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

[Lady Nimue]

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.

Exactly. And didn't Linda Evangelista create the pixie haircut in the late 80's that became a rage? She was instructed to cut her hair, I think. Diana's haircut may have been inspired from that quarter. It suited her, and then we see how Snowdon and Avedon worked with that. They created some genuinely striking (photographic) portraits of Diana.

In terms of fashion, Diana discovered what worked for her (clothes that accentuated her slim figure, hugging her for all they were worth, no form hiding clothes for her). Or what worked for the camera, who knows how she was thinking, except we do know that she assiduously followed the press commentary on her fashion at an event. The result is that there is a predictability to Diana's 'style', driven by allure considerations (I think) in her way of making her fashion decisions.

But to the subject of the thread: she was not beautiful in a film-star way (I don't think, she hadn't the eyes for that) but pretty and charming when young, growing into an attractive woman. There were so many truly stellar beauties in the 20th century. I don't think Diana achieves that, though being attractive is no slouch achievement. We should all be so. She dressed well and created an excellent, and often compelling, impression due to her fashion choices (sparkly gowns and all).

As for being 'most famous', I'd say she was 'most famous' when her scandals were making tabloid headlines. I'd say she was 'most famous' in her time, that lasted an amazingly brief 15 years or so. But there are 80 years of the 20th century that was taken up by so many other 'beauties' and 'most famous' like Wallis Simpson. (Saying that I don't mean to get a rise out of anyone, read the sentence structure carefully. )

 

[Leopoldine]

Wallis was so sneered at and IMO was regarded as a fast woman, what my mom called a hussy. She was famous like Ethel Rosenberg or Ma Barker or Tokyo Rose was famous.

Diana did have an aristocratic look. A somewhat long nose did that. If she had a little piggy Matt Damon nose I don't think Charles would have married her.

 

[Lady Nimue]

Wallis was so sneered at and IMO was regarded as a fast woman, what my mom called a hussy. She was famous like Ethel Rosenberg or Ma Barker or Tokyo Rose was famous.

Diana did have an aristocratic look. A somewhat long nose did that. If she had a little piggy Matt Damon nose I don't think Charles would have married her.

'Most famous' does not signify qualities, just famousness. Wallis Simpson is definitely in the category of 'most famous' in her time, and even past her time.

Diana's 'aristocratic look' escapes me. Must be a European sensibility. She was attractive.

CLEO DE MERODE was 'most famous' at the beginning of the 20th century, and could reasonably be classed as one of the 'most beautuful', too, what with Gustav Klimt painting her. Just look at these pictures. This is beauty 'most beautiful'.

LINK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cléo_de_Mérode

The beauty of the artist..... what's behind the eyes. Someone like Diana doesn't come close. JMO.

 

[Leopoldine]

The thread is essentially about the beauty and fame of Diana. If a man with the talent of Gustav Klimt painted her, that would be a painting. The fame part of Diana prohibited artists from being bold in painting her. That painting at Althorp with the white blouse and green skirt was so timid. Joshua Reynolds was so good with her forebearers, and she got stuck with that bad painting.

Actually, an old master whom I love, Maurice Quentin de la Tour, would have been the best painter of Diana. He excelled at subtle humor around the eyes and mouth. If you had a secret and you posed for him, his portrait would show you as such.

 

[Elan]

But to the subject of the thread: she was not beautiful in a film-star way (I don't think, she hadn't the eyes for that) but pretty and charming when young, growing into an attractive woman. There were so many truly stellar beauties in the 20th century. I don't think Diana achieves that, though being attractive is no slouch achievement. We should all be so. She dressed well and created an excellent, and often compelling, impression due to her fashion choices (sparkly gowns and all).

You may have noticed that great beauty is seldom a perfectly formed, logical arrangement that creates the most magic. Diana's nose to experts lacked feminine perfection, yet still compliments and gave her a wonderful profile. We should all be grateful no doctor of rhinoplasty came near it.

Consider a film like 'Chinatown' that didn't receive awards that year, but did well with the public. Because the sequel was expected to be a hit, people were hired and money put into it. When it was released it made sense, but it didn't make 'magic'.

In an odd sort of way, Diana is like 'Chinatown', with multiple levels of drama building...along with a script that got altered by Polanski. Not the typical 'Hollywood' ending.

 

[Lady Nimue]

The thread is essentially about the beauty and fame of Diana.

Understood. The thread seems to be positing the question: is Diana the 'most beautiful' or is she the 'most famous' woman of the 20th century? Impossible to answer, of course, since someone can have notoriety for a few years, even a decade or two, but can that then be spread across a century? Across the world? Quite possibly, in Diana's case, it can be so, because of the combination of her attractiveness (youth), advantageous marriage to a prince and heir, and then the scandals and final tragic death. This sum of all facts raises her story above the norm, even though there are many women more beautiful than she. So perhaps she is 'most famous'. I could see that (though not for the best of reasons). It is her tragedy that drives the 'most famous'.

However, since Diana came into the public eye in the last 20 years of the 20th century, it is difficult to state categorically that she eclipses all the beautiful and famous women of the preceding 80 years. Her drama certainly is compelling, and it helps that she looked classy. I would be more inclined to see Diana as part of the celebrity culture of the 20th century: one of it's foremost adepts as well as one of its unfortunate victims (that will be the lasting final line of her memory, I think).

Diana dominated the tabloid press for close to 2 decades (and that's 2 decades out of people's lives, that's a powerful influence) and she elicited profound reactions (like Eva Peron in Argentina), but not because of beauty alone as 'most beautiful' (though being attractive and well dressed made her sell-able) but because of scandal associated with her social status (we would not have known about her had she not been the wife to the heir to the British throne). She was an attractive woman but for some reason not the femme fatale so many beautiful women are. Quite the reverse: she seemed particularly afflicted when it came to that. All-in-all a curious story that will endlessly fascinate, and for that alone 'most famous'.

If a man with the talent of Gustav Klimt painted her, that would be a painting. The fame part of Diana prohibited artists from being bold in painting her. That painting at Althorp with the white blouse and green skirt was so timid. Joshua Reynolds was so good with her forebearers, and she got stuck with that bad painting.

Interesting idea. Not sure I agree. Why would fame preclude painters from painting her? She did not inspire that kind of awe imo. In general she was 'ordinary'. Great artistry did not flow through her. She did not inspire the artist. So it seems. She may have inspired fantasy and lust, but great passion did not take place, except in her fandom (which is not to be discounted). The divine passion eluded her, however.

However, unlike you (maybe) I do think the photographer is also a portraitist, and there is no question that Diana was well-served by many of her photos.