime location; 2) magical cleaning utensils (MODERN APPLIANCES ) that do all chores; 3) the kids have free top EDUCATION in a school that is also attended by the richest wizards; 4) first grade magical MEDICAL CARE that saved Arthur's life and none of them ever get sick 5) Abundant FOOD thanks to all those animals 6) A fully restored vintage flying CAR. Muggles rely on money to have all of these benefits, but wizards have magic. Since none of them are squibs, they're quite a bit richer than you.
This theory seems to work better if applied just to Arthur and not the whole Weasley family. It raises some interesting points as to what poverty is, for example the Egypt trip- they all went and had a great time, and that seemed to be what was important to Arthur. And despite money always being tight- I think partly that they instilled good values in their kids that they would pay fines and other consequences for when they broke the rules/laws- they always seemed to have enough to make ends meet, and Arthur and Molly never seemed to worry, as if they actually had a dim recognition of being in a cursed state but that the curse would never prevent them from meeting those ends, only from status symbols which they had no interest in anyway. So, things like a trip to Egypt in that regard, or building this absurdly dilapidated house, would seem totally reasonable. Would not be surprised if at some point Dumbledore told Arthur and Molly of this curse- probably from Malfoy, but reassured them that no matter how many kids they had, as long as they did not spend on status symbols this would never affect their stability- there would always be just enough to cover their expenses. Perhaps even the twins found out about this at some point, and their YOLO approach to life is a reflection of that. In any case, when we say "poverty" it's apparent that none of them really missed meals, more missed chocolate frogs if not friends with Harry Potter.
If I remember correctly, during the wedding one Weasley mentioned that the headpiece that Fleur was wearing was a family heirloom made by Goblins. Since Goblins believe that artworks belong to the artists and are capable of unique magic, they may be the cause of the curse. Bill, working as a "Curse Breaker", may have noticed the magic and removed it by the time of the 6th book.
Good theory. It reminds me of a passage in one of the book as well. When Fred and George have set up their joke Shop. I remember they’re being in occasion where Harry sees Fred and George and they’re both wearing new cloths of the finest dragon hide. Another example of careless spending.
Another point is the curse could of been cast on the Burrow it self. Since Bill Weasley. He is living in a pleasant cottage with Fleur. And doesn’t seem to be doing too badly in HP deathly Hallows.
Molly has a cousin who is a Muggle accountant. Perhaps he can help the twins with double entry bookkeeping and help break the curse. The twins seemed to get along with the local Muggles, so maybe the relative may be more welcome with them.
I don't think the Weasley's are poor. After all the trip of Mr and Mrs Weasley to Egypt Christmas 1992 suggests they had more than enough wealth. Arthur is also fairly high up in the ministry. I suspect it's a case of Poor Proud. Sure their gold reserves are no where near what Harry has, but I doubt Ron would appreciate that his family has more than enough. I'm also of a mind that Molly would hide the family wealth in the back of the vault so that her boys would only see one pitiful little pile of gold. In short they live the way they do because of Molly Weasley. I say this because I've met someone like her. They lived in an old run down farm house. Their kids had to contend with clothing from the second hand stores. They were never allowed any of the little luxuries many of us take for granted. At a dinner I went to at their house there wasn't even water to drink at the table. The soup was enough. Lentil soup. I don't know how she did it but that stuff needed something to wash it down. The woman was a vegan and had some interesting hang ups which included extreme frugality. Now the fun part, underneath all that projected poverty her husband was worth a million dollars. As for the game... The game has acromantulas in the forbidden forest long before Hagrid established the colony. Hagrid clearly states that Aragog was alone in the forest. And the Weasley's in the game were dressed far to nice to be poor. Far more likely they are simply in the habit of presenting themselves as such. Personally I prefer the idea that they had been wealthy and that they came very close to loosing it all during the wizard wars.
@@HarryPotterTheory It's the December 1991 trip where Arthur, Molly, and Ginny visit Charlie in Romania that everyone forgets about. Curious they can't afford to get Ron a decent wand but could afford that trip.
No? They aren’t poor after the series. Molly and Arthur aren’t looking after multiple children anymore so would be doing quite well, Ginny is a professional quidditch player for a time so probably did quite well from that, Ron was a successful auror and co-runs Weasleys wizard wheezes, so probably makes a fair bit, Fred also co-runs Weasleys wizard wheezes, Percy is high up in the ministry, Charlie is living that dragon tamer lifestyle and Bill makes bank at Gringotts. Surely this is, I don’t know, running out of ideas somewhat?
I have a theory that the Egypt trip was about Ginny seeing a possession specialist they knew through Bill to be discrete and trustworthy. That could fall under your poverty curse idea, but isn't exactly misspending the windfall.
Large families take up a lot of money. And Arthur not engaging in dishonest practices, the way that some other families probably had, would make a difference, too. A curse would make sense, though. 🪄🔮
The curse is unlikely. It should affect the Weasley children as well and that's not true as far as we know. They all made a decent income. Fred & George were fairly wealthy even, possibly rich. Also, Bill's a curse breaker, he might've figured it out and done something about it. I'd say that, as soon as all their children started attending Hogwarts, Molly could have worked, even if only part-time during non-holidays when all their children were at school. She didn't. It's likely mainly because Arthur didn't get along with Fudge. That, and maybe they weren't the best at spending/saving money. Not saying they didn't deserve a vacation in the 3rd book, but they could've used the money for something else.
there is also that fact they liked to give rewards o the kids when they made prefects, not necisarily bad but and owl and broom, how about new clothes or something else. lso the fact they bought brand new books for everyone, every year. This is where hand me downs come in handy ok the defence book changes every year, the basics dont. So why didnt they buy TWO sets of books and share them around, the kids are never in the same class at the same time, fofr example
Honestly, they're just bad with money. Molly did not need to be a stay at home mom after book 1 (seriously what was she doing) and they win some drawing and earn tons if money. What do they do with it? Go on a massive vacation in Egypt instead of paying off debts, buying new stuff for the family, investing it, etc
The reason i dont think its a curse is because as far as in aware ginny made a pretty good amount of money playing professional Quidditch. Yes she probably also had access to harry's wealth but i think she dod really well for herself without leaning on harry
Just a thing to comment on; a lot of people saying that the curse doesn't make sense because of Fred and George's shop but the curse is about money management, not money-making per say. Arthur Weasley could've been promoted at any point; Ron says so in the Goblet of Fire book but chose not to because he is muggle-mad. He literally won the lottery (vast wealth!!) but blew it all immediately, tying back to the dreadful money-managing thing. Fred and George probably manage their money horribly (like when they gambled all their savings away in GoF) and spend it on random expensive things like the dragonskin jackets they have but they make enough perpetually for it to be chill because they have a massive business. And it's mentioned in the video that Hogwarts professors likely make a nice enough salary but most likely it doesn't get used very well!
i thought it was that arthur originally did have a high earning job in the ministry but felt unfulfilled and so took a lower earning job to follow in his passion of learning about muggles. that was partially what started percy on his road to betrayal seeing his family as below him
The Weasley sons may not have been contributing financially because Arthur and Molly did not want them to. In many large families like that especially financially strapped ones, the parents will often push individuals to save their money as they make it show us to give them a better start in the future and prevent them from any of the conditions they're in currently. The perfect example is Bill and Fleur, upon getting married they moved beachfront property.
One thing to keep in mind, magic can replicate many items. Food amounts can be increased, buy one potato make enough potatoes for the entire family by increasing the amount once made. Yet, when they take the kids shopping they buy a complete set of Lockhart’s books for each child, instead of buying one set and making copies for each child. Hermione made a copy of Slytherin’s locket, minus the magic and Voldemort’s soul. It looked just like the original. I think part of the problem is their own generosity and honest nature. Technically they could have purchased one robe and created enough robes for all the kids to have three robes, but they would have seen that as unfair to those who made the robes. Even though they were poor they opened their home to Harry, Hermione, Lupin, Tonks, and many others.
It does make sense since it seems at the very least they could buy muggle stuff, engorgio it and sell it, or duplicate and sell everything that isn’t gold. Also. Pretty sure, I too; have this curse.
It's hinted that Aunt Muriel has some level of wealth to her, to paraphrase what Ron says about Muriel, Fred and George "she'll have written Fred and George out of the will, like they care they'll be making more than her at this rate" Which could potentially suggest Muriel has a decent of gold. Although we don't get an exact amount so how much F&G would need to make to have "more than Mureil" is an unknown amount.
Honestly I think it was just a multitude of things that kept the Weasleys in poverty initially: 1- They had 7 kids 2- At one point 5 of those kids were all at Hogwarts and required books, cauldrons, wands, robes, potion ingredients etc etc. Those of y’all who are doing back to school shopping right now will understand. 3-Arthur heads a very small department and as such probably doesn’t have a large budget that gives him a large salary That being said, I don’t believe their fortunes are set in stone. Bill works at Gringotts and is quite successful in the regard. Charlie works with Dragons and Percy works for the Ministry of Magic. Fred and George open up Weasleys Wizarding Wheezes. They’re all able to put on a wedding for Bill and Fleur. Ron gets a new wand, robes and an owl. Later on down the line Harry and Ginny get married and become and Auror and a seeker for the Hollyhead Harpies respectively. Ron becomes and Auror and Hermione becomes Minister of Magic. George marries Angelina Johnson and runs his Joke Shop.
Okay side note on a little fact that you threw in they're about the defense against the dark arts curse. At this point Dumbledore knows for sure that every teacher he's hired for the position has only made it a year, and then something happens. So, do you think he actually like warns the new teachers that HE hires, or he just like hires them and then lets them go through whatever they go through? Cuz like sometimes the teacher dies...
“It’s not my fault I’m poor, it’s a family curse, I swear” yeah that’s probably what I would say too Arthur 😂, But fr most people are bad with money, it’s not really anything against their character, its hard to not spend money. They might just be bad with money….
Most of the time I’m with you on these theories…. This one, not so much. Fred and George in rons words make bookoos of money. They wear dragon hide suits, and are extremely successful. This simple fact proves this theory is wrong or at the very least that it doesn’t affect the Weasley children after Arthur! There are also plenty of pure bloods who are poor in the films. The dumbledores for starters were not well off. Stan shunpike is another, and I think the biggest telling factor is when the death eaters take over the ministry what do they do….? They remove all muggle borns and half bloods from their jobs at the ministry. They then place wizards of pure blood in those roles, some whom we see are not very well educated, well spoken, or remotely qualified for the jobs. I think there is three explanations here, first Arthur and Molly wouldn’t except their children’s money. Second wizard wealth is WAY higher than muggle wealth, so poor in the wizarding world may not be poor in the muggle world. (Least likely) Third… (most likely) JK Rowling wanted them to be poor. So she wrote them poor, then everyone in subsequent media has made all Weasleys poor.
Although part of it is clearly the large family, I actually think this is on purpose. After examining for myself, I believe that it is the policy of the weasleys to purposely stay poor. Whether this is because they have embraced a cursed status who knows? But if you look closely at every Weasley, they are all super successful in their chosen fields. And many of their struggles actually lead them to that unique success. It's very possible that the family has a policy of purposeful struggle, believing it makes them stronger. they have a unique viewpoint already considering that they are as you said well-known blood traders despite being a pureblood family. Perhaps they looked at how much muggles achieve even without magic and decided to use the Muggle mannerism of struggling for success as a sort of training program. After all if you can be successful while at your worst, you'll be extra successful at your best. and in the meantime it's a good lesson to teach your large family what really matters before financial success comes around. This also explains why Harry winds up not helping the weasleys, because as he gets to know them he realizes they would not accept the help normally. Most Wesleys prefer the lesser travel path. Their financial struggles are simply a way of honing their vision. Other wizards don't get it, because why would you give up your success? Why not just use magic and make everything so much easier? Shouldn't you just keep your wealth and laud your stats over each other. But the weasleys have been taught better. And that is their secret power.
More Harry Potter Documentaries! th-cam.com/play/PLB5djWCQq2_e0UCOmVbhRP8HkxetpzXUV.html
I have a few ideas about who cursed them - provided that this theory is true. And it all comes down to the ancestors of two well-known families in the Wizarding World: the Blacks and the Malfoys. I believe that, at some point in their history, the Weasley Family was at least somewhat wealthy themselves, before having their wealth _stolen_ out from under them by either the Blacks and/or the Malfoys, who then subsequently placed a curse on them to ensure that the Weasleys would never again be able to attain the level (or greater level) of wealth they once possessed.
What if Voldemort created the Acromantula?
In fantastic beasts and where to find them, it stays that:
A) We first here about this species when voldy is weak and in the forbidden forrest and
B) This animal was most likely wizard-bred. This species was meant to guard dwellings or treasure, but what about... Someone?
The acromantula has near-wizard intelligence yet is untrainable.
This info could be telling us that when he-who-must- not-be-named needed security and help, he transferred some of his power to make them. He wanted a distraction so that when harry wouldn't find him in the forbidden forrest.
Voldemort may have even made Acromantulas a while back as some of them seem centuries old as in the past, he has been very strong.
The species is NOW under watch of the department for control and regulation of magical creatures so maybe they thought of this too?
How can the Weasleys so poor when you can conjure food, or force seeds to grow quickly. Magic Manipulation is the best way of making money. Even more you can can magically convince normal non-magical people to give you company secrets in the stock market. Change coal to diamonds scientifically using magic force. They would even give you rundown country properties at no to low cost, which you sell it latter. The rules on magic seem apply to adults if you are caught.
THANK YOU SO MUCH for having the common curtesy of actually giving the answer in the name!!!🙂😇🥰
I bet part of how the curse works is all the money they mismanage somehow ends up in the Malfoy's vault
"I married a Weasley and became a millionaire"
"Cool, and what were you before?"
"A billionaire"
Is this happened after Harry marries Ginny!?
@@ancaryvan4811 No cause Harry didn't become a Weasley he was still a Potter.
Well he did marry a Weasley so he is part of the Weasley family!
@@BoxtankEnginethat was not the point!! 😂😅
surely Ron and hermione become wealthy with the jobs they get? and George is loaded 😂 so maybe the curse ends woth them
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.
Ron was very successful himself as well. Aurors are well paid.
Ginny was also well off, first as a Quidditch player and later on in her life, as a sports writer for the Prophet.
This makes so much more sense than the "theory" in the video. Well sussed.
Their curse is not pride but moral & principle that’s what their pride is based on, not ego pride like Malfoy😅 Weasley are still up to par to the old moral code way of life!
I'm not even a fan and that much was obvious just by watching the movies 😂
There is no theory, just a single income from a government job and a bunch of kids? Of course they're gonna be poor.
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.
It's also possible that the curse ended with Arthur Weasley when Voldemort was defeated... I would postulate that the Malfoys were indeed the ones that cursed the Weasleys and that the two heirs of that bloodline, Lucius and Draco, had such profound changes of heart at that point in time, that they unwittingly lifted the curse.
@@valemadreelusername That doesn't explain Maltilda and Gareth though. Voldemort wasn't around during the late 1800's and the Malfoys probably wouldn't have cared one way or another about the Weasleys during that time frame.
But you could take Fred and George’s lack of sound financial management of the money they earned, for example buying frivolous expensive things, as another example of the way the curse works. Also, remember their gambling fiasco at the Quidditch World Cup. Yet another example of financial disaster for members of the Weasley family.
@@scottleitner4801 I understand that. I wasn't saying that Voldemort had anything to do with it. The main thing is that after Voldemort was defeated, the Malfoys were different - perhaps so different that they lifted the curse because they no longer felt animosity to the Weasleys.
@@pjschmid2251 We don't know the full extent of Fred and George's finances beyond the fact that they made money for years, even past Fred's death. They DID move away from the Burrow, living in the flat above the store. If they weren't making money, they never would have been able to keep the store going
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.
Although I agree with you for most, I do have to point out that Percy wasn't happy being poor either, probably more so than Ron. Ron, didn't like being poor but he never betrayed his family because of it. Yes, Percy was after power and prestige but that probably stems from the family always being looked down upon because of how poor they were.
@catterin7815 Yeah, I forgot about Percy. Not even the Weasleys considered him family at one point, but at the end, he came back and told them how wrong he was, shortly before Fred died.
It would be neat if we weren't talking about a curse, but a blessing. A distant Weasley ancestor makes a powerful bargain wherein his descendants would always be wealthy in all ways but riches. 😊
Unlike the Dursleys, the Weasleys weren't defenseless muggels who had to live with a horkrux(Harry) with a part of Voldemorts soul for many years.
Having 7 children isn't a blessing, it's irresponsible.
Poverty hurts.
They have 7 kids and 1 government job. That’s why they are poor.
And Arthur turned down promotions so he could keep working with muggles. He valued his own selfish interests more than what was best for his family.
@@Based808 Yup, turned down and passed over by wizards that felt his love of muggles wasn't the correct attitude.
Other wizards made a lot of money at the ministry
Why would Molley, being that powerfull, and having up to 8 month of free time(children either working abroad or at Hogwarts) never taking a job? Person can go crazy living in 4 walls all year, cooking. Bill worked at Gringotts, removing curses(it should be one of the most compensated jobs ever) There should really be some sort of curse.
Thinking of it:
Jinny - Potter wealth + quidditch team
Bill - Delacur wealth + money when worked for Gringots
Ron - Granger was Minister of Magic & Ron worked with George
George - has one of the most popular magic candy shops
Charly - dragon tamer (can't have poorly compansated job)
Persey and Arthur - Ministry work
tell me if family that consists of [Billionare, multy-millionaire , top Manager in millionair's company, millionaire, another millionaire and minister with deputy] may overall be a pretty poor in our world.
@@L_Eres most of that stuff happens at the end of HP or way later. Has nothing to do with them being poor in the series.
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.
I do remember Harry tried to help them out by offering a few Galleons (a noticeable amount of wizarding money) but Mr. Weasley politely declined it.
this, it's not a child's responsibility to take care of their siblings. Bill, Charley, and Percy weren't obligated to pay for their younger siblings' needs. their parents had seven kids they should figure out a way to provide for them. also it wasn't the older kids' fault their mom didn't get a job.
A relative of mine, 1 generation back, was an animal tech for many years and then a failed chicken farmer. He refused all attempts at financial help from any of us. When his own son had to go on public assistance for a few weeks, for that whole time he would not speak to him. Harsh, maybe, but principled. I think Arthur W is in that mold. I think this thread is right, it's reflection of the British class system that JKR is spinning here, and a contrast of a (mostly) close-knit family, the kind Harry didn't have growing up, with the nobby racist snoots in Slytherin.
Really makes you wonder how wizards especially Mr Weasley of all people never heard of the muggle invention called birth control lol. If anyone needed it, it was this family
Umm, seven kids on one middle class income? It was never a mystery to me why they had financial problems.
I mean, you can fix things with a first year spell.
Also they don't value gold in the slightest. That's why they are willing to spend their new found fortune on visiting their family in egypt. The only ones who are slightly interested in money where the twins and even they spent most likely all their money on r&d because they liked to make new things instead of accumulating wealth.
Yea that's what I assumed lol. It didn't seem they were impoverished. Just seemed that they had too many damn kids and Arthur was working in the muggle affairs office not exactly ranking in the bank if you factor in all the prejudice. Also pretty sure the mom was a stay at home mom!
I think what prompted the theory and ultimately the video is the fact that in the Legacy game the Weasleys were poor centuries before the generation in the books.
That's just it though when you read the book you find out he had a chance for promotion and larger pay prior,
he turned it down because he enjoyed his job so much.
Arthur lacked ambition
He wasn't particularly happy about his new job ,he was practically forced into even though it came with an nice pay raise. It is even commented how he misses his old job
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 🧡
Harry was horcrux, so he turned his aunt and uncle evil.
I've read loads of fanfics where the Weasley family's caring for Harry (mostly Ron, Ginny, and Molly) was nothing but a façade so they could gain his trust and steal all of his money, properties, and whatnot for themselves thanks to the manipulations of an "evil" Dumbledore where he illegally creates a magical "marriage contract" between Harry and Ginny when they both become of age to marry so Ginny can become a black widow and "inherit" all of Harry's wealth, which would be placed with the Weasleys. But, this fails and Harry discovers that the Weasleys have used him and he destroys the marriage contract and completely cuts all ties with them, except for perhaps Fred and George, and presumably Bill and Charlie because they weren't supportive of an "evil" Dumbledore regardless of them viewing him as a god.
@@kryptonianpowers that fanfic is garbage
Yes! I agree!
@@kryptonianpowers That's stuff thought up by dark, sick, unhappy, twisted people. Those are the same type of people who take children's cartoons and turn them dark. Some people are just sick in the head 😑
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.
Yes I bet the scared 28 pure blood families probably had expectations about marriage like prearrangements and there were issues if you broke that, being that Molly & Arthur both are pure blood families I’d bet they were supposed to marry someone else but chose love instead so were punished with poverty
I forgot about the Crouches. I need to go back and reread the books although that won't be easy. It took me months to get through them all!
If there is a curse, which I doubt, this is the best explanation I can think of because you're right, The financial situation does get better after the fourth book, especially Fred and George's.
Wait, the Crouches are related to the Weasleys?
@@SockieTheSockPuppet Indeed. Barty Crouch Sr was Arthur's cousin.
“Money does not bring you happiness” clearly the Weasley family took that to heart.
Money cannot buy love
(they used all their money to buy happiness, this is why they don't have any money left)
@@holeeshi9959 Imagine the grocery bill with 9 kids. Just my Cat and I is 100 for bare necessity items and food / cat food and snacks for groceries and bills for the month is like 940 with bills to keep stuff on in the house electric gas water sewage car insurance medical insurance ect, not including medicines for my Anemia Carpel Tunnel Arthritis ect health issues. I make like 1300 a month after almost 13 years at one place.
If thats the case then harry would lost his wealth when he married Ginny
Seriously bro if money cannot buy love do you know how expensive modern dating is? And don't forget about the other expenses on dates and by the way it should be money doesn't buy happiness but it is a factor to said happiness.@@MadonnaGrogan
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.
Well said, just look at the Gaunts
That's the reason why teaching of financial literacy as a subject is so important
And some offsprings get very rich, because they are afraid of beeing poor to high point, that it shapes their actions in a high degree.
So ask yourself why they would need money for basic necessities when they could do magic. A family of Hogwarts graduates who can't magically mend clothes or change the style, or fix up their house or furniture is just incompetence. Hermione fixed Harry's glasses in the first movie before she even attended wizard school, so why can't a whole family of Hogwarts graduates do better magic?
@@edennis8578 Exactly anyone who can graduate Hogwarts has literally no excuse for living in a precarious shack, having worn out broken stuff, and not having resources. Just with magic we're shown them learning in Hogwarts they have no need for money.
Their financial woes didn’t get better since Arthur couldn’t stay off Molly 🤣
Molly
@@pbrn1729 thanks, gonna correct myself now
Noooooooooo 😂😂😂😂
🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆
Nah 😭😭😭
Condoms are difficult to conjury 😂😂😂
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.
i agree, i think some people look too much into things! we need to remember its a story… not real life! we dont need to nitpick everything (although its still fun to theorise!) we just need to appreciate the world that has been created, even if its not entirely possible.
Yes they are bc Fred & Goarge sale magician supplies to muggles
Mundungus Fletcher sold stuff - magical and whatever he could get his hands on -to muggles and he was basically viewed as a criminal
@@maizym7549 it's just a kids book and not very thought out in its world building; it isn't well written but well liked is all, and people like to fill in the plot holes to give it depth or excuse its lack of a cohesive execution.
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.
They had 7 kids,a 1 parent income.I wonder why they were poor....
Why would that matter? The majority of your expenses, especially where kids are concerned, are food, rent and clothes. The Weasleys own a large property, so rent isn't going to increase with the number of children. They have magic, which in conjunction with said property could be used to easily create food and they have repair spells that enable them to keep any piece of clothing or equipment in service indefinitely.
There is very little reason why the number of children could be responsible for them being poor
maybe because wizards in general (and Molly in particular) haven't heard of "pills"? :D
@@jindrichzitka6383 Contraceptive spells / charms are probably a thing.
You don't need money when you can cast spells. For example, they learn transfiguration at school, but they couldn't mend their clothes, transform old fashioned clothes to something newer, or fix their house? That's just plain incompetent. In the first movie, Hermione fixes Harry's glasses with a simple wave of her wand and a word, and she hadn't even attended wizard achool, yet!
@@jindrichzitka6383 Pretty sure they have figured out potions that do the same thing. Besides that, unlike the idea that the world is over populated, it is known that wizards are more rare and getting rarer with each conflict so birth control is probably a stupid idea in their circle.
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.
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.
If one of them was a curse breaker....
yeah Bill could probably find out if they are cursed, and do something about it.
@katmaresparkles9578 right?? Lol you think they'd eventually wonder if they were cursed
@@katmaresparkles9578 maybe thats why they later won that lottery?
@@Kira-zy2ro interesting thought
Perhaps it is akin to many that pursue a career in medicine due to an inherited genetic disorder or those that research psychology for self psycho analysis seeking improvement and become fascinated early on to the point of making it their career field. Let me clarify the field of study doesn't imply or suggest shared behaviors or symptoms that initiated anyone's interests in medicine or psychology. However, there is no shame in the driving force and passion behind one's choice of profession to be of a personal nature, either.
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.
You don't think having 7 kids and Molly not contributing financially to the family has anything to do with it? Its also a safe bet that the Weasley's contributed to the Order of the Pheonix regularly.
I'm not too familiar with that part of the story, but don't the Weasley's basically live at Grimauld Place for extended periods of time? Hermione spends several holidays there too iirc. It's really a misserable existence as a safehouse, though.
Did you even watch the video 😂
There is very little reason why the number of children could be responsible for them being poor
The majority of your expenses, especially where kids are concerned, are food, rent and clothes. They own a large property, so rent isn't going to increase with the number of children. THey have magic, which in conjunction with said property could be used to create food and they have repair spells that enable them to keep any piece of clothing or equipment in service indefinitely.
@Alexander_Kale Its established lore that magic can not create food from nothing.
@@TomsBackyardWorkshop So? it is also established lore that you CAN multiply existing food, and you can probably use magic for accelerated farming.
They certainly have the land for it.
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
An interesting in universe explanation for what is clearly one of many glaring plot holes in the Harry Potter books. Although I think the Weasley children's successes put a strain on the blood curse theory. If it was true, they would also be affected, but all indications are that all of the Weasley kids were at least reasonably successful
Along with the entire relevant plot holes of why witches and wizards spent so much on things like food they could just duplicate (which is stated to be possible) or clothes or other essentials. Repairing old or broken things should be trivial as well. You may not be able to duplicate gold, but normal expenses just wouldn't really apply to them
Repairing things is the way to make a ton of money. I'd buy the worst cars in the junkyard, repairo them, and sell them as mint classic cars. Others could do the same with other old things. All you have to do is make sure the muggles don't know how you are fixing those things.
One thing to remember is this: Gold, just like paper money, isn't valuable in itself. It's just pretty (and can conduct electricity well, which isn't useful to wizards). It's that people think it's valuable and will give actual useful things in exchange for it. If all of the sudden, all the gold on this planet disappeared, it would be no great loss. Food, on the other hand, has a genuine, real (not imagined) value, as do many things that have genuine uses. The fact wizards can't make gold doesn't mean they can't make money. They could just create or fix things that they can sell.
It was said in the last book that if you had food you could duplicate it. Elsewhere it was said the full nutrition would be divided into the final quantity. So if you had 1 egg and magicked it into a dozen eggs, all 12 eggs would only have the same nutrition as one egg and you'd not feel as full and would eventually start to have health problems. I could see Molly doing that on occasion.
But why didn't she repairo some things to make them look better, like the older books for Ginny. And didn't she know any spells to take out the hems of robes so they could be worn a little longer?
The twins were successful for a while. But what happened after that?? One of them dies. Percy turns slowly into a monster and Bill was bit by a werewolf and all hell broke loose at his wedding.
the problem with your theory is the twins make a lot of wealth with the joke shop
If it only applied to Arthur and Molly, and they knew that any money sent to their dad would be as though flushed down the vomiting toilet, the theory might work better.
Also one married Harry, who is minted. And hermione who also became minted
Fred is dead. George lost his ear.
The twins do not the family and they never said they did or did not send money back home.
Ginny married Harry so that would mean that Harry loose his fortune. This curse theory is not valid. Unless is it was, as some other commenter pointed out, inflicted upon them by the Crouches and after the Crouch family died out, the curse lifted somehow.... but I think curses can outlive the person who cast them.
I never really thought of them as “poor” they had little in the way of financial means, but it met all their needs. And they were extremely rich in what mattered.
I thought the same. Maybe since they’re such big family they just trying their best to stay under budget to the point they look cheap and poor. My behind the scenes theory is Molly and Arthur always donate and support other families who lost in 1st Wizarding War. They both were in the order of phoenix and their families as well, imagine how many people they knew personally that they lost, how many orphans or even older parents who lost their children and left to fend for themselves when they can’t really do example Naville and his grandma’s. There also funerals and hospital bills that they might have tried to help as much as they could. Molly and Arthur always seem to be able to afford what they need even they don’t feel easy about it, they never really seem like people who don’t have enough to spend but rather would like to spend where else they feel more important.
I imagine Fred and George’s successful joke shop + The ministry buying their shield cloaks had helped their family’s wealth
I personally started wondering about the Weasley's finances once the Goblet Of Fire came around. Arthur manages to get most of his family into the Quidditch World Cup & is able to buy his kids hats, scarfs, face paint & whatever else to support their favorite team, yet it takes an entire year for Ron to get a new wand, the kids always use / have hand-me-down clothes & books, etc. Heck, I'm still surprised that the Burrow house never collapsed & killed someone because of how badly it was built. It's just crazy that a former Azkaban prisoner who was also a Death Eater was so successful in the Ministry, yet Arthur was barely getting by while also working for the Ministry
Regarding Ron's wand- it didn't take them a year to save up for it. Ron never told his parents he broke it. Ron didn't want his mother to send another howler, on top of his being punished for wrecking the car. Like a kid who smashes their school tablet, and then tries to finish the year with it busted because he doesn't want to get in trouble for breaking it.
Bagman gave them the tickets for the game, Arthur didn’t purchase them & they had the best seats possible and met both teams. The Malfoy family were in the row BEHIND them. With regards to the bits they bought, the kids saved up pocket money for that stuff. The film skipped pretty much all of this. It’s stated in the books that Arthur was held back at the ministry because of his muggle obsession and then because of his affiliation with Dumbledore.
This improved later in the series. Fred and George also disproves and theory about curses.
Don’t forget, they have a single income family….
Were we ever shown a family that wasn't single income? (Does Narcissa work? Did Lilly once Harry was born?) Maybe Remus and Tonks for a time as a couple, but they were not shown as a family unit (and also complicated circumstances)...
The twins liked to spend their money on expensive things, and beyond that they may have just had enough income to keep the shop running (and lived above their shop). Not sure if that would be a curse, but maybe a family streak of bad money management. Or good, because they lived in the moment, strong familial bonds over financial and fame prosperity.
Maybe the wrong spot for this, but the video pointed out how in Legacy one of the family members was a teacher and how that did not help the family income - which doesn't surprise me, since, well, Remus. It didn't seem to me that being a teacher at Hogwarts came with a great income...
There's no indication any of the Weasley children we meet throughout the books suffer from such a curse. On the contrary, it's a huge point starting by the 5th book how much money the twins made and keep making from their business. And there's never any mention of Ginny dragging Harry into poverty after they married.
It rather feels like their curse was suffering from being the contrast to the rich yet cold-hearted Dursleys and needed to stay that way for that reason alone.
"We just need ONE more score!!" -Dutch Van Der Linde
A curse is possible, but, recent studies have shown that people in constant debt have their minds - their brainpower, if you will, consumed by those debts and bills to the point they make choices like the trip to Egypt over Barrow improvement, seeking lotteries instead of finding creative ways to cut expenses, etc. Or maybe the curse perpetuates that very circumstance?
Not to mention the trip to the Cup.
Few things overlooked here. 1) Arthur was incredibly against receiving money from anyone ESPECIALLY his children 2) The Prewet’s died like pigs in slaughter agaisnt Voldemort and their wealth went with them. 3) Arthur’s departments are considered a ‘joke’ by nearly all wizards and specially the ministry and pure blood families thus they would be given a MUCH smaller portion of the budget allocated to them. And 4) The Twins do build up a GOOD amount of wealth so a curse isn’t that plausible. It’s mostly just being scorned and Arthur being picking a shitty department to build his career on
And forgetting to pull out
@@masongrainger2271Lolz 😅 fair
...
My wife comes from a large family. Nine children, all told. They (my in-laws) are not wealthy. To claim that the income of children (some living countries away) should alleviate the parents' financial pressure betrays a lack of familiarity or understanding. As children move out, the burden lessens, yes, but that doesn't mean the children start sending their money home.
Furthermore, the 'department' Arthur was supposed to head was two people. Including himself. That's not a department, that's barely an office. Anyone that cares too will also note that Arthur had to share the room he called an office with his subordinate, indicating that the MoM was not interested in funding his department well. To imply a large income based solely on his job title (while ignoring other clues) betrays, again, a lack of understanding.
The real world explanation was that the weasley's surname was inspired by the weasel, according to JKR they were considered sign of unfortunate in Ireland and UK or nasty animals but she was always fond of them, this idea was also combined with her desire for a big family. In the actual potterverse, even in their inclusion in the sacred 28, the weasley has for generations been a pro muggle union supporter and Arthur's mum was a member of the black family who went against the pro pure blood slytherin. With the black family's powerful influence as seen in Hogwarts legacy, they make sure the weasley clan was denied any form of success.
For arthur's case is just so happen he is a muggle centric nut and his department was incredibly underfunded, even if he is the department head, it doesn't make much difference and is true Arthur's issue is pride, as he dislike being given hand-outs and wanting to earn his keep as he refuse the money from Bill and Charlie when they started making money.The family fortune did change as later on under Shacklebolt, the muggle department was given a much higher priority with Arthur as the head and with Percy, Harry and Hermione success as department heads (I do not count cursed child) and George and Ron being described as Rich by Reeta Skeeter with Weasley Wizard Wheezes
Don't worry, nobody should count the cursed child.
5:26. I'm sure they would have. But at the same time, I think Arthur and Molly would have flat out refused to use their children's income for themselves.
I don't think it's a curse. What tendencies you've described is the 'poverty mentality.' Husband has a low paying job that hardly pays the bills, stuff is neglected because of lack of money (like the house) until it gets expensive and take takes more money to repair, when a large amount of money does come in it gets blown on frivilous stuff because it feels like it will just be lost to everything anyway, so why not enjoy it? These bad habits and attitudes can be passed down to children too, which is why poverty can become multi-generational and sem like a 'curse.' It can become a cycle. It can be broken out of, but it takes changibg one's approach to money.
That's precisely why so many lottery winners later go bankrupt. I've also noticed that around tax refund season there's advertisements that say "Spend your tax refund here!" Things that poor folks have postponed buying because they're big ticket items get bought when there is a large windfall like a tax refund. If you cannot afford $600 for a nice new big TV most of the year and you get a $700 tax refund... that TV is going to be mighty tempting when you've had to deny yourself for all the rest of the year.
1:06 "In financial dire straits." Well, they can't get money for nothing or cheques for free
😂
I think the Wesleys are focusing more on "sentimental" experiences instead of physical wealth status which is probably why they are constantly poor. Their expenses are more than their income essentially
Cute theory but no, if it was a bloodline curse, Fred, George, Bill, Charlie, Percy, Ginny, & Ron would of been affected. Fred & George stared Weasley Wizard Wheezes, and Ron joined in for a bit of a fun whenever he wasn't working as an Auror (Exceptional Money Potential), Bill worked for Gringots as a curse breaker (Exceptional Money Potential), Charlie Dragon Reserves (Very Good Money), Ginny did professional quidditch (Very Good Money) and Percy worked for the Wizengamot (Must be decent enough of cash to barely raise seven kids). The Weasley children mostly married working spouses (don't know if Angelina or Audrey had a career, but I suspect Percy met Audrey through work); Harry, Fleur, and Hermione had great jobs and strong family holdings.
I think Arthur Weasley's household was rich in love and as a single earning household was always struggling to keep up. Arthur wasn't always a Department head, and didn't always receive a great wage. As a young family, I think they lived in debt constantly paying back collateral loans to Gringots with a high interest rate from the inception of the Family's early years, some of the early loans were probably defaulted on making the Weasley Family holdings a lot less and also the reason why further future loans would have a very high interest rate. I don't believe the Wizarding world has financial assistance or paid family leave with the birth of each child, making the strain even greater for the Weasley Family. In short, Arthur & Molly chose a future, rich in children verses strong holdings and relatively quiet household.
So it would suffice that if they were cursed Bill would have been on it to break their curse too lol
That still doesn't explain why they didn't use magic to improve their lives. They couldn't magically mend their clothes or update them? They couldn't magically fix up their house or furniture? They learn transfiguration at school; it's a family of Hogwarts graduates, so they should be adept at this stuff.
Hnn... Repairing clothes, yes, but updating might be more tricky. School supplies apparently can't be multiplied either for some reason or the shops that sell them would not be flourishing (and we know that at least the advanced potions book has not been updated for at least a generation).
So sellers may simply already have some spells on their things to prevent multiplication and altering (like a magical license and copyright stamp).
That's just my headcanon, tho.
As for the house? Maybe that would require an in that department very skilled witch or wizard. Not everybody can expand a bag's inside (Hermione is an exception), so creating or expanding a whole house might require hiring and paying someone who learned and trained such a spell (just like architects and builders for muggles). So the burrow was yet another example of them cutting costs and slapping spells together for something that worked just well enough.
Definitely an interesting idea, with loads of good points, liek the Weasleys squandering most of their winnings on a trip to Egypt, and the much overlooked fact that Molly should be the sole benificiary of the Prewett family's fortune, though there's no telling how big that fortune would be so bringing it up doesn't provide much argument in support of the theory.
The Weasleys may not have always got what others thought they would want, but they always got what they needed.
They had a roof over their heads, granted it was a shaky roof but a roof all the same, they had food on the table/in their bellies and they had an unconditional love for each other.
This made them richer than any other family in the HP universe and it's also why we love them too. ❤️
Personally I'd have rather grown up in the Weasley family than in the Malfoys.
If things other than gold can be multiplied, why not just multiply regular objects and sell them to muggles? I think i remember reading in one of the books something about Hermione's parents converting dollars to galleons
You'd think Arthur would've thought of that
Arthur and Molly would have to be very careful about using magic on anything intended for muggle use, as the muggle recipient would be unable to control or manage any magical functions or other magical elements of said item. There was actually a side story in the books Ron and the twins telling Harry about an incident involving a muggle made tea set that was owned by an old witch when the old witch died, the tea set wound up in a muggle antique shop and a muggle woman bought it and tried to serve tea with it as Ron and the twins explained
"It was a disaster. Dad had to work overtime for over a week. The sugar tongs rammed themselves up one guy's nose and had to be surgically removed. Well, the tea pot sprayed, scolding hot tea on all the muggles, causing severe burn injuries."
At no point was there any suggestion the old witch maliciously designed her tea set to attack muggles, just that the tea set had enchanted functions for serving tea, the tea pot was likely enchanted to replenish itself with fresh tea on command the sugar tongs were enchanted to rise from the sugar bowl carrying sugar cubes to the tea cups one by one on command. All with fine, well cordenatated precision that would make for a neat tidy and serene tea time if handled properly. But sadly, for that muggle woman and her friends, those magical functions require magical control commands, and that group of muggles simply didn't have the magical means to command those magical functions into proper order, thus leaving those enchanted items to simply run amok randomly rampaging out of control. So if Arthur and Molly want to sell magically fabricated or restored items to muggles, customer safety would require those items to be thoroughly stripped of any and all magical elements before being sold, which may be enough to rule out magical means of producing items or restoring old broken items as you would have to remove the repair/restoration reverting the item to it's old broken state.
Yeah, I also think that something like that was probably ...discouraged by the ministry because magically created items could have unforseen consequences for the muggles XD
Especially Molly may have not liked such an approach, using magic for personal gain...
Potentially upending at least some part of muggle economics may also not have been something a Weasley would like to do (would not put it beside the Malfoys, but they rather not interacted with muggles at all... Mundungus, tho... But he was already kinda on the ministry's radar XD).
My favorite theory as why they took egypt vacation is because Dumbledore told them to. At the time Sirius just broke out of Azkaban (and Dumbledore and the order dont know he's innocent yet) and is assumed to be going out to get Harry, and because the protective charm that Lily's sacrifice gave to Harry as long as he was at the Dursleys he couldn't be touched. Dumbledore wanted Harry safe so for his own protection told Aurthor to go somewhere with the winnings to prevent Harry going to the burrow for the summer.
No because Sirius broke out because he saw rons rat scabbers on the picture of their holiday on the daily profit and knew it was Peter pettigrew and he broke out to kill him
I think it's writing trope to show that money can't buy love, Harry has more money than he will ever need, but he has no family. While Ron has no money but has all the love he could need (the Weasley are not homeless and don't go hungry, so fall more middle class) and maybe they have big families because they love having them. You always have someone around who will always have your back.
since the Weasleys and the Malfoys have a blood feud it stands to reason that they could also be cursed by them.
was thinking the same thing
I can imagine a depreciation curse. No matter their asset, it will depreciate. Their bank account loses money, their house deteriorates faster than normal, their clothes and belongings decay faster. So they have no choice but to spend cash the moment they get it.
when you read the book you find out he, Arthur had a chance for promotion and larger pay prior,
he turned it down because he enjoyed his job.
Arthur simply lacked ambition
When he did get promoted
He wasn't particularly happy about his new job ,he was practically forced into even though it came with an nice pay raise.
One of his sons even commented how he misses his old job.
Of all the families, the Weasley’s would have been the one I would loved to have born into, financial hardship notwithstanding. The happiest, closest knit, generous, and most trusted members of my family tree are the poorest by material standards.
I think it's far more likely that Arthur and Molly simply refused to take any significant cash gifts from their sons (out of pride and principle), rather than the finances being mismanaged. Percy, Ron, and George were likely quite wealthy in their later life.
Maybe not a curse but a Siphon of prosperity by the Malfoys? After all, their name means "Bad Faith"
I don't really think it's any sort of curse. Fred & George managed to attain quite a bit of financial success after they opened their shop.
I think it's just a case of, they aren't in with the proper crowds, it's not what you know, it's who you know. So they are not afforded much financial opportunity with the old guard of wealthy wizarding families.
As for winning the lottery, it doesn't surprise me at all that they blew most of that on the vacation. Most people in the real world who win lotteries managed to blow it all quite quickly, because they just don't know how to manage money.
Also, given what curses we have seen, and the most likely suspects, I think any curse placed on the Weasleys would have been a lot more vindictive than merely keeping them poor.
Couldnt it just have been that they didnt hoard money like dragons and that they would rather spend a family holiday with their children than keep the gold at gringots? And if it were a blood curse, they wouldnt have gone on to have successful careers. Furthermore, wizard vacations arent like muggle vacations, where the majority of your budget goes to accommodations and travel-remember the quidditch cup-and they still had enough to drop a pretty penny on new robes, wand, and other school supplies for their children afterwards. If they were cursed to be bad with money, they would have basically been the dursleys
..why the Dursleys? They lived well off, for middle class. Dudley got loads of presents and went to some fancy school...
I agree with the living in the moment and family focus, that love is more important than (monetary) fortune. However there would still be at least somewhat bad financial management if they spent money on a months long vacation but barely had enough left to buy one of their kids a spare new wand. ...like, there's a bit of responsibility there to save up some knuts for the children's needs, necessities or unforseen emergencies / accidents. Keeping the kids grounded with handmade gifts and hand-me-down clothing is not a bad thing, but with so many kids putting a bit aside when you come into money might be a smart move, would it not?
As for the Quidditch Cup.. their tents were borrowed (which is why one smelled a bit funny) if I remember correctly, and the tickets were a gift. The kids at least had some pocket money, but the twins lost all of theirs on a bet (well, technically won, but lost their money anyway) and it was again Harry who paid generously for the more pricey event merchandise.
Now here’s the truth:
When writing stories, it’s key to draw from real life when building characters. The concept of a poor large honest humble family is ingrained in our psyche. That was critical and the rest were mere details. In order the make the family more relevant, and important to the story line, he needed a significant role in the plot. He worked for the ministry of magic. The discrepancy of his wealth and his occupation was ignored in order to have a rich cultural experience utilizing a limited source of characters. Harry had a mountain of gold yet none of that was available to his aunt and uncle to raise him because they would have treated him better as his importance to foster family would contradict the way he was treated as an unwanted child. It was important to paint the character Harry as poor and humble so that getting the gifts would have more meaning. Rich in cliché themes that make the books so loved at the price of things not adding up. Keep in mind it’s a made up story about magic with no loyalty to logic. And if you can’t accept that then fine here you go… they lost all of there wealth in a fire and all the money the father makes goes to paying off the deed on there land. Feel better?
you cannot call a family cursed, if they are winning money on a lottery
you have a family of 8? with 1 person bringing home an income. molly supposedly makes 0 money. which is actually hard to believe, you would think she'd have some sort of side hustle.
poor money management. instead of buying the younger kids essential things (ron and the wand) they buy the older kids things they dont need.
arthur, while a "head of department" was passed over multiple times in the books for a raise. they would give him a new title but not the raise. now this might of just been the movies, but i do remember the conversation .
being a pureblood does not mean anything for money... just look at the gaunts
you are also ignoring the easiest answer, j.k.rowling is not a good writer and didnt focus on those little details.
Ron’s wand was a plot device… and perhaps a teaching moment for Ron after he took his Dad’s car. I still think wearing hand-me-downs or wasting money on the latest interior design is perfectly OK. The Wesley children never went hungry and were more mentally healthy than the wealthy only child, Draco.
@@StrawberryShortcake12335 The Malfoys would have had inherited wealth, going way back, and the Weasleys didn't. Everything that the Weasley children ended up having came about through hard work and skill. None of that would have been possible without Molly looking after her large family.
Yep, jk was surprisingly a bad writer, but people over look it
It seems clear that the Malfoy s have some sorcery of active wealth. Like Harry does with the family potion royalties. Harry likely had more gold in his vault at the end of the series than he did at the start, the Black bequest not considered. The Malfoy's probably own property in diagon alley, and collect rents on it. Or wizarding homes they rent out. They may have partnerships in wizarding businesses. Most likely, they make loans. That gains interest and influence over the debtor. Plus other incomes from previous generations. They can not all have been insufferable bastards since the beginning of time.@@grokeffer6226
One thing that sticks with me about their situation, when the twins start being independent is when Bill's wedding came up, and their poverty isn't really mentioned after that point so I think they started paying everything off. Fudge blocked him from getting promotions on the advice of Malfoy, and once Fudge was gone he started making more, so that probably helped too. Another thing to think about, Charlie and Bill became independent just before Harry started School so they went from paying for 7 kids, to 6 (Charlie left that year) and then 5 by the end of the 1st year of schooling.
They bought the broom after Percy had his first job and was becoming independent (4 left), and stopped having money issues once the twins became independent (Only Ginny and Ron left)
So in my opinion it was having 7 kids and a SAHM on a salary that could only afford between 2-4 kids. Also, math classes aren't a requirement in the Hogwarts education so they had to figure out finances on their own while probably not having a good idea how math works.
Mr Weasley had a dead end job - entire out of HIS choice - Given his OCD's with muggle artifacts 😅
They have a lot of kids as well as a generous outlook on life and helping others, I don’t think money is their priority.
They get 1000 galleons and wasted all in a trip to Egypt, like bad financial decisions + Arthur and Molly couldn’t buy condoms apparently…
Exactly!!!
So with Ginny and Harry being married would this effect Harry's wealth?
Credit cards, It's all credit card debt. Even with all those incomes by Hollows they have a lot of back debt, all 4 mortgages on the house, back taxes, broom payments, payday loans. Eventually they could pay it all off, probably just another century or two.
I mean they have 100 kids right
*7
It never made sense to me that they were that poor, because it seemed to have been since a very long time, like already with the first child. There were a bunch of reasons given, e.g. that he got put into a dead-end department and didn't earn that much, but it's not like they have to pay rent or anything, just the basic needs to run stuff. But if you really lack money, you can take care of most things (like fire, heat, light etc.) with just magic, meaning the monthly expenses should be really low. But maybe this is generally known and accounted for in magic related jobs, if everyone has less expenses you pay less. But what bothers me is that even the oldest son seemed to have had that poor lifestyle, meaning the logic of "it's because they have a lot of children" is not the reason. Heck, even with a lot of children, while school books accumulate to a lot, it's a 1 time expense per year compared to other costs that happen monthly. So assuming that everything we see is just true, my go-to assumption was that his low paying job is combined with poor spending based on his interest in muggle things. It...doesn't make the most sense since it's not like we see everything filled with expensive stuff, but it could be that wizard world currency converts badly to muggle currency. We do know it's possible from the Grangers, but we don't know at which rate - and since they presumably were well off (as dentists), it wouldn't have been mentioned if it was bad. And if none of that applies, then it would just be that the job pays really really poorly, he got stuck in it but can't get something better anymore.
If gold can NOT be multiplied, please explain what happened in Bellatrix's vault...
Maybe the duplicate goblets weren't actually gold.
That was not gold but silver cups.
That was a curse designed to kill intruders. The items were worthless.
The duplicates were worthless as mentioned by Griphook
things that are goblin made have a tiny bit of goblin agic in them. You can dublicate them (as you can wands and so on) but any goblin laying hands on them knows that they are duplicates and not worth anything.
I think that the goblins used that fact to make a security measure out of dupliction of the objects. They alone would be able to tell, which one is real.
Also...if you read the books it's always explained that dupkicted things are nit the real thing (do ntót work properly or fail easily)
So I personally think that there is always some kind of "makers magic" in objects such as wands and aything that's worth something and while you can dupkicte the item, the magic insisde can not be duplicated
For the sake is putting a different theory out there: maybe the traits that keep them “poor” have less to do with a curse and more to do with genetic or characteristic hardwiring of the family since its inception. Remember that JK Rowling gave this most honorable family the name “Weasley” despite the connotation that weasels are dishonest, sneaky, and conniving. Family names are often connected to traits or jobs or positions held by a family. Looking at how an actual weasel is, here are some positive or neutral traits that speak to why the first and successive Weasleys may have been so-named:
(1) Weasels are very protective of their homes and home territories, but only live together to mate and raise offspring. The young do not stay with the parents or help them out after reaching adulthood. Obvious connection to Weasley behavior and lack of inter-familial or inter-generational wealth sharing.
(2) Weasels’ high metabolism requires them to eat 40% of their body weight every day - they don’t store food for future use, but eat until filled every opportunity they can. (Remember Ron tearing into 2 chicken legs at once at the banquet or eating Harry’s chocolate frog at hospital??) Similarly, the Weasleys make today’s ends meet without worrying about stocking up for tomorrow’s needs.
(3) They draw enemies (even larger than themselves) or prey in close for the kill by acting in confusing or counterintuitive ways (the weasel “war dance”). Many folks are confused why intelligent, able people don’t accumulate wealth and thus underestimate them or their abilities. (Beatrix LeStrange vs Molly??) Maybe being “poor” is a weasel war dance of sorts that provides tactical advantage.
(4) Weasels blend into their environment and some turn white in winter. The Weasleys often seem to care more about love, concern and support for others, etc. than fame or recognition for its own sake - goals that may be easier to accomplish for the poor than the rich, especially if your family is on the list of 28.
So, in sum, maybe the poverty of the Weasley family over generations is less of an outside curse and more of a character trait that has allowed the bloodline to thrive over the generations.
P.S. I’m NOT saying poor people want or try to be poor! I’m just offering a specific possible theory about the counterintuitive poverty of the Weasley family over generations.
4:17 ok so writing the word _children_ is now racist or something... idk it was censored someone pls explain
yea i was like umm why?
It probably Offended a grow ass adult lol 😂 youth Abled 😂
Well... who doesn't hate ch*ldren? 🤣
😂 Great ideas that all sound like a regular middle class family borderline poverty. People who work for any government don’t get paid much. (Not talking about the politicians) Also, I might add, lots of people have the mentality of “having experiences over buying stuff”, and not many people find their houses horrible - they’re just used to it. About the kids who have paying jobs - with those salaries they can barely support themselves and most likely the parents would refuse the money from their children, it’s not uncommon in families all around the world.
I love the comment section too! You guys have a great sense of humor and support! ❤
Being poor made them a better family, and the siblings much more close. Having lots of money just “gives” you everything, while having little money make you appreciate things more.
your twist on that quote is epic! well done
So the Weasleys represent the working class. Got it.
All HP Movies and Books Ranked from best to worst.
Chamber Of Secrets
Philosopher's Stone
Deathly Hollows Part 2
Goblet Of Fire
Half Blood Prince
Order Of The Pheonix
Prisoner Of Azkaban
Deathly Hollows Part 1
Does being rich even matter to magical ppl? The Weasleys have:
1) a huge HOUSE that fits 9 ppl, and because of port keys and aparating, in a prime location;
2) magical cleaning utensils (MODERN APPLIANCES ) that do all chores;
3) the kids have free top EDUCATION in a school that is also attended by the richest wizards;
4) first grade magical MEDICAL CARE that saved Arthur's life and none of them ever get sick
5) Abundant FOOD thanks to all those animals
6) A fully restored vintage flying CAR.
Muggles rely on money to have all of these benefits, but wizards have magic. Since none of them are squibs, they're quite a bit richer than you.
This theory seems to work better if applied just to Arthur and not the whole Weasley family. It raises some interesting points as to what poverty is, for example the Egypt trip- they all went and had a great time, and that seemed to be what was important to Arthur. And despite money always being tight- I think partly that they instilled good values in their kids that they would pay fines and other consequences for when they broke the rules/laws- they always seemed to have enough to make ends meet, and Arthur and Molly never seemed to worry, as if they actually had a dim recognition of being in a cursed state but that the curse would never prevent them from meeting those ends, only from status symbols which they had no interest in anyway. So, things like a trip to Egypt in that regard, or building this absurdly dilapidated house, would seem totally reasonable. Would not be surprised if at some point Dumbledore told Arthur and Molly of this curse- probably from Malfoy, but reassured them that no matter how many kids they had, as long as they did not spend on status symbols this would never affect their stability- there would always be just enough to cover their expenses. Perhaps even the twins found out about this at some point, and their YOLO approach to life is a reflection of that.
In any case, when we say "poverty" it's apparent that none of them really missed meals, more missed chocolate frogs if not friends with Harry Potter.
If I remember correctly, during the wedding one Weasley mentioned that the headpiece that Fleur was wearing was a family heirloom made by Goblins. Since Goblins believe that artworks belong to the artists and are capable of unique magic, they may be the cause of the curse. Bill, working as a "Curse Breaker", may have noticed the magic and removed it by the time of the 6th book.
Good theory. It reminds me of a passage in one of the book as well. When Fred and George have set up their joke Shop. I remember they’re being in occasion where Harry sees Fred and George and they’re both wearing new cloths of the finest dragon hide. Another example of careless spending.
Another point is the curse could of been cast on the Burrow it self. Since Bill Weasley. He is living in a pleasant cottage with Fleur. And doesn’t seem to be doing too badly in HP deathly Hallows.
Awesome as always thanks ❤
This was fascinating! Thought-provoking. Well done.
Well done Rob. Another great video
Molly has a cousin who is a Muggle accountant. Perhaps he can help the twins with double entry bookkeeping and help break the curse. The twins seemed to get along with the local Muggles, so maybe the relative may be more welcome with them.
I don't think the Weasley's are poor. After all the trip of Mr and Mrs Weasley to Egypt Christmas 1992 suggests they had more than enough wealth. Arthur is also fairly high up in the ministry. I suspect it's a case of Poor Proud. Sure their gold reserves are no where near what Harry has, but I doubt Ron would appreciate that his family has more than enough. I'm also of a mind that Molly would hide the family wealth in the back of the vault so that her boys would only see one pitiful little pile of gold. In short they live the way they do because of Molly Weasley. I say this because I've met someone like her. They lived in an old run down farm house. Their kids had to contend with clothing from the second hand stores. They were never allowed any of the little luxuries many of us take for granted. At a dinner I went to at their house there wasn't even water to drink at the table. The soup was enough. Lentil soup. I don't know how she did it but that stuff needed something to wash it down. The woman was a vegan and had some interesting hang ups which included extreme frugality. Now the fun part, underneath all that projected poverty her husband was worth a million dollars.
As for the game... The game has acromantulas in the forbidden forest long before Hagrid established the colony. Hagrid clearly states that Aragog was alone in the forest. And the Weasley's in the game were dressed far to nice to be poor. Far more likely they are simply in the habit of presenting themselves as such. Personally I prefer the idea that they had been wealthy and that they came very close to loosing it all during the wizard wars.
They could only afford that trip because they won the Daily Prophet Grand Prize Galleon Draw.
@@HarryPotterTheory That was the second trip when they took the whole family.
@@HarryPotterTheory It's the December 1991 trip where Arthur, Molly, and Ginny visit Charlie in Romania that everyone forgets about. Curious they can't afford to get Ron a decent wand but could afford that trip.
Nice, this video felt more succinct. thank you!
No? They aren’t poor after the series. Molly and Arthur aren’t looking after multiple children anymore so would be doing quite well, Ginny is a professional quidditch player for a time so probably did quite well from that, Ron was a successful auror and co-runs Weasleys wizard wheezes, so probably makes a fair bit, Fred also co-runs Weasleys wizard wheezes, Percy is high up in the ministry, Charlie is living that dragon tamer lifestyle and Bill makes bank at Gringotts. Surely this is, I don’t know, running out of ideas somewhat?
I have a theory that the Egypt trip was about Ginny seeing a possession specialist they knew through Bill to be discrete and trustworthy. That could fall under your poverty curse idea, but isn't exactly misspending the windfall.
Large families take up a lot of money. And Arthur not engaging in dishonest practices, the way that some other families probably had, would make a difference, too. A curse would make sense, though. 🪄🔮
The curse is unlikely. It should affect the Weasley children as well and that's not true as far as we know. They all made a decent income. Fred & George were fairly wealthy even, possibly rich. Also, Bill's a curse breaker, he might've figured it out and done something about it.
I'd say that, as soon as all their children started attending Hogwarts, Molly could have worked, even if only part-time during non-holidays when all their children were at school. She didn't. It's likely mainly because Arthur didn't get along with Fudge. That, and maybe they weren't the best at spending/saving money. Not saying they didn't deserve a vacation in the 3rd book, but they could've used the money for something else.
there is also that fact they liked to give rewards o the kids when they made prefects, not necisarily bad but and owl and broom, how about new clothes or something else. lso the fact they bought brand new books for everyone, every year. This is where hand me downs come in handy ok the defence book changes every year, the basics dont. So why didnt they buy TWO sets of books and share them around, the kids are never in the same class at the same time, fofr example
Honestly, they're just bad with money. Molly did not need to be a stay at home mom after book 1 (seriously what was she doing) and they win some drawing and earn tons if money. What do they do with it? Go on a massive vacation in Egypt instead of paying off debts, buying new stuff for the family, investing it, etc
The reason i dont think its a curse is because as far as in aware ginny made a pretty good amount of money playing professional Quidditch. Yes she probably also had access to harry's wealth but i think she dod really well for herself without leaning on harry
Just a thing to comment on; a lot of people saying that the curse doesn't make sense because of Fred and George's shop but the curse is about money management, not money-making per say. Arthur Weasley could've been promoted at any point; Ron says so in the Goblet of Fire book but chose not to because he is muggle-mad. He literally won the lottery (vast wealth!!) but blew it all immediately, tying back to the dreadful money-managing thing. Fred and George probably manage their money horribly (like when they gambled all their savings away in GoF) and spend it on random expensive things like the dragonskin jackets they have but they make enough perpetually for it to be chill because they have a massive business. And it's mentioned in the video that Hogwarts professors likely make a nice enough salary but most likely it doesn't get used very well!
i thought it was that arthur originally did have a high earning job in the ministry but felt unfulfilled and so took a lower earning job to follow in his passion of learning about muggles. that was partially what started percy on his road to betrayal seeing his family as below him
The Weasley sons may not have been contributing financially because Arthur and Molly did not want them to. In many large families like that especially financially strapped ones, the parents will often push individuals to save their money as they make it show us to give them a better start in the future and prevent them from any of the conditions they're in currently.
The perfect example is Bill and Fleur, upon getting married they moved beachfront property.
One thing to keep in mind, magic can replicate many items. Food amounts can be increased, buy one potato make enough potatoes for the entire family by increasing the amount once made. Yet, when they take the kids shopping they buy a complete set of Lockhart’s books for each child, instead of buying one set and making copies for each child. Hermione made a copy of Slytherin’s locket, minus the magic and Voldemort’s soul. It looked just like the original. I think part of the problem is their own generosity and honest nature. Technically they could have purchased one robe and created enough robes for all the kids to have three robes, but they would have seen that as unfair to those who made the robes. Even though they were poor they opened their home to Harry, Hermione, Lupin, Tonks, and many others.
It does make sense since it seems at the very least they could buy muggle stuff, engorgio it and sell it, or duplicate and sell everything that isn’t gold. Also. Pretty sure, I too; have this curse.
Fun fact: Rupert Grint's father owns the Ford flying car used in the films. Kinda odd how real life is slightly mimicking fiction...
It's hinted that Aunt Muriel has some level of wealth to her, to paraphrase what Ron says about Muriel, Fred and George "she'll have written Fred and George out of the will, like they care they'll be making more than her at this rate"
Which could potentially suggest Muriel has a decent of gold. Although we don't get an exact amount so how much F&G would need to make to have "more than Mureil" is an unknown amount.
they maybe poor but had a heart of gold
They aren't poor. They choose to live frugal lives and have a huge cozy home in the country. They have a lot of children. That's where the $ goes too.
Honestly I think it was just a multitude of things that kept the Weasleys in poverty initially:
1- They had 7 kids
2- At one point 5 of those kids were all at Hogwarts and required books, cauldrons, wands, robes, potion ingredients etc etc. Those of y’all who are doing back to school shopping right now will understand.
3-Arthur heads a very small department and as such probably doesn’t have a large budget that gives him a large salary
That being said, I don’t believe their fortunes are set in stone. Bill works at Gringotts and is quite successful in the regard. Charlie works with Dragons and Percy works for the Ministry of Magic. Fred and George open up Weasleys Wizarding Wheezes. They’re all able to put on a wedding for Bill and Fleur. Ron gets a new wand, robes and an owl. Later on down the line Harry and Ginny get married and become and Auror and a seeker for the Hollyhead Harpies respectively. Ron becomes and Auror and Hermione becomes Minister of Magic. George marries Angelina Johnson and runs his Joke Shop.
Bro I love your videos
Okay side note on a little fact that you threw in they're about the defense against the dark arts curse. At this point Dumbledore knows for sure that every teacher he's hired for the position has only made it a year, and then something happens. So, do you think he actually like warns the new teachers that HE hires, or he just like hires them and then lets them go through whatever they go through? Cuz like sometimes the teacher dies...
“It’s not my fault I’m poor, it’s a family curse, I swear” yeah that’s probably what I would say too Arthur 😂, But fr most people are bad with money, it’s not really anything against their character, its hard to not spend money. They might just be bad with money….
The curse of perpetually not having money, sounds like my live.
Most of the time I’m with you on these theories…. This one, not so much.
Fred and George in rons words make bookoos of money. They wear dragon hide suits, and are extremely successful.
This simple fact proves this theory is wrong or at the very least that it doesn’t affect the Weasley children after Arthur!
There are also plenty of pure bloods who are poor in the films. The dumbledores for starters were not well off. Stan shunpike is another, and I think the biggest telling factor is when the death eaters take over the ministry what do they do….?
They remove all muggle borns and half bloods from their jobs at the ministry. They then place wizards of pure blood in those roles, some whom we see are not very well educated, well spoken, or remotely qualified for the jobs.
I think there is three explanations here, first Arthur and Molly wouldn’t except their children’s money.
Second wizard wealth is WAY higher than muggle wealth, so poor in the wizarding world may not be poor in the muggle world. (Least likely)
Third… (most likely) JK Rowling wanted them to be poor. So she wrote them poor, then everyone in subsequent media has made all Weasleys poor.
Although part of it is clearly the large family, I actually think this is on purpose. After examining for myself, I believe that it is the policy of the weasleys to purposely stay poor.
Whether this is because they have embraced a cursed status who knows? But if you look closely at every Weasley, they are all super successful in their chosen fields.
And many of their struggles actually lead them to that unique success. It's very possible that the family has a policy of purposeful struggle, believing it makes them stronger.
they have a unique viewpoint already considering that they are as you said well-known blood traders despite being a pureblood family.
Perhaps they looked at how much muggles achieve even without magic and decided to use the Muggle mannerism of struggling for success as a sort of training program.
After all if you can be successful while at your worst, you'll be extra successful at your best. and in the meantime it's a good lesson to teach your large family what really matters before financial success comes around.
This also explains why Harry winds up not helping the weasleys, because as he gets to know them he realizes they would not accept the help normally. Most Wesleys prefer the lesser travel path. Their financial struggles are simply a way of honing their vision.
Other wizards don't get it, because why would you give up your success? Why not just use magic and make everything so much easier? Shouldn't you just keep your wealth and laud your stats over each other.
But the weasleys have been taught better. And that is their secret power.