Are the Disney 8 princesses really princesses??? I happen to came across this post by Carolingian from Boston when i was searching for disney images and who knew? An interesting post no doubt. Apart from making me laugh, it made me realise that there is always the untold truth behind every fairytale, where some I've always known it JUST doesn't make any sense, while some have twisted moral values, such as Rapunzel. ( I mean, the witch loved Rapunzel to bits, spending her life taking care and nurturing her but apparently the author thinks that's not enough. In the end Rapunzel ran away from home to marry a prince and th witch is left there all alone, never to be seen again, forgotten by the only one she loved. Some grattitude she deserves.) But then she's not one of Disney's princesses, so she doesn't count.
Anyway, this is what she wrote:
"The Middle Ages, it seems, has been cinematically sneaking into the lives of children through such animated guises as “Robin Hood” and “Sleeping Beauty,” both of which I have now seen more than twenty times each in my duty as nanny. As many are probably aware, especially those caring for small children, there are certain characters in the Disney film vault who lay claim to some sort of royal title. Most popular today are the Disney princesses who have shown up everywhere from dolls to lunchboxes to elaborately planned birthday parties. Generally the princesses include Belle from “Beauty and the Beast,” Jasmine from “Aladdin,” Cinderella from “Cinderella,” Aurora from “Sleeping Beauty,” Ariel from “The Little Mermaid,” and Snow White from “Snow White.” But are these princesses, in fact, legitimate? What is the strength of their claims to the royal title and right to rule? Under careful scrutiny it appears that only a few of these Disney characters can actually bear the lawful name of princess and only one is uncontested.
Belle, Cinderella, and Snow White hold what appear to be the weakest claims to their surreptitiously given titles. All are relatively economically disadvantaged women who, through the aid—magical or otherwise—of another, fall in love with a real prince with an established claim. In their respective stories, however, the three women do not hold claims to rule in virtue of themselves. Each woman is solely dependent on the status of her husband, the prince, for her role as princess.* Yet, while the conclusions of these Disney tales suggest a future marriage, it is not at all sure whether or not they are lawfully married, so their status as royal wives is clearly debatable. These “princesses” could be no more than concubines in the eyes of the law. It is also a misnomer to label these women as “princesses” when –if we accept that they are, in fact, legitimately married in a ceremony approved by the reigning government—they are only married at the conclusion to the tale and thus, only enjoy their princess status at the end of the movie. Can we the viewers truly call these characters, then, princesses, when we have only known them as such for a few minutes before the closing credits? And, in the absence of a royal son and heir (which each woman lacks in their respective films) their ability to hold their positions against challenges from other noble claimants in the event of the death of their prince is nearly certain, considering their economic backgrounds, slim political experience, and lack of familial support.
Jasmine, Aurora and Ariel present different problems: all three are daughters of a king and so can legitimately hold the title of princess from the start of the films in virtue of their births (there is a point to be made that Ariel is not, in fact, human, and therefore cannot hold the name of princess, but that will be overlooked for the moment). Since Jasmine, Aurora and Ariel are all also the sole heirs in each of their tales, they will, presumably, be the successors to their fathers’ kingdoms upon their deaths; indeed, no other male heir or claimants are even discussed as possible heirs in the films. Their positions as Disney princesses are improved by the fact that each has found true love with a prince in a recognized marriage. Yet only in the tales of Aurora and Ariel is this marriage with a real prince. In Jasmine’s case, Aladdin is not—despite the magical attempts of his blue genii friend—a real prince. While the sultan’s change of heart at the conclusion to the film permits their marriage, the fact remains that Aladdin is not of royal stock. Thus, Jasmine’s claims to royal status are not strengthened by her prince whereas those of Ariel and Aurora, by marrying, respectively, Princes Eric and Phillip, are. Ariel has occasionally been elevated in her princess status by bearing the title of “princess of both sea and land” because of her mermaid identity. When she was transformed, however, Ariel received a human body and, thus, lost her sea title along with her tail. It is not a stretch to assume that neither her merman father nor his kingdom would want a human (who could only be ruling in absentia) for a ruler. So, while Ariel gains love and title from Prince Eric, she remains solely dependent on her husband for her princess status, for she has forsaken her father’s identity and royal claims not once but twice: first through her willing transformation by Ursula and secondly through the her later, permanent transformation by the king.
It is my opinion that Aurora contains the best possible claims as princess and inheritor of her father’s kingdom. She is a legitimate princess in virtue of her birth, she marries the legitimate prince of a neighboring kingdom, Prince Phillip, she has the support of her family and magical figures for her rule, and there is even brief mention of Aurora producing an heir, assuring that the kingdom remains intact. Some might object that Aurora’s sixteen year absence from the kingdom while hiding from Maleficent estranges her from her people, but it is clear from her reception and acclamation upon her birthday return to the castle (fireworks, outbursts of song, and parades) that she is clearly loved by all and would face no opposition in the succession. Ariel, however, abandons her claims for sovereignty of the ocean and, while becoming a princess of the land through her marriage, surely would face opposition and no doubt anti-mermaid activists in any of her attempts to rule as. Jasmine and Aladdin might have found true love and managed to have the senile sultan alter the law, but nevertheless her prince is no prince, and the people of Agrabah would most likely rebel under the rule of a woman who married a thief.
There are perhaps other Disney characters that lay claim to princess or other royal titles, such as Thumbelina, however, the aforementioned six are the most popular and therefore the most pertinent to examine. Likewise, there are many various sequels to the classic films that may perhaps have some bearing on these princesses’ claims to legitimacy, but I have made use of only the originals. In summary, the princess with the strongest claim is Princess Aurora of “Sleeping Beauty,” as she is royal by birth, by clear lawful marriage, and by the hinted production of a legitimate heir. Though we the viewers never get to see the future of Aurora’s kingdom in the film, based on rudimentary medieval standards of queenship and legitimacy, it most likely would have flourished under her rule; unless, of course, she found another spinning wheel.
* Note: As highlyeccentric mentioned (by the way, do check out her blog), Snow White herself is a princess by birth, but was cast out of her royal inheritance and, indeed, perhaps even her title by her wicked stepmother, the evil queen. Snow White's claims remain in league with the first group of princesses Belle and Cinderella, however, due to the absence of family, her poverty, and the fact that she never moves to take up her rightful claim to her own kingdom, choosing to live in the kingdom of her prince instead and leaving the dwarves behind. Also, interestingly enough, there is not an actual wedding in Snow White either, so if one wanted to be intensely critical, one could say Snow White did not, despite her birthright, press her claims and instead ran away to live unwed as a concubine. Her prince, though no doubt very charming, was not legally her husband and, thus, not having taken her own kingdom after her stepmother's death and not legally married to a legitimate prince, she rules nothing. There could be something to be said regarding the legitimacy of this "Prince Charming" as well, for what kind of royal family names their heir "Charming?"".
Carolingian
http://medievalisms.blogspot.com/2007/07/disney.html
So there you have it. 5min well spent reading this post. For me I've always loved the movie Beauty and the Beast. And even though Disney keeps protraying belle as a princess in their toys, products, etc., I've never really think of her as a decendent of a royal family in the Disney movie because, well her dad's an inventor for crying out loud. I've always thought that it's just a stunt to make her more glamorous n thus her products would sell.
Girl meets beast, beast turns out to be a prince. Ain't that a happy ending? ;)
