Vanity Fair May 2018 : Prince Harry & Meghan Markle

[Benn98]

Prince William and the Duchess' engagement cover was an exclusive outtake from their Testino shoot, Bahiyya. Princess Diana's 97' cover shortly before her death was an exclusive Testino shoot as well. And her mid 00s cover was cropped and retouched from the 97' set of images. They've used pap shots before, yes, but they've been privy to some exclusives as well.

The UK royals' media play goes like this. They don't like unauthorised covers and features. Do that and they'll be less likely to ever grant an exclusive. The magazine never got an exclusive from the Duchess after they ran two covers without her consent.

 

[dior_couture1245]

Goodness these two Princes really went for the most basic women imagineable! Try as they all might - Kate and Meghan are no Diana! LOL

 

[honeycombchild]

There’s really no need to be quite so nasty with comments like that. It’s not constructive in anyway, nor is it at all in the spirit of TFS.

I presume you don’t know either woman personally, so whilst you may well be qualified to comment on the quality of the image or elequently voice why you don’t care too much for them, do you feel you posses the inside knowledge of them as people to be able to render them nothing more than ‘basic women’?

 

[dina19]

Anybody can scan the content??ink:

 

[tigerrouge]

Try as they all might - Kate and Meghan are no Diana! LOL

Some might say there are many good reasons why these two women should continue to avoid emulating the example set by the people who went before them.

In recent years, with the advent of Kate and now Megan, I feel that we've reached the point where the media have finally moved beyond being obsessed with Diana, when not everyone in the world was a worshipper.

If my subscription issue turns up any time soon, I'll take a few snaps.

 

[tigerrouge]

Vanity Fair - at least, the UK edition - was never the thickest of issues, but this 130-page pamphlet is essentially full of info about Meghan that I've already read on dailymail.co.uk, and profiles about outsiders dating or marrying into the upper-class, a lot of which has already done by Tatler. The more typical - and stronger - VF content is pushed to the second half of the issue, about Macron, an unfinished Orson Welles movie, crazy German twins hanging around with a Getty heir, and the Croydon Cat Killer.

The page design is riddled with sections of spaced-out text designed for idiots who don't read. I actually feel insulted by this magazine, in design and content - perhaps it's going through a phase of 'fake it til you make it' until the new regime finds its feet, but a lot of this is flimsy stuff, and I don't just mean the page count.

 

[HeatherAnne]

Wow, they looked great that day, and the pictures were beautiful... and yet Vanity Fair picks the worst shot and makes it black & white which is less flattering than the color shots were.

Gar-bage.

Goodness these two Princes really went for the most basic women imagineable! Try as they all might - Kate and Meghan are no Diana! LOL

Diana was exciting? Only because the media made her so.

 

[t-rex]

They redid the inside's layout, and it looks a lot like US Vogue

and that font on the cover is terrible, god.

 

[vogue28]

^Very American Vogue, I couldn't agree more. Thanks to the issue not being shrink-wrapped this month, I leafed through a copy in the supermarket over the weekend and thought it looked very much like Anna's Vogue. There was zero signs of innovation or sense of renewal.

The cover was even more of an eyesore on the shelves, and just looked like another Royal Family-themed special edition which always come out around special occasions (and there's a fair few supplements like so, already available here in England). It most certainly did not standout amongst its competitors.

 

[MissMagAddict]

Getty.

 

[fashionista-ta]

Wow, they looked great that day, and the pictures were beautiful... and yet Vanity Fair picks the worst shot and makes it black & white which is less flattering than the color shots were.

Gar-bage.



Diana was exciting? Only because the media made her so.

I think Diana was a star ... the media attention was part of the reason, but there was also a reason for that attention, plus she courted it.

Not everyone wants a star, and that's OK. Both of these women seem to have their heads screwed on straight, which is pretty important, and both are also older than Diana was when she was thrown into the den. That's good too.

As I think about it, both JFK and JFK Jr. chose women different from each other, but both renowned for their style.

 

[MerrisaV]

where is the exclusiveness of so call glossy print media? this cover image looks as if pulled from getty...