fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2744 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2744 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

__________________________________________________

14.

__________________________________________________

15.

__________________________________________________

16.

__________________________________________________

17.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 059 secrets from Secret Submission Post #392.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Pocahontas and Mulan never really were princesses and never became princesses, Tiana, Belle, and Cinderalla weren't born princesses, and Rapunzel and Aurora didn't even know they were princesses until the end of their movies.

And most of the meta I've read has been about how not feminist they are...and when they do argue for feminist viewpoints, I have yet to see anyone attempt to imply that they are feminist or worthwhile specifically because they are princesses. If anything, some seemed to argue for that viewpoint in spite of the fact they're princesses.

You're the second person to point out that several of them didn't know they were princesses. I don't understand why that's a counterargument here. Can you explain?

Because most of the ways being royalty could influence a character or storyline involves the character knowing that they are royalty. In a sense, Rapunzel's story was about being kidnapped for a power/trait she was born with, and then later "escaping"/going out into the world, and discovering that her life was a lie. While that story is easier to tell with her parents being royalty, ultimately they could just as easily have been poor peasants and the core story would have remained the same. Being a princesses is irrelevant to her core characterization.

Compare that to Merida - her story is about her relationship with her mother, and a conflict over Merida's future. But it wasn't just about Merida's own future, here, but the wellbeing of others that hinged on Merida's future. Her marriage would impact a kingdom, so while Elinor would want what's best for Merida, she had to think about the kingdom, too. That story is one that would always hinge on the family having some kind of leadership role over a larger community and Merida set to inherit that leadership. Anything else, and while you could get a good story about a mother-daughter conflict, it would not have that same core story/element of broader responsibility vs personal desires to it. Being a princess is central to her characterization.

It does both ways. Aurora's story is one that is also dependent on her being a princess, even though she doesn't know it for most of her life (pretty much any way to make her story work without the actual royalty element closely parallels royalty, anyway). Conversely, Snow White knows she's a princess her whole life, but most of her core story could have occurred without her family being royalty, with a change of prologue and some tweaking of later details.

Ariel would probably fall in the middle, in that being a princesses is really important to her story, but not inherently crucial. She was never going to inherit the kingdom anyway - she has half a dozen older sisters all set to inherit ahead of her - but her father having significant power over her and those around her was important to her story. Her story was mostly that she wanted to be a part of a world her family forbid her from, and be someone/something her family didn't want her to be/actively looked down on. So her story would always need a powerful father and a culture of "other" he doesn't want her near, but while royalty and a hostile kingdom/people is the easiest route (and most other routes parallel that, anyway), it's not the only one, given that the serious potential of inheriting leadership/the kingdom was never there.

In other words, being a princess carries both responsibility and privilege. For a lot of the characters, even if they are technically princesses, that responsibility and privilege isn't there, which means being a princess has limited impact to their stories, or just outright irrelevant.

Interesting. I feel like we're interpreting the "they're all royalty" complaint differently.

I may come back to this later. Right now I'm having trouble organizing my thoughts. But thanks for explaining.

I look forward to it. :)

Interesting. I feel like we're interpreting the "they're all royalty" complaint differently.

For me the main objection is that even if the characters don't know they're princesses (or the equivalent), WE THE AUDIENCE are supposed to rate them more highly because of their royal status.

[ SECRET POST #2744 ]

...but not all of them are "by blood"?

Re: ...but not all of them are "by blood"?

Re: ...but not all of them are "by blood"?

Re: ...but not all of them are "by blood"?

Re: ...but not all of them are "by blood"?

Re: ...but not all of them are "by blood"?