Several questions on this site, and people's common perception, is that the Weasleys are poor.

However, on apparently a single source of income, Arthur Weasley supported a family of nine. (I assume Ginny was born before Charlie and Bill moved out, correct me if I'm wrong).

This is done without relying upon gifts or outside support, because they "make do".

So, are the Weasleys actually poor when comparing income to other, smaller, Wizarding families, or do they just have a sizeable income that's just stretched between too many people right now? (Actually, in the epilogue we see that all the kids are out of the house, and that same income is then split among only two people, Arthur and Molly. Are they still poor?)

  • 6
    I had a few friends whos familys were like this, parents made good money, but it only goes so far with tons of kids. But once the kids move out the parents suddenly start taking vacations all the time, buying new cars, ect. – Himarm Jan 24 '16 at 16:55
  • 11
    There is evidence that they live paycheck to paycheck as it were (empty vault), which supports Arthur supporting them all (just to add support to your question) – Mac Cooper Jan 24 '16 at 16:55
  • 12
    It's common to measure poverty relative to family size (e.g. here). So the Weasleys could very well be "poor" according to such a definition when they're raising lots of kids and not when they aren't, even if Arthur's income doesn't change. – Micah Jan 24 '16 at 16:55
  • 1
    (Also, your assumption about Charlie and Bill is complicated.) – Micah Jan 24 '16 at 16:57
  • 7
    Arthur also works in a very disregarded field... it's unlikely that he's paid very well for it, since the wizarding world doesn't really care much about muggle technology... See harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/… – Catija Jan 24 '16 at 17:35

The Weasleys are not especially poor. It's just that Arthur works at a comparatively low paying job at the Ministry, and has a huge family to feed. Molly is a housewife and does not add to the income.

As to how poor they are, well, they are helped by not having to feed their children throughout the year. I think, when its just Molly and Arthur at home, they get on fine, even manage to save up some money for the Christmas and summer holidays, when the kids come home.

Summer is an especially hard time because of the need to buy school books and other items for up to five children at a time. As is evidenced in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, Chapter 4: At Flourish and Blotts

Harry enjoyed the breakneck journey down to the Weasleys’ vault, but felt dreadful, far worse than he had in Knockturn Alley, when it was opened. There was a very small pile of silver Sickles inside, and just one gold Galleon. Mrs.Weasley felt right into the corners before sweeping the whole lot into her bag.

Despite all this, the Weasleys do get along well enough. There is never a case of not having enough food to put on the table. In fact, Mrs. Wealsey is known for her wonderful cooking, always making enough to fill the stomachs of everyone at the table, and then some.

There's also the jackpot that Arthur won in Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. The Weasleys spent that money to holiday in Egypt. If their financial situation was very tight, there would be no question of blowing the money away on a foreign trip.

  • 25
    A foreign trip for a family of wizards might not be as expensive as you'd imagine. The biggest expense for normal people travelling to a place like Egypt is just getting there. With any number of cheap/free modes of magical transport available to them, that's not even an issue. Then you've got lodging - but we know they already have a bigger-on-the-inside tent they can just set up anywhere. So really, it's just a matter of food, which is actually considerably cheaper there (relative to an average British income). A trip to Egypt might end up being cheaper for them than staying home... – Darrel Hoffman Jan 24 '16 at 20:06
  • 12
    As for trip to Egypt, that question was asked not long ago and some answers try to provide more psychological explanation of that decision. Other than that, Weasleys are typical media poor family - they are said to be poor, other people treat them as poor but they don't actually face consequences that poor people do in real world. – Mirek Długosz Jan 24 '16 at 20:18
  • 4
    Also bear in mind who called them poor - Draco clearly believed (at the time) that proper pureblood families have major wealth to back up the purity of their lineage. – Shadur Jan 24 '16 at 22:22
  • 1
    @Shadur Do we know of any proper pureblood families with as many kids as the Weasleys? – user31178 Jan 24 '16 at 22:56
  • 2
    @Angelo.Hannes Actually the tent belonged to Perkins, Arthur Weasley's colleague at the Ministry. As Arthur says in GoF, "Doesn't camp much anymore, poor fellow, he's got lumbago." Even in DH, Ron, Hermione and Harry use the same tent, since Perkins' lumbago has got so bad. – ʀᴇᴅ_ᴅᴇᴠɪʟ226 Jan 25 '16 at 7:48

Here's a problem many people don't realize, the Weasleys' situation was most likely brought upon themselves.

I've actually done the math based on how much Arthur Weasley's car would cost if it were 2250 pounds (which is the minimum I could find). Now then at least on the wiki (can't remember if it is stated in the book) that he bought the car so how much at least did it cost? Between 306.5 and452.7 galleons which are a ton of money (this is based on the current exchange rate and the one stated on the wiki from muggle to wizarding currency). Now then what does this prove? That the Weasley's weren't as poor as they are now.

Add onto this pile all the years they bought brand new textbooks for Percy and maybe Bill and Charlie plus any random junk the Weasley's collected and you've got a ton of cash spent like no tomorrow.

So yes they are semi-poor because they spend money like crazy especially when you only need 7 textbooks for the 5 main subjects from year 1-5 because you have magic and can repair a book if it's damaged unless you dump it in the cauldron and burn it beyond recognition or don't keep good care on it (seriously why the heck would you buy a personal set for each child when that saves a lot of cash especially when you give them hand me downs of everything else!).

Yes, a few teachers require different textbooks but come on only one position changes every year so most professors must use the same textbook year after year (proof is that Slughorn had old copies of his 6th year Potions which is the same as the one Snape used over 20 years ago! That excuse only applies to DADA but other than that they are wasting money).

My point is this: the Weasleys must be shopping crazies because they buy things unnecessarily despite the fact they could restart their savings if they cut corners like any normal family would.

Thus, I feel they weren't poor or at least in the lower class until Arthur and Molly's obsessions starting taking root and they wasted so much of their money that they no longer have enough for extraneous things because they buy what they don't need when they know perfectly well that their fun time can always mean more kids to feed and more money is needed.

  • 3
    I can't see how that is supported by the books. Even if Arthur really bought the car, and not refurbished it from a broken Muggle car via magik, I don't think it is a major contribution to their "poorness". – Gallifreyan May 23 '17 at 12:24
  • 2
    Can you clear up this ramble and edit it to provide sources from the books? – Edlothiad May 23 '17 at 12:41
  • This answer could greatly benefit from a few paragraphs. – Philipp Flenker May 23 '17 at 12:50

protected by Edlothiad Jan 23 '18 at 8:07

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?