| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
sweetbabyjames
Joined: 05 May 2006
Posts: 357
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:19 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Aw, c'mon! It's beeea-utiful!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Donna
Joined: 14 Oct 2005
Posts: 827
Location: Oakland, CA
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 9:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I got married about 6 weeks before Di & Chuck and we set the alarm and watched the whole thing in the middle of the night - agog! Even then I remember thinking that that dress was rather over the top - and not for me. She was younger and she did look like a fairy princess in it. I wore a silk sheath with an obi belt - very sleek. I would have looked like a pumpkin in a schmatta in that dress!
And as for the beauteous Cate - I did rather want to reach over and give the top a good tug upwards! I think cleavage has its place, but the fold between the breast and the chest is something I'd rather not have to regard! TMI!!!!!!
_________________
L'appetit vient en mangeant. -Rabelais |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
madameshawshank
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 1654
Location: Penrith (where jacarandas remind me of change), New South Wales, Australia
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 9:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Rainey..http://www.powerhousemuseum.com/exhibitions/index.asp
an exhibition of Diana things/objects/what's the fancy word for it Griffin?
as for the dress...I agree that it sorta wore her....big gig for that 20 year old..methinks she wanted a fairytale dress...methinks she wanted a fairytale full stop...however...also agree with the Jackie dress...
I'm a 1920s kinda gal...
_________________
"I've never accepted the external appearance of things as the whole truth. The world is much more elaborate than the nerves of our eye can tell us." - James Gleeson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Griffin
Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 932
Location: England
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Griffin! you should amend your post to read "longing to be slim, suave......" |
David, I won't tell if you won't!! 
Ahem, two things; firstly it's strange how more non-Britons are more fascinated about Diana than us Brits... especially Americans. I suspect that JFK and Jackie O were the closest thing the US had to a Royal Family. I think that long train of her dress was er, trying to compensate for something maybe?! Er, or is that treason and will I be hauled off to the Tower?!!!  For a lot of Britons, Diana was a glorified clothes horse who did a lot of work for charity and wanted it to be known. There were definitely issues there. Other than that we generally tend to see her as kitsch writ large.
Diana's dress does have something of the Edwardian style about it, but certainly not the Jane Austen, which is Regency period and the dresses were much simpler as well as having a 'waistline' under the bust!
An exhibition of Diana things... Dianarobilia?! Kitsch?!
_________________
Confusion comes fitted as standard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Last posts feed
Register
Log in
