Harumi said:
You're not the only one. Sorry but I think she is fug and has been so for many years.
Imo Vogue hasn't done anything to Nicole's face, Botox, surgery and decades of over-styling and over-dying her mane is more like it.
Anyway, I'd would like to hear what you though about the Euro socialite's article?
Ooh good point she has really gotten out of hand with her surgeries and facial altering. Its a pity given that she had at one point a very pure look. I have no problem with cosmetic surgery but I'd much rather see a face that looks a little lived in than a face that has been sandblasted into "perfection".
I found the European socialites article to be interesting though it seemed a bit more like a Brit or French Vogue profile given the names featured. I enjoy it a bit more when US Vogue sticks to profiling American socials. There is something a little more...industrious about the American social set. The lack of titles paired with the capricious structure of the US hierarchy creates an odd little atmosphere. One gets the feeling that with the right amount of charm and gusto anyone could supplant themselves within that world. The European set seems (and I could be quite off about this) a bit more archaic and subsequently anachronistic.
The Vogue article (written by Norwich who is a grand old fashioned snob and I mean that in the best possible way) was intriguing in the way that all profiles of privilege are, there was nothing new about it in terms of subject matter though Norwich is always fun to read. I quite got the feeling that the same exact article could have been written in the 1980s or even the 1920s only with different
"Bright Young Things" featured. Every generation has its beautiful wealthy darlings who go to all the right parties. Such a thing is eternal, no? However, I didn't quite like the world of aristocracy is pitted against the world of celebrity. The fact that being a member of the social set in this day and age is tantamount to being a sort of celebrity is entirely overlooked.
I think this quote sums up the article:
"The welcome offered the social nouvelle is part of the European backlash against a kind of random celebrity worship that is considered at bit too American and generally not cool.
It strikes me as so odd though since the adoration of socialites couldn't be more representative of "random celebrity worship". What manner of fame is more random than that of a socialite? These girls (and boys) are essentially known for winning a genetic lottery wherein they are beautiful and blessed with notable names. And I'm not saying this as a diss to the socials featured as I find them quite elegant and glamourous but lets call a spade a spade. That slant of the article was contradictory and incongruous to say the least. The sentiment underlying the entire article was:
Celebrities are rather crass but these people are sophisticated and chic, they are above it all! Love them long time!!
That said it is nice to see another option presented I to I'm tired of annoying Hollywood types in the front rows at fashion shows, dressing in head to toe designer labels pretending to be chic (there is a delicious swipe at Victoria Beckham and Katie Holmes within the article) but I don't know if this social set is much better in the long run. I am torn since I feel leery of celebrating people simply because they are born into fortunate situations but on the flip side I
adore this sort of thing. Who doesn't love hearing about princesses and exquisite little darlings who romp around the globe wearing Lanvin? I couldn't say a bad thing about Charlotte Casiraghi if I tried, she's just perfect. Its a mysterious new world of celebrity especially for American audiences and I can see US Vogue delving into the territory much much deeper.
Speaking of privileged beauties
beautifulboi, here is the brides article, they all look amazing.
Image credit: My scanner
Thank you Kanna
Here's the Testino/Federer ed. 
Sorry the scans aren't any better. I didn't save these pages from the mag I tore up.
lol: 
