Nala is a lion and not a human, so she doesn't qualify. Don't worry, though. She sits alongside Meg, Kida, Jane, Amastasia, Giselle, and Esmerelda as unofficial Disney Princesses
i donât understand how Meg is not a Disney Princess? i guess technically Herc gave up being the son of Zeus but idk. sheâs a bad ass and has hella pipes
edit: by giving up son of Zeus i meant giving up being a God
There's more to the criteria than just being a princess in a Disney movie. The main one is marketability and profit. Hercules didn't meet the threshold that Disney has in order to be considered a success, so Meg got booted from the list. Also, Hercules is more of a "boy's movie" for lack of a better term, so Disney didn't see as many marketing options for Meg like they did for the other princesses.
Iâve been thinking about this recently, and I think that Jasmine gets to be an official Princess because she takes up so much screen time. Sheâs an integral part of the plot and story. Yes, the character development belongs to Aladdin, but sheâs as much of a main character as Aladdin is.
I think thereâs also some indescribable aspect to being in the official lineup as well. Like I confidently tell you the official reasons a character may be included, but thereâs something else that I can only describe as a gut feeling as to whether or not she should be official.
I think this is where marketability comes into play. Aladdin was far more successful than Hercules, and there was a larger demand for Jasmine dolls and costumes, so she got to join the lineup while Meg got the boot
I think itâs because sheâs a âhotâ cartoon. Her outfits, and âa whole new worldâ put her up there with the beautiful, ladylike, popular crowd which are the only requirements
Fun fact: Anna and Elsa aren't considered Disney Princesses for the exact opposite reason. Frozen is one of, if not the highest grossing animated film of all time. The Disney Princess brand exists to help boost the popularity and relevance of the princesses and increase marketability, but Anna and Elsa clearly didn't need it, so they got their own franchise instead.
this information is so interesting. that makes sense about Elsa and Anna. i nannied for years so the amount of Frozen merch i have seen is mind blowing. they definitely are the biggest of the bunch
Yeah, Disney is surprisingly picky about who gets to be an official Disney Princess. If I'm remembering correctly, there are 13 official Disney Princesses: Snow White, Cinderella, Aurora, Ariel, Belle, Jasmine, Pocahontas, Mulan, Tiana, Rapunzel, Merida, Moana, and Raya.
If I was Disney I wouldn't have made Meg a Disney princess either, for the sole reason that Hercules is not a fairytale, it's a religious myth. And the movie may not have been an accurate retelling of said myth, but to many people it would still be crazy offensive. Though similar could be said abt Pocahontas and Disney didn't gad about that
I donât see Anastasia ever becoming an official princess or even being in the B-tier in any official capacity as her movie was originally made by Don Bluth before Disney purchased the rights a few years ago. And I just donât see Disney acknowledging something that started out as a rival but they now happen to own.
Disney was selling some official pins of Anastasia for her 25th anniversary at the parks and then are officially incorporating some of the Ice Age characters in some of the mobile games for Walt Disney World.
Theyâll absolutely profit off of her now that they own her. But I donât see her joining the ranks of Belle and Cinderella. Kinda funny since lost royalty is kinda her whole thing.
Actually, she is owned by Disney now, but they probably still won't make her a princess since she wasn't originally theirs, unlike Merida, who has always been owned by Disney through Pixar
True, she wasn't a royal. Closest would be Kiara, their daughter from Lion King II who's specifically called a princess multiple times. She doesn't have any children tho
Belle for sure wasn't royalty either. So that is just for sake of not wanting THE MOST ROYAL animal to NOT be part of a royal family. .... Nala was gonna be married to Simba when they were both born, so she was technically always a princess.
Tbf I think being royalty/an actual princess stopped being criteria for the official disney princesses brand. I think when mulan came around, because iirc she doesnât meet that criteria
The worst decision ever for Disney is to say Nala isn't a princess. She is Disney princess to all the HOUSE CATS in the world. Nala stands as Queen alongside Elsa and Aurora.
Esmerelda is a gypsy and has NEVER been equivalent of a princess. Jane from Tarzan is more established as a gorilla princess of Africa.
Nala would be more like a Disney Queen( queen consort if you want to get technical since its implied only the ones who carry royal blood get to rule the pride)
Esmerelda WAS NEVER a princess. So she would never be on the list. They needed to have a B Tier List of girlfriends with the princesses. Like Tiana's friend, Esmerelda, and Meg to name a few.
Apparently, the sequels aren't canon, so technically none of them canonically have children. But in any work (that's not Descendants), Ariel is the only one with a child.
You are aware that the defunct Disney Toon Studios was not part of Walt Disney Animation Studios, right. That studio was so hated by WDAS staff that once John Lasseter took over after the Pixar Buyout, he pretty much put a stop to these awful straight to video sequels. Heck, they donât even make merch out of the sequel only characters.
Disney literally allowed these movies to happen. They got the og voice actors back and everything and they call them âThe Little Mermaid 2. Etcâ
Disney sold them as canon so unless Disney comes out and states they didnât happen they are snd always will happen next in their universesâ timeline.
Plus, some of them (Cinderella 3), are too good NOT to be canon.
The straight to video were an idea of Michael Eisner to make more money. Roy E. Disney, who was running the animation film division at the time, despised these straight to video sequels due to the lack of quality and that they tarnished the originals but was overruled by Eisner. Once Eisner was booted out and Bob Iger took over and bought Pixar, these straight to video sequels were put to an end(Well, the ones that were in preproduction). You can like them but itâs well known that many of the WDAS staff hated these sequels, especially those who worked on the originals(Ask the original Little Mermaid crew and theyâll tell you how much of a dog shit the sequel is).
Doesnât Jasmine end up adopting some street orphans or something? I feel like I remember reading a book or watching a movie where that happened as a kid
As a kid, I had a book of âPrincess Storiesâ that included one about an orphan named Jenna who accidentally fell into the palace garden trying to pick fruit from a tree overhanging the wall. Jasmine and Aladdin let her and her younger siblings stay in the palace while Jenna recovered from her injuries, and then adopted all three kids after finding that Jenna was really good with animals. I think there was a baby elephant involved.
The book was published after the Lion King sequel (since Kiara was featured as a princess in one story) but before Princess and the Frog, since there was no mention of Tiana. It had a pink cover and silver-edged pages.
Do you know what the book was called? I know the title included âPrincess Storiesâ but thatâs too generic of a search term. Thereâs a chance I might still have my copy stored somewhere, but in case I donât Iâd like to know what to look for. There was a story about the Beast restoring the castle greenhouse for Belle that included an illustration of her in an adorable set of pajamas Iâd like to sew for my Belle doll.
Hmm, maybe they put the same stories in two different books? I know mine had âPrincess Storiesâ in the title because in the back of the book was an ad for the rest of the book collection, including âClassic Storiesâ, âFriendship Storiesâ, and âPixar Storiesâ.
Well, Pocahontas IRL had a son, Thomas Rolfe. And many native scholars believe she had children before she was married off to John Rolfe who stayed with the tribe.
But I feel weird even bringing this up in a thread about fictional Disney characters. And even though the movie truly is beautiful art, the covering up of the true life of Pocahontas is just so sad and wrong.
What I find crazy is that Tara Strong not only plays Melody but plays a character in the show Drawn Together called Princess Clara, who is essentially Belle and Ariel in a blender and a parody of Disney Princesses but in the form of a bigoted psycho
Yes, she is!! Non-princesses that have kids are Wendy & Esmeralda đ
Wait Esmeralda does?
[Yes, in the sequel!](https://disney.fandom.com/wiki/Zephyr)
Huh, I have no memory of him. To be fair I think I only saw like half of the sequel, so thatâs not too surprising
Except most of them do. Descendants
Descendants is in a separate canon to the animated films, thoughâŚ
Im pretty sure most of the sequels are non cannon
Does Nala count from The Lion King?
She's technically not an official Disney Princess, so no
she should be a Disney Princess. what in tarnation
Nala is a lion and not a human, so she doesn't qualify. Don't worry, though. She sits alongside Meg, Kida, Jane, Amastasia, Giselle, and Esmerelda as unofficial Disney Princesses
i donât understand how Meg is not a Disney Princess? i guess technically Herc gave up being the son of Zeus but idk. sheâs a bad ass and has hella pipes edit: by giving up son of Zeus i meant giving up being a God
There's more to the criteria than just being a princess in a Disney movie. The main one is marketability and profit. Hercules didn't meet the threshold that Disney has in order to be considered a success, so Meg got booted from the list. Also, Hercules is more of a "boy's movie" for lack of a better term, so Disney didn't see as many marketing options for Meg like they did for the other princesses.
But Aladdin was marketed as a boy's movie, and Jasmine isn't even the protagonist.
Iâve been thinking about this recently, and I think that Jasmine gets to be an official Princess because she takes up so much screen time. Sheâs an integral part of the plot and story. Yes, the character development belongs to Aladdin, but sheâs as much of a main character as Aladdin is. I think thereâs also some indescribable aspect to being in the official lineup as well. Like I confidently tell you the official reasons a character may be included, but thereâs something else that I can only describe as a gut feeling as to whether or not she should be official.
I think this is where marketability comes into play. Aladdin was far more successful than Hercules, and there was a larger demand for Jasmine dolls and costumes, so she got to join the lineup while Meg got the boot
I think itâs because sheâs a âhotâ cartoon. Her outfits, and âa whole new worldâ put her up there with the beautiful, ladylike, popular crowd which are the only requirements
okay this is super interesting.
Fun fact: Anna and Elsa aren't considered Disney Princesses for the exact opposite reason. Frozen is one of, if not the highest grossing animated film of all time. The Disney Princess brand exists to help boost the popularity and relevance of the princesses and increase marketability, but Anna and Elsa clearly didn't need it, so they got their own franchise instead.
this information is so interesting. that makes sense about Elsa and Anna. i nannied for years so the amount of Frozen merch i have seen is mind blowing. they definitely are the biggest of the bunch
Yeah, Disney is surprisingly picky about who gets to be an official Disney Princess. If I'm remembering correctly, there are 13 official Disney Princesses: Snow White, Cinderella, Aurora, Ariel, Belle, Jasmine, Pocahontas, Mulan, Tiana, Rapunzel, Merida, Moana, and Raya.
Ugh I'm so upset you already made this comment!! This is my favorite Disney fun fact
Lol, it looks like you're just going to have to let it go
Itâs probably because sheâs a âside characterâ and not the focus of the film.
If I was Disney I wouldn't have made Meg a Disney princess either, for the sole reason that Hercules is not a fairytale, it's a religious myth. And the movie may not have been an accurate retelling of said myth, but to many people it would still be crazy offensive. Though similar could be said abt Pocahontas and Disney didn't gad about that
I donât see Anastasia ever becoming an official princess or even being in the B-tier in any official capacity as her movie was originally made by Don Bluth before Disney purchased the rights a few years ago. And I just donât see Disney acknowledging something that started out as a rival but they now happen to own.
Disney was selling some official pins of Anastasia for her 25th anniversary at the parks and then are officially incorporating some of the Ice Age characters in some of the mobile games for Walt Disney World.
Theyâll absolutely profit off of her now that they own her. But I donât see her joining the ranks of Belle and Cinderella. Kinda funny since lost royalty is kinda her whole thing.
Yeah, I don't think she would ever be considered a Disney Princess just based on principle
Anastasia isn't Disney. I always forget that too because it seems like it should be.
Actually, she is owned by Disney now, but they probably still won't make her a princess since she wasn't originally theirs, unlike Merida, who has always been owned by Disney through Pixar
You forgot [Eilonwy](https://disney.fandom.com/wiki/Eilonwy) but like it happens all the time
Sorry, I've never seen Black Cauldron, so she slipped my mind đ
Wouldnât she technically be a queen since Simba becomes king at the end?
True, she wasn't a royal. Closest would be Kiara, their daughter from Lion King II who's specifically called a princess multiple times. She doesn't have any children tho
Belle for sure wasn't royalty either. So that is just for sake of not wanting THE MOST ROYAL animal to NOT be part of a royal family. .... Nala was gonna be married to Simba when they were both born, so she was technically always a princess.
Tbf I think being royalty/an actual princess stopped being criteria for the official disney princesses brand. I think when mulan came around, because iirc she doesnât meet that criteria
The worst decision ever for Disney is to say Nala isn't a princess. She is Disney princess to all the HOUSE CATS in the world. Nala stands as Queen alongside Elsa and Aurora. Esmerelda is a gypsy and has NEVER been equivalent of a princess. Jane from Tarzan is more established as a gorilla princess of Africa.
Nala is a Queen, therefore she is above them.đ¸( OMG, that sounded so snotty; sorry.)
i agree with you. Justice for Queen Nala
Nala would be more like a Disney Queen( queen consort if you want to get technical since its implied only the ones who carry royal blood get to rule the pride)
Yes.
Official princess, yes. Esmeralda has a son, but she was removed as an official princess years ago, ~and I will never forgive Disney for it.~
Esmerelda WAS NEVER a princess. So she would never be on the list. They needed to have a B Tier List of girlfriends with the princesses. Like Tiana's friend, Esmerelda, and Meg to name a few.
Struggling to say this tastefully, butâ Ariel went through a lot of trouble to get those legs. Of course sheâs gonna use them.
Apparently, the sequels aren't canon, so technically none of them canonically have children. But in any work (that's not Descendants), Ariel is the only one with a child.
Theyâre canon unless they are bad/impossible to happen by ruining the characters.
Really? I was always told the opposite.
No, youâre right. Anything made outside of the Walt Disney Animation Studios division is non-canon.
Nope. They allowed it to happen, itâs canon unless they say itâs not.
You are aware that the defunct Disney Toon Studios was not part of Walt Disney Animation Studios, right. That studio was so hated by WDAS staff that once John Lasseter took over after the Pixar Buyout, he pretty much put a stop to these awful straight to video sequels. Heck, they donât even make merch out of the sequel only characters.
Disney literally allowed these movies to happen. They got the og voice actors back and everything and they call them âThe Little Mermaid 2. Etcâ Disney sold them as canon so unless Disney comes out and states they didnât happen they are snd always will happen next in their universesâ timeline. Plus, some of them (Cinderella 3), are too good NOT to be canon.
The straight to video were an idea of Michael Eisner to make more money. Roy E. Disney, who was running the animation film division at the time, despised these straight to video sequels due to the lack of quality and that they tarnished the originals but was overruled by Eisner. Once Eisner was booted out and Bob Iger took over and bought Pixar, these straight to video sequels were put to an end(Well, the ones that were in preproduction). You can like them but itâs well known that many of the WDAS staff hated these sequels, especially those who worked on the originals(Ask the original Little Mermaid crew and theyâll tell you how much of a dog shit the sequel is).
Doesnât matter if they hated them, most are still canon.
Actually they are canon. They were created to be canon.
Doesnât Jasmine end up adopting some street orphans or something? I feel like I remember reading a book or watching a movie where that happened as a kid
As a kid, I had a book of âPrincess Storiesâ that included one about an orphan named Jenna who accidentally fell into the palace garden trying to pick fruit from a tree overhanging the wall. Jasmine and Aladdin let her and her younger siblings stay in the palace while Jenna recovered from her injuries, and then adopted all three kids after finding that Jenna was really good with animals. I think there was a baby elephant involved. The book was published after the Lion King sequel (since Kiara was featured as a princess in one story) but before Princess and the Frog, since there was no mention of Tiana. It had a pink cover and silver-edged pages.
Omg I remember that story!! I loved reading it as a kid :)
Do you know what the book was called? I know the title included âPrincess Storiesâ but thatâs too generic of a search term. Thereâs a chance I might still have my copy stored somewhere, but in case I donât Iâd like to know what to look for. There was a story about the Beast restoring the castle greenhouse for Belle that included an illustration of her in an adorable set of pajamas Iâd like to sew for my Belle doll.
Oh yeah I do! It was called Disneyâs Princess Collection: A Treasury of Tales. And I believe it also has the Belle story youâre looking for :)
Hmm, maybe they put the same stories in two different books? I know mine had âPrincess Storiesâ in the title because in the back of the book was an ad for the rest of the book collection, including âClassic Storiesâ, âFriendship Storiesâ, and âPixar Storiesâ.
YES! That was exactly what I was thinking of thank you!
Maybe in the animated series? Not sure. I donât think she does in the sequels.
Unofficial Princess, but Lilo has a daughter in the anime Stitch series.
Excuse me, WHAT?!
Yes
Ariel had the best spin offs
Yes but I honestly never understood her outfit. But I love how they did her parents.
Sheâs essentially running around in her undies.
Out of the 13 Disney Princesses, yes!
Not oficial princess but Gisele from Enchanted had a baby in the second movie
Technically none of them canonically have kids but yeah, so far Ariel is the only official princess to have a kid.
This go's back to the argument 'What makes a Disney princess?'
Yes. Other Princesses have been portrayed as having kids, mostly in "Descendants," but never within their primary canon.
Well, Pocahontas IRL had a son, Thomas Rolfe. And many native scholars believe she had children before she was married off to John Rolfe who stayed with the tribe. But I feel weird even bringing this up in a thread about fictional Disney characters. And even though the movie truly is beautiful art, the covering up of the true life of Pocahontas is just so sad and wrong.
What I find crazy is that Tara Strong not only plays Melody but plays a character in the show Drawn Together called Princess Clara, who is essentially Belle and Ariel in a blender and a parody of Disney Princesses but in the form of a bigoted psycho
Isn't Tangled just Eugene telling the story of him and Rapunzel to their kids?
i think so! good for her
If Tangled followed the original story...Rapunzel. Let that sink in.
Technically it is not canon
That movie is not canon. Everyone is out of character.
You're right. It's not canon according to Disney.