Matthew van Eerde's web log
I am a Software Development Engineer in Test working for the Windows Sound team. You can contact me via email: mateer at microsoft dot com
Is Belle a Disney princess?
As is clearly established in the opening monologue, the male lead is a prince. Only his outward form is temporarily changed by the nasty enchantress who entraps him into refusing shelter (as if this was a crime.) Nevertheless, he retains property rights to his castle and the surrounding dominions - even were this not the case, Once a Prince, Always a Prince.
Throughout the movie Belle handles herself with princessly aplomb:
The enchantress's spell serves as a litmus test for true love. The restoring of the prince's human form is proof that Belle and the prince love one another; they then kiss, and are married. Thus Belle has the clear title of Princess by Marriage.
It is granted that the male lead is a prince during the opening monologue. Granted, too, is his status as a prince in the closing scenes. One might question the practical effect of his princely status in the interim, especially since no-one outside of his castle is apparently aware of his existence. Certainly his behavior at several points during the movie is extremely unbecoming of a prince, or even a decent commoner:
Belle's achievements as a young lady, though they do her credit (with the possible exception of passing up the opportunity to escape,) are irrelevant to her claim to the title of princess. Many a commoner has virtue; their lack of a princess title in no way diminishes that virtue.
It pains me to say this, but Belle displays consistently poor social abilities throughout the movie - she is established as a withdrawn, introverted character who prefers the company of books to that of people. It is small wonder that she is easy prey for the sociopathic Beast. It is clear to me that over a prolonged period in a captor/hostage relationship, she eventually succumbs to Stockholm syndrome.
The transformation is not necessarily indicative of true love between the Beast and Belle. It is true that the transformation was coincident with Belle's profession of love to the (as she perceived it) dying Beast. But it was also coincident with the falling of the last petal from the rose. Why believe that the former, rather than the latter, ended the enchantment? We have only the enchantress's word for this, and enchantresses are not known to be women of their words. In any case, Being a Prince's Girlfriend Does Not Suffice.
One might challenge the validity of a marriage contract entered into when one of the parties was not of sound mind. But is there a marriage contract at all to challenge? There is no direct evidence that Beauty and the Beast are married at all.
Belle has no claim to being a Princess by Birth; only to being a Princess by Marriage. It is clear that the Beast is a prince. What we have to decide is, was there a marriage?
The final scene is quite artistic in its ambiguity. The penultimate scene culminates in a fairly passionate kiss (by Disney standards.) This is followed up by a formal dance, with Belle and the prince wearing their best outfits. And yet... No Dress, No Kiss, No Wedding. It is almost as if the scene were crafted so that all the young ladies in the audience could watch the scene and come away with the firm impression that Belle and the prince were married, and all of their fathers could come away with the firm impression that there was still hope that Belle would come to her senses. Note especially Chip's question "are they going to live happily ever after, Mama?", and Ms. Potts' pat answer "of course".
In that critical final scene, Belle is wearing gloves, but the presence of a ring on the prince's finger would help Belle's case for princesshood significantly; I was unable to see one.
LOL this blog is really funny.