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

[HistoryGirl]

If Marilyn Monroe can't be counted as one of the most famous people, I don't know who is. Also, both Givenchy and Dolce & Gabbana have had various styles with shirts with Marilyn on them so I definitely don't think it's only a US thing.

 

[Curryong]

Yes, of course MM is one of the most famous people of all time. So was Diana. However, as with everyone fame fades over time. Take Sarah Bernhardt for instance. Admittedly the 19th/early 20th century was not a time of celebrity culture, but for a generation at least Bernhardt was the most famous and admired actress of her day. Who remembers her today? Virtually no-one.

MM left no descendants. Diana did. For so long as there is a monarchy in GB she will live on in William, George and his descendants. Even after monarchy is finished there will be books, films, videos (or future equivalent) of the Kings and Queens of the 21st century, people with Diana's blood in their veins. That is itself is a kind of immortality.

 

[HistoryGirl]

But Marilyn Monroe hasn't stopped being famous, that's the point we were making. I'm also not sure what her not having children has to do with fame of the individual themselves. I don't see Diana in pop culture today. That doesn't mean she wasn't once famous, just that there have been people that are more famous.

 

[Curryong]

I'm just saying that Diana will live on in future generations of famous people. That in itself guarantees a certain immortality, or fame if you will.

Having a couple of designers putting your image on some garments in a collection doesn't guarantee that people are regularly conversing about you in everyday life, which is an offshoot of fame isn't it? (If Diana is not famous nearly twenty years after her death why are all these threads still around? Why are there tributes to her elsewhere on the Internet?)

Nor do images in present pop culture guarantee that you will be remembered fifty years from now (which will be about a hundred years from Marilyn's death) a time when Diana's grandson George may be on the throne.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Your not hearing or understanding what is being said. Marilyn is in the stratosphere of fame Diana is still on earth level. There are different levels of fame and Diana can't compare to Marilyn's whether Marilyn had children or not. This is not a case of if and when William will be king; Queen Mary had 2 sons be king and you would be hard pressed to find someone call her famous. She wasn't a part of the general publics talking points when her grand daughter was on the throne during her life. Another example is the Queen Mother, also famous but not going into orbit famous.
And Marilyn may not have children but clearly her work has had an influence on generation after generation. Perhaps its a cultural thing, but if you go to Japan and ask random people I'm sure more would be able to recognize Marilyn Monroe or The Beatles before the recognize Princess Diana.
You seem to refuse to admit that there are different levels of fame: Anne Boleyn is more famous than Jane Seymour though they both were wives of a king and mothers of a monarch.
Queen Victoria and Elizabeth are more famous than Quee Anne and Mary.
Yes Diana was famous but it has dwindled over time like that of most famous people; and then there are the select few whose fame grows after they die year after year and decade after decade and with no help from children or grandchildren just them: Charlie Chaplin, The Beatles, Mozart, Leonardo DA Vinci etc.

 

[HistoryGirl]

I'm just not understanding what that really has to do with her fame. Is George going to put her on the pound note or build shrines to her all over the world? Pop culture does dictate fame with people, I mean it's in the word; "popular" culture. Not everyone reads books or pays attention to the RF. However, billions of people watch movies and see iconic pictures that don't have any language barrier.

A lot of historical figures are so iconic precisely because they've been included in popular culture. Shakespeare managed to change the image of kings like Richard III and Henry VIII with the mass public. Fame is about having the most number of people know who you are.

This is a very niche interest. This forum exists because people here want to talk about the royals, however, that does not necessarily equate it with popular interests.

 

[Curryong]

I disagree about Marilyn Monroe (whom incidentally I liked. I have seen all her films and regard her as an excellent light comedienne) and get accused of not understanding popular culture! Maybe you don't realise completely because you probably weren't adults, the level of worldwide fame that Diana enjoyed during her lifetime. And yes, I was in Japan a few years ago and young people did recognise pictures of Diana that were in a magazine, so it's lasted there.

The Beatles: Ringo was absolutely crushed several years ago when young people in his native Britain didn't recognise his name. Here in Australia a talent show dropped having contestants singing music of the Beatles because it wasn't 'young people's music any more'. Do young Gen Y's and Z's regularly play Beatles music. You never hear much of it on radio and my grandkids and their wide circle of friends certainly aren't interested. Stratosphere, anyone??

Very few people under the age of fifty have seen a Chaplin film all the way through. Have you, cos I have? Several of them in fact. Yes, there is the iconic figure/image of Chaplin as the little Tramp that means that some recognise him, but if you asked ten people today especially those in their twenties and younger, what they knew about Chaplin I'd guarantee, unless you caught a silent film buff, it would be very very little. Stratosphere??

Anyway, I'm clearly not going to win this argument as you are both clear that Diana's fame has faded while The Beatles (I was and am a fan incidentally, and remember them at the height of their world wide fame) and Charlie Chaplin have not. I disagree but I'm withdrawing. You've won.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Beatles broke up in 1970 right? Lennon was dead in 1980, 20 yrs later, 1 is released and is the best selling album in the world. Do you think only people alive in the 60's were buying that CD? As someone who was not alive in the 60s but brought that album I can tell you the answer is no. Or the reaction to The Beatles finally coming to iTunes just a few years ago, I'm sure all those people buying their songs weren't 65yr olds.
And I wouldn't be surprised that no one recognizes Paul and Ringo circa 2016, show them an image of the 4 from the 60's and it will probably be a different story.
Diana was an icon for awhile, but since the turn of the century it has become evident her image doesn't have longevity of other famous people. It doesn't mean she isn't still relevant she's just not as influential as others.

 

[HistoryGirl]

my brother who is actually older than me didn't even know who she was. When you're in the midst of something, ie. lived through the time of Diana, it can seem like it's the most covered story of all time, but in the 20th century? The whole of the century? I mean maybe I'll say the most famous woman of the 1990s, but certainly not of the whole century.

I think young adults in Britain might recognize Diana. However, worldwide, I doubt it. Some people have had a more lasting effect, which is to me a reason for why they have yet to stop being relevant. Probably related to what it is people pay attention to.

And if we're going by the fact that I don't remember how much Diana was hounded, my answer would be that
I don't have to remember, it has been well documented and I believe it. However, Marilyn Monroe was too. She couldn't go anywhere without the paparazzi following her and having people know who she was.

What I was and is still confused about is what having children has to do with being famous. I think the most famous thing about Diana was that she was a princess not that she was a mother, even though she was. The fame came instantly because she was linked to a prince. If you're saying that her children are her legacy then I'd agree, but I don't see how that equates to her being more famous. She was famous on her own.

 

[TLLK]

About seven years ago my sorority chapter held its 50th anniversary celebration. We were grouped by our decade of initiation and upon each table was a photo of a female public figure ie: 50's Marilyn Monroe, 60's Twiggy, 70's Farah Fawcett and for mine-80's-Diana. I have to admit that I was surprised by how many young women from the 2000's didn't recognize the late Princess of Wales but knew Marilyn Monroe. While they may have been born when she was still alive, she was not someone they recognized immediately.

 

[HistoryGirl]

Yeah, famous people from music/Hollywood/sports tend to get recognized more. I'm pretty sure more people would recognize MM more than they would Churchill. Sad, but true.

 

[Denville]

I find it hard to beleive. Inevitably Diana isn't as well known to younger people as she was to people who remember her heyday, but I dot think she's less well known than Monroe. There are books bout her, films etc. Not in teh same way because she was a member of the Premier family and is still realted ot them through her sons so for another generation, or 2,I dont think we're going to get the sort of books and films and so on that have been done about Monroe.. which is in a way a good thing as they are largely fictionalised and scandal ridden..
At least I hope that Diana's legacy will be more dignified than Poor Marilyn's.
And Diana still sells, why are there stories in the papers on a slow day? or TV programmes?
And No George isn't going to put her on a £5 note but its possible that as a member of hte RF and a famous one, she will be on it one day...

 

[Winnie]

About seven years ago my sorority chapter held its 50th anniversary celebration. We were grouped by our decade of initiation and upon each table was a photo of a female public figure ie: 50's Marilyn Monroe, 60's Twiggy, 70's Farah Fawcett and for mine-80's-Diana. I have to admit that I was surprised by how many young women from the 2000's didn't recognize the late Princess of Wales but knew Marilyn Monroe. While they may have been born when she was still alive, she was not someone they recognized immediately.

I actually believe that the youth of UK would certainly remember Diana over other countries such as America, Japan, etc. Her life and sad death will always be part of their history. My grandchildren in the 19 through 27 age group didn't know who she was when shown a photo. She was never relevant to them as the Royal families of any country are now not relevant to them. Most here can't understand my love of all history so of course royals fit into that category and I read and remember. JMO

 

[Denville]

weird, but perhaps a good thing. If you look at a lot of the Marlyn Monroe memory stuff, it is tacky (I'm a fan of hers and love some of her pictures) but I hate the endless books and films about her sex life and all the men she allegedly slept with or secretly married. I think that Dianas memory wont be quite so tacky, though there is some of that stuff for her too.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Diana's books usually talk about the men she slept with as well; the only difference is that Marilyn was an actress and Diana was a married mother and Princess.
I tend to also give Marilyn more of a pass because the way she grew up was bound to cause major issues for her as an adult.
Anyway back on topic, you can still see young girls emulating Marilyn to this day in and out of Hollywood.

I don't know if I've mentioned this here but Diana was definitely not that beautiful. Of course she couldnt compare to Grace, but also Princess Margaret was more beautiful than her. Don't get me wrong, she was pretty and was a vision on het wedding day, but by the late 80's she looked too masculine IMO.

 

[Denville]

Margaret wasn't more beautiful than her for sure. She always looked sly... Diana was striking and beautiful and IMO her looks improved as she grew older....
As for Marilyn yes girls DO imitate her look to get on in Hollywood, but is that a good thing? MN had to sleep her way into her first film jobs, that was the way it was for all but the luckiest girls in the film world in those days.
so wen you think of her impoverished fractured and unhappy background, its not surprising that she had to prostitute herself to get a chance to show her talenet. Diana was NOT in that way of life... And while I don't believe she was a nun, or needs to be seen as a virgin angel, I don't think that her sex life was any differnet ot that of most women of her age, class and time.. so it should not be "part of her legacy" in the way htat it too often is.

 

[Elan]

Hello to all... Curious in the discussion of the appearance on whether it deserves mention how well Diana matured, with a gift that started in her twenties, after the chubbiness was gone.

Other than the post above, not much conversation on that.

 

[Denville]

Peoplec change as they grow older. ANd Diana was a public figure iwht access to beauty specialists hairdressers etc to help her look more glamourous so it is hardly surprising that her look changed when she was married. She dyed her hair, lost a lot of weight and had her hair styled every day, she had smarter haircuts. She wore more make up and dressed more fashionably than she had doen as a teenager working as a nanny.

 

[Elan]

There may be two ways to look at it. You could ask whether her charm was due to various people designing outfit, working on hair, or if that was secondary to gifts none of these people could hand out equally...a certain star quality.

It's one thing to be nice looking, and another to be a star and Diana clearly belonged to that group.

If you look at how De Dienes photographed Marilyn, most of the time he wanted smiling in the shot. When she wasn't, the result was mixed, not as impressive. Otoh Diana's melancholy expressions were - often spectacular. An intangible whatever you call it, not many people have this. Imo, it puts her in a special category.

 

[Denville]

I thought we were talking about the fact that she looked different in her early 20s even, to what she'd looked like as a teenager. And a lot of that was due to her having a lot of professionals to help give her a different more glamourous look

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

I am of the opinion that Diana looked prettier in her 20's. For me as she aged she got less attractive especially as her hair got shorter.

 

[Leopoldine]

I would put Diana in the same supernova category as Marilyn Monroe, Jackie Onassis and maybe Elizabeth Taylor.

 

[Nico]

I would put Diana in the same supernova category as Marilyn Monroe, Jackie Onassis and maybe Elizabeth Taylor.

Yes an icon, among many many others ...
But "The Most Beautiful or Famous Woman of the 20th Century?" is a bit far fetched, if not ridiculous ...

 

[Lady Nimue]

IMO the perception of Diana as pretty or beautiful is a function of her fashion. She is definitely a creature of the 1980's. As she began to dress for the camera, accentuating allure, she became a sensation. JMO.

The poll is deceptive. Diana is definitely a notable person of the 20th century, but less for any 'beauty' than the scandals that she generated. IMO.

 

[Elan]

IMO the perception of Diana as pretty or beautiful is a function of her fashion. She is definitely a creature of the 1980's. As she began to dress for the camera, accentuating allure, she became a sensation.

As mentioned about Diana cleaning flats or working as a Nanny, you have to ask what might have been --- at 16 working at a place like 'Harrods' for a couple of years, becoming familiar with others in the fashion industry, some weight loss, finally a few assignments modeling clothes..

A pretty good career would have commenced, right ?

 

[Lady Nimue]

As mentioned about Diana cleaning flats or working as a Nanny, you have to ask what might have been --- at 16 working at a place like 'Harrods' for a couple of years, becoming familiar with others in the fashion industry, some weight loss, finally a few assignments modeling clothes..

A pretty good career would have commenced, right ?

That's a huge maybe. In those days I think she would have continued the nanny-like gigs until she married, at which point she would have melted into the aristocratic background. No 'career' would have been required so why strive for one?

If the scenario you posit occurred (seems unlikely to my mind), anything's possible if there is drive. Modeling takes drive. She was fortunate that Lord Snowdon was one of her portraitists (as well as Richard Avedon). Snowdon really created some amazing portraits of Diana (as he did with Margaret and Anne).

Could she have run the gamut of poses modeling requires? Which includes 'being ugly' for the camera? Who knows. One has to really like that kind of stuff, be willing to 'deconstruct' oneself for a shoot. She didn't have that kind of training, or raw edged 'hunger' (need) to succeed in a career that requires that kind of 'submission'. Too complicated a person imo.

 

[Elan]

She was fortunate that Lord Snowdon was one of her portraitists (as well as Richard Avedon). Snowdon really created some amazing portraits of Diana (as he did with Margaret and Anne).

Could she have run the gamut of poses modeling requires? Which includes 'being ugly' for the camera? Who knows. One has to really like that kind of stuff, be willing to 'deconstruct' oneself for a shoot. She didn't have that kind of training, or raw edged 'hunger' (need) to succeed in a career that requires that kind of 'submission'. Too complicated a person imo.

Well, the world has changed with how the term "portraitist" is used. I don't deny that Lord Snowdon and Avedon are talented in their field but tend to view photographers distinctly apart from people like Vermeer, Rembrandt etc. De Dienes w/ a 1945 camera achieved fame with Marilyn, but also revealed that he was awestruck the day she walked in. Like a gift had been sent to him.

Diana as 'fortunate' is reverse of that.

 

[Leopoldine]

That's a huge maybe. In those days I think she would have continued the nanny-like gigs until she married, at which point she would have melted into the aristocratic background. No 'career' would have been required so why strive for one?

If the scenario you posit occurred (seems unlikely to my mind), anything's possible if there is drive. Modeling takes drive. She was fortunate that Lord Snowdon was one of her portraitists (as well as Richard Avedon). Snowdon really created some amazing portraits of Diana (as he did with Margaret and Anne).

Could she have run the gamut of poses modeling requires? Which includes 'being ugly' for the camera? Who knows. One has to really like that kind of stuff, be willing to 'deconstruct' oneself for a shoot. She didn't have that kind of training, or raw edged 'hunger' (need) to succeed in a career that requires that kind of 'submission'. Too complicated a person imo.

I see what you mean about "submission". Diana would never do what Linda Evangelista did.

 

[Lady Nimue]

I see what you mean about "submission". Diana would never do what Linda Evangelista did.

Not sure what you mean, but it also requires considerable discipline, which Diana never evidenced in her early years (and maybe never). I just don't see her as 'bothering'. Unless she met up with a Svengali.

 

[Leopoldine]

Not sure what you mean, but it also requires considerable discipline, which Diana never evidenced in her early years (and maybe never). I just don't see her as 'bothering'. Unless she met up with a Svengali.

I think Cara Delevingne submits, when a favorite photog of hers wants a controversial pic and suggests things like drastic haircuts or black lipstick. Cara is not afraid to be unpretty.