HOME | DD

Description
One thing that's really bugged me in the past few years is how often people call various female Disney protagonists a "princess" when often they aren't. It doesn't help that the Disney Princesses Franchise has been going on for a while. They just made the misinterpretations worse with who was included and who wasn't. So I've chosen to make two collages explaining who qualifies as an actual Princess, and who doesn't. This collage shows our beloved leading ladies from some of the best-known feature-length films (most of them animated) who are NOT princesses. (Some of these ladies are a little more obscure than the previous collage: ladyaquanine73551.deviantart.c… I'll tell you who's who (as if you didn't know already! ), and why she doesn't qualify. These descriptions go from left to right.

Row 1

Golden Harp - she's a living gold instrument that sings to keep Happy Valley thriving and fertile. There's no indication that she was ever royalty of any kind.

Katrina van Tassel - she's just the spoiled, shallow daughter of a wealthy man in Sleepy Hollow.

Alice - as far as we can tell from the brief scenes at the beginning and end of her movie, she is an upper middle-class English girl. Some interpretations of her story give her ties to the Queen of Hearts and make her into royalty (of a bizarre sort) but it's pretty clear she isn't royal at all in her story.

Alice Kingsley - I only included this version of Alice because I had 11 ladies available for this collage and needed one more to balance it out. Again, she's not royal either, though it seems she comes from a somewhat well-off family in London.

Wendy - Like the two Alice's above, Wendy appears to come from a somewhat wealthy or just well-off family in London. It's not really clear if she comes from a rich family or not, though if they can afford such a nice townhouse in London (even in the Victorian era) they must have some wealth. Still, wealthy or not, Wendy is a commoner.

Tinkerbell - While she is a fairy from Neverland, it's pretty clear that even among her own kind in Pixie Hollow, she isn't royalty. She's just an adventurous fairy that knows how to rock Neverland with her exploits.

Row 2

Jessica Rabbit - She's just a singer at nightclubs in an alternate universe where 'toons and real people exist side by side in 1940s Hollywood. However, if you look at her from a modern Hollywood perspective, she could qualify as their kind of royalty, though it's not the same thing.

Pocahontas - I know I'm gonna hear some arguments about this one. I would like to clarify that being the daughter of the Chief did not mean the same thing as being the daughter of a king of some country or city-state. In fact, among the Powhatan, it merely meant that she lived a privileged life and didn't have to work as much as the other women in the tribe. Some modern Powhatan even go as far as to say that Pocahontas was a spoiled brat when she was a kid. The princess misinterpretation comes from two sources. 1.) When she was brought to England, the men involved with presenting her to the English court decided to use her status as a chief's daughter as a way of saying she was a "Princess" of sorts dressed in English finery. However, it was just a marketing ploy, considering the English wouldn't have given her the same consideration as one of their own. They didn't even see the indians living in the colonies as human beings unless they dressed like English people, spoke English, and lived like one of them. (Damn stupid, narrow-minded Renaissance people ). 2.) Disney is also to blame, for they too used the "Native American Princess" marketing ploy to make money as well as a movie to entertain people. Truth be told, she wasn't really a princess of any kind. Any Powhatan tribe member can testify to that. Even their own chieftains don't brag of any royal lineage, let alone their daughters.

Esmeralda - she was a gypsy living on the street and earning her keep by dancing for people. If anything, she's the total opposite of a princess, right down to her street-smart attitude and the place she lives. Heck, she wouldn't have even qualified for a princess of thieves. It didn't help that the character designers dressed her in suggesting clothing, when in the book she was an innocent 15-year-old who chose to burn at the stake than be Frollo's mistress, especially after Phoebus abandoned her. But of course, they had to clean up her fate and other characters for the movie.

Mulan - there is only one reason, and I mean only one as to why she's part of the Disney Princess franchise. Popularity. Many girls like her as a character. But truth be told, Mulan was not, and never will be, a princess. From what little you saw of her home in the movie, she appears to come from a family that was just wealthy enough to have a nice home out in the country, but not wealthy enough to live in or be part of the imperial court. In some ways, you could interpret her status as being similar to an upper middle-class person of today. Even marrying Shang in the sequel does not make her a princess. He wasn't royalty either, just the son of a General.

Jane Porter - not a princess at all. What really annoyed me was how similar she looked to Belle. Don't we have enough brown-haired heroines dressed in yellow around here? Plus, it was more popular for women in her time to wear white in climates like that, not yellow. From what we can tell in the movie (and even from the books by Burroughs) she was a ordinary young lady from England whose scientist dad wanted to study gorillas in their natural habitat. It's hard to say if they were middle-class with some wealthy patron paying for their trip, or they were wealthy enough to do research and not have to work. Either way, Jane is not royalty, and marrying the King of the Jungle (Tarzan) doesn't count.

Giselle - she actually was just a sweet, simple forest nymph from Andalasia. There was no indication she even participated in everyday society there, just hung out with animals all day in the woods. While it was cute that Morgan thought she was a "princess," like the kind from Disney movies or fairy-tales, Giselle never actually was one. She came close to marrying Prince Edward, but we all know how that turned out. Even [possibly] marrying Robert in the future wouldn't make her royalty. Just another middle-class American living in New York City as far as anybody is concerned.

Well, royalty or not, these Disney ladies are just as greatly loved as the royal ones. Again, it's really due to who they are, not their background.

I used Azalea's Heroine Fan-Art Creator to make these ladies: www.azaleasdolls.com/dressupga…

A word about Esmeralda: So far, two different SJW's have bothered me about her status and her ethnicity. I shall first say that I do not care. Hunchback of Notre Dame is considered one of Disney's worst ideas when it came to making a family movie, and it is such an embarrassment, Disney won't even try to market it these days. It covers way too many serious adult topics, topics many parents do not want to tell their prepubescent children about just yet, and frankly, Eisner was an F-ing fool for greenlighting the production. So if you have some beef with me about how I talk about your favorite gypsy, I'll say now that I don't want to hear it. Love her if you want, but you all know deep down that she doesn't hold a candle to any of the other Disney heroines. I never really liked her, and frankly, she was just an unnecessary sex symbol stuck into a film that should have never been made for families to watch. So if you want to come in and correct me, or tell me I'm wrong, or tell me Esmeralda is great because you love her and you're smarter than I am because of it, I say, get out and go cry about it on some other forum. Such BS is not welcome here.

Description
One thing that's really bugged me in the past few years is how often people call various female Disney protagonists a "princess" when often they aren't. It doesn't help that the Disney Princesses Franchise has been going on for a while. They just made the misinterpretations worse with who was included and who wasn't. So I've chosen to make two collages explaining who qualifies as an actual Princess, and who doesn't. This collage shows our beloved leading ladies from some of the best-known feature-length films (most of them animated) who are NOT princesses. (Some of these ladies are a little more obscure than the previous collage: ladyaquanine73551.deviantart.c… I'll tell you who's who (as if you didn't know already! ), and why she doesn't qualify. These descriptions go from left to right.

Row 1

Golden Harp - she's a living gold instrument that sings to keep Happy Valley thriving and fertile. There's no indication that she was ever royalty of any kind.

Katrina van Tassel - she's just the spoiled, shallow daughter of a wealthy man in Sleepy Hollow.

Alice - as far as we can tell from the brief scenes at the beginning and end of her movie, she is an upper middle-class English girl. Some interpretations of her story give her ties to the Queen of Hearts and make her into royalty (of a bizarre sort) but it's pretty clear she isn't royal at all in her story.

Alice Kingsley - I only included this version of Alice because I had 11 ladies available for this collage and needed one more to balance it out. Again, she's not royal either, though it seems she comes from a somewhat well-off family in London.

Wendy - Like the two Alice's above, Wendy appears to come from a somewhat wealthy or just well-off family in London. It's not really clear if she comes from a rich family or not, though if they can afford such a nice townhouse in London (even in the Victorian era) they must have some wealth. Still, wealthy or not, Wendy is a commoner.

Tinkerbell - While she is a fairy from Neverland, it's pretty clear that even among her own kind in Pixie Hollow, she isn't royalty. She's just an adventurous fairy that knows how to rock Neverland with her exploits.

Row 2

Jessica Rabbit - She's just a singer at nightclubs in an alternate universe where 'toons and real people exist side by side in 1940s Hollywood. However, if you look at her from a modern Hollywood perspective, she could qualify as their kind of royalty, though it's not the same thing.

Pocahontas - I know I'm gonna hear some arguments about this one. I would like to clarify that being the daughter of the Chief did not mean the same thing as being the daughter of a king of some country or city-state. In fact, among the Powhatan, it merely meant that she lived a privileged life and didn't have to work as much as the other women in the tribe. Some modern Powhatan even go as far as to say that Pocahontas was a spoiled brat when she was a kid. The princess misinterpretation comes from two sources. 1.) When she was brought to England, the men involved with presenting her to the English court decided to use her status as a chief's daughter as a way of saying she was a "Princess" of sorts dressed in English finery. However, it was just a marketing ploy, considering the English wouldn't have given her the same consideration as one of their own. They didn't even see the indians living in the colonies as human beings unless they dressed like English people, spoke English, and lived like one of them. (Damn stupid, narrow-minded Renaissance people ). 2.) Disney is also to blame, for they too used the "Native American Princess" marketing ploy to make money as well as a movie to entertain people. Truth be told, she wasn't really a princess of any kind. Any Powhatan tribe member can testify to that. Even their own chieftains don't brag of any royal lineage, let alone their daughters.

Esmeralda - she was a gypsy living on the street and earning her keep by dancing for people. If anything, she's the total opposite of a princess, right down to her street-smart attitude and the place she lives. Heck, she wouldn't have even qualified for a princess of thieves. It didn't help that the character designers dressed her in suggesting clothing, when in the book she was an innocent 15-year-old who chose to burn at the stake than be Frollo's mistress, especially after Phoebus abandoned her. But of course, they had to clean up her fate and other characters for the movie.

Mulan - there is only one reason, and I mean only one as to why she's part of the Disney Princess franchise. Popularity. Many girls like her as a character. But truth be told, Mulan was not, and never will be, a princess. From what little you saw of her home in the movie, she appears to come from a family that was just wealthy enough to have a nice home out in the country, but not wealthy enough to live in or be part of the imperial court. In some ways, you could interpret her status as being similar to an upper middle-class person of today. Even marrying Shang in the sequel does not make her a princess. He wasn't royalty either, just the son of a General.

Jane Porter - not a princess at all. What really annoyed me was how similar she looked to Belle. Don't we have enough brown-haired heroines dressed in yellow around here? Plus, it was more popular for women in her time to wear white in climates like that, not yellow. From what we can tell in the movie (and even from the books by Burroughs) she was a ordinary young lady from England whose scientist dad wanted to study gorillas in their natural habitat. It's hard to say if they were middle-class with some wealthy patron paying for their trip, or they were wealthy enough to do research and not have to work. Either way, Jane is not royalty, and marrying the King of the Jungle (Tarzan) doesn't count.

Giselle - she actually was just a sweet, simple forest nymph from Andalasia. There was no indication she even participated in everyday society there, just hung out with animals all day in the woods. While it was cute that Morgan thought she was a "princess," like the kind from Disney movies or fairy-tales, Giselle never actually was one. She came close to marrying Prince Edward, but we all know how that turned out. Even [possibly] marrying Robert in the future wouldn't make her royalty. Just another middle-class American living in New York City as far as anybody is concerned.

Well, royalty or not, these Disney ladies are just as greatly loved as the royal ones. Again, it's really due to who they are, not their background.

I used Azalea's Heroine Fan-Art Creator to make these ladies: www.azaleasdolls.com/dressupga…

A word about Esmeralda: So far, two different SJW's have bothered me about her status and her ethnicity. I shall first say that I do not care. Hunchback of Notre Dame is considered one of Disney's worst ideas when it came to making a family movie, and it is such an embarrassment, Disney won't even try to market it these days. It covers way too many serious adult topics, topics many parents do not want to tell their prepubescent children about just yet, and frankly, Eisner was an F-ing fool for greenlighting the production. So if you have some beef with me about how I talk about your favorite gypsy, I'll say now that I don't want to hear it. Love her if you want, but you all know deep down that she doesn't hold a candle to any of the other Disney heroines. I never really liked her, and frankly, she was just an unnecessary sex symbol stuck into a film that should have never been made for families to watch. So if you want to come in and correct me, or tell me I'm wrong, or tell me Esmeralda is great because you love her and you're smarter than I am because of it, I say, get out and go cry about it on some other forum. Such BS is not welcome here.