Okay, me again, back to talking about my dislike of certain things. I swear I’m going to write a ‘this is fucking awesome’ post one day about something. But… not today. Today, I’m complaining about Helsa.

I want to preface this by saying a few things. The first is that I am not ship shaming. I may not agree with your ship, but I will defend until my death (or I’m kicked off the internet) your right to ship it. Everyone has their own personal likes and dislikes. This is one of my dislikes, but it does //not invalidate your like. I’m an Elsanna shipper, and am fully aware of the issues. I’m a big enough girl to admit that there //are issues with Elsanna as an incestuous relationship. I have a sister. But in the end it is a ship, and in the end, most people won’t agree with it. I’m not here to convince anyone of anything: regarding the Helsa, this post is a simple “this is why I, personally, disagree”. It is not a “this is why it’s wrong and you should be agreeing with me”. I’m not saying I’m right—that’s what an opinion is. It’s a belief. I just try and justify my opinions with canon evidence (as you’ll see).

I am also going to be using arguments that Helsa shippers have used. I’m telling you this now because I am //not picking on the people who have used such arguments. I am simply looking at how they justify their ship, and am using that to help me form my own arguments (in essence, a debate). Anyone and everyone is free to counter any claims I make here, as long as it’s civil. That means a “I disagree with point X because of reason Y”, and not “you’re wrong and your arguments suck and stop telling us what to do”. I am not telling you what to do. Let me be clear.

This is my opinion. It is not a call to war, Elsanna vs Helsa. It is not a call to shame or call people out on the ‘wrongness’ of their ship. This is a “Fruipit can’t see Helsa becoming canon and this is the reason why”.

But, enough of that. I’m sorting these into categories and then posting my thoughts/evidence, what it means for Helsa, and then predicted counter-arguments. One particular counter-argument may fit in several spots, so if you have concerns I missed one, just check the others first. As always, though, I’m up to discussing this. Under the tag because it gets pretty long.

So, what is the problem with Helsa?

So, the big, main issue with it is that it’s problematic (which really answers nothing at all).

Let me explain. What I mean by problematic is that Helsa presents several deep character and plot flaws that simply wouldn’t be believable. I’ll break it down because I feel like the reasons of 'why’ they’re flaws need justification.

Problem One: The Sisters

Okay, so, this is probably the biggest issue of the entire ship; it gets in the way of Elsa and Anna’s own relationship ('relationship’ used in the completely platonic way, here). As in… what does the movie tell us?

The film tells use that Elsa valued her relationship with her sister above everything else. And, not only that, she most valued her sister in general—most notably, her health. That is, Elsa was so desperate to not hurt Anna that she removed herself for thirteen years.

You have to remember, based on “Do You Wanna Build a Snowman”, that Anna was always an optimistic child. She has always been a happy child. She held onto the hope and faith that Elsa would one day come back and bridge the gap. And, of course, she stopped trying to approach Elsa as they grew up, but she never stopped being there for Elsa (see: post-funeral).

The same goes for Elsa, but… opposite. So, not really the same, I suppose. Similar in the fact that everything Elsa did was to protect Anna. Removing herself was one way; not answering the door was another. And though I don’t even want to imagine how she was feeling, she chose not to go to the funeral—she chose not to say goodbye to her parents, all to protect Anna.

During the coronation, Elsa attempts to get Anna alone to talk to her. One can speculate exactly what this discussion would entail (“I have Ice Powers so strange men aren’t allowed” to “soup, roast, and ice-cream is a //terrible wedding meal and you should feel ashamed”). We have no idea and I have no intention of adding complete and utter speculation to this so I won’t try. The fact is that Elsa wants to have a private discussion, and Anna won’t let her. In that moment, Anna chose Hans over Elsa—a man she had just met, over her sister (who we would later find out, loved her unconditionally. The whole 'putting someone else’s needs before your own’). So, Elsa was emotional then. She attempted to remove herself from the situation, a technique she had always used, and when that failed (“hey! Give me my glove!”), told Anna to leave. Which also failed (and everyone knows what happened after that).

Elsa ran away (again) to protect Anna and Arendelle (“go enjoy the sun and open up the gates"—in essence, everything that Elsa believes Anna wanted for 13 years, and a belief that Anna, at least partially, validates in FTFTIF before the coronation). But Anna chased after her.

When Elsa created Marshmallow, it was not with the intention to hurt Anna. Anna actually came away from Marshmallow unscathed. Like Olaf, Marshmallow is imbued with the emotions Elsa was feeling at the time of creation. And, like Olaf, Marshmallow is sentient: Elsa doesn’t control him. He has his own will. He was created only to get Anna out of the castle and away from Elsa, lest she do any more damage.

Think back, for a moment, to the way Elsa’s room looks after her parents’ funeral. The way the snow completely stops is a brilliant visual idea of what going into shock feels like. And, think of how the entire storm completely stops when Hans tells Elsa that Anna is dead. Elsa cannot handle it. She goes into shock. It’s debatable as to whether she heard him draw his sword (though, considering that Anna did, it’s most likely). And if she heard the sword, why didn’t she move? Two possible answers, and both point to the same thing. Answer 1: She physically couldn’t respond. Her body had shut down and regardless of if she //wanted to move, she couldn’t. Answer 2: She didn’t see the need to move because Anna was gone.

Elsa’s entire life was spent protecting Anna. What purpose did she have without her little sister?

What this means for Helsa

Foreseen counter-arguments

But Elsa did hurt Anna by locking her out!

There’s a difference between maliciously, knowingly hurting someone, and hurting them because you’re making a decision that you believe is best in the long run. What is the lesser of two evils? It’s like… knowing that your best friend’s partner is cheating on them. To tell them or not to tell them? I guarantee that some people will think telling is the right thing to do, and some people don’t. Elsa shutting Anna out because she thought it would be better for her sister is not the same kind of evil as Hans using Anna because he wants power.

You’re an Elsanna shipper and have no idea what you’re on about. Elsanna is more problematic than Helsa and you ship that!

True. I do ship Elsanna, and it is, inherently, a problem. However, it’s a problem for different reasons. Incest is a societal taboo. We’re brought up believing that incest is wrong. Helsa has ethical issues that, while are also based on 'what society teaches us’, are issues in other ways. Incest, at its core, doesn’t hurt anyone. Leaving someone to die, lying about the power you have (the 'hey, totally married her but then she died so that puts me in charge’) and then attempting to play judge, jury, and executioner, claiming that the Queen herself committed treason… that hurts people. It’s a //different problem.

Hans couldn’t have saved Anna anyway! For her heart to thaw, she needed to commit the act, not anyone else.

We will never know if Hans could have saved Anna or not. However, the most important part is that he didn’t even attempt to save her. He left her to die before making a move to kill Elsa. In what universe is someone who tried to kill your only remaining family seen as a viable love interest?

Problem Two: The First Film

Frozen is a film about a girl who loves her sister and fears herself so much that she will do anything to keep her safe—including taking away her own happiness. It’s a film about a girl who loves and accepts her sister to such a degree that forgiveness doesn’t ever need to be asked because there’s nothing to forgive at all, even though it made her lonely throughout her entire life.

And Anna was lonely, however from her interactions with Elsa—meeting her again after the coronation ceremony and her different attempts at talking to her, even going so far as to leave her supposed 'true love’ in order to get her sister back. Elsa, in Anna’s mind, will always come first. Killing her is a big no-no.

Foreseen counter-arguments

But Anna has a love interest! How would Elsa having one undermine the film?

Because the Kristanna is understated. It’s definitely not the main focus—Elsa and Anna’s relationship is. Even the kiss at the end of the film was subtle. Not overt. It was a moment that wasn’t given any more or less importance than a simple first kiss. However, regardless of the creator’s intentions, Elsa having a love interest—Queen Elsa, who grew up fearing people’s touch and hiding herself away, concealing everything—would be distracting. No matter what, it would become the main focus of the film because “omgomgomg elsas in love yesss omg its adorable”.

Also, Kristoff never tried to murder anyone.

Problem Three: The 'Redeemable’ Prince

Let’s ignore the message of the previous film for a moment as I go through this point. Ignore the fact that Frozen is a film that is essentially “love isn’t always romantic. It can be the 'blood is thicker than water’ kind of love that never leaves you because //family”.

Let’s look at Helsa as, simply, Hans and Elsa.

Many of the Helsa posts claim that Hans is redeemable, and I’m not disputing that. Most characters //are redeemable. The issue comes with the fact that an “I’m sorry I tried to kill you and your sister and take over your kingdom” is not enough. That doesn’t redeem him. That just makes me think “is he really sorry?”

Because the important thing to remember about Hans is that he’s a manipulator. He can read people and understand how to get to them. Knowing your enemy’s weak points does not help convince people of someone’s sincerity. Hans was based on the original mirror of the book, and his personality //is of that like a mirror.

Notice, for instance, that he develops a rapport with Anna based on their mutual lonely childhoods. His love of sandwiches and how much he 'loves crazy’. Their first meeting, Hans was awkward, however Anna was awkward //first. She had just been singing about how the first time in forever, she was free—and free to find love, at that.

When speaking to the Duke of Weselton, he is sharp and blunt. He is aggressive to a degree, and demanding. He takes the Duke’s actions and emotions and mirrors them back. This is actually a thing and is used by people to develop some form of connection to them—ever message someone online and notice how they don’t use many emotes? Feel yourself get uncomfortable because you use at least one in each sentence so you dial it back a bit? Same concept. You mimic to establish a relationship.

Finally, look at his interactions with Elsa. He’s formal and diplomatic. He’s logical and attempts to reason with her. But, he uses words that trigger her—all her life, she’s feared being a monster. Hans’ use of that word (“don’t be the monster they fear you are”) is too perfect for me to believe it was a coincidence. But, let’s imagine that it was a coincidence that he used that word. That means that he was the first person to get through to Elsa. Every time Anna tried, she was hurt—every time Anna tried, she triggered Elsa’s powers. Doesn’t that give Hans brownie points?

Well, you’re not wrong in the fact that he broke through and came out unscathed. But I ask, Elsa has very little control, so what //actually triggers her powers? Her emotions. Her emotions trigger her powers, and she’s a fantastic little bottle of pent-up grief and self-hatred and frustration. And Anna always seems to bring that out of her in the form of her powers.

So, if Hans fails to elicit any reaction, doesn’t that mean that she has no emotional feelings towards him anyway? The only time he actually triggered her was when he told her that Anna was dead because of Elsa’s own actions. He, himself, never did anything emotionally note-worthy.

I read something here that says the “only main reason they can’t be together is because he tried to kill her”. And I say yes. That is one major reason. I can’t see myself falling in love with my potential murderer. Especially not one who also tried to take the life of my sister, and take over my country.

Foreseen counter-arguments

Hans stops Elsa from becoming a murderer in her ice-castle! He tells his men not to harm her. Why would he do that if he didn’t care about her?

Remember, Anna hasn’t returned. For all Hans knows, Anna is dead. He later states that no one was getting “anywhere with Elsa”, indicating that she was his first preference. In “Frozen Heart”, it’s revealed that he intended on courting Elsa, and only Elsa. Why, with Princess Anna gone, would he throw away an opportunity to get Elsa?

But wait! He locks her in a cell! How is that getting on her good side?

Because Hans could literally be the 'hero’ of Arendelle. Convincing people to let the Queen go, so wracked with guilt over the death of her sister. He told her that he would 'do his best’ to get everyone to let her go. He returned after Anna had seen him and he locked her away—after he had told everyone that he and the Princess were married. He no longer needed Anna, and he certainly didn’t need Elsa—she was only a hindrance. The only thing Hans ever cared about was power. And now he had it.

So what are Helsa shippers saying about the ship?

After reading few a few posts, it’s become clear that Helsa shippers all seem to agree on several points. They believe that Hans and Elsa’s similar pasts help contribute to a potential (future) emotional bond. They believe that Hans and Elsa just naturally work due to these shared experiences. However, I’ve also noticed that these points tend to be skewed and subjective—biased and speculative. That’s not necessarily a bad thing—we are, after all, a fandom with a lot of writers. We automatically come up with things to fill in the gaps of our knowledge. However, I don’t believe that speculation has any place when arguing these sorts of points.

Similarities (as given by Helsa shippers) [x]

These points are not valid enough to constitute a working relationship—especially not one that includes murderous intent. The fact that they are both royal means nothing except that, in the past, a marriage //may have been arranged for them (but as it’s in the past and speculation, that point should be ignored altogether).

So, the gloves and loneliness. Both could be seen as being two sides of the same coin, I suppose—the gloves are a physical manifestation of the reason Elsa was alone throughout her childhood. For Hans, they’re a reminder of why he is in Arendelle: court the Queen. Hide his motives.

Their similar childhoods are points of contention. Hans was ignored by his brothers half the time and teased and mocked relentlessly the other half. He grew up without any kind of love. Elsa, on the other hand, fed off love. Despite her family’s problems, everything that anyone did was the direct result of their love for the other members of their family. Going by Frozen Heart, Anna was told at least once (and it’s likely that she was told every time she brought it up) that Elsa loved her, despite her actions seemingly showing otherwise. And we know Elsa loved her, just from the film.

Lonely childhoods, and childhoods spent alone, are not always the same. Hans was alone. Elsa and Anna were lonely. There is a difference. Even with 12 older brothers, Hans was always alone. No one gave him the time of day. Whereas Elsa and Anna, despite the divide, were never alone. They had their parents, and then, after their death, they had each other (to a certain degree). Anna explicitly stated “we only have each other, it’s just you and me”, implying that she knew that she did have Elsa to rely on to be her family now. That she wasn’t and wouldn’t be abandoned by Elsa.

Differences (as given by Helsa shippers) [x]

These points are very vague. How are Hans and Elsa the same (aside from the similarities expressed above?). Who is 'everyone’? Because Hans was pretty likeable until he tried to murder Elsa and Anna. I’m not sure, with all the 'similarities’ listed above, that you can claim 'opposites’. And the happy ending that she received and he didn’t was that she got what she wanted (her freedom and her sister) while he didn’t get what he wanted (power, the throne, and power).

Ancillary Information

It was stated here by a Helsa shipper that Hans “wanted to be a king, a leader, a hero. Not a tyrant”. I ask why he has to be a tyrant to be unsuitable for Elsa. His methods of acquiring the throne don’t automatically mean that he is a tyrant. A tyrant is simply a 'cruel and oppressive leader’, and as we know, history has quite a few people who are born into power who fall under this category. Usurper ≠ Tyrant.

That same article defends Hans’ motives for wanting to kill Elsa and Anna and take the throne: he was “invisible” at home. That… does not excuse murder. At all. That doesn’t excuse the wilful manipulation of someone. If someone has a toy and you want to play with it, the normal thing to do is ask. Not kill the person for it. It doesn’t matter Hans’ home life, the fact is that you can’t kill someone to get what you want.

The fact is that people are wont to use Hans’ upbringing to excuse his behaviour. This does not make attempted murder excusable. If you live in a home in which your father or mother abuses you, does it make said abuse okay if they were brought up in a similar situation? That their upbringing influences how they raise you? Not at all. If your family torments you every day, can that excuse you if you go off the deep end and kill someone? No, is the answer (and I am genuinely worried if anyone thinks murder is acceptable in //any circumstances) (note the use of the word 'murder’).

Honestly, this post is getting way too long and I have school tomorrow. I’m happy to clarify some points, and I probably have other reasons of why I don’t believe it can become canon, but for now, I’ll end it here.

tl:dr: Elsa’s entire world revolves around Anna. Everything she does is for her sister. Falling in love with the guy who attempted to end Anna’s life would not happen because Anna comes first. Anna is the most important person to Elsa. Hans may be redeemed in the next film. He may even become something of a friend (or an ally, at least) to the Snow Sisters. However, he will never, ever become a romantic partner to Elsa. Anna would never allow it, and Elsa simply wouldn’t feel that way.