Here's What the Real-Life Woman Who Inspired Barbie Looks Like
Many people know her simply as Barbie, but the full name of the doll who has brought joy to generations of young children is Barbara Millicent Roberts.
And the doll was actually inspired by the daughter of Barbie’s creator.
Ruth Handler watched her daughter, Barbara, playing with dolls and was intrigued by the youngster assigning adult roles to them. At the time, most dolls were babies and young girls were expected to mother them.
Ruth was convinced there was a gap in the market for a doll with an adult body and mentioned it to her husband who happened to be one of the co-creators of Mattel. He and his colleagues were sold on the idea and sully behind the creation of the doll. And it was on a 1956 trip to Germany that Ruth saw just what she was looking for when she discovered a doll called Bild Lilli.
She bought three, gave one to young Barbara and the others to Mattel. And Barbie seemed like the perfect name for the doll inspired by her daughter’s imagination.
Ruth passed away in 2002, but young Barbara (who is now 81) has said her mother would be a fan of the Barbie movie starring Margot Robbie as the titular character.
Barbara has seen the trailer and approves of Robbie as her namesake. Not that she goes by the name Barbie. And she never has. Indeed, she’s been embarrassed by her connection to the toy her whole life – as has her brother, Ken.
“Much of me is very proud that my folks invented the doll.” She once said. “ I just wish I wasn’t attached to it.”
At the age of 18, Barbara married TV producer Allen Segal. The couple had two children but subsequently divorced. She has spent most of her life out of the limelight, but does have two IMDB credits to her name. Barbara appeared on the Oprah Winfrey show in 2006 and took part in a 2001 documentary called “I Love Christmas”.
She is reported to have a net worth of $1.6 million. As for her mother - the creator of the Barbie doll, she was forced to resign from Mattel in 1974 following allegations of financial misconduct. The investigation continued after her departure and in 1978 she was charged with fraud and false reporting.
The one-time entrepreneur chose not to enter a guilty or not guilty plea and instead chose simply to not contest the charges, saying her illness had caused her to lose focus on her business. She had been diagnosed with breast cancer in 1970. Ruth was fined $57,000 and ordered to do 2500 hours of community service.