|
|
Post by Alice on Jun 29, 2015 11:48:43 GMT -5
There not a lot of DNA relation in third cousins so it is not that bad. Its only bad with direct siblings and cousins. Anything further away that a cousin is not nearly as dangerous. That may be, but when the cousins are already inbred, then that multiplies the risks a bit, I'd think. JK Rowling did say that Squibs were the result of too much inbreeding. |
|
|
|
Post by Alice on Jun 29, 2015 12:05:09 GMT -5
Another thought. Molly was always mollycodding her children. So, why could she not put featherlight charms on their trunks, but forced them to carry these heavy things around? Or shrink them, so they didn't have to bother with that at all? She's always so eager to treat them like babies, but does nothing to make their life easier when it would have any practical use. I never got how they could be poor despite having magic. Frayed robes? Reparo. Too short? Lengthening charm. Want to spare some water costs (if they have it?) Aguamenty and heating charm. No need for wood with heating charms and magical fires. I think wizards can't create food from nothing or transfigure it, but I think there was a charm to multiply the food already there. They have no need for fridges, a simple cooling charm will do the trick. No travelling costs either. Just use apparition and side-along apparition. They can grow their food all year long, just built a green house (transfigure the materials) and some heating charms and light charms (I bet there is a charm that produces sunlight) and some aguamenti and you have the perfect green house. How about trying their luck in the muggle world? Just play the lottery and take a Felix Felicis potion. There are so many possibilities. |
|
|
|
Post by SlytherMeIn on Jun 29, 2015 13:27:11 GMT -5
Actually, is there any indication that Harry gets to keep his key at all? Hagrid has it, Molly has it etc etc. I don't have my copy of PS to hand, can somebody check and see whether it's mentioned that Harry actually gets his key in the first place? I know Hagrid takes it out but I can't remember if it's then handed over to Harry or if Hagrid takes it back or if it's just not mentioned. You would think a kid like Harry would want his key but I'm not sure. I think I'd remember it but again, I don't have PS to hand. I'm just rereading it and Harry never gets his key from Hagrid. Hagrid basically tells Harry "we'll keep the rest safe for you" when talking about his gold. I wonder who this "we" is? I suspect he means the Order. Harry doesn't question it at all, it is so frustrating! |
|
|
|
Post by SlytherMeIn on Jun 29, 2015 13:29:26 GMT -5
Would the Goblins let anyone access to the volt? Does having the key suffice? Harry is a minor. His guardians are The Dursleys but They don't know about his gold, for a good reason. Though, I believe he has his key, because in the 3rd book he was able to buy all his school fournitures himself as well as pay his stay in the auberge in Diagon alley for 15 days. Maybe Dumbledore was the one supervising his bank account, like he did for his invisibility cloak. But why would Molly steal Harry's money and face problems if she was caught when she could just ask? Harry wouldn't say no. He had already risked his life for half her family, he wouldn't cheap on them for few galleons? Edit: I just read the part with Gringott in PS (I have the Frensh edition), they doesn't mention the key after giving it to the Goblin for examination anymore. No, Hagrid definitely tells him that "this much gold should suffice for his first three years or so" when he went to Gringott's with Harry. |
|
|
|
Post by SlytherMeIn on Jun 29, 2015 14:06:17 GMT -5
Well. You are right, but there is another problem and more important one, the Goblins has the magical world's gold, all of it. Imagine another Goblin's rebellion? Didn't she ask Bill to intervene to facilitate the access? Isn't that mentioned in the book? I always thought that Bill had something to do with it. But is's true that nobody ask for Harry's permission for anything. Again, maybe as a minor, Harry didn't really have regard in the matter. We will never know, it's true we don't know anything on minor status in the magical world. And does a minor have to be present in a testament reading or does his guardian suffice? Does it in the magical world? The only other example was Dumbledore's testament and the three kids mentioned in it were 17 already. As I don't read bashing, I can only respond using what I know from the book, it's still theoretical, because we don't know much: The Weasleys are poor but also really proud and have a strong sens of moral. Sure they make mistakes and can be hypocritical from time to time. But who doesn't? I see it as an antithesis, if they weren't proud and had principles, they wouldn't have those money problems. It's because Arthur and Molly know that what he is doing in the MoM is important that they are patiently suffering trough poverty and the misprise of his chiefs. The fact also is that their children aren't thieves too. Ron is often jealous, but he never took Harry's gold, he was upset when he realized that he didn't give Harry his money back in the 4th, a thieve wouldn't have mentioned it at all; the twins didn't accept Harry money until he threatened them and said that he was going to throw it away. If the parents are thieves, then some of the children would have the same behavior, even if not all of them, kids often copy their parents behavior. Now if you were to ask where did the Malfoys get their money? It would be another story. Dumbledore is chummy with Nicolas Flamel. If he needs some gold, he can ask him rather than stealing an orphan, no? Plus he has three jobs and that means three salaries. That's not true at all! Molly was never satisfied with Arthur's work and wanted him to bring home more money. She also wanted her children to work in well-paying, respectable positions. Being friends does not mean they'll give you money. Mind you, you are not even talking about lending money, but giving it away for nothing. And we don't know how the Philosopher's Stone works. Is it infinite, can it get overused, does it need special, costly ingredients to produce gold/life potion? i.e. Also, don't you think Flamel would enquire what he would need the money for? Dumbledore always likes to keep his secrets, so I don't see him telling him about the Order (which is illegal). In Philosopher's Stone Dumbledore endangers Flamel's life by placing the PS in Hogwarts under protections even first years can overcome. Dumbledore doesn't seem to be that great of a friend to me. Frankly it was always suspect to me how the Flamels suddenly decided to destroy the Philosopher's Stone when it was convenient for Dumbledore. And Dumbledore doesn't seem to be overflowing with money, since they had to use Grimmauld place as their Headquarters. I know Sirius offered, but DD has a way to manipulate people into doing things and make them think it was their idea. DD certainly wanted to keep a tight leash on Sirius. Also I always found it weird how the Weasley's were the only Order members to live in Grimmauld Place. Later they just protect their own home with magic, why not do this in the first place? I wonder if DD was the one to plant this idea. Dumbledore would have noticed how Molly had put her claws into Harry (she wasn't the most subtle), since he is so receptive and obviously this would put her at odds with Harry's real guardian. Add to it the fact that everyone was acting like Sirius should not be trusted to look after himself or Harry (I see a pattern here, maybe some manipulation on DD side how unstable he was after Azkaban, all obviously said very well meaning, only wanting to help poor, deranged Sirius), Snape antagonizing Sirius (I don't fault Snape for this, he has enough reason to hate Sirius, but it can't have been good for Sirius) and Sirius being kept prisoner in his own home (all of course for his own security, disregarding the fact that Sirius managed to escape the Ministry on his own for a long time before this) with nothing to do the whole day, but stew in negative thoughts (reinforced by having to stay in the home he hated so much), it is no wonder he died because he became reckless. His recklessness is a trait Dumbledore knows of well. Weirdly he was only exonerated after he died. Of course DD couldn't have done anything, he is just Headmaster, Chief Warlock, great Mugwump, Head of the Wizengamot, Head of ICW, i.e. No he couldn't force the issue and grant Sirius a trial after third year, no siree. How convenient that Harry had no legal guardian other than some muggles who were easily intimidated and had no sway in the WW at all, making them completely powerless, and leaving a power vacuum that was nicely filled by Dumbledore. |
|
|
|
Post by killtheidiots on May 24, 2016 2:56:36 GMT -5
the bitch tried to interfere in the trio's crucial horcrux hunting plans in the last book which could potentially have costed them a lot
|
|
|
|
Post by Libsrocks on Nov 13, 2016 14:50:43 GMT -5
I sincerely beg to differ from all the negative views about Molly Weasley. I don't worship the character but I admire the love she held for people outside her family members.
Molly was not biased with her kids but comparisions tend to arise when one has so many kids. Any parent would give example of their most obedient and responsible child. Percy might not stuck up to us because we saw him from Harry's (a teenager) point of view but one cannot deny that he slighly more serious and responsible about life and career.
The reason behind Molly's disapproval towards Fred and George's career choice was nothing but fear about their future. She knows how difficult it is to live with such less income. She fears that her sons might suffer the same if they chose a risky job. It's simply a fear of parent from their past experiences.
Wands are extremely expensive. Even Neville did not have his own wand. How could you expect Arthur and Molly to afford new wands for each of their children?
Some parents are slightly stricter than other parents but that does not mean they are bad parents. Strictness to reasonable limits allows the child to respect their elders and know their limits.
Molly's disapproval towards Hermione was for hardly few days. She went back to her normal self the moment she got to know the truth from Harry. She did not exactly bashed Hermione or lectured her.
People easily criticize her for few of her faults but tend to overlook all the good she did. Despite being poor and with so many kids, she easily welcomed two kids (Harry & Hermione) in their lives and never asked to repay all the expenses occured due to them. She never blamed Harry for being the cause of trouble in her family even though her family did face few troubles simply because of their strong relationship with Harry.
She lost her son Fred in a battle and her other son George was injured in one of the missions but never blamed Harry for it even though any other mother would have done so even if just out of anger and grief.
|
|
|
|
Post by physicssquid on Nov 16, 2016 22:19:45 GMT -5
Wands are extremely expensive. Even Neville did not have his own wand. How could you expect Arthur and Molly to afford new wands for each of their children? If the standard price of a wand is 7 galleons, and Tom Riddle was able to afford that with the bag of money Dumbledore gave him, which was, as Dumbledore stated, from a fund at Hogwarts for those who require assistance to buy books and robes. If the Weasleys couldn't pay for a wand for Ron by themselves, then they would probably have been allowed to use that fund. And as for Neville, the only reason he didn't have his own wand, was because his grandmother refused to buy him one, instead insisting that his father's was perfectly acceptable. |
|
|
|
Post by Kitty279 on Nov 17, 2016 14:26:11 GMT -5
I sincerely beg to differ from all the negative views about Molly Weasley. I don't worship the character but I admire the love she held for people outside her family members. Molly was not biased with her kids but comparisions tend to arise when one has so many kids. Any parent would give example of their most obedient and responsible child. Percy might not stuck up to us because we saw him from Harry's (a teenager) point of view but one cannot deny that he slighly more serious and responsible about life and career. Oh, no doubt he was more serious and responsible, which wouldn't be negative, but to me he came over as a rule-obsessed tattletale and a Ministry sycophant. He was always the Weasley I liked the least. Bill and Charlie obviously could live well from their jobs, of which their mother disapproved as well, I believe. And Molly did so much for the future of the twins by destroying everything they did with their money - research, developments, products. Not my idea of how to prove that this job venue wouldn't work or support her children. Her idea of the perfect job seems to be the Ministry - even after she can see how absolutely corrupt nearly everyone there is and that you need to blindly follow a totally corrupt Minister in order to achieve anything. Neville was already explained - and frankly, Augusta as a Pureblood should have known better. Let's just bully the child all his life, tell him he's worthless, force him to use a wand not suited, and who cares that the wand choses the wizard. And then see all that as proof that he is a near-squib. It was something that made me pretty angry. As for Ron's wand and Molly not having money ... yeah, you totally convinced me. NOT. She had enough money to buy new robes *and* an owl for Mummy's darling, because that was so much more important than a wand for Ron. Over Christmas, Molly, Arthur and Ginny went on holiday to Romania. And in the next summer, they actually bought five sets of Lockhart's books, or at least four, seeing as Harry gave the gift set to Ginny. Why the heck? The kids never had Lockhart at the same time and could have shared one or two sets. It leaves me more with the impression that Molly couldn't handle money well. Reinforced by the fact that, when they won that prize, they didn't use much of it for necessities like new clothes for the kids, but spent it on another holiday in Egypt. While I agree that there has to be a limit, there's a line between strictness and yelling at her children for every little thing, badmouthing them in front of guests and all that. That Skeeter article about Hermione was published in early March or so, and Molly held it against Hermione until the third task, which was on the 24th of June. That's over three months in which she blamed Hermione - after complaining at the beginning of the book about Skeeter writing only lies and after having Hermione in the house for weeks and knowing her at least a little. So why did she believe Skeeter over Hermione? And why did she nothing to verify the whole thing in the first place? And I am sure the lack of lecture had more to do with geographical distance. Well, it's not as if Harry was the one who planned these things, right? It was Dumbledore who sent three untrained teenagers on that Horcrux hunt when he had access to Curse-Breakers and Aurors. And I am not entirely sure who planned that stupid escape from Privet Drive - Moody? Dumbledore's portrait? Or who else? I really don't see Harry at fault there. ETA: Another thing about the money issue: In PoA, the whole family stayed overnight at the Leaky Cauldron, which would cost a pretty penny. And even worse, in GoF they didn't take the Floo to King's Cross, but called taxis. Which would be the most expensive way to get there in the first place. Not to mention that I have seen the theory a lot that the Burrow is in Devon - if that is true, taking a taxi (or actually two) is absolutely idiotic, because that's a) a drive of a few hours, for which they didn't have enough time and b) would cost hundreds of pounds. Somehow JKR doesn't seem to have thought that out properly; on the one hand they are made out to be soooo poor, on the other hand, they spend way too much money on unnecessary things. |
|
|
|
Post by RandomPasserby on Nov 20, 2016 8:19:33 GMT -5
The reason behind Molly's disapproval towards Fred and George's career choice was nothing but fear about their future. She knows how difficult it is to live with such less income. She fears that her sons might suffer the same if they chose a risky job. It's simply a fear of parent from their past experiences.
That's funny, given that Fred and George go about things very sensibly and Molly still flips her lid. They have a test market (Hogwarts students) where they can assess the viability of their product while still gaining an education. They're obviously planning on generating income and interest in their business over the next two years which would tell them whether a brick and mortar shop would be a possibility or if they'd have to operate by Owl Order only for a while. Just based on jokes and tricks, their market isn't even saturated - Zonko's seems like the only joke shop the Wizarding World has.
That is actually a really good business plan coming from two sixteen year old kids who have no business education. They're not actually doing anything stupid.
Molly's reaction is burning all the order forms, forbidding them from making more and telling them that she wants them to go into the Ministry in the middle of a fight.
That wouldn't go down well with most sixteen year olds. Your twin boys who have spent the past five years at Hogwarts getting into trouble, that's really going to tell them.
Despite being poor and with so many kids, she easily welcomed two kids (Harry & Hermione) in their lives and never asked to repay all the expenses occured due to them.
Here's the thing, the Weasley's aren't actually that poor.
They own a house in Devon. Devon's a beautiful county but expensive as fuck. Moreover they own a house and some land in Devon. Enough land to play a reasonable game of Quidditch on.
They are actually able to afford seven kids on one salary in a society which doesn't have benefits.
They show no food insecurity whatsoever. In fact, Molly prepares enough for multiple helpings to feed multiple people.
They owned a working car which they didn't use. Although they might not have had to keep up with all the costs most people do (I, for one, pity the poor policeman who could have pulled the Ford Anglia over on their journey from Devon to London. Plates out of date, no legal owner, no insurance, no tax, no MOT, no drivers license. Oh and 8 people plus animals fitted in there somehow) that's still a fair amount of money to spend on something they don't need.
Fred and George's life savings total 37 galleons 15 sickles 3 knuts. Going with the 1 Galleon = £5 that's basically £190. Two sixteen year old kids, who haven't been able to sell any of their WWW merchandise yet have £190 and that's after presumably having to purchase things to make the WWW merchandise.
They win 700 galleons (£3500) and spend almost all of it on a trip to Egypt - now I try very hard not to criticise how poor people spend their money. But if, when I was thirteen, you'd given my mother £3500 I would guarantee we wouldn't have gone on holiday. That would have gone in the bank.
They managed to afford at least three Cleansweep brooms. They have at least three in CoS since Fred, George, Ron and Harry go flying and ask Percy if he'd like to come. Ron gets a new one later on.
Yes Ron wears second hand clothes. He's a growing kid, he's going to grow through them in a matter of months and second hand in the wizarding world where 'Reparo' is a thing can't be too bad.
Yes their dress robes are second hand. Again, growing kids and a dress robe which presumably is going to get one use.
Yes Ron's wand is second hand. Which brings me to the question, why did Charlie need to get a new wand? People grow and change from when they're eleven so it's possible that Charlie's wand simply stopped working well for him and he had to get a new one. Given that Charlie would have finished school only months before Ron started, it's entirely probably that Molly and Arthur bought him that new wand. If Charlie's old wand worked well enough for an eleven year old Ron, they might have thought it was better to buy him a new wand later which he might get more use out of (having a wand that only works 'well enough' is one thing when you're turning a match into a needle but something entirely different when you're trying to do things non-verbally)
Yes their vault contains 1 galleon and some sickles as of the middle of August 1992. We don't know when Ministry workers get paid. My bank account doesn't look fantastic between cheques either.
If they'd stopped having kids at Percy, the Weasleys would probably be quite well off. If Molly had gone back to work after Ginny started at Hogwarts, they'd probably have been a bit better off.
On balance though, the Weasley family are nowhere near what I would consider 'poor'. And I grew up poor.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kitty279 on Nov 26, 2016 1:08:29 GMT -5
Actually, I wonder if Charlie got his wand secondhand, too. From the description in PS, it was already so damaged that the core poked out; but nothing in the series gives me the impression that wands wear out that fast that they are in such a sorry state after 7 years. Harry's certainly was not, and he used it for a lot of extracurricular stuff as well. So maybe Charlie got a new one before he went off to the dragon reserve because he finally needed a proper wand after using an old one for his whole school time, and Molly promptly handed his already badly damaged one off to Ron?
Btw, didn't Ginny get a new wand when she started Hogwarts one year after Ron? But of course, she was the only girl and Mummy's darling ...
|
|
|
|
Post by RandomPasserby on Nov 26, 2016 13:47:18 GMT -5
Actually that makes a lot of sense. The Weasley's probably would have been at their worst off just before/just after Bill went to Hogwarts since they'd have the most kids at home 24/7. Gearing up for Charlie going off to Hogwarts would have been in the context of feeding six kids three times a day plus them growing through clothes at a rate of knots.
So yeah, for all that Ron complains about having second hand things it's quite likely that all of his brothers did as well, he was just too young to notice/remember.
Actually no, as far as we know she doesn't get a brand new wand. In fact, we don't know anything at all about her wand. But she too got second hand robes and for some unknown reason, the Weasleys bought her another second hand copy of the first year transfiguration book. (Ironically while Ginny is being bought second hand robes and the Weasleys are somehow paying for four sets of Lockheart books, the twins are spending money on fireworks.)
I know that it was necessary for the plot as the diary transferral method, but why on earth in a household where Ron presumably needed that book last year but doesn't this year did they feel the need to buy another battered copy of the book?
I am curious as to how the minutia of second hand wand selling would work.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kitty279 on Nov 27, 2016 2:30:41 GMT -5
Bill probably had more new stuff because he was the first, but it would make sense to hand many clothes down even if they had more money. As you said, they grow very fast, which means they would wear some clothes only for a few months. So they can't have been that bad and good enough to hand down to the next one. Of course, by the time Ron came around, some were rather old, but it is very likely that the others wore clothes from their older brothers, too. Or at least within the limits of build (Bill - Percy - Ron; Charlie - George and Fred, as the latter three were described as shorter and stockier, IIRC). Ron may not have noticed, but I get the feeling that even if he did, he'd complain anyway. The others all worked hard to make a better life for themselves while Ron wanted to be better than all of them, but never did anything for it than hang onto the BWL.
Ok, that was probably another fanfiction thing. Some I see so often that it's sometimes hard to remember what was canon - particularly with the more irrelevant little details. But you are right, just dug out the book and re-read the Diagon Alley chapter.
Yeah, that transfiguration book was another example for the stupid way they handle the money. Somehow I doubt McGonagall has changed her book anytime in the last years, if not decades; the magical world is not that fast to change, after all. So probably all of the Weasley children used the same book and they could have copies of these books lying around already, because Bill, Charlie, Percy, Fred and George used the same book as well. And the same goes probably for the other books save Defense, where each teacher seems to put his own favourite on the list, as we know at least from Lockhart and Umbitch, and of Hagrid for CoMC. The teachers who stayed the same were probably using the same books as always, too.
Probably similar to the one of new wands? I'd expect whatever shop sells them would have people try the available wands in order to find one that works? Though when I think about it, the most sensible solution would be to leave that to Ollivander, he could repair them or take these out that are too damaged and a danger to any user. But I suspect some are just handed down in the family - see Charlie/Ron, or Neville.
|
|
|
|
Post by RandomPasserby on Nov 27, 2016 4:45:13 GMT -5
I can see the Transfiguration book coming out in a new edition. But if it had done that then they wouldn't have been able to buy Ginny a battered second hand copy of the new edition would they? Besides which, apart from things like the DSM, most new editions are just there to gouge money out of students the changes are so minor. Which would be little to no issue in the first year of Hogwarts when there's probably far more wrong with the kid's essay than just that the magical theory is a tiny bit out of date.
Fuck, thinking about it. Why didn't they get Lockheart's books second hand? They've obviously all been released for years, they must be in second hand book shops by now. I've expressed my disbelief at the necessity of buying five sets of the books (I know they only bought four, but they were prepared to buy five). Oh no, your children might have to share.
My guess would be that second hand wands are also sold by Ollivander, if only to preserve his wand making secrets. And also to avoid nasty rumours about previous owners, which you might get in a more grey-market shop like Borgin and Burkes. Also because I really doubt a second hand wand shop could actually make enough money to keep running - Ollivander managing it is hard enough to believe.
But I have to wonder whether pureblood families don't keep the wands of family members to pass on amongst themselves, either when aforementioned family member changes their wand or when they die (which would also allow pureblood children to do magic well in advance of Hogwarts). So it's possible that all the Weasley children's wands came from family members (even though, once again, Arthur seems to have no contact with his siblings and their families). Especially since it strikes me that wand shopping is the only thing not mentioned during the CoS Diagon Alley chapter. Ginny gets bought robes, Hermione drags Harry and Ron to buy parchment and ink, the whole thing in the book shop. Ollivanders doesn't even enter the equation. I can certainly imagine Fred and George getting Fabian and Gideon Prewett's wands. With Ron having Charlie's old wand, it's also possible that Ginny has Bill's old wand.
Which would possibly provide the funds for the Weasleys having four brooms. The one Ron flew in CoS was crappy, admittedly, but Charlie Weasley managed to be a national class seeker on whatever broom they could afford. Fred and George's brooms seem to be fine. And the fourth broom might mean that Bill played Quidditch in some capacity. |
|
|
|
Post by Kitty279 on Dec 4, 2016 2:43:02 GMT -5
True, an updated edition may come up now and then, but with the way the magical world is, I doubt it would be often. In any case, as you said, either it's really new, then there are no secondhand copies, or they aren't new, then they could use these already in the family. And with Lockhart's books, Molly was a fan of his and would know they have been out for ages and that they can get them cheap. Might even have had more than that one she was quoting from herself. That whole thing doesn't make much sense, does it?
That's another thing I have been wondering about. Harry's wand did cost 7 galleons; according to JKR, that would have been about 35 pounds. (Though I won't go into that into details, her prices and everything are rather questionable anyway). Harry's year seems to have consisted of about 40 students, and even if each of them bought a new wand, that would have been what - 1400 pounds. Once a year. And we already know that some didn't buy new wands. Okay, there will be someone now and then who breaks their wand *cough*Ron*cough* and has to get a new one, but I don't see how he can even live from selling new wands, never mind cheap secondhand ones. Which leaves me wondering if he is keeping the shop more as a hobby and doing something else for a living on the side?
Yes, some children are very likely using family wands, though that does not always work out that well. Neville only got really good after he broke his father's wand in the DoM and got his own, and when I consider what led to the troll incident in first year, I have to wonder if Ron's first wand was that suited to him or if he was just too inept overall. But there are very likely cases where it works. And Neville's case suggests that the families might hold them in honour, too.
By the way, I assume Sirius got his wand after escaping Azkaban the same way? I seem to remember him having one at least in OotP; not sure about PoA and GoF without researching it.
|
|
|
|
Post by RandomPasserby on Dec 5, 2016 8:12:38 GMT -5
That's another thing I have been wondering about. Harry's wand did cost 7 galleons; according to JKR, that would have been about 35 pounds. (Though I won't go into that into details, her prices and everything are rather questionable anyway). Harry's year seems to have consisted of about 40 students, and even if each of them bought a new wand, that would have been what - 1400 pounds. Once a year. And we already know that some didn't buy new wands. Okay, there will be someone now and then who breaks their wand *cough*Ron*cough* and has to get a new one, but I don't see how he can even live from selling new wands, never mind cheap secondhand ones. Which leaves me wondering if he is keeping the shop more as a hobby and doing something else for a living on the side? Ollivander's ability to live as a wand maker makes a lot more sense when you consider the following points.
1. Harry was born at the height of Voldemort's power. Generally speaking, births dip during a war because people just don't have the time or inclination to reproduce and they don't want to bring a child into a war zone. There's also the possibility that some children who would have been in Harry's year were killed sometime between their birth and Halloween 1981. Ginny's year is likely to be similarly small but the year or three below her may well be huge. So as much as people, including me, take Harry's year as an exemplar it may well be a really small year as far as Hogwarts is concerned.
2. Ollivander's shop has been in the family for centuries. He probably owns his building outright, he has no employees and he has a lot of stock built up from previous family members (Tom Riddle got his wand in the 1930's but a wand with the brother core sat around for 50 years before it chose Harry). That likely means there's family money. He can afford a couple of lean years, especially when he's got a monopoly on the market.
3. 1000 galleons (£5000) is enough for the Weasley Twins to heavily invest in ingredients for their products, purchase or rent space on Wizarding Britain's foremost shopping centre, set up a shop, pay an employee and presumably live on until they started turning a profit.
By the way, I assume Sirius got his wand after escaping Azkaban the same way? I seem to remember him having one at least in OotP; not sure about PoA and GoF without researching it.
He doesn't have a wand in PoA, understandably (although he briefly uses Snape's wand in the Shrieking Shack). We don't see him physically during GoF, so we don't know. But yes, he seems to have acquired a wand by OotP. It being a family wand would make a lot of sense as to why he doesn't seem to use it much apart from the DoM battle.
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 26, 2017 5:32:53 GMT -5
I feel people are being to hard on molly, she told bill to cut his hair, something most mom would do, she was mean to fleur but fleur was kind of a bitch she made hurtfull coment about there home,
sirus sometime treated harry like james, and that was wrong, she told the twin to finish school, witch she was right about, we don't know what she did when ron was not there, we again don't know what she did about ginny, remember how harry never ask ron what about ginny, then again he never ask ron about him, ron you almost died first year, was hurt 3 year, your rat was a 40 year old man that you slept with how you deal with that, your dad almost died, nope harry never ask ron any of those questions.
and molly yell with the kids where making two much noise again what most parent do, bars on the window again is normal for most house, and harry did the cooking he was eating, and I could see why molly would belive skeeter it did make sence,
she also risk her family life to protect harry, she could have push him away and they would have been safer, and harry acted like a kids, always wanted to know every thing, that was not his job, he was only to fight vodelmort, he did not have to know about all the plans of the order. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 26, 2017 5:45:15 GMT -5
You are asking something I have been wondering about, too. Sure, in GoF she seemed to have his key - but how is she allowed to take money without him giving any more consent? I mean, if I used someone else's credit card without permission, it wouldn't be legal, either. And in OotP we don't even hear about her getting his key, she just took money. (It wasn't mentioned that she gave it back in GoF, either, if I were really mean I'd say she just kept it ...) To me that ties in straight with the beginning of the series. Hagrid had Harry's key, and was given it by Dumbledore. How did that one get the key? Did he even have the right? He always acts as Harry's guardian, but throughout the whole series, there's not a shade of proof that he is legally his guardian. And do the wizard not have bank account statements? Harry never got one, after all. Would have been interesting to see what his revealed ... harry should never have gotten one, if my parent died and left me 10 million and I was 11 year old would I get the money no would I get the credit card no would I have any say in the money again no. my guardian would have control of the money it would be invested and they would be allow to take so much per mouth till I am of age, if I went to stay at my friend house for a mouth they would get the check book, to buy me stuff and use to pay bills, I would have no say in that , that how it work, legal you would never gave a kid control of his money, ps when I was a kid I did stay at a friend house and my mom gave his mom there credit card, to use for stuff I need and to buy food for the family to help out, there is no way in hell they should have gaven that card to me, make 100 percent sence. |
|
|
|
Post by RandomPasserby on Jan 28, 2018 16:54:52 GMT -5
harry should never have gotten one, if my parent died and left me 10 million and I was 11 year old would I get the money no would I get the credit card no would I have any say in the money again no. my guardian would have control of the money it would be invested and they would be allow to take so much per mouth till I am of age, if I went to stay at my friend house for a mouth they would get the check book, to buy me stuff and use to pay bills, I would have no say in that , that how it work, legal you would never gave a kid control of his money, ps when I was a kid I did stay at a friend house and my mom gave his mom there credit card, to use for stuff I need and to buy food for the family to help out, there is no way in hell they should have gaven that card to me, make 100 percent sence. No your guardian wouldn't. If you are left money as a minor either your parents will have named the person who can manage your money or the probate court will appoint someone. Most commonly it goes into a trust. If it's held in trust there will be trustees, one or some of those trustees may also be executors of the will. These may or may not also be the person or people left custody of the children. Money can be advanced from the trust if necessary (for example, school fees) but generally not for living expenses. Giving your friend's parents a cheque book wouldn't do a damn thing unless it came pre-signed. Even then, I don't think most parents would trust their kids friends parents with a blank cheque. Credit cards are different because a. you can swipe them without knowing a pin and b. you can get a statement and check it to see what was spent and when. if there are charges there that shouldn't be then you can go to your friend's parents and ask them what was going on. You get a blank cheque you can write in as much as you want, cash it and then do whatever with the money. But also if you write too large of a figure, or someone forgets to move the money, you can end up with a bounced check damaging your balance. Cheques are, generally speaking, a pain in the ass. But a vault key isn't a credit card. It's a bank card and a pin all rolled up into one. As far as we know if you have someone's vault key you can do anything with that vault. You could empty it. There are people in this world that I love and trust, but I wouldn't give them my bank card and pin number. And frankly, that only applies to money that you inherit from your parents. Bank accounts can be opened for children and money put in them, it's quite common. Unlike money willed to you, which has to go through probate and trusts and such, money in your bank account is yours. At eleven I could have emptied my bank account. My mother couldn't have. |
|
|
|
Post by Kitty279 on Feb 9, 2018 12:37:21 GMT -5
I feel people are being to hard on molly, she told bill to cut his hair, something most mom would do, she was mean to fleur but fleur was kind of a bitch she made hurtfull coment about there home, And the Weasleys and Hermione called her 'Phlegm' from the get-go, was that any better? To me that always was mostly a movie invention. There, from what I know, they had Sirius call Harry 'James' at least once, which he never, ever did in the books. IMO Sirius treated Harry like he should have - a teenager that was thrust into responsibility waaaay beyond his age, while Molly rather treated him like a toddler and didn't agree that a teenager needs to be treated like a teenager. Yeah, and it was Harry who saved Ginny, who saved Arthur, who confronted Voldemort year after year and as a thank-you was bullied, shunned and ridiculed by nearly the whole magical world, but I don't remember any of the adults worrying about *him* - no, he was sent back to Durskaban as a reward to be abused. Um ... where do you live? I know exactly *one* house with bars on the windows, and that was a conscious decision for a ground-floor apartment after burglars broke in two or three times. What has Harry cooking at the Dursleys (and often enough barely getting to eat the result) to do with Molly? Yeah, it makes total sense for her to believe a woman she knew was writing nothing but lies over people she knows. But then, Molly's not the brightest and as gullible as the rest of the wizarding world. Oh please, if he isn't old enough to access his own money and to know what goes on in the world, then why the hell is he old enough to expect of him to fight a terrorist the whole adult magical world is way too cowardly to take on? Molly's shaking in her boots just hearing the name, but Harry's supposed to fight him - and all his army - all alone? And with no idea whatsoever about modus operandi of the DE's, with no idea how to fight, with no idea how to deal with Horcruxes? Just send him off to his - likely - death totally unprepared? Sorry, but that's rubbish. Oh, and as for the money for staying at the Weasleys - it was Dumbledore who made himself Harry's guardian out of his own volition, so it was *his* job to make sure that wherever Harry stayed the people were paid for his food and all he needed. |
|
