Tessie shouldn't exist at all, Ron should have compared it to his Auntie Muriel. Why eve create Tessie? Rose W96 04:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Rose W96

It's part of adapting a novel into a movie. Not only are things removed, things can be added as well. And there's also nothing in the books that suggests she doesn't exist, so she can be considered canonical. --Cubs Fan2007 16:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Dress Robes Edit

There is a comment that states that the robes may have belonged to great aunt Tessie. But I thought, Mrs WMrs Weasley had bought the robes from a store second hand. --ShirleyA^{(The Quibbler)} 08:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Correct. Jayce Carver ^Talk 08:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

You're right. In Goblet of Fire, Ch. 10, Mrs. Weasley tells Ron, "I had to get yours second-hand, and there wasn't a lot of choice." This implies that she bought the robes at a thrift shop that didn't have a lot of selection. ★ Starstuff ^{(Owl me!)} 17:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Prewett?Edit

Tessie MUST be a Prewett, as J.K. has said that Ginny was the first girl born into the Weasleys in about a century, so, that means that Tessie CANNOT be a Weasley and MUST be a Prewett.HarryPotterRules1 01:39, September 17, 2011 (UTC)

We don't know whether Tessie was the Weasley children's great-aunt by blood or marriage. It's possible that she was the wife of Arthur's father's brother, and thus a Weasley by marriage. If she was from Molly's side of the family, she wasn't necessarily a Prewett, because she could've been a maternal aunt — i.e. Molly's mother's sister or Molly's mother's brother's wife. ★ Starstuff ^{(Owl me!)} 02:44, September 17, 2011 (UTC)