In Shrek: Forever After, Fiona said she rescued herself from the dragon's tower.

Since Shrek was never born, shouldn't Prince Charming have rescued her?

  • After all, there was the deal between King Harold and Fairy Godmother. – user35971 Nov 13 '14 at 22:10
  • 7
    Charming is an imbecile. He probably died like all the other would-be rescuers before him. – Valorum Nov 13 '14 at 22:17
  • 1
    @Richard: Charming was stupid, but not a coward or useless. He displayed his political acumen and charisma quite clearly in Shrek 3, when he successfully incited the denizens of The Ugly Step-Sister to help him launch a coup in Far, Far Away. He also successfully seduces Rapunzel and captures Shrek and Fiona. The man was a buffoon, but he displayed more acumen than most modern politicians, and was a decent military leader. I've often wondered about user35971's question myself; Charming isn't the type to let his potential kingdom slip away. – James Sheridan Nov 14 '14 at 0:31
  • @JamesSheridan - He was a total fool. He should have killed the hostages (and the dragon) when he had the opportunity. That's the difference between a kids movie and real life (or Game of Thrones) – Valorum Nov 14 '14 at 0:35
  • @Richard: You're saying he should have just shot Shrek in the head, instead of leaving him with that one inept guard? – James Sheridan Nov 14 '14 at 2:17

At the start of Shrek : Forever After we see that Fiona's parents are about to sign their kingdom over to Rumpelstiltskin in return for him using his magic to release Princess Fiona from her curse. The news that Shrek has rescued the Princess literally interrupts the signing ceremony and they tear up the agreement.

Since Prince Charming is attempting to rescue Fiona for the sole purpose of becoming heir to the throne of Far Far Away, if Shrek hadn't rescued Fiona then her parents would have signed the deed, Rumpelstiltskin would become King and there would have been no need for Charming to rescue Fiona which explains his total absence from the film:

King : Nothing is worth more to us than our daughter.

Stiltskin: Just sign it and all your problems will disappear.

Page : Your Highness! The Princess! She's been saved! [by Shrek]

They tear the agreement in half.

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    That's a decent answer, and the closest we'll get to a correct one, but I don't buy the fact that Prince Charming - nor his mother - would stand by and allow a little thing like legality keep him from the throne of Far, Far Away. It's hard to believe that Charming, the man who launched a successful - if brief - coup against Shrek, wouldn't do the same against Rumpelstiltskin, especially with his mother's resources still available to him. – James Sheridan Nov 14 '14 at 0:33
  • @JamesSheridan - But why rescue Princess Fiona if she's no longer in line to the throne? After they sign the deed, she's just a.n.other woman, albeit a stonking hottie. – Valorum Nov 14 '14 at 0:37
  • 1
    Being a stonking hottie isn't reason enough? Any claim on the throne is better than none, legal or otherwise. You gain too much badboy for attacking with no casus belli. – James Sheridan Nov 14 '14 at 2:20
  • 1
    @JamesSheridan - Fiona does enjoy Pina Coladas and walks in the rain. I'd be personally tempted to rescue her but we've no idea what Charming's motivations are. There's no suggestion that he can't attract hotties as needed. – Valorum Nov 14 '14 at 2:21
  • He did tap Rapunzel. Still, one can never have too many hotties. – James Sheridan Nov 14 '14 at 2:28

I honestly think it was just a plot hole. The reality is that Fairy godmother had a deal with Harold. One that if he broke, his happily every after (his human form) would be taken back as well. Not to mention, they were still the rightful rulers. And with the time frame as it was when this was happening. Charming was already on his way to save Fiona. He was just a tad bit late. I’d say a couple months late if not less as when he got there, Fiona was on her honeymoon. Some people might say that he would have heard about the change in leadership before he saved her. But no not necessarily; Fiona had her whole identity and inner beauty shtick journey, got married to Shrek, went on her honeymoon and traveled to Far far away and Charming didn’t know ANYTHING about it. Not until he literally arrives at the castle and there’s a wolf in the bed who tells him she’s on her honeymoon last he heard. So if Shrek never saved her and they did sign away, Charming should have gotten to Fiona and rescued her. Charming may be stupid but once he learns something is wrong, he most likely would have fought for what he believed was his right to the kingdom. And as we saw...he’s more than capable of organizing a successful take over. And this time he would have his mother full magical arsenal at his back. And fairy godmothers magic is STRONGER than rumplestiltskins as he was unable to reverse Fionas curse, something that Fairy Godmother could do and was her doing in the first place. So in short. Charming should have absolutely rescued Fiona. But again they stretched themselves too thin and did this movie as a money grab. So... there’s a huge plot hole.

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    This is a rant but there is somewhat of an answer in here. Could you edit this to take out the rant and focus it more on specifically answering the question? – TheLethalCarrot Aug 8 at 10:02

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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