Wikia

Twilight Saga Wiki

Sufjanisgod

16 Edits since joining this wiki
February 26, 2009

"Adoptive" vs. "In-law"Edit

Hi there. Please stop changing articles to say that Bella was adopted by the Cullens. She is a part of the family because she married into it, through Edward. Keep in mind that she still has biological parents, and so nobody in the books would ever refer to or think of her as having been adopted. This is different from the other Cullen siblings, who have no living biological family members and so pretend to be adopted by Carlisle and Esme in Forks at the time of the story. Thank you. TagAlongPam (talk) 04:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Bella is absolutely adopted into the Cullen family not just married into it. Stephanie Meyer's texts prove this and my argument should be read before judgement. Bella is Absolutely the Adoptive daughter of Carlisle and Esme and the Adoptive Sister of Jasper, Alice, Emmett and Rosalie. The text backs this up.

1. Parallels with Emmett She Entered the Family in the same way that Emmett did but he is always accepted as the son/brother not the "son in law/brother in law". He married into the family and was transformed by Carlisle and from that point on was considered a son the same happens to Bella only she had been considered a daughter before hand. If one considers Bella the Daughter in law/Sister in law then they would have to consider Emmett to be a son/brother in law instead because he has the exact same entrance as Bella just much quicker. Also Emmett's parents would have been alive as well

2. Use of Daughter/Sister in the Books versus the non use of in law Bella is never called daughter in law/sister in law ever, she how ever is referred to as daughter/sister in every reference to her by a family member. Carlisle refers to her as his beloved daughter in book two of new moon, Alice in book one, and Emmett always does "not much wild about you is there little sister" "i haven't gotten to dance with my new sister yet" "you're going down little sister". Not once is she called the "in-law". She also openly calls Alice her sister and means it not in an "in law" way but in the way someone refers to their real sister. She is also always treated as the daughter not as the sons wife.

3. The difference between a vampire family and a traditional family. The vampire family unit is different from the normal family. Intermarriage being the biggest part, everyone of the six siblings has the same four brothers and sisters as their mate and the same parents it's slightly disturbing in the margot and ritchie tennenbaum sense. However it is less formal then the conventional family it is easier to more like a foster family which it pretends to be. The biggest way in which they are connected is their vampirism and their vegetarian philosophy.

4. The Fact that Charlie and Renee are alive means little. A person doesn't need to have dead parents to be adopted thats an orphan. The fact that Bella retains some of her relation to Charlie also is irrelevant many adopted people are in contact with their real parents. the fact that she continues to be connected to Charlie is just Stephanie Meyer's inability to leave any character with a sad ending a flaw that Jane Austen and an early Charlotte Bronte also had. One can have two sets of parents and Bella does. Emmett and Rosalie's families were still alive though they had the sense to remain dead to the public Alice's were not remembered and jasper's would have been long dead

5. Adoption v. joining the family Bella joined the family gradually not at the wedding and since it wasn't a typical or legal adoption it was more of her becoming their daughter just as the other five did. It's not highlighted by one event but by several going back as far as Alice's visions in midnight sun. These reasons are why Bella's page needs to read that she is the Cullen's daughter/sister it's what the text says and what Stephanie Meyer is giving us. If you can make a better argument i'll go your way but if you can see it my way that would be awesome as i strongly believe it then please refrain from rewriting it to a baseless theory of Bella as the "in-law" because she is more then that. p.s. i have no idea how to do messages sorry if this comes out weird. Sufjanisgod 07:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)SufjanisgodSufjanisgod 07:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. I understand where your points are coming from, but it's just not the same thing. For example, your argument about Bella's entry into the family parallelling Emmett's is irrelevant because of the time period in which the story takes place. The major difference here is that when the novels take place, Bella still has her own family as well. She has not disowned herself from her own family, and she even still keeps in contact with them (at least Charlie) even though she has become a vampire, unlike any of the other Cullens after they were turned. However, this point is moot anyways. Bella became involved with the family and married into it when she was still human and still had her own parents. This is not the case with anyone else in the family. What's important to remember here is that none of the Cullen siblings are actually adopted at all; however, it's the story that they put on for the townspeople, and so it can accepted as valid enough. Nobody in the books would have any reason to consider Bella in the same way. In the future, after everyone Bella knows has died and/or the Cullens move away from Forks, then their story will most likely change and Bella will be included as one of the "adopted children" of Carlisle and Esme. However, we shouldn't classify things as they would most likely be in the future.
As for your arguments about the Cullens considering Bella part of their family, sure...of course they do. But that has nothing to do with adoption. Alice and Bella could consider each other sisters even if the rest of the family had hated her and she never became a Cullen herself. Someone being an "in-law" does not in any way devalue their relationship with the family. Why would a daughter-in-law need to be treated as a "the son's wife", and not as a real part of the family? You are mistakenly confusing personal relationships with adoption, which involves people legally becoming the parents of a child that is not biologically their own. Bella is completely accepted as a part of the Cullen family, but that is completely unrelated to adoption. At what point did you consider her "adopted", the first time Carlisle said she was like a daughter to him? Edward also refers to Jacob being like a son to him in Breaking Dawn, but that hardly means he has adopted him! TagAlongPam (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

i agree with pam Edit

i agree with pam, SM has not written any books concerning bella's future. we do know that bella and nessie are new members of the family, likely jacob too as he follows nessie everywhere. so once the cullens leave forks jacob (and maybe his pack) will follow. if that were to happen this is the likely common story. carlisle and esme are married. esme is sterile. jasper and rosalie are foster children (twins, likely esme's "sister's"). bella nessie and alice are foster children as well (likely carlisle's "brother's"). edward and emmett are adopted and jacob is carlisle's half brother. it is a good story, but it is just that a story, used to keep the town folk from getting suspicious.Cmcwiki 01:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Agreed with 2 people above =] иιƒкч? 06:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki