As a person with lots of brothers I can imagine how awful Ron probably felt when he went to his first year Hogwarts with a hand-me-down wand while his older brother got new robes and an owl just because he became a prefect. Favoritism is awful, and he was already really self-concious.
PREACH.
I wouldn’t call it favouritsm because my sister and I are equal for our parents. It’s just my stuff, were reusable, went to my sister and instead of thrown away or discarded. But everything she owned wasn’t hand me downs. Just the regular things, books toys pyjamas etc. And now that I am capable of earning a little she is the one who gets to make demands (because I can’t deny my baby sis, I dare anyone out there to try that), and she claims everything I own as her own. What happened with Ron wasn’t favouritsm, it’s just that they didn’t have the money. The moment fred & George could earn, they bought him a robe. Whether they would’ve done it without harry’s intervention is debatable.
I would agree with you on that, but I’d also like to point out that Ginny got to start Hogwarts with a brand-new wand in her first year, whilst Ron was still having to use a second-hand one (as far as I’m aware, Ron was the only Weasley sibling to start Hogwarts with a second-hand wand).
Not to mention the fact that Percy was given new robes and a new owl in fifth year, despite the fact that the money could have used to buy Ron a wand (quite possibly the most important item for a new Hogwarts student to have). Heck, when Ron gets made a prefect in his fifth year, he has to convince his mum to get him just one present (and, even then, she only relented after he made it clear he didn’t want an expensive one).
The robes for the Yule Ball made this even more obvious. Ron needed dress robes for his fifth year, but was given bad-looking second-hand ones. Ginny didn’t even require dress robes that year, but was still given a nice set to wear, despite the fact that girls robes would likely be more expensive.
I personally find it unlikely that Fred and George would have bought Ron decent dress robes if Harry hadn’t mentioned it. I think Harry was more aware of how humiliated Ron felt wearing those robes than Fred and George were.
I don’t remember(holy shit, couldn’t remember hp facts, the atrocity!) it being mentioned that Ginny got a new wand or Ron being the only one getting an used wand.
As far as replacing a wand is considered, again the money factor comes in. So is case of broom. The weasleys had one single income but 9 mouths to feed. That’s a lot. When you have 7 children & their future to think about, you prepare what we middle class people call a monthly budget. We try to maintain it, and not strech it. But if something happens out of the blue, we can’t help but wait for the next month’s budget to adjust this anomaly. Think it like this, my watch suddenly stopped working. The repair cost will increase this month’s planned amount. If I repair this now, this extra expense will be adjusted by next month’s payment, which turn will affect the next month’s budget and so on. So, instead of repairing it now and increase the debt, I simply go watch less for a month. The same thing happened with Ron. Money was already spent on Percy. So, there was nothing left for Ron. Now, the question arises why didn’t the parents save money for Ron? Because they never thought that Ron would break his wand. Another possibility is that Ron didn’t tell them that the wand is broken.
When I read OotP, I felt like Molly was rearranging the budget to adjust Ron’s demands because this boy rarely asked anything and she would rather hungry than not give him a broom. But, the fact that the broom might result in her other family members being hungry cause her pain. Hunger being an analogy here shows other basic & immediate needs.
Yule ball dress was….let’s just not go there. Didn’t make sense why Ron was given such a ugly dress while Ginny got a beautiful one.
I agree with a lot of your points, although I should stress that Percy’s new things were likely bought at the same time as Ron’s things.
The first-year acceptance letters tend to be sent out at roughly the same time as prefect letters. Percy would have likely recieved his prefect badge at the same time (possibly even on the same day) as Ron’s Hogwarts acceptance letter.
Mrs Weasley still went ahead and bought Percy his presents of a new owl and new robes, when Ron needed a new wand. True, first years don’t usually do much magic in first year (usually sticking to theory and low-level spells), but I personally think Molly’s decision would probably have played into Ron’s insecurity about being ‘the least loved’ of his siblings.
This insecurity was likely confirmed even more when Ginny gets her own wand the following year. First year was one thing, but second years are actually having to use magic a lot more. It must have been very grating for Ron having to perform magic with a wand that wasn’t his, whilst seeing his little sister doing virtually no magic but having a wand to call her own. Wouldn’t it have made more sense for Molly to buy Ron a brand-new wand, and give Ginny the second-hand one?
The Weasley’s weren’t to know that they’d win money the next year (which is how Ron eventually got a wand to call his own after spending two years with a second-hand one), but it seems unfair to have one sibling struggle with a second-hand wand when they needed a new one, whilst buying another sibling a new wand when they didn’t really need it.
I personally haven’t ever had to deal with poverty, and I understand that the Weasleys were incredibly short on money. But what happens with Ron (to my eyes at least) indicates that Molly often prioritised her other children over Ron. Obviously, there are five children of roughly-school-age when the series starts, but with Percy, Molly prioritised Percy’s want over Ron’s need. I can understand Percy wanted new robes and new owl to reflect his status as prefect, but these presents took away money from something Ron actually needed.
I see your point about the money. Although I do recall that Percy was gifted two expensive presents in Ron’s first year, and that was when five children were still living at home. By Ron’s fifth year, Percy had moved away, meaning there was one less mouth to feed. When you factor in the money the Weasleys won in POA, it’s possible that they were marginally wealthier than they were in Ron’s first year. I understood that brooms are expensive, but Molly didn’t seem to have any such qualms with buying Percy new robes and a new owl at a time when they likely had less money (plus more things to buy including a wand for Ron).
Yeah, I never understood the Yule Ball thing either. It’s messed up that Ron was given ugly robes when he needed decent ones, but Ginny was given a nice dress (which was likely more expensive) when she didn’t actually need a dress that year. Ron does tend to get the short end of the stick most of the time during the HP series.
Here’s the thing about being poor, if you have what you need you don’t think twice on it. In Ron’s first year, he needed a wand he got a wand, done, no need to think on that any longer. The next year, Ginny needed a wand, she got a wand. Done. Who ends up with the new wand is inconsequential as long as everyone had what they needed.
I grew up in a household where money was really tight. If someone needed something and there wasn’t a spare one around whoever needed it got it new. There was no shuffling around of property, no “I’ll by Priscilla the new coat because she hasn’t had something new in a while and you take her old one.” It just didn’t work like that. You had what you had until it was no use to you. You didn’t buy new clothes to have new clothes, you got them because nothing fit anymore and your old ones were put away until the younger bunch grew out of their clothes and fit into your old ones.
The Owl/Robes thing… you only got something new when there isn’t a spare and they had a spare wand laying around. If you have what you need you don’t think twice on it.
Percy got two gifts because they didn’t have to buy Ron a new wand. Not Ron didn’t get a new wand because they bought Percy two gifts.
Yule Ball: Ron wasn’t your average 14 years old. He was tall and lanky and it couldn’t have been easy to shop for him on a budget whereas it would have been easier to find something that would fit the others that was “in style”
I’m not saying none of this should have or didn’t effect Ron’s mentality of where he fit in the family, I know it all played into his insecurities. I had to share a room with my mom when i was young and saw the “Everything is fine” facade melt when she thought I was sleeping. If Molly was anything like my mom she cried herself to sleep over not being able to give her kids the best of everything they wanted. So I tend to get protective when her spending comes in to question.
@pynki I agree with a lot of your points, except about the wands.
Wands are specific to its wizard. They are chosen by the wands and it has been stressed a lot that using someone else’s wand is going to give you sub-par results at best. A spare wand was just not the same. The wand was perhaps the most important expense they were going to make for Ron. Especially since, as we later see, almost everything the boy owned was second hand.
THAT was the only expense for their school going children which the Weasleys definitely had. Percy may or may not have been made prefect, but Ron was definitely going to start school. So that was the one expense they should’ve prepared for. It should have never come down to either or. Ron’s wand should’ve been a priority, not Percy’s robes or owl.
I can still accept your point for robes, maybe Percy needed them and had outgrown his old ones, but the owl was definitely an unnecessary expense when Ron needed a wand.
I know it was just a plot point, so when they finally buy Ron a wand when he breaks one, it will be the one Ron was originally meant for, but still.One could argue the owl they would’ve used for the whole family, but then they could’ve bought it calling it the family owl. It was explicitly stated in the text that it was Percy’s owl and Percy was pretty possessive of it. Calling it Percy’s and giving him the right to deny access to it to his siblings (as is shown in the text) showed clear favouritism for Percy’s wish/ their wish to express pride over Percy’s achievements, over Ron’s need.
They could’ve deferred the owl for next time, but they didn’t. That is why I do believe that the Weasleys showed favouritism.
As for Yule Ball robes, yes it would’ve been tough to buy clothes for a child who is taller than usual, but @headcanonsandmore ’s point still stands: Ginny didn’t need a dress robe that year, she could’ve and should’ve done without. Especially as the Weasleys knew that there was going to be a big event at school that year, IIRC. They could’ve not bought Ginny an unneeded pretty (even though secondhand) dress and used just a bit of extra money left to buy Ron something wearable, even if not dashing.
I know Molly and Arthur would’ve been extremely remorseful for not being able to give all their children the best of everything, but what they could afford, they could’ve divided it a bit more equally.
Ron’s insecurity has a solid basis in canon.
@pynki is right. That’s how poverty works. We look for a solution in every nook & cranny to find a method with least expense. But I still stand on my original point, they got Ginny a dress, but not Ron. Is there a proof that Ginny’s dress was new?(Merlin, I feel old for not remembering hp facts). This doesn’t make sense at all.
The owl. I have a different theory for that. Percy is pompous and Ron is way more grounded. Remember how Ron hesitates before asking her mother for the broom? He understands the money issue. Maybe Percy didn’t. Or maybe 11-yr-old Ron thought that getting an owl is important for fifth year students at hogwarts. Remember how he believed some of Fred and George’s lies? Another thing is that maybe owls don’t cost as much as wands do. Even Hagrid, the gamekeeper could buy one. Brooms are much more expensive though. That’s why Draco showed off the brooms which his father *cough* gifted *cough*.
The lottery money didn’t stay. If the Weasleys are anything like a middle class family, I can assure you, that money is most likely to be used in paying debts & future investments. Now you will ask, if money was short, why take the vacation. Because people who don’t have money, value happiness more than money. The Weasleys going Egypt on lottery money was very relatable. They are not hoarders. They realise the true happiness lies not in material money, but in family time.
Another absurd theory I have is that Molly & Arthur, most likely Molly though, wanted a girl child. And they tried until they had Ginny. I mean there must be some sort of wizarding contraceptive. Not that every time they had sex, she got pregnant. Ron is of the same age as Harry, which means the Weasleys had 5 kids before Ron. It doesn’t make sense to have so many children in the middle of the war, specially when you’re practically broke. I would think twice before having even one kid in that environment. Plus, even if we ignore the war, Arthur was surely earning less as he wouldn’t have been at the same posting in ministry then. They all love their children equally, but maybe they are partial to some, not consciously though. Molly always got confused between Fred & George,whom Harry could tell the difference. Or maybe it’s just a Harry thing. But honestly, as much as I love the Weasleys, they’re a population disaster.
@veronicasummersfelton Ron say’s “Ginny’s new dress” but all Ginny’s dresses are going to be new since she doesn’t have any sisters to get hand me down dresses from. The dress could very well be second hand but “new” because it’s the first time Ginny’s owning it.
From my understanding a “dress” and “dress robes” are different. There’s no indication that Mrs. Weasley bought Ginny’s dress robes at the same time she bought Ron’s. She could have written her mother after being asked to the ball saying she needed dress robes and they oweled them to her. Mrs. Weasley got Ginny’s school robes from a second-hand shop so it could be safe to say she got Ginny’s dress robes there too.
You’re completely right about Percy being pompous and Ron being grounded, the personalities of the children add a whole nother level. I had a conversation with @vivithefolle a few months back about how Ron always gets the short end of the stick because he’s the one lest likely to kick up a fuss. He’s the “easiest” child so ends up becoming a second thought because “Oh, Ron won’t mind, he never does,” Ron does mind, he’s just not going to vocalize it to his parents, because, I too, think Ron was the most aware of their financial situation or at least most sympathetic to it.
@primaryc0l0urs That’s not how being poor works. If you don’t have to buy something you don’t buy it. Ron had a wand before he got his Hogwarts letter.
That wand was second hand when Charlie got it. It’s to warn down for it to have only belonged to Charlie and Wizards don’t just decide to give up their wand for a new one. I believe it was one of Molly’s brothers. They died before Charlie started Hogwarts, so when Charlies time came around they didn’t need to buy him a wand because they had one laying around. When Charlie graduated and made his own money he bought himself a new wand and gave the other to Ron, the next in line to go to Hogwarts. Buying something new when you have one on hand is a waste of money. The only time we see the Weasley’s do this is with Ron’s birthday present, and even then I think it was a calculated decision on Molly’s party to give Ron the new watch and Harry the family heirloom.
Like I said above there’s no real indication that Ginny started off the school year with dress robes.
but what they could afford, they could’ve divided it a bit more equally.
That’s not how being poor works, you don’t have the luxury to divide things up equally. You buy things as needed.
I’m not saying Ron’s insecurity doesn’t have a solid basis in canon, not at all. Watching my mom struggle with taking care of 4 kids with very limited funds makes me defensive of Molly when it comes to her spending. But that doesn’t mean I don’t get how she fuels Ron’s insecurities. I fully understand how it would look to Ron that everyone has nice dress robes and he doesn’t, how something like that messed with his head.
See, I don’t have a problem with her buying Ron crappy dress robes and Ginny new ones. I understand to the circumstances in which something like that would happen. I do, however, have a problem with her not transfigure them.
For someone as handy at household charms as Molly, you would think she could have made those ugly robes look more like the ones she bought Harry. And it wouldn’t have cost her a thing, but she didn’t think about it because it’s Ron, he’s always an afterthought to her. Her reaction is “Then go naked,” when it should have been “Let me see what I can do with them,” That’s where she goes wrong, not in the buying of the robes but having little to no sympathy or compassion for Ron. For not trying to remedy the situation. She just sends him off with robes he hates. It’s that kinda stuff that makes me angry.
Headcanonsandmore 