# Kate Middleton - not as recognizable as Diana? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [April 13, 2011, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kate-middleton-not-as-recognizable-as-diana/578284 "2011-04-13T21:45:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2011, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kate-middleton-not-as-recognizable-as-diana/578284/21 "2011-04-14T16:39:14Z")
> [@Bridget\_Burke](#): > > Kate appears to be bright & knows what she’s getting into. She cares for Her Prince & will probably deal with the challenges of His Family Business quite skillfully. She might not have to, for some time. Prince William actually has a day job, he flies search-and-rescue choppers for the RAF. So Kate will just have to settle down and be an Air Force Wife for a while, until the Queen passes and Charles takes the throne and William becomes the Prince of Wales – then, I guess his life, and hers, will have to change. ---
**Author:** ![Gestalt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/90ced4/32.png) [@Gestalt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gestalt)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2011, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kate-middleton-not-as-recognizable-as-diana/578284/22 "2011-04-14T16:53:07Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > Kate Middleton looks like a generic starlet- cute enough, but familiar. I don’t just mean how she looks, I mean the whole thing, from the expressions on her face to her fashion choices. She faces the camera like someone who knows what she wants out of it- and that is frankly something we’ve seen plenty of. She fits in fine on the pages of People. If she was a movie star or a contestent on American idol, it wouldn’t be any different- it’d be the same photo spread. And in these media-saturated day, that’s a routine we know very very well. I mean, it’s not like you have to go far for pictures of cute girls. > > Diana always had a bit of shyness, even in front of the media. She always looked a little unrehearsed, and that resonates with people. There is a bit of mystery there. There are things that an unusual looking person can do that a pretty girl never can. Could not have said it better. Kate looks very generic to me, which is fine, but because of her shyness/quietness, Diana _seemed_ to have more depth (no idea if this is true). Also, I totally agree that Kate is very People-magazine-pretty. As an aside, is it just me, or in the 2000s did we become overrun with late teens, early-twenties starlets who kind of all look the same? I am watching a tv miniseries from 1995 and the people in it look much more, like, well . . . real people. Or, compare the first season of ER, which contains actors who might actually look like people working in a hospital, to the last season, which was basically beautiful bombshells left and right. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2011, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kate-middleton-not-as-recognizable-as-diana/578284/23 "2011-04-14T20:06:32Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > How well-known was Diana’s face even after the marriage and before the divorce? I know I didn’t see her until the divorce stuff started coming up. but I was 11. Still, I wonder if Kate has really had a chance to be recognizable. Until recently, I only heard about her from British sources. Diana was well known long before the divorce. Her wedding to Prince Charles was _the biggest thing ever_[sup]TM[/sup]. At least the way the media treated it. ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2011, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kate-middleton-not-as-recognizable-as-diana/578284/24 "2011-04-14T20:37:00Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > She might not have to, for some time. Prince William actually has a day job, he flies search-and-rescue choppers for the RAF. So Kate will just have to settle down and be an Air Force Wife for a while, until the Queen passes and Charles takes the throne and William becomes the Prince of Wales – then, I guess his life, and hers, will have to change. Prince William isn’t planning on a career in the RAF like his brother is in the Army. IIRC he only has a few years left in his enlistment/contract before he returns to civilian life. The he and Kate will likely end up moving to London fulltime and enter “public life” fulltime. > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > But, it has one real fairy-tale aspect, as Kate **is** a common – or, average upper-middle-class – Englishwoman. I remember some press remark about Prince Charles marrying a “commoner,” which made no sense to me as Diana, while neither a princess nor a peeress, was an earl’s daughter. Using the strictest defination anyone who is neither a peer(ess) in their own right or the Sovereign is a commoner. Under that defination even _Prince William_ is technically a commoner, but the term isn’t usually applied to domestic or foreign royalty. Diana was as much a commoner as the Queen Mother (another Earl’s daughter). _That_ was a much bigger deal in the 1920s and was only allowed since Prince Albert (the future George VI) had an older brother was wasn’t expected to become king. The old rule of “Royalty must marry royalty” was dead by WWII. Prince Phillip was the last foreign royal to marry into the British royal familty, but he’d been raised in the UK, had a career in the Royal Navy (& he actually needed his paycheque), and it wasn’t an arranged marriage. ---
**Author:** ![MarcusF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/67e7ee/32.png) [@MarcusF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MarcusF)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2011, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kate-middleton-not-as-recognizable-as-diana/578284/25 "2011-04-14T20:43:57Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > This. I don’t understand the accusation of sluttiness, and even if I did, I don’t see how Diana being a slut would have any impact on how pretty she was. > > I’m not a royalty fan, but I always thought she was extremely beautiful and got better looking as she aged. I haven’t a clue about Middleton, as I no longer live with a sister who loves royalty & faux-fairy tales and thus am not as exposed. Diana certainly had affairs and after the divorce had a series of boyfriends but I’ve not seen any suggestion she was promiscuous so “slut” doesn’t seem right. Personally I never found Diana that attractive - I hated that “I’m so shy” look upwards from under her bowed head. Maybe started as genuine but became very calculating during the battle with the Palace and the divorce. The whole scrawny anorexic look didn’t help. Kate seems to be just standard issue, attractive English girl. Good looking and very well groomed. ---
**Author:** ![MarcusF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/67e7ee/32.png) [@MarcusF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MarcusF)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2011, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kate-middleton-not-as-recognizable-as-diana/578284/26 "2011-04-14T20:51:37Z")
> [@alphaboi867](#): > > The old rule of “Royalty must marry royalty” was dead by WWII. Prince Phillip was the last foreign royal to marry into the British royal familty, but he’d been raised in the UK, had a career in the Royal Navy (& he actually needed his paycheque), and it wasn’t an arranged marriage. The marriage with Phillip was not viewed favourably by the Palace - royalty good, penniless Greek bad. In one sense it was arranged, his uncle, Dickie Mountbatten (beg his pardon Admiral of the Fleet Louis Francis Albert Victor Nicholas George Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma, KG, GCB, OM, GCSI, GCIE, GCVO, DSO, PC, FRS -how he got the FRS, Fellow of the Royal Society I don’t know!) pushed really hard for it and the then Princess Elizabeth was absolutely determined. ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2011, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kate-middleton-not-as-recognizable-as-diana/578284/27 "2011-04-14T23:03:38Z")
I can’t speak to this myself since I was never anywhere near Diana IRL, but I’ve heard more than once that photos did not really do her justice and she was much more attractive in person. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2011, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kate-middleton-not-as-recognizable-as-diana/578284/28 "2011-04-15T00:55:32Z")
> [@alphaboi867](#): > > Using the strictest defination anyone who is neither a peer(ess) in their own right or the Sovereign is a commoner. Under that defination even _Prince William_ is technically a commoner, but the term isn’t usually applied to domestic or foreign royalty. Diana was as much a commoner as the Queen Mother (another Earl’s daughter). _That_ was a much bigger deal in the 1920s and was only allowed since Prince Albert (the future George VI) had an older brother was wasn’t expected to become king. > > The old rule of “Royalty must marry royalty” was dead by WWII. Prince Phillip was the last foreign royal to marry into the British royal familty, but he’d been raised in the UK, had a career in the Royal Navy (& he actually needed his paycheque), and it wasn’t an arranged marriage. Better to drop that rule, eugenically speaking. I mean, are there any two royals in Europe who are not cousins to some degree? They’ve been marrying each other so long, it’s like there’s this one big extended Royal Family of Europe. And even Diana was Charles’ distant cousin – the British nobility have been marrying each other, and occasionally marrying the royals, just as long. Kate can finally bring some fresh blood, literally, into the Royal Family. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2011, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kate-middleton-not-as-recognizable-as-diana/578284/29 "2011-04-15T01:09:15Z")
> [@MarcusF](#): > > Dickie Mountbatten (beg his pardon Admiral of the Fleet Louis Francis Albert Victor Nicholas George Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma, KG, GCB, OM, GCSI, GCIE, GCVO, DSO, PC, FRS -how he got the FRS, Fellow of the Royal Society I don’t know!) What? He was royal, and at home in Society, and quite a good fellow. 🙂 – BrainGlutton, MIC, KEY, MOU, SE ---
**Author:** ![Markxxx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5daacb/32.png) [@Markxxx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Markxxx)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2011, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kate-middleton-not-as-recognizable-as-diana/578284/30 "2011-04-15T01:10:47Z")
I also think Kate is prettier than Diana, but Diana would stand out more in a crowd and she was far from ugly. Kate is one of those “girl next door” type pretty ---
**Author:** ![Jman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jman/32/4416_2.png) [@Jman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jman)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2011, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kate-middleton-not-as-recognizable-as-diana/578284/31 "2011-04-15T03:57:53Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Kate can finally bring some fresh blood, literally, into the Royal Family. Nope…Kate and Prince William are 12th cousins, once removed. 🙂 Not that will cause any genetic issues. That’s definitely far enough removed to be inconsequential. I mean, their common ancestor lived in the 1500s. ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2011, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kate-middleton-not-as-recognizable-as-diana/578284/32 "2011-04-15T03:59:01Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > Diana always had a bit of shyness, even in front of the media. She always looked a little unrehearsed, and that resonates with people. There is a bit of mystery there. There are things that an unusual looking person can do that a pretty girl never can. I think one factor with Diana was that she came from an aristocratic family, which meant that she had an upper class affect, accent, and so forth. No matter how many preschools she volunteered at, she couldn’t really get away from it. I don’t mean to criticize her for that; it’s usually very hard to change your class convincingly even if you want to. Since Kate Middleton doesn’t have that background, it’s not too much of a cliche to say she’s more down to earth. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2011, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kate-middleton-not-as-recognizable-as-diana/578284/33 "2011-04-15T04:11:58Z")
> [@Jman](#): > > Nope…Kate and Prince William are 12th cousins, once removed. 🙂 Not that will cause any genetic issues. That’s definitely far enough removed to be inconsequential. I mean, their common ancestor lived in the 1500s. Hell, John McCain is twice more closely related to Laura Bush!: [http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hIcIz3-O8nZxznLRCIVxB90jc\_GA](http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hIcIz3-O8nZxznLRCIVxB90jc_GA) ---
**Author:** ![LavenderBlue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e95f7d/32.png) [@LavenderBlue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LavenderBlue)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2011, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kate-middleton-not-as-recognizable-as-diana/578284/34 "2011-04-15T04:34:35Z")
> [@Dangerosa](#): > > One of the things I could never stand about Diana was the naive and sweet thing. How could an Earl’s daughter never have read enough English history to realize a royal marriage was not a Disney movie? She was young, which provides some excuse, and she was picked (why they didn’t find someone with a little more historical perspective is beyond me), which provides more. Particularly given her own family history the level of naivete she seemed to have is just baffling. Probably because she was not (at least initially) the world’s brightest human being. Or at least not that inclined to reading. She failed all her o levels: [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/diana/ob-child.html](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/diana/ob-child.html) I actually liked her much better as she grew older and called Charles out for being such a cad. He’s always struck me as a pretentious, boring creep and a huge argument for the abolishment of any monarchy anywhere. ---
**Author:** ![a35362](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3da27b/32.png) [@a35362](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/a35362)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2011, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kate-middleton-not-as-recognizable-as-diana/578284/35 "2011-04-15T15:29:09Z")
Yes, they always said Diana was more into fashion magazines and romance novels than any kind of serious study. Whether that made her stupid or just not very mature I don’t know. But she was _nice_ – she was good with children and older people – in a way that is _so_ girly and non-threatening. And she really just wanted to get married and have kids, as a lot of women do even today. She was not aiming beyond her wedding day, and it seemed at the time that she got what she wanted, not realizing what was behind the scenes. I remember hearing that England was not doing particularly well by the late '70s, and there was quite a lot of fuss about Charles being talked up as The Most Eligible Bachelor in the World, and apparently a certain amount of pressure on him – from the palace? from the media? – to Get on With It already and choose a wife. I have generally thought of Charles as a decent sort trapped by birth in a difficult situation; I think he wanted to Do His Duty. He may have been friends with or even in love with Camilla, but of course she was unsuitable (not posh enough) and then she was unavailable (married) and he just wanted to make everyone happy and so he ended up picking the shy, quiet English rose. Then everyone was encouraged by the media to go nuts over both Diana and the impending Royal Wedding itself. I think the rules and attitudes about the royal family and public exposure were changing at the time, too. The royal family used to hardly ever be seen in public except for appearances having to do with their charity works and Ascot and such. Then somehow it was paparazzi all the time and telephoto lenses and weird invasions of privacy – Fergie was photographed sunbathing topless, but she was about a quarter of a mile away from any camera, on private property, minding her own business – WTF? Diana really was beautiful, IMHO. And I agree that her shyness and her insecurities about her height and weight\* somehow made her more endearing and human. Kate is remarkably pretty in a movie star kind of way, by which I mean she is the kind of “ordinary pretty” that we see so much of in the media. She looks kind of like Lindsay Lohan (before the health issues) with dark hair. But she’s only pretty, not beautiful. The problem is that a princess is supposed to be a delicate creature but you have to be emotionally rock-solid and media-savvy to be a princess in the modern world. \*Diana was, what? Five feet eleven inches tall, and thought she was supposed to weigh the same as a woman 5’4" tall. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2011, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kate-middleton-not-as-recognizable-as-diana/578284/36 "2011-04-15T16:19:08Z")
I couldn’t pick Kate out in a crowd and probably never will. She is pleasant to look at but she blends into the woodwork which hopefully will be to her benefit. Diana was far more striking in appearance and recognizable. It’s not even close. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2011, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kate-middleton-not-as-recognizable-as-diana/578284/37 "2011-04-15T16:40:54Z")
> [@LavenderBlue](#): > > Probably because she was not (at least initially) the world’s brightest human being. Or at least not that inclined to reading. > > She failed all her o levels: > > [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/diana/ob-child.html](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/diana/ob-child.html) > > I actually liked her much better as she grew older and called Charles out for being such a cad. He’s always struck me as a pretentious, boring creep and a huge argument for the abolishment of any monarchy anywhere. I remember at the time of the royal wedding, some close acquaintance of the royals remarked of Diana, “She’s not a mental giant . . . but, then, neither is he.” Of course, stupidity does not make one unsuitable for the role, nowadays. If the House of Windsor ever produces an heir who **is** a mental giant . . . one wonders whether the monarchy could survive that. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2011, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kate-middleton-not-as-recognizable-as-diana/578284/38 "2011-04-15T19:12:46Z")
No, I don’t think Kate would be very recognizable if she dressed up as Diana. What? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kate-middleton-not-as-recognizable-as-diana/578284.md?page=1)