I don't think the Harry's parents work. I don't recall it being mentioned, but the level of security around their house combined with the way they act in public makes me think they don't work. I'm equally unsure if Sirius works. I do know that it was mentioned that if Sirius and James had pooled their allowance they probably could have bought an entire store's worth of chocolate while they were at Hogwarts.

I'm not sure how accurate Lily's statement was, but it seems to indicate that they are both fairly well off. I think the Potter family mostly comes off as not having much money because Lily doesn't want her kids to end up being spoiled brats like James was combined with how they are forced to live due to Voldemort's followers and crazy BWL fans.

EDIT:
Turns out I was wrong.

This seems to be at odds with Lily's statement about James' allowance when he was at school. James is also thinking about getting an appointment to the Wizengamot when someone retires or dies. We also know that Lily does (or has done) potions research with Snape, but I'm unsure what/how well that actually pays.

 

Its wierd that Sirius hadn't married yet....Remus was concerned about him being a werewolf as mentioned in the canon....but what is stopping Sirius from getting married?
Hopefully Santi will bring him a love interest somewhere and somehow...

IMO, Harry will help Nathan to survive but if they both end up in near the trophy I am leaning on him to win it himself....as his pioririty is straight-
1. Keep Nathan safe
2. Win the tournament

If he reaches the end he will try to grab the trophy as that fulfills both of them!

 

What? And chain himself down with a wife? Forget that

 

I do not think it would nessecarily be a matter of one school being superior to the other. The fact that they are an old Greek family, and are continually being rejected from the Athens Academy is no doubt a sore spot. Chances are that it is traditional for the whose-who of Greek magical society to attend, and it is a mark of shame that they don't get in.

The problem is the wording "not especially wealthy" could be taken a number of ways. The Potter wealth may be quite capable of supporting the family with a modest life-style. That doesn't mean they are rich and can throw money around, but that they do not have to work to live well.

 

Wealth that earns you the equivalent of $100K a year without you doing anything can support a family that already owns a furnished house. When your retirement fund pays such dividends you can retire. Such wealth can make you a young retiree, but it does not make you wealthy. You can't afford a private jet. Or even a time share on a private jet. Or a political election campaign paid for with your own money. The difference between a retired doctor and Elon Musk is bigger than the difference between a retired doctor and a liberal arts graduate working in fast food.

 

They don't have to be very wealthy to support their family pretty easily. What exactly can they spend their money on? Besides boys' education, there's nothing important (maybe birthday and Christmas gifts too). Anything else doesn't cost them a knut.

On a different topic: why none of Harry's letter mentioned formal dress robes? Everyone in the Durmstrang delegation has a chance to enter the Tournament and be forced to attend the yule ball. Is it an oversight on Santi's part or is there no yule ball in this story?

 

Or maybe all Durmstrang students have a set of formal robes for their school feasts.

 

That's possible, I guess, but the only time I can remember robes being mentioned is chapter 3, and there's nothing about formal dress robes.

 

Surely, the students will receive such a request just before moving to Hogwarts. However, is likely that Durmstrang has a dress uniform and that is actually used for the Yule Ball (if I remember correctly, this was in the GoF movie).

As for the wealth that could have the Potters, I do not think they work, to be funded by profits from their properties (I imagine them as some landowners or owners of many buildings where the premises and apartments are for rent. In addition, they must be rich enough for his son Nathan will believe that they have purchased a Firebolt, when Viktor handed one to Harry). That way, they could have a good life without having to worry financially about the future of their children.

 

IIRC, Harry had to buy some dress robes after he set the record for most Master awards. So, I don't think that it is part of the Durmstrang requirements. To be fair, we may not have seen all of the letter either.

 

Owning your own house + being able to live in luxury without doing anything is wealth to me...

 

By "Dumbledore-approved" spells I mean spells that contain and incapacitate enemy, not kill him (or Unforgivables), just what Dumbledore did against Voldemort in Ministry in his only duel in canon + what DD´s Order did in canon.

Even that powerful spell could have been just expertly cast Stunning Spell, for all we know.

So, Dumbledore was trying to kill Voldemort in past ? Do you have proof from canon ? It goes against my notions of DD but I could be mistaken.

Well, he cast Fire Whip to incapacitate LV that did not harm Voldemort and some kind of water barrier to imprison LV that... did not harm Voldemort either. His attacks were not very effective, were they ?

Hmm, I do not remember that but even if it was true, if Dumbledore wanted to kill Karkaroff, then he would be dead. This means that it was probably only a distraction to catch him off-guard, that could be easily defeated by a wizard after all. (Aquamenti, Flame-freezing charm, etc.).

 

Yes but there are very different levels of "wealth".

Not so much having such a large bank account as to be able to just keep drawing from it endlessly. More having decent investments, such as rental properties that add up to manage a decent income.

When you build up and pass down investments over generations it's not hard to have reached the point where they can survive without work.

Not the same as having enough wealth as to buy your very own minister and dictate government policy.

The vast amount of the worlds wealth is in the hands of such a small few.
It's entirely possible to be rich enough that to the vast majority of mankind you seem to live as a king and yet still have people that far above you in turn.

 

I doubt it, the insinuation that it is a particularly powerful spell is not very subtle, and such a spell would likely have pretty advanced effects. A Stunning spell stuns, even when expertly cast.

Agree. I seriously doubt Dumbledore would spend his life preaching second chances and 'better ways to destroy a man' while trying to kill Voldemort. After all, he did imprison Grindelwald rather than kill him.

Also agree. If Dumbledore wanted to kill you, you'd be dead before you had any idea what was happening.

 

That same Order didn't hold back against the Death Eathers during their aerial fight in DH. Lupin, one of Dumbledore's greatest supporters, even told Harry off for being too tame in a wartime situation.

Yet they kept Voldemort at the Ministry long enough for his return to be discovered. Seems to me they did exactly what they were supposed to. Anyway, it's not like Voldemort managed to do much more damage to Dumbledore and he was trying to kill him.

Grindelwald was a special case though. Quite possibly being the only man Dumbledore ever loved and all.

Furthermore, before DH, Rowling claimed Dumbledore had killed Grindelwald. Even if she changed this later on, it does show killing isn't out of the question for him.

Dumbledore not trying to kill Voldemort in the Ministry doesn't say all that much really. He knew Voldemort was immortal after all. Stalling him was more important at that point, because going all out might have scared him off before Fudge arrived.

EDIT: How canon is that whole "second chances" thing anyway? He defended Snape (for good reason) and told Harry not killing Wormtail could prove advantageous in the end. On the other hand, he never really showed any kind of compassion for the fates of Sirius (when still in Azkaban) or Crouch Jr.. He never told Harry to spare Voldemort either and distrusted Riddle from almost the very beginning.

 

Really? I thought she left the circumstances ambiguous.

 

This was around the time of HBP. She doesn't say it literally I suppose, but it seems the logical conclusion considering the time of death.

 

Interesting. It appears she hadn't planned out much of DH by that point.

 

Nah, I think she already had the whole Elder Wand thing mostly figured out. Grindelwald being alive barely made a difference to the story after all. It mostly served as an clear example for the whole "victory instead of death" thing in relation to wand alliances. Grindelwald didn't really tell Voldemort anything he didn't already knew and keeping him far away for the Malfoy Manor scene could have been done differently.

 

Someone else was nice enough to cover the fact that the Order told Harry off for not using more violent spells. Here is the exact quote.

Gee, that is Lupin, a member of the Order, advocating killing or if you aren't up to the task, you can stun, but stunning from that height may have ended up causing a death anyway. Man those Dumbledore and Order approved spells just aren't what they used to be!

Did you even bother to read that quote from Dumbledore? You know the one where he said there were other ways to destroy a man. That is not something that a wizard who just plans on incapacitating someone says. He was referencing different ways of destroying someone...things Dumbledore thought were worse than death.

I don't have direct canon evidence that Dumbledore tried to kill Voldemort in the passed, but it was the first time they had dueled since the prophecy was made and Voldemort got his body back. The first question out of Voldemort's mouth was probing why Dumbledore wasn't trying to kill him. I don't know any reason for bringing this up unless he had tried to kill Voldemort in the passed. I'm sure this isn't the first time the two have dueled. So why else bring the question up this time unless Dumbledore was dueling differently than normal?

As for your talk about his attacks not being effective, it has more to do with the skill of Voldemort than the type of attacks that Dumbledore used. That fire wipe would have at the very least severely burned anyone else if not caught their robes on fire and burned them to death. The water spell we are going to get to with a quote.

The key phrase is suffocating mass. That would have killed a lesser wizard. Hell, Voldemort had a difficult time escaping from it. If you are going to reply from canon, at least try to pick things that support your argument and not mine. By the way, assuming that you are right about it being an overcharged stunning spell. Getting hit by four stunning spells was enough to put McGonagall in St Mungo's which means it was beyond what could be fixed in the hospital wing of Hogwarts. I doubt it was a stunning spell at any rate.

Since I'm giving out quotes, and people seem to not like that I said the Santi once talked about Dumbledore casually setting someone on fire.

With this, I consider this argument over. If you still don't believe me then use the PM system, and I'll supply you with more quotes from canon.

TL;DR: Take your fanon elsewhere.