Be sure to click on this link to get to The Guardian's cool graphic.
“… and she’s been the queen for six-ty years” bahm bum-bum, boom…
Couldn’t have let the day go by without a nod to QEII. Happy Jubilee, Ma’am. Sorry I couldn’t have been there for the big day. Consider a pint of best bitter duly hoisted in your royal direction…
Related Posts
She does rather like that strange spearmint green color, doesn’t she?
“I want to tell that I love her alot, but I’ve got to get a belly full of wine . . .”
How England keeps these people on the payroll is surprising. Talk about a burden to society for doing nothing than being born. I suspect the “royal family” will take a drastic hit once Liz bites the dust.
http://0.tqn.com/d/petite/1/0/D/R/-/-/103199200.jpg
Burl, great picture. I like it almost as much as that Loretta Young picture you found.
But regarding that one (the Loretta Young one), my feelings are more complicated. Should I feel like a dirty old man for being so powerfully attracted to someone so young? And is it made doubly or triply weird that she was actually 40 years older than I, and died at the age of 87 12 years ago?
Come to think of it, I don’t like the picture of the young princess NEARLY as much as the Loretta Young one. But it’s nice…
Well, Miz Loretta did make her living from being lovely, while HRH had a bit set aside to fall back on…
Funny thing is, until I saw that picture, I had no idea how appealing she had been. To me growing up, she had just been that heavily-made-up, middle-aged actress from old movies and that TV show she had…
Well, they sure did pile on the makeup back then–they had to use strong stuff under the lights, and then kept on wearing it the rest of the time.
The other thing is how before your peers messed everything up, it was a good thing to look like an adult, and adults looked different from children. After the youthquake,much less so. In fact, it’s been commented upon (in Slate or Salon) that never before have ordinary fashions been so static. You could take a photo from the street a decade apart, any time up until 1990, and you could tell more or less which decade it was by what people were wearing, but since 1990, people pretty much wear the same sorts of things from year to year, decade to decade.
I thought that Boss Hogg Haley always wore white.
I agree with Stephen. Complete waste of money in a nation that is implementing austerity measures.
Haley wears a lot of light colors–baby blue seems to be a favorite, but The State’s go-to head shot has her in charcoal/black high-neck….
“but since 1990, people pretty much wear the same sorts of things from year to year, decade to decade.”
What’s wrong with that?
What, indeed? I’m with Steven on that. Clothes should last a lifetime, unless one is engaged in (gasp!) manual labor or the like.
And Kathryn is wrong to blame my generation.
The one time in the past century when you could pretty much tell the YEAR by the fashions was the 60s. I see it the other way around. I see lasting, classic clothing as the mature, pre-60s thing. And it’s something I embrace. I look back at the 60s, and it makes me tired.
Of course, I’m talking about the mass-media 60s, not the real-life 60s. If you look at what young people were actually wearing — check out a high school yearbook from the late 60s or early 70s — and you won’t see the dramatic changes.
But look at pictures of The Beatles from one year to the next, and it’s like different centuries.
Finally, speaking of pictures — those are great, Burl. But none of them do for me what that flower-child beach picture does. In that one, she’s so… natural. And I’m not just talking about the extremely obvious lack of a bra.
In these latest ones, there’s a dramatic change between the third and the fourth one. In the fourth one, she’s the Loretta Young we later knew. In the first three, she’s an almost anonymous young beauty, an unrecognizable ingenue. And I can’t tell what the change was — lips, eyes? — that turned her into the recognizable Loretta. Perhaps women, being hip to the tricks, could tell…
By the time Loretta Young was doing her TV show, she was well middle-aged and her “look” had been cemented. It’s never fair to judge by make-up standards designed for live TV of the period. We forget how lively she was as an actress.
http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l4ji6vdDOy1qah2gqo1_500.jpg
http://www.doctormacro.com/Images/Young,%20Loretta/Annex/NRFPT/Annex%20-%20Young,%20Loretta_NRFPT_09.jpg
http://www.doctormacro.com/Images/Young,%20Loretta/Annex/NRFPT/Annex%20-%20Young,%20Loretta_NRFPT_11.jpg
http://www.doctormacro.com/Images/Young,%20Loretta/Annex/NRFPT/Annex%20-%20Young,%20Loretta_NRFPT_12.jpg
@Steven–Did I say there was anything wrong with that?
Brad–you are stuck in a time warp, sartorially (and not that there’s anything wrong with that either), but surely you can tell the difference between the My Three Sons 1960s looks and the Welcome Back, Kotter/Charlie’s Angels 1970s looks and the 1980s Madonna/Cyndi Lauper/Ivana Trump looks, and the sort of generic Gapercrombie/LLands End/J Crew looks that everyone wears (well, The Shop Tart has more style, but most of us, anyway). More or less straight leg jeans, dark-ish wash (not acid washed or bell bottomed or colorfully patched), Chucks or Tevas or other comfortable shoes, polos or standard button-ups for guys, V-neck baby rib tees or cardigans for women….even the much-maligned “Rachel” haircut worn by Jennifer Aniston in the early years of Friends is not that much different from that worn by many actresses and news persons today. Contrast with the frizzy perms and blown back bangs of the 1980s, pegged pants….
I think there are certainly big changes in my Aiken High yearbooks–boys’ hair got a lot longer, then feathered back, then preppy-short, then punk, then slicked back. Girls started to wear pants to school in about 1970, and hair went from the straight, long or pixie cuts to the Farrah wannabes–usually tubular bangs instead of feathered, but hey. Then the preppy bobs came in, followed by the messy hair of the 80s….generally, fashions went from square to hippie to preppy to punk
Aw, that’s just cute; that’s all. About what you’d expect. Nothing sexual about it.
That Loretta Young photo, though — that was visceral, elemental, something that inevitably evokes a lubricious response, regardless of the intent of the viewer. It’s “Tales of Brave Ulysses” stuff, the kind of thing a good man has himself tied to the mast over…
I think she outgrew her adolescent baby fat, and then they started exaggerating her cheekbones and lips to match her big eyes. When her eyebrows turned into a hard line, she got kind of cliche looking.
Maybe this one will make you feel like an even dirtier old man.
http://www.doctormacro.com/Movie%20Star%20Pages/Temple,%20Shirley-Annex.htm
No worries. She was already married by this time.
Oops, here’s the actual link
http://www.doctormacro.com/Images/Temple,%20Shirley/Annex/Annex%20-%20Temple,%20Shirley_05.jpg
Am I wrong in thinking that Debra Messing looks kinda like Myrna Loy?
http://www.doctormacro.com/Images/Loy,%20Myrna/Annex/Annex%20-%20Loy,%20Myrna_17.jpg
That’s one super-sharp image, though. I assume it was large-format, and some kind of slow-speed film like Plus-X, or some forerunner of it…
Yeah, I think you’re right. Something in the smile.
But I think that’s a bad picture of Myrna Loy. Not very flattering. This is more the way I think of Myrna Loy.
Also, I have to admit, I had to look up Debra Messing to see who she was.