Why is Jackie Kennedy always referred to as “beautiful”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She was average at best, with eyes far too wide-set, teeth crooked, though she did dress nicely. But if you saw this woman in regular clothing at the grocery store, there’s no way you’d stop in your tracks to notice her beauty.

So why in books, documentaries, podcasts, and every other media,is she constantly referred to as “beautiful”?

Jackie reminds me of current "it" gal Zendaya. The media and fashion houses create these women. Ivanka Trump, Blake Lively, Beyonce and Gisele Bündchen are a few others. The frenzy does not match up to reality. And the scope of plastic surgery involved these days is grotesque.

Np
Zendaya and Gisele are gorgeous in any fashion and no make up

Jackie O was beautiful too I'm the curated way you describe. I didn't think her son was very attractive but he was very popular in the 90s.

Zendaya is getting more beautiful with age, imo.

[Anonymous]

Probably because she is the prettiest First Lady we’ve ever had.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Probably because she is the prettiest First Lady we’ve ever had.

No, she was just one of the youngest. Off the top of my head Laura Bush and Hillary Clinton are both better looking (and no, I do not think they’re particularly pretty).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably because she is the prettiest First Lady we’ve ever had.

No, she was just one of the youngest. Off the top of my head Laura Bush and Hillary Clinton are both better looking (and no, I do not think they’re particularly pretty).

Omg hell no. I don't even think Jackie O was pretty, but she was better looking than those two.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is referred to as beautiful because she was beautiful. Women copied her, wanted to be her, men wanted to have her.

Things have changed since then. I guess the people of today who weren't around then have their own opinions. I think the female icons of today (Taylor Swift for instance) tell us what standards are in vogue now. Certainly celebrities of today have the benefit of high tech photo perfection that Jackie didn't have.

Oh, come on. Did you take a survey? Or did you just read PR articles about how beautiful she was and how everyone wanted to be like her and how men wanted to have her? She was not pretty in her day in the slightest. Most women at that time were very thin. Has everyone lost their memory of that? Why don’t you take a look at some photos of other rich debutantes of the 1950s and 1960s. They’re all equally stylish and nearly all of them have much prettier faces than Jackie. Even her, own sister, Lee Radziwell, was much prettier than Jackie. The only thing that stood out about Jackie was the huge Camelot media campaign put forth by her husband’s team.

As for Taylor Swift, how did you miss the huge pages long thread about how many people think she’s unattractive and a mediocre musician? We’re not all in the same boat in terms of opinions, regardless of publicity efforts to claim mass, unquestioned adoration.

You can’t believe everything you read.

Nope. You are misinformed. Jackie was beautiful, charming, charismatic, smart, funny, and probably more popular than any other first lady in history even long after JFK's death. Here's a pic of her and her sister, you think Lee was more beautiful?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably because she is the prettiest First Lady we’ve ever had.

No, she was just one of the youngest. Off the top of my head Laura Bush and Hillary Clinton are both better looking (and no, I do not think they’re particularly pretty).

Omg hell no. I don't even think Jackie O was pretty, but she was better looking than those two.

Laura Bush was prettier but Jackie had more style.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is referred to as beautiful because she was beautiful. Women copied her, wanted to be her, men wanted to have her.

Things have changed since then. I guess the people of today who weren't around then have their own opinions. I think the female icons of today (Taylor Swift for instance) tell us what standards are in vogue now. Certainly celebrities of today have the benefit of high tech photo perfection that Jackie didn't have.

Oh, come on. Did you take a survey? Or did you just read PR articles about how beautiful she was and how everyone wanted to be like her and how men wanted to have her? She was not pretty in her day in the slightest. Most women at that time were very thin. Has everyone lost their memory of that? Why don’t you take a look at some photos of other rich debutantes of the 1950s and 1960s. They’re all equally stylish and nearly all of them have much prettier faces than Jackie. Even her, own sister, Lee Radziwell, was much prettier than Jackie. The only thing that stood out about Jackie was the huge Camelot media campaign put forth by her husband’s team.

As for Taylor Swift, how did you miss the huge pages long thread about how many people think she’s unattractive and a mediocre musician? We’re not all in the same boat in terms of opinions, regardless of publicity efforts to claim mass, unquestioned adoration.

You can’t believe everything you read.

Nope. You are misinformed. Jackie was beautiful, charming, charismatic, smart, funny, and probably more popular than any other first lady in history even long after JFK's death. Here's a pic of her and her sister, you think Lee was more beautiful?

I'd say they were about equal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably because she is the prettiest First Lady we’ve ever had.

No, she was just one of the youngest. Off the top of my head Laura Bush and Hillary Clinton are both better looking (and no, I do not think they’re particularly pretty).

Neither Laura or Hillary good looking but they did the best they could with what they had.

[Anonymous]

Melania is much more attractive by genz and millennial standards

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Melania is much more attractive by genz and millennial standards

I think it would be hard to argue with the fact that Melania wins the most beautiful first lady prize. It's a good thing it means absolutely nothing of value.

[Anonymous]

Thank you OP because I don’t think she is pretty at all. I have always thought the bridge of her nose where it ends between her eyes looks like fetal alcohol syndrome face.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably because she is the prettiest First Lady we’ve ever had.

No, she was just one of the youngest. Off the top of my head Laura Bush and Hillary Clinton are both better looking (and no, I do not think they’re particularly pretty).

Yep, she was the youngest by far since she was only 31 when JFK became president.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably because she is the prettiest First Lady we’ve ever had.

No, she was just one of the youngest. Off the top of my head Laura Bush and Hillary Clinton are both better looking (and no, I do not think they’re particularly pretty).

Yep, she was the youngest by far since she was only 31 when JFK became president.

Nope. Grover Cleveland married Frances Folsom (21 years old at the time) during his presidency and in the Blue Room of the White House.

Frances Folsom beats Jackie Kennedy by a decade in youth.

[Anonymous]

Probably because she was young (compared to the First Ladies they were used to), and elegant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She is referred to as beautiful because she was beautiful. Women copied her, wanted to be her, men wanted to have her.

Things have changed since then. I guess the people of today who weren't around then have their own opinions. I think the female icons of today (Taylor Swift for instance) tell us what standards are in vogue now. Certainly celebrities of today have the benefit of high tech photo perfection that Jackie didn't have.

Oh, come on. Did you take a survey? Or did you just read PR articles about how beautiful she was and how everyone wanted to be like her and how men wanted to have her? She was not pretty in her day in the slightest. Most women at that time were very thin. Has everyone lost their memory of that? Why don’t you take a look at some photos of other rich debutantes of the 1950s and 1960s. They’re all equally stylish and nearly all of them have much prettier faces than Jackie. Even her, own sister, Lee Radziwell, was much prettier than Jackie. The only thing that stood out about Jackie was the huge Camelot media campaign put forth by her husband’s team.

As for Taylor Swift, how did you miss the huge pages long thread about how many people think she’s unattractive and a mediocre musician? We’re not all in the same boat in terms of opinions, regardless of publicity efforts to claim mass, unquestioned adoration.

You can’t believe everything you read.

Nope. You are misinformed. Jackie was beautiful, charming, charismatic, smart, funny, and probably more popular than any other first lady in history even long after JFK's death. Here's a pic of her and her sister, you think Lee was more beautiful?

Yeah, as long as Jackie’s face is hidden by her hair, I suppose she’s not that bad. Also, that picture has an unfair angle for the sister versus Jackie. If you look at photos of just their faces, side by side, Lee (the sister) is significantly more symmetrical. Neither one of them is beautiful.

Like beauty, charm is in the eye of the beholder. Jackie’s charisma was on clear display when she sued Aristotle Onassis’ daughter over the inheritance her father had left to her. It’s not charming behavior to ignore a will and demand more money from an orphaned young woman.

I fail to see anything pretty about Jackie, but she did dress well on that $20 million settlement.