Diana: The Most Beautiful or Famous Woman of the 20th Century? - Page 9

Grace Angel · #**161** 03-20-2009, 12:28 PM

Yes, she was the most famous woman of her time (1980s- late 1990s), basically that's what I meant, she wasn't the most famous woman of the 20th century, the Queen and some other women could lay claim to that. Diana was far from a classic beauty- she was so photogenic though. It was hard to take a bad picture of her.

chaimae · #**162** 03-20-2009, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Empress Merel

Most famous, yes.
Most beautiful, no.
There are and were more beautiful women out there.

totaly agree with muriel

Lady Ann · #**163** 03-20-2009, 01:38 PM

[quote=Polly;663575]I
(The delightful Jackie O was, in her own country, an aristo, I'm told. But from my somewhat, allegedly, indifferent knowledge,I always thought that she knew of her husband's many infidelities and accepted them, if not condoned them. Am I wrong? I'd like to think that I was, don't you know. However, I really didn't like it!)

I am no sure if i totally agree with this part of your point....yes delightful and aristo, in my country. I can not think her as indifferent to her husband's infidelities or for that matter that she accepted them. She was in a posioton where she did not have much wiggle room. She was a strong independent woman who stood by her husband in his role and in his death! there were many other things in her life both before and after the death of her husband. The infidelities of a leader are always put aside for progress and when they won't go away the are made too... IMO Marilyn Monroe paid the highiest price.

scooter · #**164** 03-20-2009, 03:57 PM

I dont think she was the most beautiful (the nose). But she had a certain luminous aspect to her skin, much like MM did (rent Some like it Hot, it's very noticable). Diana's eyes were beautiful and the camera loved her. I do think she was the most photographed woman of the 20th century, does that make her the most famous?

Grace Angel · #**165** 03-20-2009, 04:59 PM

Yes, the nose was what made her not a classic beauty. I wonder too, does photographed = most famous? She was also most photographed not only because she was a great beauty, but because she lived an era where so many photos could be taken of her, and good ones due to technology. We no doubt would have more photos of many other famous women had they lived in more modern times.

Skydragon · #**166** 03-20-2009, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scooter

But she had a certain luminous aspect to her skin,

It's called make up!

scooter · #**167** 03-20-2009, 07:09 PM

No, it 's not make up. If anything its the Anglo (or Irish) creamy/pale skin that one sees in that part of the world. Even when you look at the photos of her from before the engagement she had that flawless porcelain/alabaster skin. There were no makeup artists and the 18-19 year old certainly wasn't that adept.

Skydragon · #**168** 03-20-2009, 07:16 PM

Did you Americans not have make up back then, I remember buying the stuff back in the 60s and there have been makeup artists since the start of the cinema. She had the normal prepubescent skin in some of the photos her father took, certainly not a flawless alabaster/porcelain type, from my recollections of a pudgy faced girl, the moment she was engaged, the makeup was evident. Anglo or Irish creamy pale skin, never heard of it!

Mermaid1962 · #**169** 03-20-2009, 07:37 PM

Believe it or not, Skydragon, in this part of the world, British ladies are known for their fine skin...

Diana said of herself that her look was from make-up. I have seen an occasional picture of her without her makeup, and she did look quite different.

I think that she was ruddier before she started wearing make-up, yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Did you Americans not have make up back then, I remember buying the stuff back in the 60s and there have been makeup artists since the start of the cinema. She had the normal prepubescent skin in some of the photos her father took, certainly not a flawless alabaster/porcelain type, from my recollections of a pudgy faced girl, the moment she was engaged, the makeup was evident. Anglo or Irish creamy pale skin, never heard of it!

**Jacknch** · #**170** 03-20-2009, 07:46 PM

It's a difficult question to answer because I think Diana was famous and infamous at the same time!

Lady Ann · #**171** 03-20-2009, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Did you Americans not have make up back then, I remember buying the stuff back in the 60s and there have been makeup artists since the start of the cinema. She had the normal prepubescent skin in some of the photos her father took, certainly not a flawless alabaster/porcelain type, from my recollections of a pudgy faced girl, the moment she was engaged, the makeup was evident. Anglo or Irish creamy pale skin, never heard of it!

yes, I agree you could tell when she started wearing make up but I think she was lovely with or with out it. Some of my favorite photos of her are from when she had that pudgy face...lol I think natural is much better then over done any time ....

Skydragon · #**172** 03-21-2009, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mermaid

Believe it or not, Skydragon, in this part of the world, British ladies are known for their fine skin..

I suppose living here and meeting so many females over the years, you tend to realise that there are very few 'English Roses' or natural porcelaine skinned women. Susan Hampshire was always considered the difinitive ER, with her elfin nose and complexion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Ann

yes, I agree you could tell when she started wearing make up but I think she was lovely with or with out it. Some of my favorite photos of her are from when she had that pudgy face...lol I think natural is much better then over done any time ....

I also agree with the natural look being better than over made up. One of my PM's seems to believe pudgy is an insult, but it is used to described the non waif like features of the young.

GillW · #**173** 03-21-2009, 09:45 AM

Can I ask please - those of you who have said she was not beautiful - who of you saw her in real life? Or have you only seen photos & film of her?

Duchess · #**174** 03-21-2009, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mermaid1962

Believe it or not, Skydragon, in this part of the world, British ladies are known for their fine skin...

Diana said of herself that her look was from make-up. I have seen an occasional picture of her without her makeup, and she did look quite different.

I think that she was ruddier before she started wearing make-up, yes.

you are right Mermaid....that peaches and cream complexion that the ladies of england are known for is envied all over the world

Skydragon · #**175** 03-21-2009, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GillW

Can I ask please - those of you who have said she was not beautiful - who of you saw her in real life? Or have you only seen photos & film of her?

I saw her on more than one occasion in real life, before and after she became engaged, she was often described as 'chubby', not over weight but suffering from puppy fat. Perhaps we should ask those that believe she was, the same question, IMO, the majority will only have seen pictures in the various media outlets.

Beauty as has been said time and again is in the eye of the beholder.

scooter · #**176** 03-21-2009, 12:27 PM

I only saw her in person the one time in Florida. It was at a polo game so I and the multitudes had a long look. She had a certain twinkle in the eye/animation that the camera picked up.

Mermaid1962 · #**177** 03-21-2009, 02:32 PM

My favourite photos of her tend to be during the Lady Diana years or in the early years of her marrige, i.e. before Prince Harry was born and she got all "glam." Even when she was a teenager, there were pictures of her where she looked quite average and pictures of her that were stunning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Ann

yes, I agree you could tell when she started wearing make up but I think she was lovely with or with out it. Some of my favorite photos of her are from when she had that pudgy face...lol I think natural is much better then over done any time ....

scooter · #**178** 03-22-2009, 12:03 PM

But in general, I think she really grew into her looks after her children were born, more so than when she married. Her bone structure (cheekbones) became much more defined.

auntie · #**179** 03-22-2009, 12:15 PM

Some people have taken the question to mean, was she the best? and the answer is no, yet I believe wherever you went and go today, she was the most well known. Everyone knows who she was ,and the background of her life. I admire greatly the royals of today who are no less fashionable and busy than she was, CP Mary, Letizia, Maxima and my favourite Mathilde, yet how many people outside their country know who they are besides us nutty royal watchers? Who knows who Queen Ingrid was, or who Queen Sonja of Norway is? Yet which ever continent I went to, (personally Europe, America and Asia) Everyone heard of Princess Di. I'm sure Australia and Africa is the same.

rmay286 · #**180** 03-25-2009, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mermaid1962

My favourite photos of her tend to be during the Lady Diana years or in the early years of her marrige, i.e. before Prince Harry was born and she got all "glam." Even when she was a teenager, there were pictures of her where she looked quite average and pictures of her that were stunning.

Oh I completely agree! I used to just gaze for hours at the pictures of Diana's early years...I believe she made a tour to Canada in 1982 or 1983 and I found her so beautiful in those pictures. I thought Diana was much more attractive then than she was in her later years, when she became more muscular, wore tighter, shorter dresses and wore more makeup.