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

[Polly]

Margaret Thatcher brought down the Soviet Union? I dunno - Americans believe that Ronald Reagan did. I disagree with both!

Rock and roll and radiation destroyed the Soviet Union, I reckon, with a little help from Boris de Drink.

About Diana - like her or not - she is definitely one of the most famous women of C20. Fame doesn't mean anything other than what it is - Diana was and remains famous throughout a lot of the world.

Sitting up from the early hours nursing and caring for a very sick little puppy I've seen tv report after report this morning on Diana, with direct crosses to London; commentator after commentator; replays of parts of the wedding; replays of parts of the mourning crowds, The Queen, the funeral, etc.. etc. She's also all over the early morning news services. I venture to conclude that she's still pretty famous in Australia!

 

[BeatrixFan]

Oh she was famous but the most famous woman? Then again, famous doesn't have to mean positive contribution of outstanding quality anymore and can just mean being known for being known.

 

[sirhon11234]

Oh she was famous but the most famous woman? Then again, famous doesn't have to mean positive contribution of outstanding quality anymore and can just mean being known for being known.

Like that Paris Hilton.

 

[sherylal24]

'Diana was known throughout the world, everyone knew who she was. not because she did anything earth shattering but for who she was. She was famous for being the Princess of Wales who had charisma, charm and beauty. Another woman who comes to mind is Jackie Onassis, both these woman were known worldwide which is what they mean as being famous!

 

[Polly]

Like that Paris Hilton.

Who is she?

 

[sirhon11234]

She's an heiress to the Hilton Family Fortune her family owns the Hilton Hotels. Paris is complete trash in my opinion.

 

[kimebear]

Who is she?

You have no idea how lucky you are that you haven't heard of her. Here in the states her face is plastered everywhere!

 

[pinkie40]

As much as Jackie ushered in a new era, Diana got way more global coverage so I would have to go back and say Diana was the most famous woman of the 20th century...Simply because they even loved her in Siberia!

Upon reflection, the 20th century is unique because "women" actually had a voice and an impact as never before in the history of modern Western Civilization.

 

[Al_bina]

Dear members of this Forum!
As a person, who witnessed the fall of the USSR, I have got the following to note. It is unreasonable to state that Reagan or Thatcher destroyed the country. I would say that the crisis within the Communist Party aggravated by an absence of a charismatic leader and steep decline in the economics brought the country down. It was terrible and difficult time to live in and survive. I would not wish such situation on my worst enemy.
As for Princess Diana, she was an exceptional woman. Everybody was shocked to learn about the fatal car accident that took her life and felt sorry about her sons due to unfavourable opinions about Prince Charles.
There was an unprecedented coverage of the events on TV: her wedding day, reports from the crash site, and the funeral.

 

[COUNTESS]

Oh she was famous but the most famous woman? Then again, famous doesn't have to mean positive contribution of outstanding quality anymore and can just mean being known for being known.

You are right. Famous in this instance means recognition. Yes, they are many who did a whole lot more. I am not sure about Thatcher and outside the UK she is basically a non-entity. The Soviet Union fell because it was fiscally bankrupt from years of building bigger and better war machines. Face recognition, I believe, is what this is about and Diana is it. Even Jackie Kennedy is much less recognizible. And it depends on age. Young people today, do not even know who some people we might think are famous are, like Marilyn Monroe.

 

[BeatrixFan]

I am not sure about Thatcher and outside the UK she is basically a non-entity.

Oh I don't know. There was a TV programme recently about Paul Merton in China and when he asked a tailor who he most admired fashion wise, he said Margaret. So it's strange how people's names travel.

 

[Al_bina]

As much as Jackie ushered in a new era, Diana got way more global coverage so I would have to go back and say Diana was the most famous woman of the 20th century...Simply because they even loved her in Siberia!

Upon reflection, the 20th century is unique because "women" actually had a voice and an impact as never before in the history of modern Western Civilization.

Dear pinkie40,
I do not mean to offend you, but there is a lot of educated people in Siberia, escpecially scientists, who live in so-called "closed scientific towns" and work on military-related projects as well as engineers, who explore the mineral resources of the territory.

 

[TheTruth]

Oh she was famous but the most famous woman? Then again, famous doesn't have to mean positive contribution of outstanding quality anymore and can just mean being known for being known.

I totally agree ! Paris Hilton, like many other people, doesn't deserve her fame. She never did something of her life, exept making some adult videos. It makes me sick to think about person like that who are so privileged in life but don't give a little of their time to the less fortunate and don't do anything to worth their money. You can be actress and play in films but at least you do something, it's your work that makes you rich. It's not Paris fault that her father is a millionaire but she could do intelligent actions. The real icons are famous because of their actions : political, humanitarian, acting, singing, etc. Not because their father have their pockets full of money. It's why Tatcher, Monroe, Diana, Jackie O., etc. are the famous women for me. Even if in the future, people will see girls like Paris as icones but one day they will think : "What did she do to be a celebrity ?" and then they will realize the stupidity of calling someone like her famous.

 

[Warren]

Sorry, but I don't understand why there is any need to introduce Paris Hilton into this discussion. Comparisons between her and Diana only serve to trivialise Diana and consign her to the "famous for being famous" niche of supermarket trash mag notoriety, and that's rather self-defeating.

 

[TheTruth]

Sorry, but I don't understand why there is any need to introduce Paris Hilton into this discussion. Comparisons between her and Diana only serve to trivialise Diana and consign her to the "famous for being famous" niche of supermarket trash mag notoriety, and that's rather self-defeating.

I understand. My thoughts expressed in my previous post is that exept their blond hair, they have absolutely nothing in common.

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

I voted no. Much as I appreciate Diana's life and work, there are just too many women of XX who either tie or seem to be arguably "more famous".
I don't understand how Paris Hilton ever entered this discussion because I don't see any similarity there at all.
Diana married a future King, gave birth to his heirs. Diana made arguably her greatest mark on the Landmines debate. I don't see any hints of the "Simple Life" star there.

 

[Polly]

Apologies, all.

Of course I know who Paris Hilton is.

The purpose of my rhetorical question was intended to be much along the lines of Warren's post which suggested that PH wasn't an appropriate addition to our discussion and in no way a valid comparison with the late Princess of Wales.

 

[Warren]

No apology required Polly as I would hope that most of us realised the rhetorical intent of your post.

I think we'd be agreed that careless comparison of Diana with contemporary trash mag celebrities serves only to diminish or trivialise her standing. While those of us with memory of Diana well appreciate her impact in the 1980s and 90s, it is a disservice to both Diana's memory and to younger members to compare her with the latest in a long line of Hollywood and other starlets whose main claim to fame is, well, nothing much in particular, and certainly nothing of substance.

 

[ladiakmt]

I think Diana was the most famous

No. I wouldn't even go so far as to say of the 80s because THE woman of the 80s was Baroness Thatcher. As for of the 20th century, again no. I think women like Indira Ghandi and Golda Meir far outranked Diana and then of course, there's the Queen. When you consider that the 20th century produced people like Eleanor Roosevelt and Rosa Parks, I doubt Diana could make it into the top ten on merit alone.

I think Diana was the most famous woman.I know all those other people are famous also,but the women you mentioned are not instantly known wherever their picture may be seen,Some of the people you mentioned I wouldn't know who they were if I ever saw them in person. I think the most famous women of the century were Diana, the Queen, and Marilyn Monroe.Diana and Marilyn Monroe have enduring fame because they died young and beautiful.

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

I think Diana was the most famous woman.I know all those other people are famous also,but the women you mentioned are not instantly known wherever their picture may be seen,Some of the people you mentioned I wouldn't know who they were if I ever saw them in person. I think the most famous women of the century were Diana, the Queen, and Marilyn Monroe.Diana and Marilyn Monroe have enduring fame because they died young and beautiful.

That is an excellent point. I suppose Diana could well be considered in the top most recognizeable people of the 20th century, along with those you listed as well as Audrey Hepburn and Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, and Princess Grace of Monaco.

 

[Polly]

That is an excellent point. I suppose Diana could well be considered in the top most recognizeable people of the 20th century, along with those you listed as well as Audrey Hepburn and Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, and Princess Grace of Monaco.

I don't agree with you here, CasiraghiTrio.

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'm never comfortable with the notion of the wife of a 'special' man being expendable, and valued only for her valour in merely 'standing by her man'. I was often uncomfortable in realising that this elegant, highly-intelligent and much-admired woman (and a very good Mum, as well) was thrust onto the world's consciousness only because of the two men whom she married.

The utterly gorgeous and divine Audrey Hepburn and Grace Kelly were so beautiful and so completely wonderful and envied, that it's not surprising that millions of women around the globe loved them and wanted to be like them. I know that I always did!

However, Diana was never comparable to these luminous women. Before her marriage to such a prestigious partner collapsed, she was already doing 'her own thing'. She was a country-raised and protected young aristo, who, at the very beginning, had small discernible charm and character, but, because of circumstances thrust upon her and through her personal endeavours, easily developed into a person in her own right and an international icon.

Diana was not a film star with a huge international audience and a vast publicity machine promoting her, such as Grace Kelly and Audrey Hepburn enjoyed. Later, after her own successful forays into the world of celebrity, she gathered her own particular set of admirers and supporters, and detractors, if truth be told.

In sum, Diana, literally, invented herself and her own world: and, as a woman, I value and admire that. Always have.

 

[TheTruth]

I don't agree with you here, CasiraghiTrio.

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'm never comfortable with the notion of the wife of a 'special' man being expendable, and valued only for her valour in merely 'standing by her man'. I was often uncomfortable in realising that this elegant, highly-intelligent and much-admired woman (and a very good Mum, as well) was thrust onto the world's consciousness only because of the two men whom she married.

The utterly gorgeous and divine Audrey Hepburn and Grace Kelly were so beautiful and so completely wonderful and envied, that it's not surprising that millions of women around the globe loved them and wanted to be like them. I know that I always did!

However, Diana was never comparable to these luminous women. Before her marriage to such a prestigious partner collapsed, she was already doing 'her own thing'. She was a country-raised and protected young aristo, who, at the very beginning, had small discernible charm and character, but, because of circumstances thrust upon her and through her personal endeavours, easily developed into a person in her own right and an international icon.

Diana was not a film star with a huge international audience and a vast publicity machine promoting her, such as Grace Kelly and Audrey Hepburn enjoyed. Later, after her own successful forays into the world of celebrity, she gathered her own particular set of admirers and supporters, and detractors, if truth be told.

In sum, Diana, literally, invented herself and her own world: and, as a woman, I value and admire that. Always have.

Yes, I agree with you. We can remember Hepburn, Grace Kelly, etc. by looking at their films but we can't see Diana in a movie or any other media and she is still so popular. She didn't leave something "concret" in this world. Although people will always remind her as someone with empathy. It's a proof that you don't have to be a movie star to me remembered.

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

Yes, I agree with you. We can remember Hepburn, Grace Kelly, etc. by looking at their films but we can't see Diana in a movie or any other media and she is still so popular. She didn't leave something "concret" in this world. Although people will always remind her as someone with empathy. It's a proof that you don't have to be a movie star to me remembered.

Nothing concrete? But what about her documentary, Diary of a Princess? What about the royal wedding? What about the 1995 interview? These are concrete remnants, aren't they?

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 can't really answer this question, Polly, I'm sorry. I can say that I believed that Jacqueline did know about Marilyn Monroe. I don't know if she knew about other women, and certainly never read or heard that she condoned the affairs. I think she was hurt by them, but obviously, she put up with it. The Kennedys were very powerful and she was US First Lady, and I'm sure she had her reasons, but I agree with you it's not good to put up with this kind of thing. It would be interesting question if JFK had not been killed, what would have happened with their marriage? Because as it happened, he was killed before they could be married as long as Diana stayed with Charles. I think it is hard for these high profile women when everyone "knows" about their husbands' cheating, like Hilary Rodham Clinton, and people make judgements without really understanding what kind of position these women find themselves in. Infidelities create difficult questions, hard decisions: Do you leave, break up the family, what happens with the children, what happens with it all? Different people handle these matters in different ways. What is right? What is wrong? How can we say?

 

[COUNTESS]

Nothing concrete? But what about her documentary, Diary of a Princess? What about the royal wedding? What about the 1995 interview? These are concrete remnants, aren't they?



I can't really answer this question, Polly, I'm sorry. I can say that I believed that Jacqueline did know about Marilyn Monroe. I don't know if she knew about other women, and certainly never read or heard that she condoned the affairs. I think she was hurt by them, but obviously, she put up with it. The Kennedys were very powerful and she was US First Lady, and I'm sure she had her reasons, but I agree with you it's not good to put up with this kind of thing. It would be interesting question if JFK had not been killed, what would have happened with their marriage? Because as it happened, he was killed before they could be married as long as Diana stayed with Charles. I think it is hard for these high profile women when everyone "knows" about their husbands' cheating, like Hilary Rodham Clinton, and people make judgements without really understanding what kind of position these women find themselves in. Infidelities create difficult questions, hard decisions: Do you leave, break up the family, what happens with the children, what happens with it all? Different people handle these matters in different ways. What is right? What is wrong? How can we say?

What each person does is what they are comfortable with. Jackie tolerated and I use that word advisedly, Jack's infidelities for two reasons, one she loved him and two her father, Jack Bouvier, was also a serial adulterer, which, somehow, allowed Jackie to think that this was something she had to bear. Her mother didn't and left her father. I really think it was because she just loved him. She was also much more secure than Diana. Plus, Jack loved her, the other stuff was just mostly stuff. Charles had a second wife, so to speak and flaunted it.

 

[TheTruth]

Nothing concrete? But what about her documentary, Diary of a Princess? What about the royal wedding? What about the 1995 interview? These are concrete remnants, aren't they?

Yes of course, what I meant by concrete was something not concerning her "personal" life or herself. Grace left also some videos of her wedding etc. but she was an actress and made films that people can buy, watch like an entertainement. Diana left videos but she's always 'Diana'. I wanted to show that even if you didn't make films or songs, you still can be remembered all over the world and that's what impress me.

 

[Emeralds and Opals]

David Bailey: Princess Diana was not the world's most beautiful woman - Telegraph

 

[sirhon11234]

Who ever said she was? She was one of the most beautiful women in this world but beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

 

[georgiea]

Who ever said she was? She was one of the most beautiful women in this world but beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

I agree sirhon11234.

Diana, Princess of Wales had beauty on the inside as well as the outside.

 

[Skydragon]

beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

Exactly or put another way - to each his/her own.

 

[Grace Angel]

I think Diana was the most beautiful woman of the 20th century. Marilyn Monroe was more sexy, but not more beautiful. I'd agree with the earlier person who said Diana, the Queen, and Marilyn Monroe were the most famous women of the 20th century, for vastly different reasons, of course. There's that photo of the Queen in 1956 meeting Marilyn at some event in England when Marilyn was there to have the Prince and the Showgirl filmed- Queen Elizabeth II's life and reign span so much time. Diana was the most photographed woman in the world- that produced so many iconic images of her.