Vintage Beauties: Audrey Hepburn
June 11, 2011 in Vintage Beauties by Versus
Vintage treat time! And it’s quite an extraordinary one: British actress, beauty icon and humanitarian Audrey Hepburn, the owner of a stunning face and a thin and elegant figure.
Lived between: 4 May 1929 – 20 January 1993
Height: 5′ 6½” / 1.69 m
Weight: 103 lbs / 47 kg
Measurements: 32A-20-35
Here are a few niche-related quotes from Audrey:
“I don’t like fancy food at all. I much prefer an extremely simple meal that’s exquisitely done… A perfectly cooked steak, a beautiful salad, some raspberries. I’m glad I like sweet things… But if I ate all I wanted, it just wouldn’t do. I’m getting better. Now if I get a box of good chocolates, it will last awhile, maybe for two hours. I used to eat them all without stopping until every last one was gone… I guess it’s a basic form of insecurity.”
“I take care of my health, and this world takes care of my thoughts.”
“My goal was not to have huge luxuries. As a child, I wanted a house with a garden, which I have today. This is what I dreamed of. I’d never worry about age if I knew I could go on being loved and having the possibility to love… So it isn’t age or even death that one fears, as much as loneliness and the lack of affection.”
Share your thoughts and enjoy the many pictures on the next page!
Wow, her waist was soo tiny!
Whatever her size, AUDREY HEPBURN will always be perfection personified in my eyes! I’ve adored her all my life, from the age of 9. Seriously.
She is, was and shall always be the essence of beauly encapsulated in female form.
Frankly, I don’t believe her waist was 20. It doesn’t look so tiny at all and then her hips are not so wide to be 35.
The best word to describe her appearance is fragile beauty. I love her and her style! Breakfast at Tiffany’s is one of my favorite movies.
It’s probably only because she wore a corset or girdle, like most female stars of that era (including Marilyn Monroe).
But 35 inch hips are quite believable as that’s quite small when measuring around the fullest part of the pelvis.
Corset is more likely, but I believe there are people out there with natural 20 inch waists.
point in case:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/61993290@N08/
Re: Audrey: Love her!
oh yeah there plenty of people with natural 20″ waists. in fact i know this 7 year old….
**just making a joke**
I went to High school with a girl whose waist was 20″ uncorseted, she was 17 at the time. Not sure what she looks like today, though.
Oh! And she was probably 130lbs
Her waist was close to 20 at different points in her life.
A large auction of her costumes from films last year showed that they had 22 to 26-inch waists, with most at 23-24.
i saw a program on her, and they said her waist was 21-22, varied slightly obviously and her hips 32. They based it on the costumes she wore and the seamstresses instructions. she was tiny, fragile. I don’t care about her body one way or another, she just exuded style in a way that transcended any weight or measurement.
As mentioned, women wore girdles back then. Marylin Monroe did not have a naturally 23″ waist either (her measurements are often quoted as 23″ at the waist), but with a girdle she likely did. I’d bet Audrey’s natural waist was more like 22″, still tiny, but believable. Her weight is very low also, so she was just plain thin.
Audrey Hepburn was also clearly a pear shape, with a long elegant neck, sloping shoulders, tiny upper body & waist, but feminine hips. Nice proof that thin is no recent phenomenon when it comes to attractive bodies….even classic Hollywood beauties were often thin.
She was also closer to 5’7 than 5’6. She downplayed her height because she was a dancer, and being tall is not good if you’re a dancer.
I know her waist is ridiculously small but my god she was beautiful inside and out.
yes, thats what’s so great about her. she was talented and very good with her charities. I think that elegance shows through her face….
her breasts look bigger than 32a…
i don’t think her weight was that low..47 kg for 1.69?she would look so skinny ..i’m a little taller (1.73) and 56 kg!
I absolutely believe her weight was that low… She was more skinny than you.. If you think you’re skinny.. her bmi was 16.. your bmi is over 18. if you’ve seen any movies with her.. you could see that she was sooo tiny… especially when she stood next to someone…
umm 173cm 56kg is normal. I’m 172cm 50kg and look way fatter than Audrey…so yeah i definitely agree that she would have weighed 47kgs if not lower
Im 1,72 cm and 57 kg and people keep telling me that i´m thin
..when I was 52 kg people told me that i look sick 
…she had to be really tiny, but still looked better than most of anorexic actresses nowadays. she had this small frame naturally, i think
She grew up during the Holocaust, in German-occupied Arnhem, Netherlands. She suffered from starvation through several years of her childhood, which in effect permanently affected her metabolism, and that is why she was so thin,
She was also a ballerina, and at one point weighed 150 pounds at 5’7. This was right after her country had been liberated, and she began eating everything in sight after being so undernourished during the war. But by being a ballerina her instructors informed her that she must lose weight, if she was serious about a career in ballet. So she lost weight rather quickly due to her fast metabolism.
Her favorite food was in fact Spaghetti. Such a beautiful woman and a great actress.
I didn’t know she grew up in nazi Europe, her accent is very good.
Yup. She was actually born in Belgium to a Dutch mother, and an English Father. After her parents divorced she spent several years of her life moving between the Netherlands, Belgium and England. From the ages of 6 to 9 she lived in England, until the star of WWII. Her mother moved her and her siblings to the Netherlands on the belief that they would be safer. After the war, she moved to Amsterdam and eventually onto London to pursue ballet.
So all throughout her childhood she lived in several different places, with such different accents and dialects, which is the reason for her unmistakable and unique accent.
I found other version, the interview Larry King did to Audrey’s son:http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0312/24/lkl.00.html
KING: Yes, it was. Was she — she wanted to be a dancer, right?
FERRER: That was her first dream. That was the dream of childhood that kept her going through the war, that kept her going after the war. When she went to study with Marie Rambert (ph) in London, and after a while she asked, Am I going to make it? Am I going to — am I going to be a prima ballerina? And Marie said, Well, you’re a little too tall and not enough training and POOR NUTRITION during the war. You can always work here. You’ll always have a great career and probably make a better living as a second ballerina. But SHE WANTED TO EXCEL at what she was going to do, and so she defaulted to acting.
KING: Did she ever gain weight?
FERRER: I don’t think so. I don’t think so
(I guess no one asked her to lose weight)
It’s true what Amy is saying after the war she began eating lots of amount of chocolate and food (imagine starving) so she did gain weight but then after settling she went to her weight
i don’t think people realise how much nutrition affects your growth during puberty. malnourishemnt can seriously effect bone development.
Somewhat correct. She actually was 110 pounds when she was an actress, not 103. I have read more than one biography of her, and 110 was consistently cited as her weight. After the war she gained 20 ibs,and was 130. It took her only one month to lose 20 ibs. because she in effect, starved herself just like she did during the war. (Obviously the starvation during the war was not purposeful.)
At any rate, she is by far my favorite actress. She is just so charismatic on screen, so endearing. She also did so much work with Unicef during her later years by helping starving children in Africa because she felt she could relate to them.
Oh I really didn’t know she was (part) dutch! Awesome!!
I agree she was very tiny (perhaps not always a 20 inch waist or as low as 100 lbs) in many of her movies, you can see how extremely thing she was…especially when her body was exposed. However, I do not at all think being THAT small was natural for her. While she was of small stature, it has been become more well known that she had a long term eating disorder, (most likely anorexia). It existed back then, as it does now, although unfortunately then it was not discussed. Sadly, movie directors later used Audrey’s fragile body, as an example to other actresses that maintaining an extremely thin stature was possible while being healthy. But this was not the case. I do not want to be misconstrued as, being derogatory to her in any way. i think she was a stunning beauty, a wonderfully kind and compationate person, and a phenomenal actress, but she was sick. She later died of stomach cancer, I honestly hope her death was not accelerated by her disorders at all. (ex. certain ed behaviors over a lifetime can influence organic diseases like throat, intestinal or stomach cancer). I hope the legacy of her film is admired and apprecaited for ages, while people..especailly young people stay aware that her well known miniscule frame was not natural, and that they do not aspire to it.
It definitely was that low. She suffered from anorexia and if you’ve seen any of her movies, you can tell she’s tiny.
She was such an inspirational woman – a caring, kind soul and a fashion icon to boot. She’s the definition of ‘elfin’ to me – so delicate and feminine and a little bit magical.
A 20 inch waist is seriously tiny – but it does look very small, especially in the belted picture. Maybe she was like many others of her time and wore a corset or girdle?
I agree Erica. Back in the days where actresses exuded class, grace and charm. Nowadays it’s all about sex tapes, starving yourself and being caught falling out of clubs flashing your privates. How sad to see what Hollywood has become when you look back on people like Audrey, Grace Kelly etc. They would be turning in their graves
haha. So true. It’s complete degradation. And don’t forget about poor acting. The worse they act the more popular they become.
So spot on Shiv. I never really took notice of Audrey but she is very beautiful and very fragile! Seemed like a lovel person too…what age did she die and how?
She was 63 years old, when she died. She had cancer.
I have always thought of Audrey Hepurn to be one of the greatest beauties of all time. She was very thin but I don’t believe her waist was 20 inches either. Maybe in the picture of the floral dress it looks like she has a waist cincher on or something similar. Her waist was probably about 22 or 23 inches. Also her stats to be 5 ’6 1/2 and 103lbs. and have 35 inch hips is very unlikely.
The smallest my hips ever get is around 33.5 inches. At 5’4″ and 97 lbs my hips were still 33.5 (i’m 100-101 now, but more muscular so my hips are 86 cm, so over 33.5), so really, it may simply be in the bone structure. But i think you are right about the waist, 20 inches simply seems not real…
I agree with you, that while Audrey was OBVIOUSLY incredibly tiny, I really doubt her waist was as small as 20 inches, naturally or unaturally. I certainly don’t claim to say anything is impossible, or that the standard of one body can be applied for accurate assement of another. However, I don’t think most of us really understand how small and undernourished a 20 inch waist would look like. To put a slight perspective on this matter, several years ago, at 5’6 (similar in height to Audrey’s) and weighing less than 60 pounds I was severely sick with ed’s and additional medical conditions..( I’m much better and healthier now, although obviously being so sick can be deadly and I strongly beg no one to try to get to that point, I wish I did not) Anyway while I did not meausre my exact waist size at that time, I do not think it ever reached as small as 20 inches. Of course due to everyone’s bone structure and body shape, I know measurements can vary..but still 20 inches is a very severe end of the specturm. That is just my perspective though, of course everyone else is entitled their own opinions, so I hope this statement isn’t taken to strongly and doesn’t upset anyone
I can see her measurements being around 32-23-35 (and then cinched down to 20 inches for the waist with a corset).
I can totally believe that her corseted waist was 20″; serious corsets are laced to between 2 to 4″ less than your natural waist measurement, and it’s very likely that her natural waist was 23 or 24″. My weight, height, and measurements are almost identical to Audrey’s, so it’s nice to see that she was/is admired for her looks. I’ve seen her called “boyish,” but I really don’t see how that is a fitting description, with that kind of WHR. Small bust ≠ “boyish.”
I agree, Audrey looks so feminine to me! Not only because of her WHR, but because she’s just so delicate and refined.
Totally agree here as well! Her beauty was Elfin, yet it was extremely feminine! All of it added up together to make Audrey Hepburn, a very refined, graceful, charming beauty: her voice, mannerisms, character, her eloquent intelligence, her kindness.
maybe the 20 inch waist is when she was at her skinniest? i think she hasn’t been 47kg at the beginning of her career.
but still, love her ♥
These measurements can’t be right. I weigh 102 pounds and am 5’1″, so a lot smaller, but she doesn’t seem much skinnier than me. Her bmi would be 16,5, but those aren’t legs and arms of someone with a bmi of 16,5 (I would say 18,5). And the 20″ waist.. well unless they mean when she was wearing a corset that can’t be right either. A 23″ waist is already extremely small and not a lot of women have this … for example victoria beckham, and Audrey Hepburn doesn’t even seem as skinny as Victoria Beckham. So this is totally wrong!
Not necessarily. The same weight can look very different on different people, even people of the same height, depending on the size of their frame and where the weight is distributed. The number on the scale is only a small part of the picture.
Yes exactly, depending on size… so someone who had the same pants siz/waist size as me, but is a couple of inch taller, should look thinner… that’s what I’m saying, she should look thinner if she was both longer and lower weigt… way thinner. And yes, body fat can accumulate on different places for different women. But her shape is the same as me, and we are talking about skinny girls, so the difference can’t be that big … someone with exactly my height and my weight cannot look totally different. So yes that number is important…I’ve seen plenty girls with bmi 16,5 (asian girls for example) and they all look the same, one doesn’t look bigger than the other…I do however see a big difference between someone with a bmi of 16,5 and 18,5
you can’t seriously be comparing Victoria beckham to Audrey? I think versus needs to do a side by side comparison, because I see a huge difference between the two and not just the boobs. The waist above is clearly smaller than VB’s, yes likely with some corsetting but still smaller.
I’m not comparing Audrey to Victoria… I’m comparing a 23′ waist to a so called 20 inch waist. What, you think Audrey’s is thinner? You need to have your eyes checked. Have you seen girls with a 23′ waist? Yes in some of those pictures she is obviously wearing a corset and no doubt her waist is <23' in those. But I've seen some of her movies and that waist isn't 20'
http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTUzNTA2NTcxNV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwNjY3NjI2._V1._SX450_SY342_.jpg
I think that you havent seen any of her movies and that you dont know her physical appereance enough. Audrey was very very skinny.
This article is about her famous black cocktail dress… a 24′ waist. I know she is very skinny, a 23-24′ waist is very skinny and that’s what I think she had. That 20′ waist is definitely only with a corset.. you can also clearly see the difference between pictures of her when she is wearing one and when she is not…
I think was 47 kilo… A lot of asian movie stars (women/girls) nowadays are tall and skinny.. and a lot of them weigh about the same as Audrey.. and they are her height as well… So i absolutely think was 47 kilo.. she looked so tiny when she stood next to other people in her movies/interviews.. and if you’re not blind.. you can see in this pics that she was really tiny… if you would have put Marilyn Monroe next to her.. Marilyn would’ve look big, and she wasn’t at all.
For me she has one of the most beautiful faces of all the actresses. I read somewhere that she was actually suffering from an eating disorder that developed in war times when she blocked out all her need for food and water, since they were scarce and running out.
She actually said that she began to resent food. The article said that there were also other influences that contributed to her disordered eating one being her work. It said that when she was hired to play a lead role in Gigi the director said to her when she gained weight that they hired her for her bones and she said that in her mind, she decided to also lose a few extra pounds as insurance. So I believe she was 103 pounds.
i thnk she is awfully cute.but i dnt find her to be a magnificint beauty atall.i dont get what all the hype about her is.maybe because of my age i dont understand or see it.i find her rather unique looking not classicly beautiful.maybe thts her beauty then.the fact that she looks very uniquely diffrent
i agree !
Absolutely breautiful woman! Classy, elegant, just breathtaking.
She’s absolutely beautiful. I far cry from today’s orange and extension haired celebrities!
*a – oops!
She was a classic beauty. The epitomy of class and elegance. The actresses these days should take notes, because none of them r even close to her elegance. Except for maybe Angelina Jolie.
what about Natalie Portman? I’ve always found her to be pretty classy. Penelope Cruz too… I used to think that about ScarJo but now, not so much.
Natalie Portman is a beautiful and intelligent, but nobody today has that delicacy and elegance that these old movie stars used to exude. I don’t know how to really describe it, but there is such a beauty and grace to her face and behind her words. Nobody today is like that. She’s a lady, pure and simple.
I don’t think anyone before or after had Audreys particular appeal. She was unique in her style and look. But I also think nostalgia plays its part. We love to gild the memories of by gone days and the stars that used to shine. one day people might very well be doing the same to our boring old celebrities like Natalie Portman!
A classic beauty means something that withstands time- it does not mean classy. There are some facial features that have always and will always be considered attractive to a large majority. I find Audrey to have more exotic features, she is still beautiful though. Grace Kelly is a classic beauty.
The thing about Audrey is that she IS extraordinarily beautiful – those big deep eyes, pixie bone structure and gorgeous smile, but it’s her onscreen magnetism that I feel truly propelled her career.
To watch Audrey Hepburn onscreen is something magical. You can’t help but follow her eyes and wish that you could pick up every intricate facet of the characters that she plays. Her passion, both onscreen and off, make her absolutely magnetic.
Givenchy said, “There is not a woman alive who does not dream of looking like Audrey Hepburn”. Whether exaggerated or not, I know very few women would not jump at the chance to have her poise, elegance and wit.
Extremely well put.
Absolutely true, Dominique!
Yes, I’d always thought she was beautiful, but the way she acted and talked got me totally struck!
She is so elegant and truly beautiful inside and out! She really does have a magical personality in her films. What a difference in her quotes compared to Kim K’s Cosmo interview above. It’s so humble and it’s beautiful that she really seems to appreciate simple things…. I wish more celebs were like her today.
I agree. It’s so ironic that she’s surrounded by a Kim K and a Kelly O post. It makes them seem even more ridiculous and pitiful. She is the epitome of grace and talent, and they are… well… NOT.
I adore her. She has such a unique face. She was extremely thin in many of her movies (much more so than in the first picture) but it suited her. To me she is the epitome of charm.
Such a gem! She was quirky too – not like all the other on screen sirens like Sophia Loren (not to say that Loren isn’t awesome herself)
but come on -Audrey is so inspiring- a philanthropist, a dancer, eloquent! There is so much more to a woman’s beauty than how symmetrical her face is, how straight her nose –
I initially didn’t care too much for her until I saw Sabrina and then BAM – I got it.
She’s a sweetheart. What a deep quote.
Perhaps 20 inches when she’s all cinched with belts and corsets, but I bet when she’s just standing relaxed it’s a couple inches more.
She’s too cute! I love her bone structure, but she’s admitted that she was very strict with her diet to maintain her small size.
The thing about Audrey is that she shouldn’t be so beautiful. She has no forehead, weird eyebrows, googly eyes and a very square shaped face and yet somehow it all comes together to produce such an exquisite face. Those features on anyone else would just look strange!
I know! Weird how that happens.
Totally agree. Still, I find that face to be the most beautiful I’ve ever seen, even a lot more beautiful than any face I’ve ever even imagined.
Audrey Hepburn was often chose as an exaple for a healthy skinny girl.I read she indeed suffered from Anorexia to maintain her figure.
But she had such an adoreable face.
Actually since I was always loved Audrey (even went to see her grave in Switzerland))) I have read a lot about her and most sources said the same that she was told by her mother that it was a shame for a woman to be more than 50 kilos or so and she was barely eating to maintain her small body and was almost anorexic. Also she was smoking tons. She was heavier before her movie career and I doubt she was an exeptional dancer, the height was not an issue, it is BS. Maya Plisetskaya, Russian prima and the world ballet star is 170 sm tall and started career same time (she is 85 now, check her if want to see a really beautiful 80smth lady, she is still stunning!), and made it perfectly. I mean I love this woman, but it sounds a bit too strange that so many celebs are bashed for barely eating and smoking, but she is getting so much love. In the past stars def had more class but still had so much in common with the present ones. Same story same old. Regardless this woman was an angel alive, I adore her for the charity work and she was amazingly pretty and elegant till her very last day.
Yes, weight was less of a big deal for that generation. Maya Plisetskaya and Alicia Alonso were certainly heavier compared to Sylvie Guillem and Natalie Osipova.
I’ve read in a couple of places that her experiences during WWII caused her to suffer from an eating disorder for the remainder of her life. Granted, Eve is probably more knowledgable about this that I am. I think our point remains that she is not an exemplar of healthy living.
One question: How do so many here KNOW she(Hepburn) is beautiful inside out?Have you met her?Or Kim Kardashian for that matter who might have beautiful inside but you don t think so because you don t like her outside?
Audrey Hepburn was a humanitarian who worked as an ambassador for UNICEF right up untill her death in 1993 to help children around the world. She wasn’t some celeb who just put her name to some cause, or did a “twitter death” for 2 days, she actually worked hand-on, travelling the world, campaigning, meeting with the children she helped, to make a difference.
It is said that Angelina Jolie is very inspired by Audrey and models herself on her.
Kim Kardashian is a vapid, self-obsessed moron who’s sole concern in life is her body, dressing it, injecting it, and talking about it.
you also can’t deny her talent. she’s magnetic on screen and very talented. Kim K got famous because some guy peed on her in a sex tape. Audrey just demands more respect. Really. It’s simple. She handled herself better.
Audrey Hepburn and Kim Kardashian shouldn’t even be together in the same sentence.
Audrey was so skinny, someone here said she once weighed 150 lbs, really?!
I also believe that Audrey and Kim should not be in the same sentence. Audrey was a talented actress. But if you want to say she wasn’t a saint and would have committed a sin (like everyone else, especially in Hollywood), here’s a link for you: http://thisrecording.com/today/2011/2/9/in-which-nothing-about-audrey-hepburns-ex-husband-interests.html
That was very interesting! I still love her though.
A couple of errors don’t cancel out all the good someone does IMO.
For me also Audrey has more good than bad, but tell that to William Holden’s wife and children…
My ultimate icon, not only in style, but in life as well.
Me too!
She’s so beautiful, lovely and delicate.
You can be feminine without having big boobs and butt, she proves it!
SO beautiful but way too thin! However, she doesn’t look too skinny for some reason. 103 lbs at 5’6 is very thin. I have a friend at this weight and she looks so thin that her bones all over her body protrude.
This is very close to being my height and weight, and I do not have any protruding bones. The same numerical weight looks different on different people.
I agree with that, my friend who is the same height and skinnier than me has no visible bones and even when she is at her lowest you can’t see her bones, I on the other hand don’t even have to be skinny for my ribcage and some other bones to show. I think it is down to the way you are built and genetics.
pure class. gorgeous.
I’ve always wondered though, is it possible to look this elegant and classy if you are naturally more curvy? (and by naturally i mean bone structure, not weight gain) I feel like the sylph look adds to people looking classy, like sofia coppola or cate blanchett.
i wonder the same thing. someone on this thread said something about being feminine and elegant even without big boobs and butt, and I have heard that mentioned a few times but I sorta feel the opposite, that I look vulgar- that might not be the right word- and don’t have that lovely dainty graceful look that dancers or models have and for me and I am sure a lot of women is very enviable. I suppose I like to see more curvy women admired as well, just cause it is quite reassuring, but really i will always envy the small boobed elegant look! even if that is not an elegant phrase
She’s 5′ 6″?? I thought she was shorter :T
It seems like actresses always add around 3 inches to their height. So I always subtract 3. lol.
Classy, well spoken, and a beautiful woman inside and out. She is gorgeous and has a lovely figure.
versus if you want to see a small waist you should post about Maria Felix Mexican actress, she was a real beauty too!!! in my opinion the most beautiful woman on hearth
47 kilos? for her height? That’s so unhealthy
Typical that the one of world’s most beautiful women was underweight. Makes me want to be 
She was so beautiful! Gorgeous and charming!
i love what she said about food. i completely agree. food should be simple yet tasty!
and WOW 103 lbs at 5’6? that is so little! she definitely looks it. she has a very tiny frame (small shoulders, tiny waist). i’m 5’6 and i couldn’t imagine being so small at this height!
her waist was very small…judging by the photos, it was 20-22 inches…it’s funny how a lot of actresses look sick so thin, but she just looks wonderful…it’s probably because it’s natural for her. Lesson: don’t mess with nature!
I think her bones were underdeveloped, that’s why.
in pictures she doesn’t seem skinnier than me..i am 1.72 and 56 kg and people all the time tell me that i’m very skinny,so i can’t believe that her weight was that low..when i was 54 kg my rib bones were so visible and i was like anorexic!i am a little taller than her and i can’t imagine myself being 47 kg..i would look sick
When I looked at the 1st picture i thought there’s no way she could have been 47 kg, but she looks so skinny in the 2nd pic! Almost sick…
Such a sweet person. The epitomy of class
to anyone who doesn’t believe she was 47kg:
i am exactly 169cm and at my lowest weight i was 44kg but now i am back up to 48 and we look exactly the same size
her face is flawless, that bone structure- truly unique!
i love her movies and everything about her. especially her style
the measurements seem to be a little off
but her class, beauty, and charm are undeniable
this post was such an inspiration. it was like a time capsule, great work!
Such an admirable and inspirational women. She is breath-takingly beautiful and such a fantastic person. And classy as always, one to model oneself after!
20 friggin inches?? wow its corsets huh,, idk i wouldnt do that cuz it would be difficult to find clothes if you have 35 inch hips and 20 inch waist,, GOOD luck finding cothes if you look like that these days,
I loved watching her in all her movies. Her comments are so thoughtful, humble and beautifully facilitated, it was definitely her mind, also that made her soo attractive. I feel quite lucky, a lot of people think i look like Audrey Hepburn because i have a pixie- esque face with big eyes and high cheekbones, i use to not like it as a child and now i’m more accepting of it. There was something so delicate about Audrey Hepburn, that gave her a sort of mystical beauty, she had something i can’t put my fingure on but her elegance and grace made her the most charming and breathtaking woman ever!
Oh wow I had no idea she was THAT tiny. I’m the exact same height as her… I would love to be that small
she was so incredibly beautiful, and seemed like such a lovely person.
while she was very thin, i think it was mostly natural for her. however i’ve read a few times that she had an eating disorder?
She is so lovely, with such a gorgeous face. Why do I feel like women used to be so much more beautiful back then as opposed to today? Audrey Hepburn, Lana Turner, Marilyn Monroe,Ava Gardner,Jayne Mansfield,Rita Hayworth. I think that those are some of the most stunning women I have ever seen, and I haven’t really found that in todays actresses and models. I mean, there are obviously very beautiful women in Hollywood today, but I don’t know. It’s just not the same I guess.
I know what you mean, and I think it is because back in those days, actresses looked more unique, they all had their unique look which they rocked to the max. Compared to now, when actresses are all clones with the same nose job, same lip injections, fake hair, fake boobs, there is no individuality. All so generic, no je ne sais quois.
Very true. They all owned whatever look worked for them, they never tried to be something they weren’t. Marilin was sexy, Audrey was feminine and stylish, Grace was classic, Anna Karina was mod, etc.
Take Scarlet Johansson, for instance who looks SO gorgeous in va va va voom tight dresses, classic makeup and simple hair, but she always fights against it and tries to dress all hipster ish and overly matronly. The opposite goes for Keira Knightley’s red carpet style; she doesn’t look as good in tight, revealing dresses as she does in more modest clothing.
I honestly don’t think actresses of yesteryear were any prettier than actresses of today, they just had the luxury of mystery. The paparazzi/twitter/facebook/gossip mags didn’t exist back then; you didn’t know every little thing about them, overexposure didn’t exist.
and no candid paps waiting for them putting the rubbish bins out and joy of joys, all in HD!
To semi-quote Paul Simon, “everything looks better in black and white.”
She’s probably the most beautiful woman ever. She’s not the most conventional even but that little bit of unconventionalness makes her all the more striking without being so much that it turns her into one of those “love or hate” faces. She’s the epitome of femininity to me – delicate, willowy, elegant, graceful. I just adore her.
She’s so effortlessly beautiful.
Why do we always love underweight? It’s weird, the people that look most ‘perfect’ (even to people who never think about this issue) are actually considered unhealthy in theory? Like take Kate Middleton for example now, everybody thinks she looks ‘svelte’ and ‘gorgeous’, while she’s theoretically way too skinny….
Are you kidding? Kate gets a ton of stick of the media
and the public for being “thin”. She is getting the same
kind of treatment poor Diana did.
Audrey was classy and beautiful.
Do I live in a different world?
I see where you’re coming from, I think the majority think she’s the bee’s knee’s. Though there are the minority who do think she’s thin and express that in the media. I think the thing is that there wasn’t as many celebrity weight-obsessive magazines back then so Audrey wasn’t as criticized.
Kate Middleton can do no wrong in my eyes.
Perfection means many things, including the way you carry yourself. People love and admire these women because they have poise and elegance and happen to be naturally thin (not the other way around.)
You could be a healthy size 10 but if you’re ‘accidentally’ leaking sex tapes every other weekend and star in a reality tv show that does nothing to benefit society then I really don’t a rats what you look like – you’re a waste of oxygen.
a world lived through the camera lens, with absolutely no idea how it distorts?
interesting thing, at least from a personal point of view, about audrey was she always had a round full looking face, courtesy of high cheekbones and a wide jawline. I have the same structure, tho sadly I don;t look like her, and used to get called fat as a kid, though i was actually quite skinny with a round chubby face. I think people are often quite easily misled by simple things like that in their perception. Not sure how much that applies to this site- everyone here seems to scrutinise everything to the nth degree!
I love her eyes… you can see she was a good person, that shines through her eyes
loove these pictures…im sorry, and most people wont agree with me, but this is my ideal body type
im super short and anything i gain really shows on me, but ive always wanted to look like her!!
Her face was truly extraordinarily beautiful! The strong-yet delicately feminine bone structure, the huge, doe eyes! Possibly the most beautiful Women ever, definitely one of the greatest beauties ever to live! She surely was, the epitome of graceful elegance, charm. To me also, Audrey is the definition of pure feminine, refined beauty, which course not only comes from her face, but everything about her: her inner beauty radiates all the way through!
She’s exquisite. Such a lady.
I think her waist was probably 23ish. Mine’s about that and I think we have similar bodies, only she was taller.
She has the most beautiful face. Her grace and femininity are unparalleled. I love her.
there are a lot of beautiful women, but she’s the only one who can literally steal my breath away.
“I never thought I’d land in pictures with a face like mine.”
-Audrey
I don’t think she ever knew, and I mean REALLY KNEW, just how gorgoeous she was.
I knew her waist was tiny, but aren’t 35 inch hips considered rather large?
Depends on your perception of large. A 35″ hip is roughly a size 6-8 UK (2-4 US) today which I do not consider large at all!In fact I think of that as quite slender, even skinny/underweight on some people. But then there will be some people who think that’s a bit big.
Wow I had no idea she was that height. I assumed she was much smaller. 5’3-5’4ish. I find her very gorgeous and she was amazing onscreen.
Love her! She was so elegant and beautiful! She also sounded smart! I loved Breakfast at Tiffanys!!!
Iconic woman.
iconic beauty.
iconic elegance.
but most of all, iconic heart
what the hell?! 103 lbs at 5’7?! you know what i would look like if i lost 30 pounds??!! err..i guess she has another body type than me.
She was soooo beautiful,her face is PERFECT especially those eyes.
I don’t care for her body either way just think she was awesome. Something about her looks are just striking
British actress? She was Dutch. And she decided to weight 52 kg for whole her life, so she did.
she seriously is ideal…
and to all the people who say curvy women look the most feminine i have to disagree…
curvier, like plus-sized/meaty, look all sloppy and just not graceful to me where as a body type like audrey is the epitome of femininity- graceful, delicate, refined and fragile…(not in an anorexic way or anything)..
i suppose everyone has different opinions though
She’s very beautiful. But she did discuss some “eating issues” later in life, after denying them during her career in acting. So she is not the best example of a woman who is incredibly thin, in a healthy and natural way; she had an unhealthy relationship with food, apparently.
But… yeah. she was probably the most beautiful woman ever.
I find her the second most beautiful woman after Vivien Leigh.She was extremely talented and gifted.
ps: i must add that Truman Capote who wrote Breakfast at Tiffany’s wanted ms Marilyn Monroe to play Holly Golightly but he was forced to accept Audrey.He never liked her for that part becuase Holly was supposed to be sexier than elegant.
I see her measurements and I can’t help but think of a life size Barbie
The most gorgeous and lovely woman that has ever lived. All I have to say. Man, Candice and Audrey on the same page, I feel so ordinary now! xD
I can’t stop looking at these pictures, even though I’ve seen some of them several times already. She’s so classy, stunning, delicate, adorable, kind, talented, elegant… A perfect role model. <3
Does anyone think she looks a little like Keira Knightley in the picture with the floral dress? The face&body shape and haircut is kinda similar.
I know 20 inches sounds ridiculous, but judging by pictures nr. 5 and 7 it doesn’t seem so far from the truth . I’m 2 inches shorter than her with a 20-21 inches waist and I look pretty much the same, except I have a shorter torso.
Her legs don’t look as thin and fragile as her upper body, maybe she was pear-shaped?
she was so pretty and thin!
according to an interview with her son, her waist was so tiny because she was missing a set of ribs.
I have a cousin who is 5’4 and her waist is 18 inches. Naturally. She doesn’t starve herself in any way; her bone structure is just so tiny that if she gains to 115 lbs from her usual 110, she actually looks chubby and you can see it in her double chin and her arms. And yes, her thighs touch.
I imagine Audrey probably had a similar tiny bone structure like her. Being a 5’7 version would probably give her a 20-21 inch waist in her youth.
She so graceful. There are pictures of her with her pet fawn that make me so jealous of her slimness.
WHO DOESN’T LOVE AUDREY!!!??!!
110. When Barbara Walters interviewed Hepburn later in life, Audrey told her that she always weighed a little over 110 lb.
U are all talking about her waist and her wheight. Audrey had the most prettierst eyes ever and always had that glow which u can feel while ure watching her movies, photos and interviews. and still she didnt brag with diamonds and expensive clothes but shared her money and time with the poor… That is truly an inspiration and it is hard to find a celeb being like that nowadays. Thats what made her so amazing. Imho.