Pretty Pretty Princess: Where's the prince?
Last updated on May 31, 2011 at 08:56 AM

The box says, “Become a princess in this jewelry dress-up game!”


I wonder if Kate Middleton knew that that’s all it takes.


In early elementary, the board game to have was “Pretty Pretty Princess.”

For 2-4 players, ages five and older, the game made little girls imagine they were the perfect Disney princesses - a great marketing plan.


Matching beaded bracelets, necklaces, oversized plastic rings (think rings pops) and stylish clip-on earrings made a first-grader feel like a glamour girl.


My sisters and I understood that to be truly beautiful, your jewelry should all match, and you needed to win that symbol of true royalty: the silver crown.


Raising a generation of material girls, this game encouraged us to collect jewelry, even tearing the coveted crown from a rival’s brow.


The game taught us that bling was necessary for beauty and worth- not the greatest message for young, impressionable girls. Ladies, diamonds (or cheap, plastic replicas) are NOT a girl’s best friend. But “Pretty Pretty Princess” accurately omitted something that wasn’t necessary.


The box shows a pretty girl in a dress and crown modeling the same jewelry found inside. She is pictured in front of a majestic castle atop rolling hills.


There is no sign of a prince.


I like this. Boys are nice, but sometimes little girls (and older girls) think their happiness depends on having a boy around.


The box says that girls can be pretty princesses, get fantastic jewelry and have castles all by themselves.


Expecting someone else to fulfill your needs- whether to validate you emotionally- telling you you’re beautiful, a “pretty pretty princess”; to buy you jewelry, dresses or silver crowns, or to provide security- that great castle on the hill- is never a good idea.


A significant other, spouse or handsome prince can’t be everything you’ll ever need. Oh, we love to say, “You complete me,” “You’re my everything,” etc. but that’s a whole lot of pressure to put on one person, especially a frail human being.


So maybe Kate wasn’t going to get to be a princess without Wills. That’s cool. He seems like a nice guy, they look happy and she’s not a “princess” anyway. (Their actual titles are Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.)


But I think she’d be happy and successful just being Kate.


The handsome prince is just a perk.

Avatar for seegull737
Bio: Simpson College's How-to guru, Zombie administrator and opera librettist recently became a grownup writing for The Telegraph Herald

Recent blogs:
Recent comments:
Search the 1359 Blogs
Search for blogs in Category:   
Search for blogs in Sub-Category:   
Search for:  


Note: These Comments are submitted by TH Forum members and guests. All guest submissions are reviewed prior to publication. Content posted by TH Forum members are not necessarily reviewed until a "Suggest Removal" has been submitted.

Create a blog!
(You must be logged in to create a blog)
Most Recent Blogs
Most Popular Blogs