On the topic of wizarding wealth, is there any reference to why the Weasleys were poor? Bill and Charlie certainly had jobs that were likely somewhat lucrative, and even if Arthur's ministerial position wasn't high paying, are there no other ways to make money? Presumably some system exists to stop counterfeiting of money, as well as, I suppose, the exploitation of muggles (although this would be difficult to stop). The Weasleys were certainly of high moral character, but I almost find it unbelievable that any wizards would truly be poorly off given the nature of magic itself, especially the exchange rate between quid and galleons, as defined by JKR as just under 5 pounds. Any thoughts?

 

Was Dumbledore ever in the cave with the locket before he went there with Harry?

 

I don't think so. The quotes beneath suggest that Dumbledore was there for the first time and was figuring things out as he went.

 

While economics and heroic fantasy don't make for a palatable mix, there was some reasonable indications that the Weasleys were poor due to raising seven children. There is no reason to suggest that Arthur expected or even would accept money from Bill, Charlie and especially Percy. By the time Ginny was off to school the pressure was just beginning to ease off but they still scraped to afford second-hand robes for Ginny. Once Ginny leaves school, they could probably afford a House-elf... right when it was no longer really needed.

Relative to muggle standards of living, however, the Weasleys outright owned a self-supporting farm and their principal costs were for food, magical clothing, magical books and magical tools. That makes them rural middle-class, and aside from the tragedies and thieves who live in Knockturne Alley they were the 'bottom of the barrel'.

 

"Afford a House-elf"? They do it for the pleasure; even Dobby refused a wage when Dumbledore offered.

 

House elves are slaves. It's not a big deal to think that they are usually bought and sold by the big families and/or house elf merchants.

 

You still have to purchase them. House elves work for whoever owns them.

 

I wouldn't call them botton of the barrel, Arthur was able to write and sponsor bills from such a position that Lucius felt it necessary to sabotage his daughter in order to foil him.

 

Seemed more like spiteful revenge then a foiling to me. What exactly would killing Ginny foil?

 

Dumbledore says at the end of book 2.

"And imagine," Dumbledore went on, "what might have happened
then… The Weasleys are one of our most prominent pureblood
families. Imagine the effect on Arthur Weasley and his Muggle
Protection Act, if his own daughter was discovered attacking and
— killing Muggleborns…
Taken from book 2 chapter: Dobby's Reward.

So year there was quite a bit of foiling in that plan.

 

Ginny would have been blamed for the attacks, which would have discredited her father. I imagine he was hoping Ginny would be caught after he got rid of Dumbledore.

 

It's really weird how the Weasleys are a poor family, Arthur works at the ministry, but at the same time is an enemy of the Malfoys and sponsors bills, while raising 7 children. Despite their lack of wealth they are invited by the minister to the top box where only the Malfoys are, whats up with that?

 

They weren't invited by the Minister, Ludo Bagman swung them tickets as payback for a favour. The Malfoys were guests of the Minister.

 

The Weasleys always struck me as a family who suffer from Arthur's integrity.

 

I'm sure seven kids on a single income didn't help.

 

Campaign slogan for Arthur Weasley's run at Minister:

Arthur: a titan of fertile integrity

The subversive slogan:

In about twenty years, Weasleys and their allies will count for 1% of the total magical population in the UK. You really wanna fight that?

 

Except all of their kids have green eyes...

 

There's something you don't see. A fic where Molly and Arthur continue having more kids.

 

No, they are not. They are household spirits, inspired by Hobs and Brownies. As George says, "House-elves come with big old manors and castles and places like that; you wouldn’t catch one in our house..." - nowhere in canon is there any indication that House-Elves are traded-in. They work because it's in their nature to do so, and everyone aside from Hermione (who isn't very aware of magical traditions, and thinks like a muggle) seems to acknowledge that.

 

Huh, you might be right. Can anyone find any definitive canon information one way or another on whether house elves are traded, bought, or sold?
(now that I think of it people probably wouldn't free elves if they could be sold)