Elsa is based on Queen Victoria's coronation portrait by George Hayter from 1838: theenchantedmanor.com/wp-conte…
Anna is based on a portrait of Queen Victoria by John Partridge from 1840: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia…
Norway didn't actually have their own royal family in the 1800's as they were in a forced union with Sweden at the time, so the Swedish royal family was Norway's royal family, and they didn't get their own until the union split in 1905.
Finding Frozen's historical setting was very easy, as the film makers have said at many times that the movie is set in the 1840's and that most of the movie's influences came from Norway. The time is further narrowed down by the short film Frozen Fever, which shows a map with the date 1840 written on it, which means the first movie was most likely set in 1839. The Norwegian influences can be easily seen, as the landscape is a very classic Norwegian fjord, which isn't generally seen outside of Norway and Canada, and to a small extent New Zealand. The culture is very Norwegian, with references to lutefisk, as well as several Norwegian landmarks such as stave churches, Viking ships, Bryggen in Bergen, and Akershus fortress. The maypole seen early in the film confuses things a bit, as maypoles are a Swedish tradition, but a small inaccuracy is to be expected in a film not made by people from the region. The people also wear Norway's national costume, the bunad, and pretty much every building is decorated with Norwegian rosemaling, which is a traditional painting technique used by farmers in Norway in the 1600's and later. Here's an example of rosemaling: s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/7…
Now, Elsa and Anna's costumes are very inaccurate for royals, as their costumes are clearly more based on the bunads, which were farmer's clothing and not something city folk would wear, especially not the royal family. That being said, the embroidery isn't that inaccurate, as court dresses of the 1840's had embroidery that was relatively similar to bunad embroidery, as both forms of embroidery were evolved from Baroque and Rococo art from the 1600's and 1700's.
Elsa's coronation crown was way too flimsy to be a real coronation crown, looking more like some cheap tiara you'd wear to prom than anything used for ceremonial purposes. Luckily, Norway's coronation regalia has existed since the 1820's, so I just used the real-world Norwegian regalia for her. Here's a picture of King Haakon wearing the same regalia in 1906: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia…
Anna is wearing a sash of the Order of Saint Olav, which was actually first made in 1847 which is after 1839, but screw it, it's close enough and the only Norwegian order that is old enough to be used and be appropriate for a royal.
Thanks. And yeah, she has that expression, doesn't she?
And Anna's sash is quite appropriately named
I can’t stop getting inspired by your art
I've been listening to Lisa Stokke's "La Den Gå" for nearly an hour now!
I do wish that the crown pattern on the train -- and the crown itself actually -- kept the crocus theme seen in the film, since that seems to be Arendelle's thing. That would have been magnificent.
But aside from that, I really enjoy how you kept the original colors and patterns from the film but transposed them onto something far more appropriate.
I was wondering if I can propose you something. Actually I'm working as developer in a little indie group in an Android game called "Kingdoms of Myth", it's turn based strategy game based on a fantasy World. You can find a little bit more info in this rough website made by my colleges lifeisinfinity.eu5.org/infinit… (Sorry for the bad English). We have liked your art and we would like to ask you if you want to collaborate with us making one fantasy picture. The theme of the picture would be very opened, so you are not going to be forced to draw nothing that you do not want to. Of course you will have full credits of your work and link to your webpage if you want . What do you think?
Lot of thanks for your time
P.D: By the way we just created now a Facebook with more recent pictures: www.facebook.com/kingdomsofmyt…
It sort of depends on just how elaborate the picture is supposed to be, because as I said I am very busy with school these days. It sounds interesting, though.
Indeed, not even Queen Elizabeth I of England would have been required to do such a thing and she lived hundreds of years before Victoria.
Nevertheless, I don't know of a single instance anywhere in Europe where a sovereign queen who married became subordinate in her own country to her husband. Didn't happen to Mary Tudor. Didn't happen to Mary Queen of Scots. Didn't ever happen to any reigning queen as far as I know. Do you know of any instance where this happened without an actual coup? Anywhere in Europe?
I'm well aware that female rulers weren't considered ideal back in the day. Henry I of England tried and failed to leave his throne to his daughter Mathilda even after getting all his nobles to swear that they would support her reign (including Mathilda's cousin Stephen who usurped her throne as soon as Henry died). On the other hand, she was in France with her husband and had been raised on the continent away from England; she was more German in outlook than English which probably had a lot to do with her lack of support. Nevertheless, even England had male-preferred primogeniture once such matters were codified, and I believe Britain changed that only very recently though without making it retroactive to cover Prince Charles's sister. Male-preferred primogeniture was certainly still in effect when Victoria became queen. That's why Henry VIII went to such great lengths to divorce Anne of Aragon - so he could father a son to be his heir and not have to rely on the throne passing to Mary, his only legitimate child at the time. But male-preferred primogeniture is a completely different question. That only affects who will get the throne, not whether a female ruler will be allowed to retain power once she marries.
My question was: can you name any European queen who married and then had her husband claim her throne without staging a coup? And if you can't answer that question, which are the queens you know of who refused to marry in order to keep their husbands from claiming their thrones? You said that there were many instances, so I assume you can name a few.
I already told you I don't know of any specific instances where that happened. As for instances of queens never marrying, there's Christina of Sweden and Elizabeth I of England, for instance. Granted she never said so specifically herself, but one of the big theories as to why Elizabeth I never married was because she was afraid of losing her power to a husband.
But it's not surprising that I would give examples solely from the British Isles. I know more about the rulers of England/Great Britain than I do about any other European nation. And I certainly won't be giving any examples of what happened to a queen regnant of France after she married, because France never had a queen regnant due to its salic laws, and there were probably other European nations with similar laws prohibiting a woman from taking the throne. I'm not sure there have been all that many queens regnant in Europe, but I never claimed to have exhaustive knowledge. You're also the one who first referenced all this in terms of "Victorian English norms" for the upper classes (your words), but if you really want an example from another country, I don't believe Isabella of Castille had to give up her power as a queen regnant just because she had married Ferdinand.
No one knows for certain why Elizabeth I of England never married although it may have had something to do with the fact that the man she loved was already married and then too tainted by scandal for her to take him as her husband and then he died. She also liked to use her unmarried status as a bargaining chip, dangling the prospect of matrimony before royals from nations with which she was negotiating treaties. I'd also like to point out that before Elizabeth I became queen of England, her half sister Mary was a queen regnant who married a man who was a king of his own kingdom independent of his marriage to her, and not even that made the English nobility want to turn rule of the kingdom over to him. No one expected Mary I of England to give up power and become a housewife just because she married. Not even her husband's father.
As for Christina of Sweden, based on what I'm reading on Wikipedia, she didn't marry because she found marriage repugnant and probably had homosexual tendencies; I kinda doubt that she remained unmarried because she was anxious to retain power considering that she abdicated and turned her throne over to a male cousin by her own choice - at least according to Wikipedia.
So after twice saying as if it were proven fact that there were many instances of queens who remained unmarried to prevent losing their power, you haven't been able to name a single one that's more than a thinly-supported theory.
You also haven't provided any evidence that Europeans in the Victorian era expected a queen regnant to turn power over to her husband and become a housewife as soon as she married. Both of the examples of unmarried queens that you gave lived 200 years before the Victorian era back in a time when the idea of women's rights hadn't gained much credibility yet. In the Victorian era 200 years later, during the time when you said a queen regnant would be expected to cede her power to her husband and become a housewife if she married, I seem to recall that the women's rights movement was gathering steam, the U.S. would soon be adjusting its property laws to allow married women to retain control over their property, and people's general expectations of women's roles were changing throughout Europe and the U.S.
But it's a charming picture, and I'm sorry that what I intended as a gentle correction appears to be rousing ill-will.