I've always said this. Arthur was the soul income with Molly being a stay at home mother. And not once did any of their children go hungry or not have what they needed. Sure, there were a lot of hand-me-downs, and they couldn't often afford unnecessary luxuries, but they ALWAYS had whatever they needed. They weren't by any means poor. They were not financially rich by any means but they weren't poor.
I never thought they were poor. They were middle class (maybe on the lower side) but when compared to the Malfoy’s wealth, they looked very poor. It’s like comparing a regular family to the Kennedy’s
Yeah they might not have been rich but (ironically enough since they are British) they are living the American dream; supporting a large family on one income while owning a car & your own house.
The Weasleys are a quintessential working family - Arthur has a job, Molly invested her time in bringing up strong, moral, honest children and they never burdened their children with their financial expectations, which in turn meant that Bill and Charlie are already off to the careers of their choice at the start of the story, and the rest of the children also come off their own as they grow up throughout the series. However, they also have very little if any monetary savings, and therefore live paycheck to paycheck, which is why Harry saw them Molly scooping out a single galleon and a handful of other change from the Weasley vault. This was perhaps a reflection of the author's own experiences growing up, as she went to university which strongly influenced her portrayals of Hogwarts, but she also struggled financially when she writing the book series. In comparison, the Malfoys represent the 'old money' families she had met at uni and other points in her educational life. Neither Lucius or Narcissa work or have any paid employment (and I don't think being a school governor counts, as in the UK school governorship is a voluntary position). However, they inherited vast amounts of wealth as an old wizarding family, and therefore are able to yield an unhealthy amount of power even in a world where Voldemort is believed dead. Even as a former accused Death Eater, Lucius is able to get close to the Minster for Magic, essentially the heart of political power in their universe. So many people criticise the story for being 'neo-liberal' but it forgets these very real critiques of power structures that are not vulnerable to fascist control, but are effectively reinforcing such regression into evil.
@@nikkigbsd happily 😁Growing up, I always felt connected with the Weasleys even more than I felt connected with Harry. Especially in the current economic circumstances, I understand why
I agree with your points. It wasn't a question of money, it was a question of how well they managed their money. Allow me to give you a small constructive criticism because you have one mistake- The money Harry gave the twins was a gift not a lawn. Also Percy said something interesting that might be right. He said Arthur had no ambition for being in the same job for years. The family traitor did had a point but he just failed to understand Arthur loved to be where he was.
I agree, his job at the misuse of muggle artifacts office wasn't the highest paid job in the ministry but it kept the family a roof over their heads and 3 square meals a day in their stomachs and gave Arthur endless opportunities to do something he loved doing (interacting with muggles) and as Confucius said "If you make your living doing something you love, you need never work a day in your life"
The Weasleys were so short of money that they had to wear hand-me-downs, couldn't afford to buy Ron a new wand when he started school, and had to buy really horrible dress robes for the Yule Ball for him. Saying, "but they were rich in love" doesn't change the fact that the Weasleys were objectively poor. Mind you, it has to be said that they didn't manage the resources they had wisely. They buy Percy a new owl to celebrate him being made prefect while making Ron forego getting his own wand at Ollivander's. They literally win the lottery and blow most of it on an expensive Egyptian vacation instead of saving it for their children's future economic needs. And Arthur Weasley obviously spends money on his illegal Muggle hobby instead of prioritizing his kids' needs. I can't decide if this a subtle commentary on Rowling's real world political beliefs that poverty is caused by poor decision making rather than societal factors or simply her notorious tendency to throw continuity overboard to drive her current plot.
The Weasleys are a family in which only one parent has a job and they have more kids than average family. It means Mr Weasley's income is around national average or more. The only reason why they have so low income per person is because they have so many children but they're not poor. The only character I can think of a poor person in the series is Lupin. He doesn't even have a job most of the time.
I have noticed the video is different in terms of editing. It felt like an old school movie (and a bit like a horror movies due to the shaky text boxes 😅). I have not seen it before, but well done, it looks very good.
It is interesting to point out that the Weasley’s weren’t poor, they were all hard workers and had enough to get by they weren’t even really just scraping by either they just weren’t materialistic or spoiled. They weren’t poor they just weren’t rich, I think the Weasley’s are a very inspirational family because TBH things should be reused and reworked, if something ain’t broke why throw it away and buy new? It’s a waste. Sufficiency is important
By the time of Sorcerer's Stone, Bill and Charlie were already on their own. So there were only seven (Arthur, Molly, and five children) resident in The Burrow. Perhaps Bill and Charlie sent money. It was never mentioned, but it could be possible.
According to J.K.Rowling Education at Hogwarts is paid for by The Ministry of Magic so it's free for everyone. I do like your videos and this is a great way to see how much The Weasley family is rich in so many ways as richness in life is not always about monetary value 🌟
Thanks for this video. It’s nice to see that wealth and success are not always measured by money. The Weasley family is rich and successful beyond measure because of their love and care for everyone!
The Weasleys are the best family. Harry who grew up lacking both: money and love saw it very clearly from the beginning they were the wealthy ones and not the ones lacking
I did not like that this was not a conspiracy theory-type debunking... but as great and very thorough exposé it got me listening 'til the end. More, please! :)
I don’t really think the ways we can rationalise how rich they actually were actually matters as that’s not really the point. The point is that the Weasleys and Malfoys are both quintessentially English families but coming from polar ends of the class system in England. Rowling is using the wizarding world as a parallel to our own and exploring that dynamic through these characters to show the differences and similarities between them by placing these two families in a dynamic you wouldn’t normally see because they’d typically go to different schools. But because Hogwarts is the only one, it means there’s a lot more inter-class communication than there would be in the Muggle world, and certainly more than families like the Malfoys would prefer. So it doesn’t really matter what sum is in the Weasleys bank account or how much they could technically own, their role in the story is to represent the lower end of the totem pole of English families; financially deprived and arguably too many children but with more love and affection on each child than the one sole inheritor like Draco could ever dream of in spite of all his material wealth.
@@minhajnizam5090 Arthur Weasley has a brother, his wife who is a half-blood Finnish witch, their daughter, the mom's parents(who are both muggle borns) are my OCs for harry potter.
Excellent video highlighting something that most of the times is not acknowledged: healthy loving relationships are the most important factor to development. People who lack them and only have money may be protected by their money. People may not see the inadequacies bc money keeps these people from situations that they would have not known who to handle. Money doesn't equipped you the way healthy loving relationships do Sadly they also have become a form of privilege as they are rare. In our better understanding of development it's easy to see that healthy loving relationships are the real wealth
Totally polar opposite to the Malfoy’s family. Except for family love, that they have in common. There’s a vid on centaurs and hippogriffs, can we pls get more the magical creatures and plants. Maybe like dragons, merpeople, and venomous tentaculas.
You were reaching a bit on this one. Also, other than Harry loaning Fred & George the money to start their joke shop, when did Harry ever give the Weasleys money? He certainly would have had he believed that they would have accepted it, but I don't recall him ever actually giving them any money. As for the Weasley's financial status, they weren't really poor. They just had more kids than they could afford.
I think it's something people people sometimes forget is that part of ones wealth is their assets as well, not just money. Weasley's may have pinched knots at times but it didn't mean they were poor or deprived of the essentials that they needed.
Oh! Haha! I honestly thought by the title that you were gonna prove that the Wesleys were secretly millionaires or something!! Like they just CHOOSE to live as minimalists or something! Lol 🤣😆 But yeah, they are rich in loving, accepting, & supporting!! 😊❤🥰
I love the way you, and how do we see our poor not by monetary by monetary means, but within reach them is love, happiness and kindness, and excepting of others, which money can’t buy
The Weasleys are and were poor in the financial sense but they are rich in sentimentality and love for each other and compassionate morals and kindness toward friends and allies.
The impressive magic clock had probably been in the Weasley family since the 1800's. Judging by the aged look of the clock I'd say that the clock might have been purchased during the late years of the 1800's.
You could have stopped at the end of number 10 and not needed anything else on this list to fully explain the premise. They were a great well-rounded loving family
You can't make food appear out of thin air but you can cook 1 serving and use the duplicating spell. As for wizarding money, clothing and objects I suspect the manufacturers have an anti-duplicating charm in place so they are poor in material wealth.
I'll edit this as I watch the rest of the video. I disagree with some of the points such as having money to repair the house - they can use magic to repair broken things and use charms to duplicate items they already have to make more of them. As for the house itself they could have easily inherented it, which I believe is a more likely situation. Hogwarts does have a fund for those who don't have as much in the way of funds for school supplies as we see Dumbledore give Tom Riddle Jr a small pouch of Wizard money. They could have gotten money from their Aunt Muriel - my hypothesis is she had wealth in the monetary sense since she has a goblin made tiara of moonstones and diamonds. She could have given then a stipend (although I am not sure this is likely given what we see of her character) Gringotts would have given Bill the resources and training during his initial starting as a curse breaker. Technically the Weaselys won't need to use money and speaking of Bill I wonder if he ever gave some his income to his parents to help? It's not really ever inferred that Harry gave the Weaselys money at all.
Harry never contributed even a single coin of monetary support to the weasleys. The only instance was of him giving ginny his free set of lockhart books. It mentioned a few times that Harry never gave them any gold or possessions because in Harry’s opinion, they would have refused. Which is not the same as him actually offering even to buy Ron dress robes, or help pay for food, because he didn’t.
Poverty cannot actually exist in the wizarding world, at least not of the sort that exists among us muggles. If a muggle can't pay the rent, they end up living on the street or, best case scenario, with family/friends. That would never happen to a wizard. They would just create a house with magic out in the countryside and hide it from muggle authorities with a charm. If a muggle can't pay the electric bill, they lose their heating, lights, entertainment, fridge, etc. Magical households don't use electricity anyway, and anything you can do with electricity you can do better with magic. If muggles can't afford food, they go hungry. Wizards may not be able to conjure food out of nothingness (it's a law of magic), but they most certainly can multiply food that already exists, and if they really had to, stealing it or even using magic to make money to buy a bit of food would be quite simple for any wizard. Muggles take a long time to heal naturally from injuries and, at least in America, require expensive trips to doctors and hospital stays. Wizards can fix themselves with magic and potions from most injuries if not caused by dark magic. When Muggles want to travel somewhere, it costs a lot of money. When wizards want to do it it can be as simple as waving a wand, hopping a broomstick, or other such methods. It can cost them nothing, depending on how they choose to do it. Most things that you would need can be created or obtained relatively easily with magic. That being the case, there is no real poverty. There is only relative wealth. The only wizards or witches that might struggle are people like Hagrid who the ministry has banned from using magic- though nothing actually prevents them from doing this really. Hagrid broke this law by giving Dudley a tail and lighting a fire. I'm sure he breaks the law regularly enough, and was never actually punished for it. I'm sure if they truly wanted to they could go obtain a black market wand, steal one, or make one themselves. Nevermind wandless magic being a thing.
I once commented on another Weasley financial video. Not sure if you saw or remembered. Arthur had an outstanding government job. I mean in the real world or the fictional world government pays big time. Now consider Arthur raised a family of nine on one paycheck. Regardless of his unit of momey Pounds, gold Coins etc. tat money needed to pay for a house a car & nine people. Even though the kids lived at school 10 moths a year it still was a burden. Obviously as they aged, were able to live on their own or even if they lived at the Burrough they'd contribute their own income. BUT for the growing years one salary nine people.
Uh, Arthur enchanted the car himself, he didn’t buy it from a dealership or inherit it. This is literally one of the biggest plot points in the beginning of COS, and it got Arthur into a lot of trouble when Ron and Harry flew it to Hogwarts, not because they performed underage magic, but because he broke the law - a law that he himself wrote, mind you - by enchanting a muggle artifact. Hogwarts doesn’t have tuition fees. I’m not sure what you’re talking about when you say they had the means to support their children’s careers. There are no Wizarding colleges, you apply for a job, they look at your NEWT scores, and they train you on the job. Also, the money Harry gave the twins was not a loan, he didn’t want the Triwizard winnings, so he thought the money could be better served making people laugh. Much of this is very redundant. Multiple emphasize that they are a close, loving, and happy family, something which extends beyond the people bearing the Weasley name. This is a very nice sentiment, and I agree, there are more important things than material wealth, but at the end of the day, love isn’t going to pay the bills, put food on the table, or clothes on your back. I thought you were going to talk about how Arthur, being on a government salary, actually isn’t poor, but the fact that he had so many children to provide for left them with less cash for frivolous spending at the end of the month. However, they seemed to have good money management skills. Despite their financial difficulties, they never went to bed with empty stomachs.
The books literally tell us they were poor and since there is no unreliable narrator in HP, that means they’re poor. Nothing mentioned her will feed them, clothe them or put a roof over their head. Only people who aren’t poor go on about love, friendship, blah, blah, blah.
Honestly, the Weasley family seems more middle-class than anything where the Malfoy family is aristocracy and old family (muggle world would held titles). That being most aristocratic, families now work everyday jobs, and that's where Weasley would be.
magic covered the repairs and didn't The Wizarding Community not understand the Muggle need for electricity? I do not recall Harry Potter ever helping the Weasleys in a Financial way. Buying candy & giveing away, not loaned, prize money isn't the same thing as buying needed things like clothing & school books. wasn't the flying car illegal? The video gives a good message but it's really looked at through muggle eyes.
Harry *did* give Ginny all of Lockhart's free books and opted to buy his own copies. Those books weren't cheap. That lessened the strain on their budget when they were going to have to buy 4 sets of those books.
@@toodlescae Giving something away Harry didn't want that was embarrassing him isn't him being charitable. This is an isolated instance where it worked out for someone he knew like the money with the Joke Shop. Harry wouldn't have used his own money for that shop had he lost & he wouldn't have gotten those books had he not been given free ones.
I feel like they weren't poor. Rather, they opted out of the system that requires exploiting an underclass to hoard wealth. Wizards could so easily rob muggles that I've always figured they and witches with the appearance of poverty were basically demonstrating their virtuousness.
The Weasleys certainly had a great deal of love which you are equating as love, that is not correct. You can be happy with out finical wealth but Rowling made a real point of the fact that they were poor. Ginny was ashamed of having hand-me-downs she wrote it in her diary. Ron even said in anger he was sick of being poor to Harry and Hermione. Twins expresses concern over cost over cost of book list to their mother in Chamber of Secrets. Ron's old moldy hand me down robs for Yule ball that he was ashamed of. Ron didn't even start Hogwarts with his own wand, got a hand-me-down. What happened to the wand picking the Wizard. Always irritated me that Harry never offer room and board for staying there. Also that Bill and Charlie didn't help out after they got full time jobs. After Ginny started school, Mrs Weasley could have started working to supplement income.
They weren't dirt poor. Lower middle class with too many kids would be the issue. It's only Draco that teases the Weasleys for being ' poor' but they're like billionaire ... Harry, at first didn't think they were too poor as they each have a room , a nice warm bed , good food ... everything he didn't have; until he saw their vault . Harry had generational wealth, that's why Weasleys looked comparatively poor and both of Hermione's parents were dentists , so they were on the richer side even among the muggles. Weasleys look poor only in comparison. They could have easily gained more wealth if Molly took a job and Arthur pressed for a promotion or they asked for money from Bill which they didn't want to .
I would have to say no about the first one at least. A loving and supportive family is a wonderful thing, but all the love in the world doesn't cancel out poverty. "Their wealth was measured in the richness of their relationships." Sorry, but that's a false equivalency, using two different definitions of wealth as if they were interchangeable. Having an abundance of affection doesn't mean they weren't financially lacking. Also, much of their poverty is self-imposed. Having 7 children will do that. I don't fault them. Some things are more important than money, but it does show pretty clearly where all their income went and why they had a hard time making ends meet. One "paycheck" supporting 9 people will certainly put a strain on most people's wallets.
🙏✌️albus Dumbledore barty crouch Cedric diggary Creature Dolby mad eye tonks Sirius black head wick Hagrid muggle care taker James potter Lilly evens Regulus black moaning mertal
Arthur had a very good income at the ministry, and considering most of their children were at Hogwarts during most of the year, which means they don't consume much of Arthur's budget, it's baffling how much they struggle financially. Assuming they were home owners and didn't have to pay any rent or interest on loans, and how the small scale is at which they live, they should be saving a lot, but then they struggle with paying for school supplies. So the only option is that there is a massive drain on their resources, maybe Molly is addicted to gambling, or they donate most of their income to some charity, or they are paying off some kind of loan. Either way, I've always found it very strange that they struggled so much.
Arthur's job doesn't actually pay much. It comes up a couple times. Working for the Ministry doesn't always mean a big pay packet, especially where Muggle-related work is involved.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #30 ДВА В ОДНОМ [Один человек]• Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nrXy15orKhY/mqdefault.jpg)
I've always said this.
Arthur was the soul income with Molly being a stay at home mother. And not once did any of their children go hungry or not have what they needed. Sure, there were a lot of hand-me-downs, and they couldn't often afford unnecessary luxuries, but they ALWAYS had whatever they needed. They weren't by any means poor. They were not financially rich by any means but they weren't poor.
Percy was the only one that didn’t understand what wealth and riches don’t mean you are not rich
I never thought they were poor. They were middle class (maybe on the lower side) but when compared to the Malfoy’s wealth, they looked very poor. It’s like comparing a regular family to the Kennedy’s
HAHA
Nothing bad ever happens to the Kennedys
Yeah they might not have been rich but (ironically enough since they are British) they are living the American dream; supporting a large family on one income while owning a car & your own house.
@@qman2061 plenty of bad things happened to the Malfoy’s too. They might’ve caused them to theirselves, but so did the kennedy’s (sometimes)
Draco wasn't rich, he was a bi-
They sent Ron to school with a cell-o-taped wand though. I swear that wand should have been illegal.
I always felt they weren’t really poor, they were so rich in character, morals and values
A very rich family 🪙✨
The Weasleys are a quintessential working family - Arthur has a job, Molly invested her time in bringing up strong, moral, honest children and they never burdened their children with their financial expectations, which in turn meant that Bill and Charlie are already off to the careers of their choice at the start of the story, and the rest of the children also come off their own as they grow up throughout the series. However, they also have very little if any monetary savings, and therefore live paycheck to paycheck, which is why Harry saw them Molly scooping out a single galleon and a handful of other change from the Weasley vault. This was perhaps a reflection of the author's own experiences growing up, as she went to university which strongly influenced her portrayals of Hogwarts, but she also struggled financially when she writing the book series.
In comparison, the Malfoys represent the 'old money' families she had met at uni and other points in her educational life. Neither Lucius or Narcissa work or have any paid employment (and I don't think being a school governor counts, as in the UK school governorship is a voluntary position). However, they inherited vast amounts of wealth as an old wizarding family, and therefore are able to yield an unhealthy amount of power even in a world where Voldemort is believed dead. Even as a former accused Death Eater, Lucius is able to get close to the Minster for Magic, essentially the heart of political power in their universe.
So many people criticise the story for being 'neo-liberal' but it forgets these very real critiques of power structures that are not vulnerable to fascist control, but are effectively reinforcing such regression into evil.
Would you repeat that. A little louder for the people in the back please.
really good points here.
@@nikkigbsd happily 😁Growing up, I always felt connected with the Weasleys even more than I felt connected with Harry. Especially in the current economic circumstances, I understand why
@@hacorn96 thank you ☺
Correct me if I’m wrong but Lucius analogy worked at the ministry did he not?? That’s a paid position.
I always assumed they weren’t poor they just had an excessive amount of mouths to feed.
I agree with your points. It wasn't a question of money, it was a question of how well they managed their money. Allow me to give you a small constructive criticism because you have one mistake- The money Harry gave the twins was a gift not a lawn. Also Percy said something interesting that might be right. He said Arthur had no ambition for being in the same job for years. The family traitor did had a point but he just failed to understand Arthur loved to be where he was.
I agree, his job at the misuse of muggle artifacts office wasn't the highest paid job in the ministry but it kept the family a roof over their heads and 3 square meals a day in their stomachs and gave Arthur endless opportunities to do something he loved doing (interacting with muggles) and as Confucius said
"If you make your living doing something you love, you need never work a day in your life"
great to see you back, been too long since you've posted anything
The Weasleys were so short of money that they had to wear hand-me-downs, couldn't afford to buy Ron a new wand when he started school, and had to buy really horrible dress robes for the Yule Ball for him. Saying, "but they were rich in love" doesn't change the fact that the Weasleys were objectively poor.
Mind you, it has to be said that they didn't manage the resources they had wisely. They buy Percy a new owl to celebrate him being made prefect while making Ron forego getting his own wand at Ollivander's. They literally win the lottery and blow most of it on an expensive Egyptian vacation instead of saving it for their children's future economic needs. And Arthur Weasley obviously spends money on his illegal Muggle hobby instead of prioritizing his kids' needs. I can't decide if this a subtle commentary on Rowling's real world political beliefs that poverty is caused by poor decision making rather than societal factors or simply her notorious tendency to throw continuity overboard to drive her current plot.
The Weasleys are a family in which only one parent has a job and they have more kids than average family. It means Mr Weasley's income is around national average or more. The only reason why they have so low income per person is because they have so many children but they're not poor. The only character I can think of a poor person in the series is Lupin. He doesn't even have a job most of the time.
I have noticed the video is different in terms of editing. It felt like an old school movie (and a bit like a horror movies due to the shaky text boxes 😅). I have not seen it before, but well done, it looks very good.
It is interesting to point out that the Weasley’s weren’t poor, they were all hard workers and had enough to get by they weren’t even really just scraping by either they just weren’t materialistic or spoiled.
They weren’t poor they just weren’t rich, I think the Weasley’s are a very inspirational family because TBH things should be reused and reworked, if something ain’t broke why throw it away and buy new? It’s a waste. Sufficiency is important
They had 7 children.
You can earn a reasonable income and be poor if that’s spread between 9 people!
By the time of Sorcerer's Stone, Bill and Charlie were already on their own. So there were only seven (Arthur, Molly, and five children) resident in The Burrow.
Perhaps Bill and Charlie sent money. It was never mentioned, but it could be possible.
According to J.K.Rowling
Education at Hogwarts is paid for by The Ministry of Magic so it's free for everyone.
I do like your videos and this is a great way to see how much The Weasley family is rich in so many ways as richness in life is not always about monetary value 🌟
Is it?
Thanks for this video. It’s nice to see that wealth and success are not always measured by money. The Weasley family is rich and successful beyond measure because of their love and care for everyone!
The Weasleys are the best family. Harry who grew up lacking both: money and love saw it very clearly from the beginning they were the wealthy ones and not the ones lacking
I did not like that this was not a conspiracy theory-type debunking... but as great and very thorough exposé it got me listening 'til the end.
More, please! :)
I don’t really think the ways we can rationalise how rich they actually were actually matters as that’s not really the point.
The point is that the Weasleys and Malfoys are both quintessentially English families but coming from polar ends of the class system in England. Rowling is using the wizarding world as a parallel to our own and exploring that dynamic through these characters to show the differences and similarities between them by placing these two families in a dynamic you wouldn’t normally see because they’d typically go to different schools. But because Hogwarts is the only one, it means there’s a lot more inter-class communication than there would be in the Muggle world, and certainly more than families like the Malfoys would prefer.
So it doesn’t really matter what sum is in the Weasleys bank account or how much they could technically own, their role in the story is to represent the lower end of the totem pole of English families; financially deprived and arguably too many children but with more love and affection on each child than the one sole inheritor like Draco could ever dream of in spite of all his material wealth.
Their house was a wizardry house.❤
The Weasley family is my favorite ppl in the series... Yes even Percy... Harry became an honorary Weasley when he befriended Ron
I've always loved the Weasley family. I even made some OCs that are apart of the Weasley family. :)
Who are your OCs
@@minhajnizam5090 Arthur Weasley has a brother, his wife who is a half-blood Finnish witch, their daughter, the mom's parents(who are both muggle borns) are my OCs for harry potter.
Excellent video highlighting something that most of the times is not acknowledged: healthy loving relationships are the most important factor to development.
People who lack them and only have money may be protected by their money. People may not see the inadequacies bc money keeps these people from situations that they would have not known who to handle. Money doesn't equipped you the way healthy loving relationships do
Sadly they also have become a form of privilege as they are rare. In our better understanding of development it's easy to see that healthy loving relationships are the real wealth
They where a big family i bet if molly and Arthur only had 2 kids at max they be having more money left bc Arthur stil has a job
Love and cheers for the Weasley family!!
Totally polar opposite to the Malfoy’s family. Except for family love, that they have in common.
There’s a vid on centaurs and hippogriffs, can we pls get more the magical creatures and plants. Maybe like dragons, merpeople, and venomous tentaculas.
The Malfoys are poor and The Weasleys are billionaires in the ways that matter
You were reaching a bit on this one. Also, other than Harry loaning Fred & George the money to start their joke shop, when did Harry ever give the Weasleys money? He certainly would have had he believed that they would have accepted it, but I don't recall him ever actually giving them any money.
As for the Weasley's financial status, they weren't really poor. They just had more kids than they could afford.
Suggestion: Do a What If Bellatrix Lestrange survived the events of the Deathly Hallows
If you have that many recessive phenotype kids (gingers, some with blue eyes) you're already rich beyond measure.
Thanks for clearing this up. Made me reflect on my life.
We all love the Weasleys🧡
The Weasley would have treated hairy basically the same if he was broke. They seemed like such am unrealistically nice family 😢 one I wish I had
I think it's something people people sometimes forget is that part of ones wealth is their assets as well, not just money. Weasley's may have pinched knots at times but it didn't mean they were poor or deprived of the essentials that they needed.
I remember seeing the first Potter movie with my dear daparted twin brother why are there so many kids here?😂❤
Oh! Haha! I honestly thought by the title that you were gonna prove that the Wesleys were secretly millionaires or something!! Like they just CHOOSE to live as minimalists or something! Lol 🤣😆 But yeah, they are rich in loving, accepting, & supporting!! 😊❤🥰
I love the way you, and how do we see our poor not by monetary by monetary means, but within reach them is love, happiness and kindness, and excepting of others, which money can’t buy
The Weasleys are and were poor in the financial sense but they are rich in sentimentality and love for each other and compassionate morals and kindness toward friends and allies.
The impressive magic clock had probably been in the Weasley family since the 1800's. Judging by the aged look of the clock I'd say that the clock might have been purchased during the late years of the 1800's.
You could have stopped at the end of number 10 and not needed anything else on this list to fully explain the premise. They were a great well-rounded loving family
Yeah they found their wealth in the love of family.
The Weasley’s are frugal in a way that a lot of us should try to be. Make and mend, growing food, hand me downs. Thats how I grew up too.
Truly insightful 👏 👌 The Weasleys could be considered 1 of the wealiest families..
A very Good Video 👌🏻👍🏻
Poor in pocket but rich in love❤
The weeslys were good folk❤
Except for Percy Weasley. He was the worst. At the very end of the war he came back but between then. Terrible.
Nice work
Thanks for the Video Nice
How can they be poor in a world of magic in which they can just magically make their own food, drinks, and clothing appear?
What was Hermione always saying? Grump's 5th law or whatever? You can't just make food appear out of thin air.
You can't make food appear out of thin air but you can cook 1 serving and use the duplicating spell. As for wizarding money, clothing and objects I suspect the manufacturers have an anti-duplicating charm in place so they are poor in material wealth.
@@ray101892wrong
@@ray101892trust me bro
Great video
Well Said.
The only truly poor pureblood family in all sense of the meaning was the little known Gaunt family.
So you listed theories why they are not poor. My own theory is that Molly inherited her brothers' wealth. Gideon & Fabian.
The Ministry of Magic paid all Hogwarts students’ tuition.
Damn how many Weeslys were there ?😂
I'll edit this as I watch the rest of the video.
I disagree with some of the points such as having money to repair the house - they can use magic to repair broken things and use charms to duplicate items they already have to make more of them.
As for the house itself they could have easily inherented it, which I believe is a more likely situation.
Hogwarts does have a fund for those who don't have as much in the way of funds for school supplies as we see Dumbledore give Tom Riddle Jr a small pouch of Wizard money.
They could have gotten money from their Aunt Muriel - my hypothesis is she had wealth in the monetary sense since she has a goblin made tiara of moonstones and diamonds. She could have given then a stipend (although I am not sure this is likely given what we see of her character)
Gringotts would have given Bill the resources and training during his initial starting as a curse breaker. Technically the Weaselys won't need to use money and speaking of Bill I wonder if he ever gave some his income to his parents to help?
It's not really ever inferred that Harry gave the Weaselys money at all.
You should do one about how the moufoys weren't so rich using this sistum
I would of rather been poor like the Weasley's than rich like the Malfoy's
Harry never contributed even a single coin of monetary support to the weasleys. The only instance was of him giving ginny his free set of lockhart books. It mentioned a few times that Harry never gave them any gold or possessions because in Harry’s opinion, they would have refused. Which is not the same as him actually offering even to buy Ron dress robes, or help pay for food, because he didn’t.
Don't give me that crap that money isn't wealth, of course it is. We all need money to live.
Harry would have given all his gold to have a family like the Weasleys.
What a great video
Weasley's wealth is priceless. Under the impression, Hogwarts is free to all.
... ?
Poverty cannot actually exist in the wizarding world, at least not of the sort that exists among us muggles.
If a muggle can't pay the rent, they end up living on the street or, best case scenario, with family/friends. That would never happen to a wizard. They would just create a house with magic out in the countryside and hide it from muggle authorities with a charm.
If a muggle can't pay the electric bill, they lose their heating, lights, entertainment, fridge, etc. Magical households don't use electricity anyway, and anything you can do with electricity you can do better with magic.
If muggles can't afford food, they go hungry. Wizards may not be able to conjure food out of nothingness (it's a law of magic), but they most certainly can multiply food that already exists, and if they really had to, stealing it or even using magic to make money to buy a bit of food would be quite simple for any wizard.
Muggles take a long time to heal naturally from injuries and, at least in America, require expensive trips to doctors and hospital stays. Wizards can fix themselves with magic and potions from most injuries if not caused by dark magic.
When Muggles want to travel somewhere, it costs a lot of money. When wizards want to do it it can be as simple as waving a wand, hopping a broomstick, or other such methods. It can cost them nothing, depending on how they choose to do it.
Most things that you would need can be created or obtained relatively easily with magic. That being the case, there is no real poverty. There is only relative wealth. The only wizards or witches that might struggle are people like Hagrid who the ministry has banned from using magic- though nothing actually prevents them from doing this really. Hagrid broke this law by giving Dudley a tail and lighting a fire. I'm sure he breaks the law regularly enough, and was never actually punished for it. I'm sure if they truly wanted to they could go obtain a black market wand, steal one, or make one themselves. Nevermind wandless magic being a thing.
I once commented on another Weasley financial video. Not sure if you saw or remembered. Arthur had an outstanding government job. I mean in the real world or the fictional world government pays big time. Now consider Arthur raised a family of nine on one paycheck. Regardless of his unit of momey Pounds, gold Coins etc. tat money needed to pay for a house a car & nine people. Even though the kids lived at school 10 moths a year it still was a burden. Obviously as they aged, were able to live on their own or even if they lived at the Burrough they'd contribute their own income. BUT for the growing years one salary nine people.
They were definitely on the line, but they cared more about the family safety and togetherness than money, hence the clock.
It's called "having a LOT of kids" AND paying for private boarding school 😅
Very well done..and no, the Weasley were not poor at all
Uh, Arthur enchanted the car himself, he didn’t buy it from a dealership or inherit it. This is literally one of the biggest plot points in the beginning of COS, and it got Arthur into a lot of trouble when Ron and Harry flew it to Hogwarts, not because they performed underage magic, but because he broke the law - a law that he himself wrote, mind you - by enchanting a muggle artifact.
Hogwarts doesn’t have tuition fees.
I’m not sure what you’re talking about when you say they had the means to support their children’s careers. There are no Wizarding colleges, you apply for a job, they look at your NEWT scores, and they train you on the job. Also, the money Harry gave the twins was not a loan, he didn’t want the Triwizard winnings, so he thought the money could be better served making people laugh.
Much of this is very redundant. Multiple emphasize that they are a close, loving, and happy family, something which extends beyond the people bearing the Weasley name. This is a very nice sentiment, and I agree, there are more important things than material wealth, but at the end of the day, love isn’t going to pay the bills, put food on the table, or clothes on your back.
I thought you were going to talk about how Arthur, being on a government salary, actually isn’t poor, but the fact that he had so many children to provide for left them with less cash for frivolous spending at the end of the month. However, they seemed to have good money management skills. Despite their financial difficulties, they never went to bed with empty stomachs.
The books literally tell us they were poor and since there is no unreliable narrator in HP, that means they’re poor. Nothing mentioned her will feed them, clothe them or put a roof over their head. Only people who aren’t poor go on about love, friendship, blah, blah, blah.
Unfortunately you can't eat love and support for dinner.
So in other words they are poor as you mention several times their "limited financial means" but the point is they are not morally / spiritually poor.
They raised 900 kids successfully
Honestly, the Weasley family seems more middle-class than anything where the Malfoy family is aristocracy and old family (muggle world would held titles). That being most aristocratic, families now work everyday jobs, and that's where Weasley would be.
magic covered the repairs and didn't The Wizarding Community not understand the Muggle need for electricity? I do not recall Harry Potter ever helping the Weasleys in a Financial way. Buying candy & giveing away, not loaned, prize money isn't the same thing as buying needed things like clothing & school books. wasn't the flying car illegal? The video gives a good message but it's really looked at through muggle eyes.
Harry *did* give Ginny all of Lockhart's free books and opted to buy his own copies. Those books weren't cheap. That lessened the strain on their budget when they were going to have to buy 4 sets of those books.
@@toodlescae Giving something away Harry didn't want that was embarrassing him isn't him being charitable. This is an isolated instance where it worked out for someone he knew like the money with the Joke Shop. Harry wouldn't have used his own money for that shop had he lost & he wouldn't have gotten those books had he not been given free ones.
I feel like they weren't poor. Rather, they opted out of the system that requires exploiting an underclass to hoard wealth. Wizards could so easily rob muggles that I've always figured they and witches with the appearance of poverty were basically demonstrating their virtuousness.
מי הוא העשיר, השמח בחלקו
It's hebrew, translation
Who is the happy, is rich.
Short and sweet, just like the weasleys!
May bee Harry and Ginny married near the burrow too!
This seemed to be written by gpt, but very true nontheless
I dont understand how the Weasleys could even be poor. They can use magic go make just about anything.
The Weasleys certainly had a great deal of love which you are equating as love, that is not correct. You can be happy with out finical wealth but Rowling made a real point of the fact that they were poor.
Ginny was ashamed of having hand-me-downs she wrote it in her diary.
Ron even said in anger he was sick of being poor to Harry and Hermione.
Twins expresses concern over cost over cost of book list to their mother in Chamber of Secrets.
Ron's old moldy hand me down robs for Yule ball that he was ashamed of.
Ron didn't even start Hogwarts with his own wand, got a hand-me-down. What happened to the wand picking the Wizard.
Always irritated me that Harry never offer room and board for staying there.
Also that Bill and Charlie didn't help out after they got full time jobs.
After Ginny started school, Mrs Weasley could have started working to supplement income.
Nice work Fred tonks Remus j lupin Sirius black and mad eye moody👁️😡
I’m sure moody tonks shared their wealth to
They weren't dirt poor. Lower middle class with too many kids would be the issue. It's only Draco that teases the Weasleys for being ' poor' but they're like billionaire ... Harry, at first didn't think they were too poor as they each have a room , a nice warm bed , good food ... everything he didn't have; until he saw their vault . Harry had generational wealth, that's why Weasleys looked comparatively poor and both of Hermione's parents were dentists , so they were on the richer side even among the muggles. Weasleys look poor only in comparison. They could have easily gained more wealth if Molly took a job and Arthur pressed for a promotion or they asked for money from Bill which they didn't want to .
I thought the burrow was really cute and their kids wanted for nothing. They also could afford to take 2 extra kids in.
Too bad their cousin didn’t make it in the books and movies
Wizards live in a post scarity society ... the basic needs of life are easily obtained with no effort
....only luxuries cost money ...
Considering how negetively the weasleys view ambietion I wounder how they feal about other slytherion traits
They were poor. The “but they were rich in love” argument is stupid.
What if Harry had a twin or any what if
I would have to say no about the first one at least. A loving and supportive family is a wonderful thing, but all the love in the world doesn't cancel out poverty. "Their wealth was measured in the richness of their relationships." Sorry, but that's a false equivalency, using two different definitions of wealth as if they were interchangeable. Having an abundance of affection doesn't mean they weren't financially lacking. Also, much of their poverty is self-imposed. Having 7 children will do that. I don't fault them. Some things are more important than money, but it does show pretty clearly where all their income went and why they had a hard time making ends meet. One "paycheck" supporting 9 people will certainly put a strain on most people's wallets.
Your examples of influential wizards was terrible a werewolf who was shunned and a man wrongly convicted of mass murder.
What if since they fought in the. The 1st war they had. A deal that they get to have them kids go to School for free
😊🎉🏝🏜
Were nevel
🙏✌️albus Dumbledore barty crouch Cedric diggary Creature Dolby mad eye tonks Sirius black head wick Hagrid muggle care taker James potter Lilly evens Regulus black moaning mertal
Arthur had a very good income at the ministry, and considering most of their children were at Hogwarts during most of the year, which means they don't consume much of Arthur's budget, it's baffling how much they struggle financially. Assuming they were home owners and didn't have to pay any rent or interest on loans, and how the small scale is at which they live, they should be saving a lot, but then they struggle with paying for school supplies. So the only option is that there is a massive drain on their resources, maybe Molly is addicted to gambling, or they donate most of their income to some charity, or they are paying off some kind of loan. Either way, I've always found it very strange that they struggled so much.
Arthur's job doesn't actually pay much. It comes up a couple times. Working for the Ministry doesn't always mean a big pay packet, especially where Muggle-related work is involved.
@@RosseRue But he was already in a managerial position, and later was even promoted to head of his department.