Diana: the most beautiful or famous woman of the 20th century?

[sassie]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

'Ordinary' people may have read about him occasionally, but many wouldn't have known that he had any daughters, again without Charles dating one of them.

YOU said "had anyone even heard about Diana or any of her family before her involvement with Charles?" and my reply was that a few people would probably have known who Earl Spencer was. I didn't say they would have known about his daughters.

Lady Cynthia was hardly known for her support of charities, she was hardly know at all outside the court circle, ask Joe public who she was and most people would not have a clue. As you say anyone can be involved in charities, but do any of us know the name of all the tireless workers.

I was agreeing with your assessment that Diana would not have been well known if she had married anyone other than Charles-like Cynthia Spencer, she may have been well known in her community, but not beyond. (And, arguably, in her community, Cynthia Spencer was well known, and respected, for her support of local charities around Althorp.) I never said anything about Cynthia being well known to "Joe Public". In fact, I'm pretty sure I said Cynthia was involved with local charities and well known in her community.

YOU said "Charities need royal patrons or at the least celebrities." and my reply was that a non royal/non celebrity can be involved with charities, too. I didn't say they would be well known because of it. In fact, I'm pretty sure I said that Diana wouldn't have been known around the world because of it.

[Warren]

Before we get too involved in Lady Cynthia and local charities I think we can agree that Lady Diana Spencer would not have become "famous" if she had married someone other than the Heir to the Throne.

But this thread is not about Earl or Lady Spencers, charities or fame, so back on topic please.

thanks,
Warren
British Forum moderator

[Skydragon]

Was she photogenic, not particularly, the media just chose the pictures that would sell their papers.

[Lily97]

In my opinion to have been the most photographed female in the world and on so many magazine covers clearly she was photogenic. This is not to say that she didn't have help to look her best such as the best photographers for her portraits and the best hairdressers. Look at the improvement in Camilla! I do think she did have a "special something" that clearly reached most people. People that liked her know what it was, others can't see it.

Lily

[sirhon11234]

Originally Posted by Lily97

In my opinion to have been the most photographed female in the world and on so many magazine covers clearly she was photogenic. This is not to say that she didn't have help to look her best such as the best photographers for her portraits and the best hairdressers. Look at the improvement in Camilla! I do think she did have a "special something" that clearly reached most people. People that liked her know what it was, others can't see it.

Lily

Well said.

[sassie]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Was she photogenic, not particularly, the media just chose the pictures that would sell their papers.

Many photographers who photographed Diana over the years have said she was photogenic-most notably Tim Graham, who was not, by anyone's standard, a poor photographer or paparazzi, and who knew, through experience, what he saw on the other side of his lens. I'll take his word on the subject.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Lily97

In my opinion to have been the most photographed female in the world and on so many magazine covers clearly she was photogenic. This is not to say that she didn't have help to look her best such as the best photographers for her portraits and the best hairdressers. Look at the improvement in Camilla! I do think she did have a "special something" that clearly reached most people. People that liked her know what it was, others can't see it.
Lily

Your post seems like an honest and even appraisal, as you might guess the only word I disagree with is 'most'. I believe 'a lot' is more accurate, but then I am talking as someone who didn't like her at all and never saw any 'special something'.

There are many 'most photographed female in the world' contenders, apparently and I wonder how many of their photo's end up on the cutting room floor or under the airbrush.
Kate Moss Is The Most Stylish Woman In The World - Ever - Hecklerspray: Music, Movies, TV, Celebs, Games and Gossip
Caprice Bourret - Supermodel, Actress
Welcome to GG2.NET... - Print Article...

[sirhon11234]

Diana was the most photographed woman of the 20th century.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by sirhon11234

Diana was the most photographed woman of the 20th century.

On Marilyn Monroe
"She was unquestionably the sex goddess of the 20th-century. And Monroe wasn't the most photographed woman in the history of creation for nothing.
http://www.yorkshiretoday.co.uk/View...icleID=1385339

To each his or her own.

[sirhon11234]

Well Diana is still the most photgraphed woman of the 20th century.
Marilyn Monroe is one of the most photographed women of the 20th century. Diana is The most photographed woman of the 20th century.
Just like Pope John Paul is the most photographed man of the 20th century.

[Skydragon]

Diana, like Marilyn were some of the most photographed of the 20th century.
As Henri M said right at the beginning of this thread which I have shortened

they pick the best pictures of a hyped glamorous Princess who is a megaseller. They will not want to slaughter this chicken with golden eggs, as is the Dutch saying.

There could of course be someone out there, who has her photo taken 500 times a day and is more deserving of the title than any 'celeb'

[sirhon11234]

Well Skydragon thats your opinion doesen't mean its absolute.

[Skydragon]

Of course, everything we put, that isn't a proven fact is just someone's opinion, be it yours or mine. it is something that cannot be proven. There are 1000's of photos I expect of HM, Jackie Kennedy, Caprice etc but are any of us in a position to count them. Which is why I put she was one of. Back to the question of this thread - I like others have only asked 'was she' or did the not so nice pics end up on the cutting room floor or in the bin?

[sirhon11234]

Well i'am sure Diana has had her not soo glamorous moments. But alot of stars and royals have had their own not soo glamorous moments like Kate Moss Keira Knightley and even Camilla.

[Roslyn]

Originally Posted by sirhon11234

Well Diana is still the most photgraphed woman of the 20th century.
Marilyn Monroe is one of the most photographed women of the 20th century. Diana is The most photographed woman of the 20th century.
Just like Pope John Paul is the most photographed man of the 20th century.

I'd like to know how it is possible to determine who were the most photographed people in the 20th century. I find it extremely hard to believe that a Pope would be the most photographed man of the century.

On reflection I suppose I can believe the Pope was the most photographed man, as it actually helps explain why Diana might have been the most photographed woman. In the case of the Pope it was clearly religion, and I think there was, and is, an element of religious fervour involved in the interest in Diana.

[sirhon11234]

Simple, Diana and Paul II have appeared on numerous magazines most famously "Time,Life and People". And they were most covered by the media.

[foiegrass]

Originally Posted by sassie

I'm not offended. And I don't know what you mean by language barrier.

Many photographers who photographed Diana over the years have said she was photogenic-most notably Tim Graham, who was not, by anyone's standard, a poor photographer or paparazzi, and who knew, through experience, what he saw on the other side of his lens. I'll take his word on the subject.

Wow, Tim Graham actually said that? Then I should take his word on this subject too! I love his photographs! (:

[ysbel]

I think Diana was photogenic. If she was the most photographed woman in the world then I think the phenomenon is due in equal parts to her beauty and equal parts to how pervasive the media and especially the tabloid media became during her lifetime. During the 30s, Greta Garbo was called the star that the photogs couldn't take a bad picture of but the media outlets back then were much scarcer than they are today.

Diana's face could sell a million covers while she was alive and while the papers were raking in the money, I think she paid for it in the end. It was a rather sad and ignoble ending.

[Warren]

We need to keep in mind we are not holding a competition between princesses and popes as to who has been the most photographed person.
The topic of the thread is "Why was she so photogenic?" and we should be able to discuss this without any niggling.

thanks,
Warren
British Forums moderator

[*SofiaM*]

I personally don't think Diana was 'pretty', but that doesn't necessarily affect how photogenic she was. In my opinion she was striking, one of those women you notice as they pass you by.

Diana had a fresh look, she was young, 'fashionable' (for the 80s!) and had the appeal to many people because of what she did. I think this is what made her so photogenic.