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

[Stefanie]

I don´t think she was more photogenic than any other person. Depends on the quality of the photographer. I don´t even think she was specially pretty. People had waited and speculated for years who Prince Charles was going to marry finally. It´s the same with f.i. Princess Letizia in Spain. When both Princes finally married the hype began.
If she were still alive maybe none would ask things like that any more. It was only because Charles in that days was the most desired bachelor in the world. If he had married a guinea-pig then we would maybe ask nowadays why a guinea-pig was so photogenic.

 

[sirhon11234]

Well both Letizia and Diana are very beautiful women. In some of the photos that i've seen of Letizia she seems to be very photogenic and likewise for Diana. If Diana was just a plane jane she wouldn't have gotten all that press attention and being on soo many gossip and fashion magazines just because she was Charles' wife. The media loves people who are beautiful.

 

[Lily97]

I for one think that some of best photographs that were taken are not by professional photographers but by fans and some are posted on this very forum. They did not use airbrush techniques or special lighting. To me, she still looked lovely and in some pictures didn't even realize her picture was being taken. Was she photogenic? To me it is a no brainer, a definite YES!

Lily

 

[Skydragon]

Many photographers said that you really must be clumsy to take a bad picture of Diana.

Can you post the links, I been unable to find the one mentioned earlier, said to be by Tim Graham, just the Testino offering.

 

[Skydragon]

I don´t think she was more photogenic than any other person. Depends on the quality of the photographer. I don´t even think she was specially pretty. People had waited and speculated for years who Prince Charles was going to marry finally. It´s the same with f.i. Princess Letizia in Spain. When both Princes finally married the hype began.
If she were still alive maybe none would ask things like that any more. It was only because Charles in that days was the most desired bachelor in the world. If he had married a guinea-pig then we would maybe ask nowadays why a guinea-pig was so photogenic

Great points

The media loves people who are beautiful.

No, the media loves anything that will make it money and as we all know, will alter facts and airbrush photos to do so.

 

[sirhon11234]

Well I wonder if they airbrushed Kate Moss or Camilla since your soo sure that they airbrushed many pictures of Princess Diana.

 

[Skydragon]

Well I wonder if they airbrushed Kate Moss or Camilla since your soo sure that they airbrushed many pictures of Princess Diana.

Of course they do, even Kate Moss will admit to that. The Cocaine smoking pictures of Kate were 'adjusted' to make her look as bad as possible, the early pictures of Camilla were chosen to make her look unglamorous.

 

[TheTruth]

Can you post the links, I havn't been able to find the one mentioned earlier, said to be by Tim Graham, just the Testino offering.

Tim Graham for sure. You are right, must be Testino also. I've read it in several books but the declaration of Tim Graham is in Diana, the portrait by Rosalind Coward.
Except Graham or Testino I can't remember the others .
Might be some other official photographers of the princess (like Patrick Demarchelier maybe).

Sorry for the gap of information .

TheTruth .

 

[Skydragon]

Sorry for the gap of information .
TheTruth .

No problem, thank you for trying!

 

[sirhon11234]

Of course they do, even Kate Moss will admit to that. The Cocaine smoking pictures of Kate were 'adjusted' to make her look as bad as possible, the early pictures of Camilla were chosen to make her look unglamorous.

I always thought that she was unglamorous. But I believe that the pictures of Kate Moss were adjusted to make her look like she was high on cocaine.
The media likes to publish flattering and unflattering pictures of famous people.

 

[Skydragon]

I always thought that she was unglamorous.

It might be the impression anyone relying on the media or a Diana fan would make.

 

[kimlan]

Ofcourse she is not perfect but overall she is pretty and I don’t think anyone denied that. So go ahead and criticized her but deep down in people heart they know that she is elegant, classy and photogenic.

 

[Skydragon]

Ofcourse she is not perfect but overall she is pretty and I don’t think anyone denied that. So go ahead and criticized her but deep down in people heart they know that she is elegant, classy and photogenic.

Yes some people do deny that. Not everybody thought she was elegant, classy or particularly photogenic. Some people like the 'Barbie' doll look, others don't, it really is down to a matter of different tastes. Was she naturally photogenic, I don't think so, I think without use of make up she was below average, compared with women of the day, IMO. .

 

[Stefanie]

One thing that made her so interesting was the fact that she was only 19 when she became engaged. None had ever expected Charles who was in the beginning of his thirties to marry a teenager! Rumours were going around in those times f.i. that he was to marry Princess Marie Astrid from Luxemburg, a nice Lady, blond, but not a really beauty. She f.i. ist seven years Diana´s senior. If he´d married M-Astrid then they would´ve made HER a Photo-Star. Diana was a nice girl, wonderful skin but in my opinion she had no charisma at all. Always that look from below to above, her succesful attempt to banish Charles into the second row (it´s not his mistake that he´s not so attractive with his ears and she used her popularity, specially when the marriage started to go into crisis). Of course for what we´ve expected Charles would be able to "get" she was a surprise. And that surprise lives until today. Not to forget the fact that she died so young and was the poor "victim" in the Camilla/Charles affair. Can´t find many facts on her being a special person in her "own right". She became "special" through her position a.s.o.

 

[sirhon11234]

Well I don't quite agree with you Stefanie but I respect your opinions.

 

[TheTruth]

There's a part of truth in what you say Stefanie. IMO Diana wasn't a goddess of beauty and Camilla wasn't so ugly but the thing is, the press doesn't search for normal people. They always want the most glamourous or the ugliest, they don't live in the real world. The press also works by interests. If they know that they will be critisized for putting a bad picture of Diana (especially after her death) they won't do it. Same thing for Camilla.

But afterall, the most important isn't what we have in the inside more than the outside?

TheTruth

 

[BeatrixFan]

Ok. I am blind. I see nothing. I have no opinions. May God forgive me for criticising the Goddess Diana.

 

[TheTruth]

Lol, I didn't say she was a goddess. Camilla isn't ugly at all and Diana isn't that beautiful. All I say is that we only have the image the press gives us.
I totally respect your opinions and we can't forget that beauty is subjective.
As I told before the inside is more important

The Truth

 

[Warren]

We're not discussing whether Diana was a goddess or a beauty. The topic is "why was she so photogenic?" Some will agree she was photogenic, some won't. It's a matter of personal taste, perception, and attitude towards Diana, so there is no right nor wrong (although magazine editors would beg to differ).

 

[TheTruth]

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

Would like to start a YES/NO poll so as to see if you estimate that Princess Diana is THE woman of the 20th century and explain why.

 

[hornsen]

I really don´t think she is THE woman of the 20th century. Her fame is the reason of a mercenaliry media industry. There are other very famously, beautifully, intelligently and radiantly women, for example Marlene Dietrich, Maria Callas, Marilyn Monroe, Marie Curie and so on and on and on. But this women weren´t on paper covers everyday because of other circumstances at their lifetimes.

 

[BeatrixFan]

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.

 

[magnik]

I would say that Diana was ONE of the most famous women of the 20th century like f.ex. E. Roosevelt, I. Gandhi, M. Monroe, Jackie O., Elizabeth II, M. Thatcher or Madonna... There was/are many women famous like it was in the past or in the future centuries becouse they were or do smth (more or less) important or just becouse they had done something.

 

[MissSaga]

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.

But everyone knew who Diana was. She was everywhere. Even children knew who she was, or at least had seen pictures of her or had definately heard of "Princess Di". I doubt a 10 year old would have known who Indira Ghandi were, if you know what I mean.

Thatcher and the others you mentioned did "bigger" things than princess Diana, but are and will never be as famous as Princess Diana is or(and) were, I think, even after her death, she is, someone everybody knows who is, even people who wern't even born in '81.

I doubt she is the most famous woman of the 20th century, but she is definately in the top 10 !

 

[BeatrixFan]

No, I'm sorry I don't agree. A 10 year old knew who Diana was yes but surely we're talking about fame that means something rather than endless pap shots on the front of magazines? Those women did bigger things than Di therefore their fame is equally bigger, certainly their legacy is.

 

[magnik]

So if I good understand (that what MissSaga's wrote) Diana was famous becouse she was everywhere. Probably around 20 or 50 years Diana will be know as one of the few late/ 20th century pop icon.

 

[Polly]

I think that Diana would come fairly close to being the most famous woman of C20.

Being the 'most famous' doesn't mean that you're the brightest or the best or have contributed to mankind in some spectacular way - it means the best well-known. i.e. there would have been a good chance that people in war-torn Angola or Mozambique would have heard of Diana but not Margaret Thatcher; ditto Australians living in the far-flung deserts; ditto villagers in Japan; ditto citizens of Spain, USA, Outer Mongolia, Peru, Korea, Uzbekistan, Fiji, etc. etc.

Diana captured the imagination of hundreds of millions of people in a way that very few ever have. This makes her extraordinary and special and a C20 icon, whether one likes her or not, in my opinion.

 

[MissSaga]

I think that Diana would come fairly close to being the most famous woman of C20.

Being the 'most famous' doesn't mean that you're the brightest or the best or have contributed to mankind in some spectacular way - it means the best well-known. i.e. there would have been a good chance that people in war-torn Angola or Mozambique would have heard of Diana but not Margaret Thatcher; ditto Australians living in the far-flung deserts; ditto villagers in Japan; ditto citizens of Spain, USA, Outer Mongolia, Peru, Korea, Uzbekistan, Fiji, etc. etc.

Diana captured the imagination of hundreds of millions of people in a way that very few ever have. This makes her extraordinary and special and a C20 icon, whether one likes her or not, in my opinion.

Great post, this is exactly what I mean.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Sorry, I don't buy it. I'm sure more people would know women who brought down the Soviet Union and discovered radium than a glorified glamour model.

 

[love_cc]

No I don't think so. She will be one of the most famous women in late 20th century and she cannot be the most famous woman of the 20 century. I would rather bet on Queen Mother and Queen Elizabeth II. They have more significant impacts on history.