The Touching Reason Princess Diana's Winter Coats Have Never Been for Sale
One of the largest ever auctions of Princess Diana's belongings is set to take place later this month in Beverly Hills.
Over 300 items will be up for grabs in the sale, called 'Princess Diana's Style & A Royal Collection' and put on by Julien's Auctions.
One item that you won't find in this auction (or any other)? Winter coats—for a thoughtful and poignant reason.Over 300 pieces from Princess Diana's personal collection are going up for auction this month—but one item bidders won't find? The late Princess of Wales' winter coats.
The auction—set to take place on June 26 at 10 a.m. PST at The Peninsula Beverly Hills—will feature Diana's clothes, shoes, accessories, and handbags, but no winter coats. Julien's Auctions is putting on the sale, called 'Princess Diana's Style & A Royal Collection,' and the auction house's co-founder and executive director Martin Nolan explained why to People—and what it says about the late royal.
'We learned through this how generous Diana was, always giving items,' he said. 'And you never see a coat from Diana come to auction, because she used to get her butler or her staff or friends to drive around London, [in] January, February, [in the] freezing cold.'
'She'd find homeless people, and she would give her coats away,' Nolan continued. 'That's how she was—without any spectacle or whatever.'
Living in the U.K., Diana certainly had no shortage of coats—but, alluding to her passion for helping the homeless, she donated them all. Eradicating homelessness is a cause she's passed down to her sons Prince William and Prince Harry, as they have taken up the mantle since her death on August 31, 1997 at just 36 years old.
Though there won't be any winter coats, there will be plenty of other items in the sale to choose from, including pieces from Diana's enviable wardrobe. 'She worked with Anna Harvey from British Vogue, an editor, and other designers because she always wanted to spotlight British designers and up-and-coming designers,' Nolan said. 'But then the people that she [had] advising her said, 'Diana, you're more than just a British royal. You're a global icon.''
'So then she started wearing Chanel, Dior, Givenchy, Versace,' he added. 'So she wore more of the internationally known brands.'
One item up for auction is Princess Diana's Lady Dior purse, named for Diana—who was Lady Diana Spencer before her 1981 marriage—and gifted to her by Bernadette Chirac, the First Lady of France, in September 1995. Originally known as the Chouchou bag, the bag was renamed in her honor after Diana wore it on her arm in Argentina in November 1995 and popularized it.
'And it's the most talked about, sought-after item that we could have in this entire lot,' Nolan told People. 'People just love, love, love this bag. If you were to buy it in the high street today, [it would] cost you somewhere between $6,500 and $7,000, if you could get it. We estimate this one, Princess Diana's, [will go for] $20,000 to $40,000—but it'll go to the roof.'
Read the original article on InStyle
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
26 minutes ago
- Atlantic
How to Assess the Damage of the Iran Strikes
In August 1941, the British government received a very unwelcome piece of analysis from an economist named David Miles Bensusan-Butt. A careful analysis of photographs suggested that the Royal Air Force's Bomber Command was having trouble hitting targets in Germany and France; in fact, only one in three pilots that claimed to have attacked the targets seemed to have dropped its bombs within five miles of them. The Butt report is a landmark in the history of 'bomb damage assessment,' or, as we now call it, 'battle damage assessment.' This recondite term has come back into public usage because of the dispute over the effectiveness of the June 22 American bombing of three Iranian nuclear facilities. President Donald Trump said that American bombs had 'obliterated' the Iranian nuclear program. A leaked preliminary assessment from the Defense Intelligence Agency on June 24 said that the damage was minimal. Whom to believe? Have the advocates of bombing again overpromised and underdelivered? Some history is in order here, informed by a bit of personal experience. From 1991 to 1993 I ran the U.S. Air Force's study of the first Gulf War. In doing so I learned that BDA rests on three considerations: the munition used, including its accuracy; the aircraft delivering it; and the type of damage or effect created. Of these, precision is the most important. World War II saw the first use of guided bombs in combat. In September 1943, the Germans used radio-controlled glide bombs to sink the Italian battleship Roma as it sailed off to surrender to the Allies. Americans developed similar systems with some successes, though none so dramatic. In the years after the war, precision-guided weapons slowly came to predominate in modern arsenals. The United States used no fewer than 24,000 laser-guided bombs during the Vietnam War, and some 17,000 of them during the 1991 Gulf War. These weapons have improved considerably, and in the 35 years since, 'routine precision,' as some have called it, has enormously improved the ability of airplanes to hit hard, buried targets. Specially designed ordnance has also seen tremendous advances. In World War II, the British developed the six-ton Tallboy bomb to use against special targets, including the concrete submarine pens of occupied France in which German U-boats hid. The Tallboys cracked some of the concrete but did not destroy any, in part because these were 'dumb bombs' lacking precision guidance, and in part because the art of hardening warheads was in its infancy. In the first Gulf War, the United States hastily developed a deep-penetrating, bunker-busting bomb, the GBU-28, which weighed 5,000 pounds, but only two were used, to uncertain effect. In the years since, however, the U.S. and Israeli air forces, among others, have acquired hardened warheads for 2,000-pound bombs such as the BLU-109 that can hit deeply buried targets—which is why, for example, the Israelis were able to kill a lot of Hezbollah's leadership in its supposedly secure bunkers. The aircraft that deliver bombs can affect the explosives' accuracy. Bombs that home in on the reflection of a laser, for example, could become 'stupid' if a cloud passes between plane and the target, or if the laser otherwise loses its lock on the target. Bombs relying on GPS coordinates can in theory be jammed. Airplanes being shot at are usually less effective bomb droppers than those that are not, because evasive maneuvers can prevent accurate delivery. The really complicated question is that of effects. Vietnam-era guided bombs, for example, could and did drop bridges in North Vietnam. In many cases, however, Vietnamese engineers countered by building 'underwater bridges' that allowed trucks to drive across a river while axle-deep in water. The effect was inconvenience, not interdiction. Conversely, in the first Gulf War, the U.S. and its allies spent a month pounding Iraqi forces dug in along the Kuwait border, chiefly with dumb bombs delivered by 'smart aircraft' such as the F-16. In theory, the accuracy of the bombing computer on the airplane would allow it to deliver unguided ordnance with accuracy comparable to that of a laser-guided bomb. In practice, ground fire and delivery from high altitudes often caused pilots to miss. When teams began looking at Iraqi tanks in the area overrun by U.S. forces, they found that many of the tanks were, in fact, undamaged. But that was only half of the story. Iraqi tank crews were so sufficiently terrified of American air power that they stayed some distance away from their tanks, and tanks immobilized and unmaintained for a month, or bounced around by near-misses, do not work terribly well. The functional and indirect effects of the bombing, in other words, were much greater than the disappointing physical effects. Many of the critiques of bombing neglect the importance of this phenomenon. The pounding of German cities and industry during World War II, for example, did not bring war production to a halt until the last months, but the indirect and functional effects were enormous. The diversion of German resources into air-defense and revenge weapons, and the destruction of the Luftwaffe's fighter force over the Third Reich, played a very great role in paving the way to Allied victory. At a microlevel, BDA can be perplexing. In 1991, for example, a bomb hole in an Iraqi hardened-aircraft shelter told analysts only so much. Did the bomb go through the multiple layers of concrete and rock fill, or did it 'J-hook'back upward and possibly fail to explode? Was there something in the shelter when it hit, and what damage did it do? Did the Iraqis perhaps move airplanes into penetrated shelters on the theory that lightning would not strike twice? All hard (though not entirely impossible) to judge without being on the ground. To the present moment: BDA takes a long time, so the leaked DIA memo of June 24 was based on preliminary and incomplete data. The study I headed was still working on BDA a year after the war ended. Results may be quicker now, but all kinds of information need to be integrated—imagery analysis, intercepted communications, measurement and signature intelligence (e.g., subsidence of earth above a collapsed structure), and of course human intelligence, among others. Any expert (and any journalist who bothered to consult one) would know that two days was a radically inadequate time frame in which to form a considered judgment. The DIA report was, from a practical point of view, worthless. An educated guess, however, would suggest that in fact the U.S. military's judgment that the Iranian nuclear problem had suffered severe damage was correct. The American bombing was the culmination of a 12-day campaign launched by the Israelis, which hit many nuclear facilities and assassinated at least 14 nuclear scientists. The real issue is not the single American strike so much as the cumulative effect against the entire nuclear ecosystem, including machining, testing, and design facilities. The platforms delivering the munitions in the American attack had ideal conditions in which to operate—there was no Iranian air force to come up and attack the B-2s that they may not even have detected, nor was there ground fire to speak of. The planes were the most sophisticated platforms of the most sophisticated air force in the world. The bombs themselves, particularly the 14 GBU-57s, were gigantic—at 15 tons more than double the size of Tallboys—with exquisite guidance and hardened penetrating warheads. The targets were all fully understood from more than a decade of close scrutiny by Israeli and American intelligence, and probably that of other Western countries as well. In the absence of full information, cumulative expert judgment also deserves some consideration—and external experts such as David Albright, the founder of the Institute for Science and International Security, have concluded that the damage was indeed massive and lasting. Israeli analysts, in and out of government, appear to agree. They are more likely to know, and more likely to be cautious in declaring success about what is, after all, an existential threat to their country. For that matter, the Iranian foreign minister concedes that 'serious damage' was done. One has to set aside the sycophantic braggadocio of Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who seems to believe that one unopposed bombing raid is a military achievement on par with D-Day, or the exuberant use of the word obliteration by the president. A cooler, admittedly provisional judgment is that with all their faults, however, the president and his secretary of defense are likely a lot closer to the mark about what happened when the bombs fell than many of their hasty, and not always well-informed, critics. *Photo-illustration by Jonelle Afurong / The Atlantic. Source: Alberto Pizzoli / Sygma / Getty; MIKE NELSON / AFP / Getty; Greg Mathieson / Mai / Getty; Space Frontiers / Archive Photos / Hulton Archive / Getty; U.S. Department of Defense
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
I'm a shopping editor and I tried this $77 Amazon dress — it's both 'comfy' and compliment-worthy
Recently, I was searching for the perfect summer dress for an upcoming event and having no luck with my go-to retailers. I started to feel defeated so decided to check out Amazon for a last-minute option. I wasn't hoping for much, but thought Prime delivery would ensure it got to me in time, and maybe I would stumble upon something flattering that will get me by. Luckily, I ended up hitting the jackpot. The PRETTYGARDEN Women's Eyelet Maxi Dress totally exceeded my expectations in terms of quality and cuteness. It immediately reminded me of the bestselling Somerset Dress from Anthropologie — but at a more affordable cost. This stunning dress is perfect for summer. I snagged it in this bright blue shade, which screams summer, and it scored me tons of compliments at said event. When I told people it was from Amazon Canada, they were visibly impressed. While $77 can be considered pricey for the retailer, in my review below I'll touch on why I think it's worth the price — as well as some areas that could use improvement. However, while we're on the topic of price tags, the shorter — and equally gorgeous — version of this dress is currently on sale for $50 ahead of Prime Day 2025. I'm tempted to add a couple of colours to my cart for summer. Let's dive into all the details of this frock, why I think it's great, as well as what I didn't like. Right off the bat, this dress is effortlessly stylish and comfortable. It's made from soft, lightweight fabric and features a flattering A-line shape, chic V-neckline and dainty eyelet details that add a feminine touch. The short sleeves and ruffled hem make it look elevated (and quite frankly, more expensive than it actually is). Plus, the flowy silhouette is flattering for all body types, making it a go-to for everything from special occasions to casual brunch. It's available in sizes S–XXL and in various vibrant and neutral colours. You can pair it with your favourite sandals, flats or heels to complement virtually any look you're going for. The airy eyelet material feels very comfy for all-day wear Its flowy A-line silhouette is flattering and makes me feel confident The V-neckline allows me to dress it up with necklaces It's versatile — great for travel, events or casual days Very stretchy and not constricting Super easy to take on and off (no buttons, zippers or anything to fuss with) It's on the pricier side for Amazon (however, still worth it, in my opinion) I spotted some threads that had to be cut off It's on the bigger side, so next time I'd size down The liner underneath isn't as long as the dress itself (just a personal pet peeve) No pockets! 👗 "Truly a great find." ⭐ 4.5/5 stars 🛍️ 500+ ratings Don't just take my word for it — let's see what other reviewers have to say about this dress. Do they love it as much as I do? Someone who is "very self-conscious" about their postpartum body said they're "in love with this dress." "This dress made me feel better," they stated. Another person called it a "fun, cheerful dress" that you can wear to "a range of occasions." A third reviewer echoed this sentiment, calling it a "beautiful dress." "This dress is so incredibly flattering," said one customer. They continued, "If it were $20 cheaper I would probably buy another colour." "Minimizes my stomach, defines my waist," wrote one person. However, they said, "If I could change one thing, it would be to lengthen the arms a tad." "The only 'eek' was the price… just a tad too rich for my blood but in the end, it was worth it!" shared another. If you've been struggling to find the perfect versatile dress for many different occasions, this PRETTYGARDEN Women's Eyelet Maxi Dress might be just what you're looking for. As a shopping editor, I come across (and try on) a lot of pieces, and I can honestly say the quality on this one passes the test. After wearing it to an all-day event, I can confirm it's comfortable, lightweight and very flattering. However, is it worth $77? I'm going to say yes, while simultaneously agreeing it's kind of pricey for Amazon. But hey, when you find something good, sometimes you've gotta splurge. Not interested in paying more than $50? Then I suggest starting with the mini dress version. Snag the shorter version of my editor-approved maxi dress on sale for $50.
New York Post
2 hours ago
- New York Post
Not OK, Karen! Court loses it when lawyer calls someone ‘Karen' in legal papers: ‘Borderline racist, sexist, and ageist'
You Karen't say that! A British court tore into an attorney who called someone a 'Karen' in papers for a discrimination case — calling the term 'borderline racist, sexist, and ageist,' according to a report. A British employment tribunal judge ruled that Karen is a 'borderline racist, sexist, and ageist,' slang term. Witoon – Sylvia Constance, a 74-year-old black woman, was suing for discrimination after she was axed from a charity company called Harpenden Mencap — but an employment tribunal took issue when the ousted worker's rep used the phrase in court papers, the Independent reported. Attorney Christine Yates argued leadership at the charity — supports adults with learning disabilities — leadership 'acted like stereotypical Karens' — claiming they weaponized their privilege to suspend and fire Constance over 'fictitious claims, the report said. Constance accused the organization of unfair dismissal, racial and age discrimination and of launching a campaign to oust her based on prejudice, the outlet said. Yates alleged that a white, female management team had colluded with white male residents under their care to create a racist and misogynistic smear campaign, the outlet reported. Tribunal judge George Alliot took issue with the use of the term 'Karen' in legal filings. – Tribunal judge George Alliot took issue with Yates's use of the term 'Karen' in legal filings. 'We note Christine Yates uses the slang term 'Karen', which is a pejorative and borderline racist, sexist, and ageist term,' Alliot said. The tribunal ultimately dismissed Constance's claims, siding with the charity for firing her in June 2023 over an 'irretrievable breakdown' of workplace relationships, the outlet reported. Alliot also ruled that the complaints against Constance were 'legitimate,' the outlet said.
