[HPforGrownups] Weasley poverty (was: Weasleys Weasleys Weasleys ion / Dick

[Edblanning at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 37365

Catlady:
> IMHO Bill (and maybe Charlie) may not have experienced Weasley 
> poverty first-hand. If the Weasley financial difficulties result from 
> trying to stretch enough income for a family of four to support a 
> family of seven, the difficulties would have been much less back when 
> there were only two kids. When Arthur and Molly have FIVE kids at 
> Hogwarts, even if I am right that Hogwarts doesn't charge tuition 
> because it has a huge endowment, that is still FIVE sets of textbooks 
> and school supplies and uniforms and whatever. When they only had TWO 
> kids at Hogwarts and only had to pay for TWO sets of those things, 
> they might have had enough money left over for supplying new wands 
> and new broomsticks and new dress robes... 
> 
> <snip>   
> Milz wrote:
> 
> > I have the impression that she partially based the Weasleys upon 
> > them. I'll begin with some background and review, before tackling
> > Percy issues. Mitford background: They were an aristocratic family.
> > Nancy's father was a baron. The father was mildly eccentric, fond
> > of hunting and other bucolic activities, preferring to live in the
> > countryside.
> 
> That goes along with the person who said that the Weasleys are 
> typical English Upper Class Eccentric, with their poverty a part of 
> their eccentricity, and accents posher than any of the other 
> characters except the Malfoys. Myself, I've always thought the 
> Weasleys were Common.
> 

You've made me wonder just how long the Weasleys *have* been poor.
We know they are a distinguished pure-blood family, which seems in wizarding 
terms to make them aristocratic, like the Malfoys. But of course, the British 
aristocracy is frequently impoverished, and not just through eccentricity. It 
may be that Arthur or one of his forbears was a younger son, who didn't 
inherit, and therefore went into the Ministry, just as younger sons of the 
British aristocracy who didn't marry for money would often go into the 
clergy. But I also wonder whether the lack of wealth may be a direct 
consequence of failing to toe the line. It sounds like Arthur's been passed 
over in the past because Fudge holds him in low regard. Or perhaps failure to 
co-operate with Voldemort during his ascendency (or sinking funds into the 
fight against him) somehow forced poverty upon them then.

OTOH, he is a Head of Department now. Shouldn't that command a respectable 
salary?  Why are they still *so* poor? Why do they have nothing (essentially) 
in the bank? Do they have debts from the past, or worse, except for fans of 
Arthur With Imperius, could Arthur be being blackmailed because he *failed* 
to defy Voldemort? Another little skeleton for Elkins to play with in her 
cupboard (or closet, if she prefers!)

Incidentally, I've always been intrigued as to why Ginny should have needed 
so many textbooks of her own, aside from that twit Lockhart's of course. 
Surely the same Standard Book of Spells Grade 1 etc etc could have served for 
each of the Weasleys in turn. Although I suspect much property might  need 
replacing after the twins had had their hands on it, at that point in the 
cycle there are presumably two of anything that might be outgrown. If 
anything, there should be extra stuff that isn't needed.

As to the names, I can't make anything of them as a group. I did once make 
the connection between Ginny and Virginia (with its overtones of purity) and 
whichever centaur it was saying that the innocent are always the first 
victims, or words to that effect. No, that won't do! Ronan: 'Always the 
innocent are the first victims'. And of course, in CoS, Ginny was very nearly 
the one true victim. 

Eloise,
who having in a fit of boredom read the Humongous Bigfile, has taken off her 
Easter bonnet and donned sackcloth and ashes to atone for the many sins she 
has been unwittingly committing. (And can't work out where to put the commas 
to best effect in that last sentence and is resisting a sudden overwhelming 
temptation to finish with a very long and irritating line of exclamation 
marks.)

Speak roughly to your little boy
And beat him when he sneezes
He only does it to annoy
Because he knows it teases.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]