So I was thinking on Tom's relationship with Dumbledore especially during the first few years of Hogwarts. We know that Dumbledore refuses to allow Tom to stay at Hogwarts. Does anyone think this was an awful idea? Tom goes to Hogwarts during the build up and outbreak of World War II. He lived in an orphanage during the rationing of food. His summers there must have been pretty hellish. I don't think he would have been in the orphanage during the Blitz, but he would have still seen bombed out buildings and other signs of the war during the summer break.

I guess my main question is does Dumbledore allow any other muggleborn/student to stay at Hogwarts during this time if they requested it, or was it just because it was Tom Riddle asking?

 

Dumbledore is not the headmaster during Tom's time at Hogwarts; it is Dippet who does not permit Tom to stay over the summer. The idea that it was Dumbledore is a fanon creation.

As far as we know, this was the first time Tom requested to stay at Hogwarts during the summer. Dippet goes on to state that he might have let Tom stay, if not for the attacks. So Tom rather made his own bed on that front. It's also possible that once he "caught" Hagrid, he was permitted to stay at Hogwarts - we don't know how it ends.

In any event:

1. The blitz would have occurred during the Hogwarts school year;

2. The orphanage would likely have been evacuated to the countryside;

3. I doubt bombs would pose a threat to a wizard.

 

Looks like I was wrong about the Dumbledore part then. Thanks @Taure for the info.

 

Even if it had been Dumbledore, it would have been irresponsible to let Tom stay at Hogwarts when there is someone attacking muggle-born in the castle and Tom Riddle has no known wizarding heritage.

 

I do think it is one of the weirder things about the wizarding world that they don't have some system of foster care for muggleborn orphans. Shipping them back into the muggle world every summer to go to orphanages as was, or in modern times group homes etc - it seems like a much greater security risk than muggleborns going back to their families. Given the very low numbers we'd be talking about, I'd have thought there might be 1 or 2 wizarding families who made themselves available for fostering a child in that situation at any given time, and that most of the time it wouldn't be needed. Maybe 1 family for each Hogwarts House?

Imagine how Tom Riddle's life might have gone differently if this had been in place? I know he'd still have had the shit childhood, but his teenage years he might have had someone to be a bit of a mentor, someone he could look up to and respect perhaps. Maybe they could have helped him channel his ambition and...tendencies in a constructive direction. Alternatively, maybe they'd have been one of his first victims at age 17. Killing them as soon as he could live on his own. Maybe nothing would have changed at all.

 

I think it makes sense, there a very few muggleborn, from the portion of Harry's year we know there are only two out of forty.

Meaning overall there would be maybe 6 muggleborns a year and of those only a tiny minority would be orphans(about 2% of children in the UK).

It would be kinda weird for there to be a standard response to muggleborn orphans when there is maybe one in 10 years.

 

I can see that, but from another perspective because there's so few of them it would be really easy to set up. And looking at it purely from a security perspective, you can rely on parents to make sure a young kid keeps something like magic secret, or to explain it away if they let it slip. But who does that for an orphan? Do they bring all the staff of a group home in on the secret? Unlikely...

I'm not saying the Ministry should do it for humanitarian reasons, just for simple security reasons.