23

So, for an entire CoS book, Ron, Harry's best friend, is majorly struggling in life and wizarding education because his wand broke because of Harry - and because his family's too poor to get him a replacement.

I can buy that Harry wouldn't feel comfortable just giving Ron money in general, even if he wanted to.

But he felt comfortable enough to do it obliquely - witness beginning of Book 1 when he orders enough sweets on the train to feed BOTH of them.

So, why couldn't Harry either:

  • Send money to Mr. Weasley, explain that it was entirely his fault that the wand was broken (yes, I know he didn't know about that fact till the end of the book when Dobby fessed up, but he could have made 'it's my fault' up all the same), and as act of contrition, ask him to buy Ron a new wand.

  • Send the money to Weasley's anonymously, stating that this is from Ron's secret admirer for a new wand.

    "He didn't know how" doesn't pass muster - he has Hermione and teachers he can ask.

    Heck, he could have just sent it through the teachers ( McGonagall) as well, so Weasley's would have less hesitation to refuse.

I would strongly prefer in-Universe or word-of-god answers. Speculation is OK but must be extensively based on the former.

  • 14
    It's not in-universe, but ask anyone who's come into money and started helping friends out. Even when you do it anonymously, they have a strong sense who is doing it just from logic and it always puts strain on the relationship. – Tango Feb 24 '12 at 21:35
  • 1
    @TangoOversway - WAY off from my personal experience as far as strain. But IKWYM – DVK-on-Ahch-To Feb 24 '12 at 21:38
  • 9
    I never really questioned this; Ron (and his family) are poor but proud - even stealth help would damage their friendship if it was eventually found out. It's not uncommon for proud & poor to equal never wanting charity (although luck is acceptable.) The closest I can come up with Canon info is the way the twins accepted the winnings from the GOF; they were reluctant, and only took it as an investment.. then treated Harry as their 'business angel' ever after, refusing to let him pay from stuff from their shop, and so forth. – K-H-W Feb 24 '12 at 22:19
  • 4
    Another side effect of being poor; tending to be REALLY conscious about obligations with money. See: Ron having a fit that the money he paid harry back with (at the Tri-wizard Tournament) turned out to be fake. – K-H-W Feb 24 '12 at 22:29
  • 1
    Makes sense... But would Ron risk it? He doesn't have much to risk to begin with, AND if he concluded that Harry sucked at games he'd feel guilty about hustling the boy who lived. Shrug Pride is a hard thing to get past... and as clever as Harry might be, if it ever came out... – K-H-W Feb 25 '12 at 3:29
13

The wand choses the wizard. Ron would have had to leave school to go to Ollivander's to get a new wand. As I recall Ron stayed at Hogwarts over Christmas break, so he wouldn't have had an opportunity to travel to Diagon Alley. Unless the Weasley's decided to get him another second hand wand.

Part of Ron's initial magical struggles were on account of having a second hand wand from his older brother.

As it is described on Pottermore , Ash wood "cleaves to its one true owner and ought not to be passed on or gifted from the original owner, as it would lose power". It can be speculated that, while this wand was in Ron's possession, he was not able to demonstrate his magical skills to full capacity.

  • 8
    I don't see how they wouldn't be able to take him out of school for 1 day on a weekend for that. I'm sure teachers would have agreed. Go to Hogsmeade, Floo to Diagon, done. – DVK-on-Ahch-To Feb 25 '12 at 0:46
  • 1
    Poor Ron. His parents just didn't care enough! – NiceOrc Jun 26 '12 at 4:04
  • ' wand choses the wizard' when it's convenient to the plot. Ron used Charlie's old wand, Neville also had a second hand one, the Malfoys apparently share their wands when someone in the family loses one, Hermione has Bella's wand and so on. What i don't get is why there is such a wand shortage. Maybe every wizard is buried with his wand so there arent any spare ones lying about. But why not but a few wands when you order yours at the wandmaster, just in case? ?? – user68762 Jul 17 '16 at 11:30
  • 2
    @willRosenberg wands are more personal than that, more like a wedding ring. Something you expect to have for life, and not something you purchase in duplicate 'just in case' – Jack B Nimble Jul 17 '16 at 18:49
6

See the other question When Ron broke his wand, why didn't he apply for Hogwarts financial aid? where Slytherincess explains in a reply that Mrs Weasley would probably not have accepted donation. This applies even if it's an anonymous donation or comes through the teachers. Mrs Weasley probably had the final say in this, Ron wouldn't have had a choice.

5

It would've been really obvious who's giving the money, anonymous donation or not.

  • 1
    First, I disagree. I don't think Ron was clearly aware of just how rich Harry was. Second, so what if it was obvious? If the money was for the wand, coming from McGonagle as intermediary, I'm sure he wouldn't reject it – DVK-on-Ahch-To Feb 25 '12 at 3:31
  • 1
    @DVK-in-exile That's not true. When they all visit Gringotts in the Chamber of Secrets, Harry feels ashamed and embarrassed about the money in his vault, and makes an attempt to cover up, as he shoves a bit of gold into his bag (pouch?). In the Sorcerer's Stone, Ron also has wide eyes as to the amount of money Harry spends on sweets, so it's obvious he knew, but perhaps didn't want to touch on the subject of charity. – Anoplexian Feb 12 '16 at 20:39
5

Here's my take on it. Although Harry is kind and is truly a good person, he has grown up without friends and was abused his whole life. This is the first time ever he's learning about these things, being loved and learning about tokens of friendship. It's like when someone grows up without manners and they don't realize they are being rude. If you remember in the sorcerers stone (book) Harry bought the candy for HIMSELF and gave the leftovers to Ron. He didn't buy candy as a peace offering to friendship, as someone else suggested. Also,kids use the currency of time for friendships, adults use monetary tokens. An adult would look at ron's situation, and maybe for his birthday buy him a gift certificate to olivvanders or something. Kids don't think about money like that. They don't equate money with time and effort and it means less to them. They save each others lives throughout the whole series so that's a stronger token of friendship. The stronger thier friendship gets, the more awkward it would be for Harry to buy Ron something out of no where and for Ron to accept it. Especially as they grow and realize the value of money.Me and my best friend always argue when one if us tries to pay for the whole check for lunch or something, neither of us feels right for the other to get the whole bill.

  • 2
    This is a nice answer, and it would be even better if you could edit it to add some formatting to highlight the main points (at least, add some newline to break it into paragraphs). – lfurini Jul 17 '16 at 12:02
4

"Send money to Mr. Weasley, explain that it was entirely his fault that the wand was broken ... ask him to buy Ron a new wand."

About taking the blame: Ron's wand = Ron's responsibility. Arthur Weasley seems a very fair man who wont agree to put the blame on Harry for something the boys did together. Even if he wouldn't connect the flying car prank with the broken wand, he'd ask Ron what exactly happened. Then, Ron would freak out (doubly). First, because Harry went behind his back and second, the money issue.

Though in the film he acts more calmly, in the book Arthur Weasley got into a brawl with Lucius Malfoy when he was mocked for being too poor to equip his kids for school. (CoS, CH4) I am not sure it would be such a good idea to send money to him implying he cant afford replacement wand. In GoF Harry gives money to the twins to help them to open a shop and for Ron's dressrobes. I doubt very much Harry, who'd just that summer had met Ron's parents would dare to give money to Molly or Arthur. They're not that familiar, it'd be too awkward for everyone concerned, not to mention very insulting to the Weasleys. To give money to the twins in CoS for Ron isn't an option either, they were younger, how would they explain where they'd got it? To Percy - again, too awkward.

Also after the boys stealing the car and causing humiliation (and a ministry inquiry) to Mr. Weasley, maybe it's not the wisest action to draw attention to the broken wand. Chances are Ron havent told them it got trashed. Or maybe they knew but Molly decided it'd be a good lesson for Ron to struggle with a faulty wand, so next time he'd think twice before pulling something reckless.

"Send the money to Weasley's anonymously"

No way. Arthur Weasley is a ministry employee, if he knows what's good for him he won't accept a knut from an unknown source.

"Heck, he could have just sent it through the teachers ( McGonagall) as well, so Weasley's would have less hesitation to refuse."

That's the worst option. It's like asking Minerva McGonagall to send charity to the Weasleys. "Here, dear parents, we in Howarts have a special fund for orohans and the poor who are struggling to buy school supplies for their kids. Take this donation and please buy Ron a wand." That's just...

Either way, if Ron would find out he'd flip his lid. Like in GoF, when he realised the galleons he paid back Harry with were false.

I think the best option would be indeed to ask help from the head of Gryff, McGonagall. But without involving the Weasleys. To give her money and ask her to buy a (temporary) wand for Ron, asking her to pretend she had a replacement wand in her posession saying: "As it happens, I have a spare wand that belonged to my great-aunt Beulah. I am lending it to you till your wand is replaced, Mr Weasley, so you wont cause chaos and destruction in my Transfiguration classroom." And then when his parents will see it fit and have the money they'll buy him a new wand that choses him or whatever.

But yes, the plot device of the broken wand (just to have it fire back the 'oblivate' at Lockhart) was esespecially lame. It makes the teachers who allow Ron to use a faulty wand irresponsible and negligent, especially since they themselves (Snape and Minerva) remark on how dangerous it is.

3

In Goblet of Fire, Harry donates all his winnings to the Weasley twins on the condition that they buy Ron some decent dancing clothes. I think Harry felt comfortable giving money to the Weasley's simply because it was "his money" and not his parents.

  • So the reason why Harry didn't give money to Ron was because he was comfortable giving money to the Weasley family? – phantom42 Sep 17 '13 at 3:48
  • 3
    He wasn't comfortable giving away his parents money but he was when it was his hard earned money. – Heseinberg Sep 17 '13 at 5:49
  • 8
    He didn't want the Triwizard winnings because they were associated with Cedric's death (which he felt responsible for). I don't think it's a case of feeling comfortable giving away "his" money vs "his parents" money; he didn't want the Triwizard winnings so he gave them to pretty much the first people he came across who he knew could put the gold to good use. – Anthony Grist Sep 17 '13 at 8:53
  • If only Harry knew at that time that James had supported Remus Lupin and the Order of the Phoenix financially, maybe he'd have felt more comfortable continuing to spend his parents' money that way. – b_jonas Oct 8 '14 at 5:53
  • 1
    It is specifically stated in the books that the Weasly would refuse his money in general. And as @AnthonyGrist mentioned, the reason for giving the winnings away was the guilt of CD's death and the desesperation the twins. Their parents would have refused, but they certainly knew how to keep it shut about it. – bilbo_pingouin Jul 20 '15 at 8:27
0

It wasn't even Harry's fault Ron's wand broke. It was Dobby who closed 93/4, and even if they didn't know that Harry didn't grab Ron's wand and break it. It broke because they BOTH decided to go and fly the car recklessly. It was as much of a decision of Harry as Ron's. It was Ron's wand, and it was on him during the car ride, it was his responsibility to take care of it, not Harry's.

Harry doesn't have to take care of all of Ron's need because he has money and Ron doesn't. If he did that would mean Ron won't learn how to take responsibility for himself and think all his problems would be fixed by Harry which is how toxic friendships are formed.

Also, it's canonly stated in the book, the Weasleys would refuse money from Harry.

And it's stated in Prisoner of Azkaban that Harry couldn't spend too much of his money or else he wouldn't have enough to buy supplies for future years. And the Dursleys wouldn't help him at all if he ran out. Eventually, Molly started getting his supplies because CHILDREN SHOULDN'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT FINANCE, THAT'S ON THE PARENTS. And Molly was his parental figure, and Harry did want to pay her back, but again. The Weasley refuse Harry's money.

  • 1
    There’s an answer in here to the question but there is also a lot of tangential information, it might be better if you edit it to be more focused. Also adding in sources/evidence/quotes would really improve this. – TheLethalCarrot Mar 2 at 0:15

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.