So, I'm edited a chapter of my story right now, and I came across a line that made me think harder about the Weasley family. "With all that speed and power, thank God the Weasley family isn’t dark!"

Let's talk about how powerful the family actually is.

Molly Weasley. Either she got supremely lucky against Bellestrix, or Molly Weasley is much more powerful than is often attributed to her. I believe the latter. In her battle, there's nothing in JKR's passages that suggest she got lucky. Intead, it was two witches going toe-to-toe with each other. Yes, Molly was protecting her daughter, but all that did was give her more reason. It didn't increase her ability to fight.

Arthur Weasley. I think too many people think Arthur Weasley a buffoon. Part of that is the way he was characterized in the movies. In the books, he was still very fascinated with Muggle stuff, but he also showed significant magical ability. The flying car was charmed to fly on command rather than by direct casting of spells. Somehow, the car would engage a spell and fly. Moreover, whatever he did to it, the care came alive. While that may be a mistake on his part, it also shows significant abilities with magic.

And then, there's his job. In short, he's a undignified Curse Breaker. Well, not necessarily curses, but spells, charms, etc. He not only finds dark artifacts and deals with Muggle artifacts that have magic placed on them, but he has to go out and deal with things like exploding toilets and other types of magic. At the very least, it speaks to an average wizard. Then, when you add that of the previous paragraph, he's probably an above average wizard, at least.

Bill. A Curse-Breaker. I don't think much else has to be said, unless someone wants to argue intelligence instead of magic ability. Even so, I'd argue it has to be a combination.

Charley. A Dragon Handler. I think Charley represents physical strength in the family, as well as certain types of magic dealing with animals. Regardless, from the text, I think we can safely assume there are not a lot of jobs as Dragon Handlers in the wizarding world (as compared to say, Aurors, which would be needed in every country).

Percy. This one is interesting. Look how fast Percy rises through the ranks. While it is true he benefits from other's mishaps, he still is able to maneuver through the ministry quite well. Moreover, he fights, and survives, the final battle. Perhaps, his strength is politics, but he does show it.

Twins. All of the magic they show in their products speaks to very powerful wizards.

Ron. Despite the bashing that goes on, canon shows him aptly able to fight. Ron struggles with learning certain spells when he is younger, but by the time he's in the DA, he seems to have a very good handle on them. Furthermore, he gets seven OWLS (three less than Hermione) and that is including the fact that he often copies his homework or waits until the last minute. All of which speaks to someone who is naturally gifted.

Ginny. She gets invited to the SlugClub based on nothing more than her ability to cast the Bat-Bogey hex, and keeps up with everyone else in the Battle of the Ministry. She's also shown to be in the thick of it in the final battles, taking on Belletrix with the help of Hermione. Not a lot more can be said specifically about her, except that she comes across later on in the books as strong and able to do quite a bit. ​

So that's the Weasley family magical power. The question is, what other family that we know of can match them?

The Malfoys? Draco's one big element of magic is fixing the disappearing cabinet. If that is charms/spell work, then it's probably most akin to Bill. I think Bill is way more powerful than Draco. Lucius? He is more effective politically than he is with a wand. Every time we see him pulling a wand, he loses. Harry outsmarts him in the Battle of the Ministry. He doesn't even seem to really fight in the final battle. I would wager if he is stronger than Arthur magically, it isn't by much. He was also one of the first families "To come back to the light" after Voldemort died the first time. That seems to also indicate that he is more of a political animal than a magical fighter. While we're not told much about Percy's work in the Ministry, I wonder who has a better feel for true politics without money backing them? So, no, when it comes to actual magic, The Weasleys are more powerful than the Malfoys.

The LeStranges? Molly killed Bellatrix. So, if anything, they were evenly matched. We can't really match up the other LeStranges, but I'd be willing bet the twins could overtake the brothers within a few years if they both lived after Hogwarts.

The Notts? We're given very little about them. But what we do know shows there is nothing special at all. Just in sheer numbers, the Weasleys dominate the Notts in magical ability.

The Dumbledores? Yeah, the Weasleys lose there. But Albus is the strongest one, and he's dead. I don't get the impression the brother is nearly at the same level as Albus. And, even if he was, age wise, he's not on the scene much longer as he's within a few years of Albus.

Crouches? They're out of the picture by the time seventh-year for Harry and Ron is over.

I can't remember who-all-else there is, but in truth, I don't think any magical family can claim the same amount of magical power the Weasleys can.​

So, what if the Weasley clan woke up one day and decided "to hell with this! We're taking over"? Say, perhaps, ten years after the Battle at Hogwarts. Maybe the wizarding world starts persecuting them for XYZ reason, and they decide enough is enough. Could this single family take over the wizarding world? What if they had the help and support of the spouses? (And thus, Harry, Hermione, Fleur, etc).

 

Interesting thoughts. Dark Lord Weasley!

On Molly vs Bellatrix though, it isn't exactly uncommon for Rowling to "slightly" emphasize that love trumps everything else. That's pretty much how Harry won against Voldemort, who certainly possessed superior magical ability. That's how Slughorn, Kingsley and McGonagall survived fighting against Voldemort (again, Harry's sacrifice).

It does seem that for all the talk, the Malfoys actually aren't that great at fighting. Lucius is in very poor standing with Voldemort due to his failures. I mean, the group he led didn't manage to capture or kill a bunch of teenagers even when the teenagers were outnumbered.

In the end, though, I think the Weasleys lack a person to rally around. In the books, we see that these sorts of 'revolutions' generally revolve around powerful wizards: Dumbledore. Voldemort. Grindelwald. Although many of the Weasleys may be above average in magical ability, they don't have anyone like Dumbledore, who could easily take on several well trained fighters.

 

On Arthur, I don't remember where I read it but there's an interesting thought about his knowledge in the Ministry. He knows everyone and everything there is to know about them. Also, everybody knows him. He's the head of a very important department (no matter how many wizards think it not to be) that, like you said, handles some pretty complex magic and magical artifacts.

 

Forging the Sword made that observation.

 

A couple of things:

re Bellatrix vs. Molly.

Bellatrix had already been fighting 3v1 against Hermione, Ginny, and one other person that I can't remember right now, so she was bound to be at least somewhat tired, whereas Molly was at least somewhat fresh (as fresh as one can be in that scenario). Also, I feel like a large part of canon is all about how "magic is based on intent", and Molly's hatred for Bellatrix far outweighs Bellatrix's madness, so there's that to consider as well. I'd say more luck than skill.

Also, I don't know a Charley Weasley. I only know Charlie Weasley, and it's bugging the hell out of me.

 

I think this sells Draco a little short - he's mastered Occlumency well enough to keep Snape out of his head by Christmas of sixth year, and is at least confident enough of his ability with the Cruciatus curse to try it against Harry the same year, although admittedly, we don't know whether it would have been successful even if he had managed to cast it before being cursed. That said, Bill has more hands on experience, and actually finished his education, and is presumably a little cooler under pressure than Draco manages, so the conclusion is the same.

As regards the Weasleys taking over the wizarding world, there's certainly no other single family that we see in canon that can rival them in numbers, although you could make up anything you like about, say, the Greengrass family (at least two children, and presumably two parents). I was also going to say something semi-serious about Blaise Zabini's mum being close to the families of all her ex-husbands, but I honestly can't remember whether golddigger/black widow-esque!Mrs Zabini is canon or fanon.

Of course, assuming you take Cursed Child as canon, since Hermione is the Minister for Magic, they already presumably have a fair amount of influence, albeit in an unofficial capacity.

 

Beyond Hermione as Minister, Percy is in charge of the transportation department. Harry runs the Aurors. Arthur's got his office of course. There's already a remarkable amount of influence there.

OP mentioned a waking up moment ten years later, but I think it makes more sense as a gradual process following Fred's death. With a bit more push from her siblings, Ginny ends up in charge of the Daily Prophet instead of a sports editor. All for the sake of publishing the truth and not allowing others to propagate lies and hateful rhetoric.

When he settles down with Fleur, Bill transitions into the department for magical creatures due to his experience with goblins. A sensible move for a family man, and his extended family could help him land the job.

Harry goes a step further to lead the entire law enforcement department, and Ron, who's convinced to not quit, takes the vacant Auror opening. It's just the logical next step up.

The only important positions they don't have then are the Wizengamot, Obliviators, and the international cooperation department. And honestly, who says Harry or someone can't be the Chief Warlock of the Wizengamot too. Dumbledore was, so there's precedent for having multiple important positions.

This doesn't even include Charlie or the spouses except Harry and Hermione.

None of these changes are that drastic or out of line if we assume Percy or Hermione can make a convincing argument for political activism being the path to building the peaceful society that Fred died for. A bit of a nudge, and the Weasleys rule magical Britain.

 

I think that we lack the information on other families.

The only magical family JKR presented to us in detail is the Weasleys. Some members are stronger, some weaker, everyone has their own speciality... Like in the real life. We can't say for example Ron is stronger than Draco because we haven't seen enough of Malfoy.

And let's be honest, Bellatrix vs Molly was The Power of Love all the way. Molly was primarily a housekeeper while Bellatrix was full-time elite magical terrorist. The way of life alone makes the canon result quite shaky. Either that, of there are emotional power-ups in HP, Fairy Tail style.

Arthur may not be a powerful wizard, but he is without a doubt a skillful wizard. He is smart, if a little derpy. The entire Curse Breaking this is like a cryptology - you need skill, but also intelligence and good intuition (or so I believe). The same with twins. Their creativity is terrifying in its enormity, but when it comes to offence spells they may not be so good. Their specialty is definitely sabotage.

Percy is overachiever. He knows his way around people, when to push and when to be pulled. His social skills are over the top. But he isn't as creative as twins. And so on...

So, are the Weasleys powerful? Yes, in the normal kind of way. Everyone is good at something, but not every redhead is all-rounder. The Malfoys will be the same, Potters, Abbotts, Changs... You name it. Everyone has their strengths, and their weaknesses. I believe Weasleys aren't exceptional, but it's the only family we know in detail, so it may seems so.

 

On the other hand, we can easily extrapolate from given scenarios. We see enough of Draco and his father to understand their strength, and their about average to just above average.

I also think throwing the ol' "love conquers all" theme at Molly is a misnomer at best, and completely misunderstanding the concept at worst. The Love Conquers All theme is not based in fighting. It's based in what CS Lewis might call "a deeper magic." It's completely foreign to Voldemort precisely because it isn't a type of magic that can be learned and employed. Moreover, "intent" has little to do with most of the spells cast in magic. All we really know is that it is important in casting the Cruciatus Curse and in Harry's intent going into the forest and dying. The former is a one-off and the latter, again has to do with love itself. In fact, that whole scene is a replication of Harry's mother dying for him. Intent driving a deeper magic or a different type of magic that has nothing to do with casting spells. So, Molly's scene with Bellatrix is not about "Love Conquers All." It's about a pissed-off witch defeating a crazed Death Eater. And, when you dig deeper into it, the magical ability of all seven children actually speaks to the strength of the parents, IMO.

 

Draco conjured an animated object (snake) in his second year. That's a NEWT level stuff.

 

According to what?

 

McGonagall in OotP.

 

And yet nobody seemed too startled even before Harry started talking to it. Just accept it as another of Rowling's Lucas-esque retcons.

 

Yes, and Ron conjured slugs in second year. It's just one of the things Rowling didn't really think of.

 

Rowling shot herself in the foot in OOTP when we learned that Molly hadn't fought alongside the Order in the first war, and also that the stress had gotten to her so badly that she couldn't even handle a boggart. Not only was there no setup of Molly as being that extraordinary, but the setup we got actively contradicted that characterization. That's always been my problem with how that duel played out.

 

Seems like they were too busy being scared to properly appreciate Malfoy's skill.

The scene is never retconned out, and the level of spell's difficulty wasn't established so it couldn't be retconned. The plans might've changed, or JKR didn't think this through, but there was no retcon involved and there is no basis to ignore it.

Actually, that was a charm, so it wasn't conjuration. Why does charm do something transfiguration-like? Ask Rowling, it's not the only case (Water-Making Spell being one the other examples.)

 

Where does it say that the spell Ron used was a charm? where does it say that Malfoy's spell was conjuration? they both create creatures out of nowhere.

Rowling doesn't retcon out things, she simply ignores the lack of consistency. Kind of like how Hagrid is proficient at silent casting and human-to-animal transfiguration despite being expelled at third year, and Dumbledore uses verbal casting even for very simple spells - before Rowling made a big deal out of nonverbal casting in HBP.

 

I think you're forgetting Percy, who worked his way up in the government very quickly, serving as a junior assistant to Fudge during Harry's fifth year. While it can be argued (and his father did argue) Fudge elevated him to this position so the Ministry could keep an eye on the Weasleys, Percy continued to climb. After the battle, according to JKR, he became a high ranking official in Shacklebolt's government.

Remember, though, part of the set up for this question was that something happened that made the Weasleys desire to get and use political influence. With that said, if we add that to Harry's influence and Hermione's Don Quixotesqe desires to make things right, I believe you definitely have the political influence, talent, and power needed. Granted, I'm adding in spouses here, but I think the point still holds.

 

OotP

Not told directly, but heavily implied in (Rowling written) Book of Spells' part about Avis.

If we ignored what Rowling writes as a proof, because she isn't consistent then we wouldn't have any basis to use. Also he always used non-verbal magic in important situations like duel in Ministry.