The new Diana? — Paris Hilton
Helen Mirren, who recently won an Oscar for her portrayal of the Queen, doesn’t see Kate Middleton as the “new Diana”, as some do. No, it’s quite obviously Paris Hilton, she claims.
Paris Hilton, left, Princess Diana, right
The Dame believes that the hotel heiress has what it takes to reach the same heights as Diana. “I don’t applaud Paris Hilton, but I think she’s pretty cool,” Helen says. “She’s developed, like Princess Diana, that deliberate foolishness, which is disarming.â€
Dear oh dear, when actors reveal their real thoughts, they kind of diminish, don’t they? No Oscar for punditry for you, Dame Helen.
Is Helen Mirren Kidding? Diana was class and Paris is just trash. Makes me wonder what she is about to promote beside herself.
By Trudie on October 10th, 2007 at 10:52 am
Obviously, the crown Helen Mirren wore in the movie “The Queen” was on too tight! Helen, herself, is starting to sound like Paris Hilton. “That’s hot!”
By Arthur on October 10th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Helen Mirren has lost her mind. Trudie, I agree totally with your assessment of Paris Hilton and of Princess Diana. Helen Mirren has gotten some awards, preened in the limelight and now thinks she is an expert on everything. Typical Hollywood-type celebrity, even if she is a Brit–”can’t open the door, won’t shut her mouth.” Arthur, you are hilarious!
By Gigi on October 10th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Paris Hilton is the new Diana? I wasn’t aware that Diana had herpes. Hmmmm.
By DodiM on October 10th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Could not agree more with all that has been said Diana was class so to a degree is Kate but Paris NO NO for all her money. Have just Googled her and she has a mass of skeletons in her cupboard.
I don’t see Kate as a second Diana more as a first Catherine.
By Royalist on October 10th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Helen Mirren is a fine actress but her taste in people is just God-awful. What else can you say.
Paris Hilton is like a souless dead thing with dead blank eyes.
How can you possibly compare that to the late Princess??
By Emeline on October 10th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Arthur not only was the crown too tight but made her absolutely delusional!!!. Even Koo Stark who was deemed not suitable for Andrew had more class at least her soft porn movie was tame compared to Paris’s video and party activities. Helen should try pulling off the role of playing Paris.
By Trudie on October 10th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Yeah I’m pretty sure Di didn’t smoke weed and make a pornographic home video. Maybe the comparision comes from the fact they are blondes. Maybe they used the same brand of highlights or something.
By Spritzie on October 10th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
She’s not even much of an heiress. I read that she stands to inherit $300m, which is not a lot these days compared with all the multi-billionaires around.
By John on October 10th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Zeitgeist, John, zeitgeist.
By kit on October 10th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
I think we’re all being too hard on Paris. After all, she doesn’t have the best role models in her family tree: former step-Great Grannie, Zsa Zsa Gabor, and former Great Aunt, Elizabeth Taylor. Perhaps Dame Helen should portray one of those “fine ladies” in her next film! And John, $300M is nothing to sneeze at. I’d appear in a home made sex video for $150M.
By Arthur on October 10th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Arthur, I almost had to take smelling salts after reading that last line!
Let’s be serious. Paris Hilton has, indeed, had some less than stellar role models in her family, including step- grandmothers, and so on, and her own blood relations, including playboy Nicky Hilton were poster people for excessive lifestyles and bad behavior. Nevertheless, Paris is an adult and is making her own, bad choices. She can choose to repudiate the past reputation of her family and make a new life of respectability and personal responsibility. The fact that she has embraced the excess and chosen not to behave responsibly now places the blame on her own shoulders.
John, if you think that 300 million dollars isn’t much of an inheritance, you must be socializing in veryglossy and exalted circles these days.
Nevertheless, I have no doubt that the sum Paris inherits, if the world financial markets do not implode, will be far more than $300 million. That sum was just what the press was able to come up with. People whose families have been wealthy for as many generations as the Hiltons hide their assets in increasingly clever and creative ways.
By Gigi on October 10th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
I’d appear in a home made sex video for $150M.
People would pay me that much not to appear in a sex video.
By Aunt Pierre on October 10th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Gigi, you are absolutely correct about Paris’ bad choices. I was being facetious when I referenced her family tree. I’m certain Paris could teach Zsa Zsa and Liz a few things about using one’s feminine wiles to make a buck!
It’s a sad commentary on our society, when bad behavior is rewarded with fame and fortune. Paris Hilton was a nobody, before her homemade sex video “accidently” appeared on the Internet and she is more popular now, after spending time in prison, than ever before. In a recent interview, Paris’ Mother and Father said they were “very proud” of their daughter. Perhaps that’s where Paris’ problems began. I know my parents would never say they were proud of me, after I appeared in a sex video, used drugs, drove drunk and spent time in prison. What a great resume!
PS. I had a wonderful time in your home town last weekend, Gigi. It was a little warm for a Fall wedding, but, lovely, none the less.
By Arthur on October 10th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
I suspect that Mirren’s comments were taken out of context and she meant that Paris is like Diana in some ways. That is certainly unarguable.
Paris is either hiding a shrewd intelligence or a great intuitive PR sense. She has complete control over her identity and could easily morph into a Diana-type brand if she wanted to.
By ClassyCanuck on October 10th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Arthur, I am glad you enjoyed your weekend in my town despite the torrid temperatures. In this part of the world we often have temps in the 90s through Halloween and there have been years when I have roasted the Thanksgiving turkey and even trimmed the Christmas tree with the AC on full blast. Nevertheless, this is a great town with lots to see and do.
I must disagree with you, ClassyCanuck. In my view, nothing Paris Hilton has said or done reveals any vestige of intelligence, no sign of shrewdness, nor sense of any category, including that of intuitive PR. She has made herself the toady of the gutter press and is close to making herself a public fool. The only thing Paris Hilton has in common with Princess Diana is that they are both female. I do not think well of Helen Mirren, whose ego is on overdrive, and I would be grateful if she would be quiet, unless she is on a movie set portraying a person who is more sensible and mature than she appears to be.
By Gigi on October 10th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
If you Google “Helen Mirren Paris Hilton,” you get a host of articles about what Dame Helen said. Mirren’s relatively passing remarks do make a little more sense in context, I think. She was talking about Diana and Paris as cultural icons not about their intrinsic worth as human beings.
By Aunt Pierre on October 10th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
Oh Lord, Paris Hilton = Diana? NOT They do not even come close to being comparable.
I read somewhere that Britney Spears feels that she is headed in the same direction as Diana – that they seem to share some sort of “connection”. Now that girl needs help. Pronto.
By On the Outside on October 10th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
Diana, Princess of Wales. Britney Spears, Princess of Trailer Trash. Not even close!
By Arthur on October 10th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
On the Outside, well said! Well said, Arthur! I agree with both of you.
By Gigi on October 10th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
The head of Helen Mirren has gotten so full of fame and Oscar that she speaks as if she is the “queen”. What an insult.
By cook on October 11th, 2007 at 12:32 am
A very interesting article from The Mirror:
Prince William has chosen a particularly pertinent week to lash out at photographers for, he claims, their threatening behaviour.
At the start of a historic inquest into Diana’s death, complaints from Clarence House that he and girlfriend Kate Middleton were pursued, or “hounded”, by paparazzi last week were bound to invoke memories of his mother’s demise.
And didn’t our Prince just know it? Clearly, no one in their right mind wants to see either William or Kate hurt but let’s get a few facts established here.
The couple were on their first public outing together since their infamous “split”, during which “publicity shy” Miss Middleton seemed to delight in being “papped” with assorted partners and her sister. (Not for nothing have they been labelled the Wisteria Sisters – decorative, fragrant and famously good climbers.)
If she and William didn’t realise a reunion snap would be photographic gold-dust they’ve been living on a different planet to the rest of us. The couple are not run-of-the-mill celebs but the future King and his potential Queen …
However any of you may feel about this couple, you cannot deny the many truths in the article…
By Emily on October 11th, 2007 at 1:27 am
The thread that runs through the three people mentioned is that they are all good-looking females who perform on the public stage. For some reason — in each case — something tipped them over to living on the public stage, so that every aspect of their private lives became big news, at least in the tabloids. At that point, they’re even performing in private, so they lose all authenticity and self-knowledge and become totally dependent on fickle fans and fashion editors.
Victoria Beckham is on this slippery slope too. I could also mention Lindsay Lohan, who is a total wreck at 21, or, going back a bit, Marilyn Monroe, who self-combusted for years and took an overdose at 36.
There’s no doubt that Diana went along with this for some years, but then tried to draw a line under it. But by then it was too late. She was consumed by the world’s prurient appetite for every detail of her life and soul. No-one can live like that for long.
By John on October 11th, 2007 at 9:50 am
Paris doesn’t seem to be too much of a true heiress. I read that her father only receives about $400,000 a year in interest from the estate and that her family is trying to capitalize on her fame by earning money for themselves. The stock that is the $300M is in trust. Her mother does appearances at events for fee and had a TV show. AND there have been rumors that Paris is being disinheritted from her family’s estate because of her bad behavior.
By Cate on October 11th, 2007 at 11:06 am
Cate, Nemesis inevitably follows Hubris.
By John on October 11th, 2007 at 11:27 am
I know! Isn’t it funny John that it is from her own family? They seem to be latching on to her at the same time she is being disinherited. It will be interesting to see when it flips towards them! They will want something from her and she will refuse them.
By Cate on October 11th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Ah thank you Aunt Pierre, cultural icons is exactly what they have in common. The difference is that Paris engineered her iconic status (starting from neither talents like acting or music nor great wealth), while Diana chanced into hers, perhaps reluctantly.
By ClassyCanuck on October 11th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
I agree with the article from the Mirror. You nailed it.
By Judy on October 12th, 2007 at 3:13 am
I think the Oscar she won is making her woozie….. Paris and Diana?? The same????? That’s like saying the Queen has a sex video that came out….It’s just bolony….. I would consider that an insult…. I really hope she was joking….
By Ziny on October 13th, 2007 at 4:52 am
I agree with you, Ziny. If Helen Mirren can’t say something halfway sensible, she needs to learn the beauty of the unexpressed thought!
By Gigi on October 13th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
“Helen Mirren has gotten some awards, preened in the limelight and now thinks she is an expert on everything.”
LOL: I certainly don’t agree with Dame Helen about the supposed similarity between the Paris Hilton and the late Princess Di (IMO, Di was a flawed but genuinely warm, earthy and charismatic person where Paris Hilton is basically a spoilt-rotten, shallow, racist, overhyped waste of space).
However, I fail to see how simply expressing her opinion, whether you agree or not, qualifies her as someone who thinks she “is an expert on everything”. Now, if Dame Helen starts dispensing advice on child-rearing, offering solutions for obtaining world peace, theorizing on the plausible merits of the Big Boom Theory or explaining why in God’s name a blithering idiot like George W. Bush was ever re-elected (I don’t think ANYONE has sufficient intelligence or insight to answer that one), I might concede your point.
“The head of Helen Mirren has gotten so full of fame and Oscar that she speaks as if she is the “queenâ€. ‘
First, Dame Helen was outspoken and opinionated long BEFORE she ever won an Oscar.
Secondly, how is simply articulating one’s opinion considered speaking like you are a queen? I’m not British but, I have always assumed that British commoners had the right of free speech, not just the queen.
By Janet Oliver on October 22nd, 2007 at 5:21 pm