In the original plans for the animated Beauty and the Beast, the Prince was to be a Duke.

If they had kept that in, Belle would’ve been a Duchess when she married him, so would she still be a Disney PRINCESS?

Edit: Also, would Duke Adam be ruling over a Duchy in France if he was a Duke?

  • The criteria for Disney Princess-hood is addressed here; Is there an official list of Disney Princesses?
    – Valorum
    Commented Jun 12, 2021 at 17:22
  • Worth understanding (per the answer to the question that Valorum linked) that there was no "Disney Princess" concept in 1991.
    – hobbs
    Commented Jun 13, 2021 at 4:34
  • @Alex Downs. The English word "prince" and the Latin word "princeps" it comes from, have many different meanings. "Son of a king" is only one of the meanings of prince. Prince is also a noble title. Some persons with the title of prince had principalities to rule. In the Holy Roman Empire the class of "Fursten" or Princes were nobles whose principalities were direct fiefs of the emperor. The titles of those princes, from lowest to highest, were princle count, landgrave, margave, count palatine, prince, duke, grand duke, and archduke. Continued. Commented Jun 13, 2021 at 19:12
  • @Alex Downs Continued. The wife of any of those noble princes was also a princess. The Emperors also granted titles without any lands to rule. Those titles were baron, count, prince, and duke. The movie is set in ancien regime France, which had conquered a lot of land from the Holy Roman Empire, including numerous principalities. So there were a number of those noble princes residing in France at the time of Beauty and the Beast. Commented Jun 13, 2021 at 19:15

1 Answer 1


Probably, yes.

As you can see in Disney website, Disney Princesses aren't always really princesses!

Mulan, Pocahontas or Moana aren't princesses, but they're catalogued as Disney Princesses.

  • Well, Pocahontas and Moana ARE Princesses because they’re daughters of chiefs.
    – Alex Downs
    Commented Jun 12, 2021 at 17:20
  • 4
    @AlexDowns A chief isn’t a king any more than a duke is.
    – Mike Scott
    Commented Jun 12, 2021 at 18:54
  • 1
    A chief isn't a king, his daughters aren't princesses. Therefore, nor Pocahontas nor Moana are princesses.
    – IloneSP
    Commented Jun 12, 2021 at 18:54
  • It has been common for centuries to describe the daughters of Indian chiefs as princeesses, though cheifdoms were not usually totally hereditary. It is much less common to describe sons of chiefs as princes, but in "Buffalo Bill" (1944) Buffalo Bill describes Yellow Hand as "a prince, the son of a king". stockq.org/moviescript/B/buffalo-bill.php Powhatan, father of Pocahontas, was not just an ordinary chief, but a sort of a chief of chiefs, the overlord of most of the Chesapeake Bay region. Powhatan was sometimes called an emperor, Continued. Commented Jun 13, 2021 at 18:23
  • Continued. No doubt the Emperor, Rudolf II, would have been highly annoyed to learn that Englishmen called Powhatan "emperor". And I have read that the English colonists had a ceremony where they declared Powhatan a king. So while Powhatan was not exactly a king, he also was not exactly a non king, and calling his daughter a princess is not exactly accurate or exactly inaccurate. As for the father of Moana, how do you tell the difference between Polynesian leaders who were chiefs, and Polynesian leaders who were kings? Continued. Commented Jun 13, 2021 at 18:39

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.