Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Princess Diana For Vanity Fair Is The Best September Cover Yet

She remains the 'It' girl of all time.

by Anonymousreply 7407/31/2013

Another dead white person on the cover of Vanity Fair. Pardon my shocked expression.

She's the very definition of "over," OP.

by Anonymousreply 107/30/2013

The People's Princess remains. Say what you will, but one of a kind is one of a kind.

by Anonymousreply 207/30/2013

Love her or hate her, Diana (and Fergie to some extent) helped put the royal family on a worldwide icon level. Hence why Diana is still being talked about decades after her death. She was an industry unto herself for the royals and for the british tabloids.

Hence, why they're trying so hard to make Kate and Will into the new media darlings, but it's pointless. Aside from Harry, none of the royals are that interesting. But I kind of like the fact that Will and his bride want to live a normal low key type of life. Like he's learned from all of the failures his father made with Diana. I have a feeling that they will continue with Diana's charity work too.

by Anonymousreply 307/30/2013

I can't believe it's been 16 years since she died. It doesn't seem possible that it's been that long.

by Anonymousreply 407/30/2013

R3. is right. Diana and Sarah gave the royal family relevance. The two of them dragged the royal family kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

Diana and Sarah had personality and pizzazz. They may have had their faults (who in that royal family doesn't have faults in even a bigger big way?), but they were accessible and approachable. And they had some charisma. Those two women doing what they did made the royal family relevant today. The royal family would disagree, but they would be wrong.

by Anonymousreply 507/30/2013

I still remember where I was when she died.

by Anonymousreply 607/30/2013

Four deaths stand out in my mind in my lifetime: President John F. Kennedy, Princess Grace (Kelly) of Monaco and John F. Kennedy, Jr.

The were all shocking and very sad. But Diana's was the saddest. Diana's death was also the most shocking leaving people stunned all over the the world. Wow, she was something else. I wish she were still around. It would have been nice to see what she would have become in middle age and how she would continue to affect the world with both her celebrity and her various causes.

by Anonymousreply 707/30/2013

Diana was always photogenic.

by Anonymousreply 807/30/2013

The guy in the video is trying hard not to laugh when the guy screams.

by Anonymousreply 907/30/2013

[quote]I can't believe it's been 16 years since she died. It doesn't seem possible that it's been that long.

Yeah, it's pretty unreal.

by Anonymousreply 1007/30/2013

I love how the video at r6 always pops up in a Diana thread; that video will never not be funny!

by Anonymousreply 1107/30/2013

I'm crying as I type . . .

by Anonymousreply 1207/30/2013

She was the most beloved human being of all time!!

by Anonymousreply 1307/30/2013

I think she is one of the most beautiful women of all time, but more than that, she used her position and influence to show genuine compassion.

I'd had little opinion of her until the time I first saw the photo of her sitting down with an AIDS patient. I adored her from that moment since. That photo made a difference.

by Anonymousreply 1407/30/2013

[quote]she used her position and influence to show genuine compassion.

And she passed that on to her sons.

by Anonymousreply 1507/30/2013

Her loss was the greatest loss of the 20th Century. The World has never been the same since.

by Anonymousreply 1607/30/2013

That screaming queen is a riot.

by Anonymousreply 1707/30/2013

Who?

by Anonymousreply 1807/30/2013

One of the few magazines I kept as a momento was the original one with this cover. What a stunning photo!

by Anonymousreply 1907/30/2013

Camilla only wishes she had a tenth of the love Diana will ALWAYS have!

by Anonymousreply 2007/30/2013

[quote]Camilla only wishes she had a tenth of the love Diana will ALWAYS have!

I find continued life on this mortal coil plus the royal jewels (nether of which poor Diana has anymore!) more than acceptable substitutes.

by Anonymousreply 2107/30/2013

What am I missing? Charles preferred Camilla to Diana? Why? She must suck a mean dick.

by Anonymousreply 2207/30/2013

Diana left behind an estate of 22 million pounds, without bequeathing one penny to charity.

Peter Tatchell:

[quote]The caring Princess clearly wasn't that caring after all. She was very happy to do charity work for people with AIDS, providing it didn't cost her anything. But when it came to parting with her own money, she chose to keep it in her already super-rich family, rather than share it with those in need. It would have been easy for Diana to bequeath £5,000 to each of the dozen charities she claimed to "really care about", including London Lighthouse and the National AIDS Trust. That would have set her back £60,000 - an insignificant sum considering that her personal fortune amounted to nearly £22 million.

I really detest people like her and Bono who make careers out of cajoling proles into giving money to "their" charities while keeping their own money to themselves.

by Anonymousreply 2307/30/2013

I could care less if she didn't give her own money in her will; she did plenty for charity, more than 99% people on this planet have ever done.

by Anonymousreply 2407/30/2013

"a young woman who did very little except go shopping, fornicate and vomit"

- A. N. Wilson

by Anonymousreply 2507/30/2013

R25,

You took the words right out of my mouth.

by Anonymousreply 2607/30/2013

[quote]I could care less

oh dear

by Anonymousreply 2707/30/2013

She was a Belieber.

by Anonymousreply 2807/31/2013

Yes R25. The woman that walked through fields with live landmines. I didn't even like her, but say what you will, that quote is disrespectful. And coming from Andrew Wilson? Unintentionally hilarious.

by Anonymousreply 2907/31/2013

"She died as she lived... in incredible plushness" -- The Onion

by Anonymousreply 3007/31/2013

Diana forever. I feel like she's still with us. But it's still so sad that she's not.

by Anonymousreply 3107/31/2013

I'm a Di fan, she brought the spotlight to a lot of things that people tended to overlook. And she had a good time, mostly, doing it. But I SWEAR, if I didn't know it was Diana on the cover of that magazine, I'd never have guessed. Is it REALLY her?

by Anonymousreply 3207/31/2013

You queens are embarrassing. "The greatest loss of the 20th Century?"

by Anonymousreply 3307/31/2013

R3 is a good reminder of what a clever creature Diana was when it came to her own publicity.

She had and has people thinking that no royal ever did charity work until she came along. They always did a lot of charity work. It is what you do when you're royal.

I'll give her credit for landmines and AIDs though.

by Anonymousreply 3407/31/2013

"The woman that walked through fields with live landmines."

You know, R29, she really didn't. You think they'd let Diana walk up and down, with the world's media watching, if there was a chance she'd get her leg blown off.

As to Sarah Ferguson, the Queen's private secretary, Lord Charteris, summed her up perfectly: "Vulgar, vulgar, vulgar."

by Anonymousreply 3507/31/2013

[quote]Diana and Sarah gave the royal family relevance. The two of them dragged the royal family kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

That's quite an accomplishment since Diana never lived to see the 21st Century and Sarah had lost her relevance by the mid-1990s. Her once press-given nickname "Fergie" is now associated with the singer than her.

by Anonymousreply 3607/31/2013

She also did a lot of coke, which didn't help.

by Anonymousreply 3707/31/2013

Sorry, my reply at R37 was intended for R35. I'm not implying that Diana did coke (though who knows?).

by Anonymousreply 3807/31/2013

Years from now, DL queens will be sneering at Diana the way some today sneer at Jackie O.

by Anonymousreply 3907/31/2013

"They always did a lot of charity work."

Please. Their lent their names to organizations. None of their own money was ever put into it, because they lived off the taxpayers dime. The epitome of laziness.

Diana used her celebrity and influence to bring attention to certain causes. You certainly didn't see any of the others bothering to do much.

by Anonymousreply 4007/31/2013

She was no me, that's for damn sure.

by Anonymousreply 4107/31/2013

[quote]It would have been nice to see what she would have become in middle age and how she would continue to affect the world with both her celebrity and her various causes.

I suspect the growing invasions of privacy made possible with the internet would have forced her to recede further into the background, especially as her sons came of age and started to make headlines on their own. We also probably would have started to hear of the more unsavory parts of her life had she not died, for instance cocaine abuse.

by Anonymousreply 4307/31/2013

R29 is the most naïve person alive.

As Bill Maher once said, "She was a housewife who did some nice charity work".

by Anonymousreply 4407/31/2013

So, other people should give their money away(you know,so something actually gets done), but you're going to rationalize Diana not doing so? Pathetic.

by Anonymousreply 4507/31/2013

...this torch we'll ALWAYS carry for our nations golden child...

by Anonymousreply 4607/31/2013

Did she help the Elephant Man? I think not.

by Anonymousreply 4707/31/2013

Oh, Jesus, the Princess Diana troll is back...yet again...and again. Give it a rest, bub.

by Anonymousreply 4807/31/2013

so tired of this bitch!

by Anonymousreply 4907/31/2013

Just as we see books, plays and films about Anne Boleyn, Mary Stuart, Victoria and other royals in centuries after they lived, so future generations will hear about Princess Diana in coming centuries. Her candle burnt out long before her legend ever will. Any intelligent student of history knows this is true.

by Anonymousreply 5007/31/2013

You're right r50, Diana will continue to be talked about for centuries to come. Despite what the Diana haters, aka homely Camilla lovers say.

by Anonymousreply 5107/31/2013

In terms of worldwide shock, grief and mourning, nothing can compare with Diana's death. Nothing. Not even JFK, as he was an American president, and while certainly mourned here and buy our allies in Europe, his death certainly was not that significant to people in many parts of the world. Diana, however, impacted everyone and no revisionist history will alter the truth.

by Anonymousreply 5207/31/2013

No matter if you like her or can't stand references to her, she's part of history, and not just British history. Books about the White House have photos of her dancing at a posh WH reception. She brought the future king of England on rides at Disney World. Many decades from now when he becomes king, U.S. media will publish the photos of William, Harry, and Diana having a blast on a flume ride.

Diana will probably be remembered as a loving mother for a long time.

How will history remember Camilla? She stole Andrew Parker Bowles from Princess Anne. She married and divorced him and then stole Prince Charles from Princess Diana. It seems that tale could be the basis for an interesting play or film. "Camilla" starring Dakota Fanning as the divorced frump who married the future head of the Church of England.

by Anonymousreply 5307/31/2013

How many times has Vanity Fair put Di on the cover now?

I know Madonna has the most VF covers with 10 and Tom Cruise is second with 8

I remember back in the 90s VF was THE most prestigious magazine to get the cover of if you were a celeb

You weren't really A list until you got on the cover of Vanity Fair

by Anonymousreply 5407/31/2013

[quote]But I SWEAR, if I didn't know it was Diana on the cover of that magazine, I'd never have guessed. Is it REALLY her?

The last Testino portraits were the best she ever looked, but the one picked for the VF cover was the worst of the shoot. The strait-on angle was not Diana's friend.

by Anonymousreply 5507/31/2013

[quote]Just as we see books, plays and films about Anne Boleyn, Mary Stuart, Victoria and other royals in centuries after they lived, so future generations will hear about Princess Diana in coming centuries.

Those women were rulers, or married to rulers, at a time when the royals wielded power, in some cases absolute power.

What would historians say about Diana? That she was bulimic? That she was friends with Elton John? She had no more impact on history than the Queen Mother. If you all want to worship her for some reason, be my guest, but please don't pretend that there's some rational basis for it other than pure fandom.

by Anonymousreply 5607/31/2013

I will always wish I had had the chance to make love to her just once.

by Anonymousreply 5707/31/2013

Did Victoria wield power? I had the impression that by point Parliament did everything and the monarch was just a rubber stamp like today.

by Anonymousreply 5807/31/2013

If Diana was just a dominatrix, she would be able to keep Charles.

That is what Camilla specializes in.

Serious, it was all in Tina Brown's book

by Anonymousreply 5907/31/2013

No it wasn't, R59, not at all.

by Anonymousreply 6007/31/2013

[quote]Those women were rulers, or married to rulers, at a time when the royals wielded power, in some cases absolute power.

Lots of women who were married to rulers get little or no interest. How many films have you seen and fascinating stories have you read about William and Mary or Caroline of Brunswick, the wife of George IV?

The women named were colorful parts of history. That's why they're remembered. Diana will continue to be seen as a colorful part of history and the stories will continue.

It's the same with women in our nation like Dolley Madison, Mary Lincoln, Jackie Kennedy, and Eleanor Roosevelt. They added color to our history. What do you know about First Ladies Anna Harrison, Harriet Lane, and Caroline Harrison? Probably nothing.

The fact that Diana, who died in 1997, is still on the covers of major publications should be a clue.

by Anonymousreply 6107/31/2013

R60 you must of skipped a page.

Camilla said to Charles 'pretend I'm a rocking horse' - page 105

Charles enjoyed women who led him, mastered him, and mothered him. He was used to being served, not required to seduce. Diana was eager, but uninventive. - page 173

by Anonymousreply 6207/31/2013

Don't forget Charles wanted to be Camilla tampon.

by Anonymousreply 6307/31/2013

r56, you are a moron. None of those queens had their funeral watched by a global audience.

by Anonymousreply 6407/31/2013

R59, are you an American who doesn't "do" the past participle? The woman has been dead for 16 years.

"If only Diana had been a dominatrix, she would have been able to keep Charles."

by Anonymousreply 6507/31/2013

And that cover will sell. Face it: If it wasn't for Diana, people would care about the Windsors as much as they do the Bourbons and Oranges.

by Anonymousreply 6607/31/2013

Queen Victoria wielded nothing but her bitterness. She made Albert's death into a 9/11 for the 19th century and never let the Britishers forget it - every door, every wall, every railing in the land was painted black. She was the George W Bush of her time.

by Anonymousreply 6707/31/2013

"Harry, shush!"

Diana was incredibly likable and intimate. She was just a natural aristocrat. I just think, my god what an extraordinary woman. And how was she extraordinary? I mean just look at how she WAS. Who is this natural?:

by Anonymousreply 6807/31/2013

[quote]Queen Victoria wielded nothing but her bitterness.

True, that she went off the deep end over her husband's death. Still, she was interesting if you look over her entire life.

Camilla is also an interesting character. Her son was born a year after she married Andrew Parker Bowles. Was she still chasing Charles, even though married for such a short time?. When her son was baptized, the Prince of Wales was the godfather. Was there ever a time that she wasn't after Charles?

by Anonymousreply 6907/31/2013

R59 you were exaggerating then. I was right. Actual BDSM never appears in the book. A strong female figure versus a weak needy younger wife, and a desire to eat a woman out, does not equal a desire for a dominatrix.

by Anonymousreply 7007/31/2013

[quote]In terms of worldwide shock, grief and mourning, nothing can compare with Diana's death. Nothing. Not even JFK, as he was an American president, and while certainly mourned here and buy our allies in Europe, his death certainly was not that significant to people in many parts of the world.

I refuse to believe that a living, breathing sentient human wrote this.

by Anonymousreply 7107/31/2013

You equate being dominate in bed with BDSM?

by Anonymousreply 7207/31/2013

[quote]How will history remember Camilla? She stole Andrew Parker Bowles from Princess Anne. She married and divorced him and then stole Prince Charles from Princess Diana.

Not quite.

[quote]In the late 1960s, Camilla met Andrew Parker Bowles, then a Guards officer and lieutenant in the Blues and Royals.[20] She met him through his brother, Simon Parker Bowles. Simon at the time worked for her father's wine merchant in South Audley Street.[21] The pair dated on and off for some years. In 1970, the pair broke up again and Parker Bowles began dating Princess Anne; however, the couple later reconciled in 1973 and their engagement was announced in The Times on 15 March 1973

In "The Diana Chronicles," Tina Brown reports that Anderw Parker-Bowles had an affair with Princess Anne while married to Camilla. It's what the aristocracy does. Especially at P-B's level. They are in service to the royal family and its seen as a duty and privilege probably. Remember what Prince Charles said to Camilla in one of their taped conversations? Paraphrasing "Loving me is your greatest accomplishment."

by Anonymousreply 7307/31/2013
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.