DVDizzy Forum

Why doesn't Prince John (from Robin Hood) have a mane?

I've always thought that because he's camp as opposed to fairly strong, he just didn't have one.

Well maybe he's not a male lion in the first place. I mean he dose suck his thumb, what kind of grown lion sucks his thumb?

Well I think the answer is that he is a Prince. Male Lion's slowly get their manes, but they do fully appear big and bushy until they are fully mature. King Richard has a large main, whereas Prince John is only a Prince, I think it also says something about his status. The Lion with the bigger mane is dominant.

very clever Ichabod, i never would have thought of that. It shows the Disney company think, they're not just a pretty face

Ack.

Thanks to whoever corrected my topic mistake. Should have been more clear. Hee.

Maybe hes more of a mountain lion-they dont have manes.

Zoltack wrote:Well maybe he's not a male lion in the first place. I mean he dose suck his thumb, what kind of grown lion sucks his thumb?

A sucker?

ichabod wrote:Well I think the answer is that he is a Prince. Male Lion's slowly get their manes, but they do fully appear big and bushy until they are fully mature. King Richard has a large main, whereas Prince John is only a Prince, I think it also says something about his status. The Lion with the bigger mane is dominant.

Yeah, I always thought along a similar line, ichabod. Since male lions don't have a full mane until they're about 4 or 5 years old, they look fairly "scrappy" until then. Since Prince John is the younger of the two brothers, biologically, he may just not have grown much of his own mane yet. Character design and status factor in too, of course; that John is only a prince, and an impotent whiny brat at that... were also cues as to his lack of hair.

...and why the hell did I get so "scholarly" over such a light question?

Just to show that he's not "the man" that Richard is.

this is a biyt off topic

but simba has a full mane so does that mean hes 4 or 5 years old in tlk