Re: Amal in Vogue Interview this week at Mill House

by ladybugcngc Tue 06 Mar 2018, 05:13

Donnamarie wrote:Advocating for human rights and loving designer fashion shouldn’t have to be mutually exclusive.

Donna I agree with you. What I find extremely offensive is: who she's wearing and how much it cost documented in almost every Daily Mail article. She could be wearing a $5000. suit to a refugee camp, no one would know that if it wasn't documented. After the article with George and Amal on the boat with the twins and the cost of her outfit appeared in the article, I stopped taking her seriously.

by Donnamarie Tue 06 Mar 2018, 06:18

Ladybug, you agree with me on what?? You don’t take Amal seriously? I do. We obviously disagree. As far as I’m concerned the cost of her clothes doesn’t impact the kind of person she is or diminish the serious legal work that she does in defense of human rights.

by ladybugcngc Tue 06 Mar 2018, 06:54

Donnamarie wrote:Ladybug, you agree with me on what?? You don’t take Amal seriously? I do. We obviously disagree. As far as I’m concerned the cost of her clothes doesn’t impact the kind of person she is or diminish the serious legal work that she does in defense of human rights.

What I find extremely offensive is: who she's wearing and how much it cost documented in almost every Daily Mail article.

I have no problem with Amal wearing whatever she like.

I don't take her seriously as a Human Rights attorney's when "who" she's wearing and how much it "cost" is advertised in "almost" every (or every) Daily Mail article.

by annemarie Tue 06 Mar 2018, 08:03

Amlal doesn't announce the cost of her clothes the fail finds it because they have a fashion section and seem to think
people are interested in her clothes. If she wore cheaper clothes it would still happen she is George's wife first and foremost in the rags eyes.

Her clothes are simply that clothes which we all wear in different price ranges. What matters is she gets her job done with her intelligence , her clothes don't argue her cases she does.

The people she works for and with take her seriously and that is what is important.

by it's me Tue 06 Mar 2018, 08:45

party animal - not! wrote:Not so sure about that - remember that he had stayed in a lot of SoHo properties around the world - Berlin without a doubt pre Amal - London and the rooftop restaurant in LA. One of the things we do know about Amal is that she loves vintage - and not just necessarily in the clothes she wears (she gets loads from WilliamVintage London) but they love to eat at the Sunset Tower and places like the restaurant in Paris..........

rooftop restaurant in LA?? scratch

Can't remember

by ladybugcngc Tue 06 Mar 2018, 12:09

annemarie wrote:Amlal doesn't announce the cost of her clothes the fail finds it because they have a fashion section and seem to think
people are interested in her clothes. If she wore cheaper clothes it would still happen she is George's wife first and foremost in the rags eyes.

Her clothes are simply that clothes which we all wear in different price ranges. What matters is she gets her job done with her intelligence , her clothes don't argue her cases she does.

The people she works for and with take her seriously and that is what is important.

First of all it's a no, no to mention cases Amal works on without the reference "Amal's team".

You can't convince me there's not a contract link between the paid ad's and articles that feature Amal. I'm not convinced the Daily Mail think people are interested in what designer a human rights attorney is wearing and the cost. Also from my observation very little interest is paid to what a celebrity's spouse is wearing.

by carolhathaway Tue 06 Mar 2018, 14:47

I've said it about a dozen times in different threads here:

I don't think the lady who runs the site dedicated to Amal's fashion does her a favor since she sets the spotlight on the prices. We don't know what her collegues wear. It's a suit with a shirt and tie plus shoes, as well as a watch. Which might cost more than what Amal is wearing, but since she's on fashion observation and she has a very unique style, we get to know about it.
We also don't know the prizes of George's clothes. Yeah, it's the usual Levis (he seems to have dozens of them) plus shirt (hopefully not just Casamigos) and beige shoes. Maybe he's wearing golden underwear? (The last time I wrote this, somebody mentioned that George never wears his socks twice so that's a bit extravagant.)

It's of course quite special to borrow jewelry for a photoshooting. But we don't know if she really borrowed jewelry for a couple of million bucks, in which content that is and what the interview is about.
And I would call it really extravagant if she had BOUGHT the jewels just for this occasion.

by it's me Tue 06 Mar 2018, 16:25

George never wears his socks twice ?

Seriously ?! Suspect

Smell issue eekout

Or a lil pleasure?

What about boxers ? Cool

by Way2Old4Dis Tue 06 Mar 2018, 16:26

The point is this. If she shows up dripping in diamonds and showing off her fabulous digs, any message of charity, humanitarian efforts, or civic responsibility will be drowned out. She has to know this. It might not be fair, or right, or rational, but it's the way things work.

So let's say she's as smart and compassionate and perceptive as everyone reports. Either she skips the ultra jewelry, or she wears it and sticks to the topic of the Met Gala being an over-the-top themed fashion event for the showiest of the show people. Of which she is now one.

JMHO.

by LizzyNY Tue 06 Mar 2018, 16:26

I'm just curious what the content of the article will be that it requires her to wear such expensive jewelry. All of the "She has a right to wear whatever she wants" stuff aside, the image of a human rights advocate wearing $9million worth of jewelry is jarring - especially when the rest of us, who aren't so financially blessed, are being asked to donate to support the causes she represents. (And which she is often being paid to represent.)

by Way2Old4Dis Tue 06 Mar 2018, 16:41

^^^ Exactly.

by annemarie Tue 06 Mar 2018, 17:09

I for one have no problem with her wearing diamonds. We all have lives outside our jobs and things we enjoy hers is fashion and this event is fashion related.

As long as she dresses properly and isn't wearing them to court it doesn't matter to me. Amal and George are known to give a great deal to charity which is

great in these times. Amal has also done cases without being paid as well.

by Admin Thu 08 Mar 2018, 18:25

ladybugcngc wrote:First of all it's a no, no to mention cases Amal works on without the reference "Amal's team".

You can't convince me there's not a contract link between the paid ad's and articles that feature Amal. I'm not convinced the Daily Mail think people are interested in what designer a human rights attorney is wearing and the cost. Also from my observation very little interest is paid to what a celebrity's spouse is wearing.

Ohhh, so we're back on that conspiracy theory are we?

Amal has nothing to do with the Daily Mail and has no control over what they do (or don't) write about her - which most of the time is blindly obvious nonsense. The Daily Mail does the fashion feature on EVERY celebrity they write about, not just Amal.

Personally I don't think they actually care whether or not their readers are interested in whatever is being worn by whatever celebrity they're writing about: they do it as a standard thing.

Way2Old4Dis wrote:The point is this. If she shows up dripping in diamonds and showing off her fabulous digs, any message of charity, humanitarian efforts, or civic responsibility will be drowned out. She has to know this. It might not be fair, or right, or rational, but it's the way things work.

So let's say she's as smart and compassionate and perceptive as everyone reports. Either she skips the ultra jewelry, or she wears it and sticks to the topic of the Met Gala being an over-the-top themed fashion event for the showiest of the show people. Of which she is now one.

I'm conflicted on this. Still not sure how borrowing jewellery for a photoshoot makes someone unsuitable to do humanitarian work.

I don't think it's a particularly clever thing for her to do though.

by ladybugcngc Thu 08 Mar 2018, 19:21

Admin wrote:
Ohhh, so we're back on that conspiracy theory are we?

Amal has nothing to do with the Daily Mail and has no control over what they do (or don't) write about her - which most of the time is blindly obvious nonsense. The Daily Mail does the fashion feature on EVERY celebrity they write about, not just Amal.

Personally I don't think they actually care whether or not their readers are interested in whatever is being worn by whatever celebrity they're writing about: they do it as a standard thing.

Amal is not a celebrity.

I never stated Amal had anything to do with what the Daily Mail writes about her.

I've seen other Daily Mail articles with fashion models and A-list celebrities, and there was NO ad outlining who they were wearing and/or how much the outfit cost.

Admin, are you saying Amal's "personal team" has no contract link between the paid ad's and articles that feature Amal?

by Way2Old4Dis Thu 08 Mar 2018, 19:24

KatieD, the jewelry doesn't make her unsuitable in the least. But it will definitely distract from any humanitarian message she delivers, if that's on the agenda. Optics can change the narrative. We all know that. She does, too. Which is why one or more parts of this story probably aren't true.

by annemarie Thu 08 Mar 2018, 20:45

On the Mail today there is an article on Meghan Markle , there is an add for a coat similar to what she is wearing.

They do this too several people Amal is not the only one. The mail simply posts the fashion in their fashion pages.

Her team are her co workers other attorneys, that is the only team that is spoken about here.

by LizzyNY Thu 08 Mar 2018, 20:53

Other than the DM's "in a few months time", does anyone know anything about when this issue comes out? Seems to me we're starting to go down the rabbit hole over should she/shouldn't she when we don't really know what it's about.

by annemarie Thu 08 Mar 2018, 21:20

The ball is in may so maybe the interview will be in next month's issue. They haven't released a date for the issue.

by party animal - not! Thu 08 Mar 2018, 23:32

er........what 'personal team'? The nearest thing she has to that is Charlotte Tilbury's lot, William Vintage from whom she buys many vintage dresses - some of which she returns - and Anna Wintour......known to have dinner with Stella McCartney and Giambattista Valli occasionally.........

by Admin Sun 18 Mar 2018, 03:49

ladybugcngc wrote:Amal is not a celebrity.

Not in her mind, no. But as far as the Mail is concerned, yes she is.

ladybugcngc wrote:I never stated Amal had anything to do with what the Daily Mail writes about her.

Yes you did. This sentence right here was written by you: "You can't convince me there's not a contract link between the paid ad's and articles that feature Amal."

ladybugcngc wrote: I've seen other Daily Mail articles with fashion models and A-list celebrities, and there was NO ad outlining who they were wearing and/or how much the outfit cost.

Then you aren't paying attention because they do it a lot - I'd say most of their celebrity stories carry this feature.

ladybugcngc wrote: are you saying Amal's "personal team" has no contract link between the paid ad's and articles that feature Amal?

Yes. Amal has no 'team' as such and she has no contract link to the paid ads in the Mail. The Mail makes its money by adding links to where you can buy clothes similar to the ones worn by the celebs they've written about. They don't then pass on this money to the celebs.

This was explained ad nauseam to the poster with multiple usernames during the Stacy Keibler days too. I'm not interested in hearing the usual howls of outrage and denials that will follow this statement as you claim once again to be a new poster with no knowledge of what happened before despite regurgitating the same old, same old.

by ladybugcngc Sun 18 Mar 2018, 06:23

by LizzyNY Sun 18 Mar 2018, 13:10

By all accounts Amal is fairly intelligent. Considering all the media attention she gets, I think by now she knows she's a celebrity. Whether or not she feels she should be is another story.

by ladybugcngc Sun 18 Mar 2018, 14:08

LizzyNY wrote:By all accounts Amal is fairly intelligent. Considering all the media attention she gets, I think by now she knows she's a celebrity. Whether or not she feels she should be is another story.

Lizzy are you joking. Do you really think Amal is a celebrity?

Amal is the wife of a Celebrity. I think she's intelligent enough to know she is not a celebrity.

Did you know her before she married an Actor?

Would you read about her life, follow her career, care where she lives, comment on her fashion, ect,... if she was not married to George Clooney?

Do you read, follow, or have an interest in the life of Sarah Larson, Elizabetta Canalis, Stacy Keibler...

Honestly, if they were no longer together would view her as a celebrity?

by LizzyNY Sun 18 Mar 2018, 14:25

Ladybug - The fact that you can do all the things you mention only proves that she IS a celebrity. Whether she was one before George is unimportant. She is one NOW. If she wasn't you'd only see her in the media when she's with George, which isn't the case.

by ladybugcngc Sun 18 Mar 2018, 14:40

LizzyNY wrote:Ladybug - The fact that you can do all the things you mention only proves that she IS a celebrity. Whether she was one before George is unimportant. She is one NOW. If she wasn't you'd only see her in the media when she's with George, which isn't the case.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by ladybugcngc Sun 18 Mar 2018, 19:50

Lizzy I'm curious,

What other wife of a celebrity do you consider a celebrity?

by LizzyNY Sun 18 Mar 2018, 21:11

Ladybug - There are lots of them. Jenna Tatum, Kim Kardashian, Jennifer Garner, Tori Spelling, Annette Benning, Michelle Obama. I can go on, but there's no point. Looks like your mind is already made up.

by ladybugcngc Sun 18 Mar 2018, 21:34

Yes Lizzy,

You clearly see Amal Clooney as a celebrity. And, I have no idea how you reach that conclusion.

Just to be clear you put Amal Clooney in the same category as: "Jenna Tatum, Kim Kardashian, Jennifer Garner, Tori Spelling, Annette Benning, Michelle Obama"...

We definitely have two different perspectives on who's considered a celebrity of their own notoriety. And, a non celebrity who is a wife of someone with established celebrity notoriety.

We also have a difference of opinion on reality personalities defined as celebrities and wives of Elected officials defined as celebrities. scratch

I extend a hand to agree to disagree.

by LizzyNY Sun 18 Mar 2018, 22:29

Ladybug - I define anyone who I see constantly plastered all over the media as a celebrity. And yes, agree to disagree.

by Admin Mon 19 Mar 2018, 03:42

Anyone who gets constant coverage in the press and on TV is a celebrity (whether they want to be one or not) and that includes anyone who dates - or marries - a world-famous celebrity.

To think that Amal isn't now a celebrity herself is just ludicrous. The facts that she may not have wanted to be a celebrity and that the fame comes only because of who she married and not something she herself did are irrelevant. Of course she's a celebrity. Why do you think she's featured in the media so often?

by ladybugcngc Mon 19 Mar 2018, 04:13

Amal is in the media because she is the wife of an Actor. If she was not a wife of an Actor, I would not know who she was.

I never saw Amal on the cover of any magazine before she married George Clooney. If Amal's relationship with George Clooney was to dissolve she will be known a George Clooney's ex.

I don't see Amal as a celebrity. I think Amal is intelligent enough to know she is not a celebrity. However, you and others have every right to view her as a celebrity.

by Admin Mon 19 Mar 2018, 04:34

ladybugcngc wrote:Amal is in the media because she is the wife of an Actor.

Yes, exactly. That's WHY she's now a celebrity. The fact that none of us had heard of her before is irrelevant to the discussion.

The definition of celebrity is someone who's famous. Not someone who's done something to be famous for. Yes, she's only a celebrity because of who she married, but that's enough to make her a celebrity. Why else do you think the gossip media write about her? It's not because of a sudden fascination with human rights lawyers!

Don't confuse being a star for being a celebrity. George Clooney is a star but Amal Clooney is not. They are, however, both celebrities.

Yes, even if they divorced tomorrow, she'd still always be in the media as his ex, the same way that all his exes - even poor Lisa Snowdon who's relationship ended more than a decade ago now - are. That's the nature of being a celebrity.

I get your point that she's done nothing meaningful to be famous for, but that's because you misunderstand the nature of fame: it's not necessary to actually do something to become famous; sleep with the right person; have a big backside; be the sister of someone who has a big backside; marry an A-lister, get good plastic surgery; hell, get bad plastic surgery . . . all these silly things and more are all that's needed to become a celebrity.

by ladybugcngc Mon 19 Mar 2018, 05:41

Admin,

I now understand clearly why you view Amal as a celebrity and I don't.

by annemarie Mon 19 Mar 2018, 09:52

The media makes you a celebrity by writing about you and taking your picture.

In the old days of Hollywood actors were famous stars their images were clean and their private lives for the most part were
kept quiet.

Today you can be a celebrity for any reason take Kim K and all the reality celebs but for me they aren't stars.

by What Would He Say Thu 22 Mar 2018, 01:13

And Melania... speaks five languages, the poise of a true blue Royal, the ability to “put up and shut up for an eternity”..... celebrity, victim or an Iron Lady?...

by LizzyNY Thu 22 Mar 2018, 13:22

WWHS- Or all of the above? We all have many faces.

by Sponsored content