Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think (generationally) wealthy people are better looking?

318 replies

LylaLee · 16/12/2023 06:49

Yes, there are many men who would have married the 'homely' neighbour in order to join land or for alliance reasons.

But very often, a wealthy man 'gets to pick' a beautiful woman. Over several generations, surely this results in a better looking family overall. Whereas we plebs occasionally are randomly good looking, but not in the same way as a family with generation after generation of 'beauty injections' to their gene pool.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
15
User14March · 16/12/2023 19:54

Historically, those in UK were married to those who lived within walking distance, villages & war memorials, note the names. There’s even a story that incest levels dropped significantly on invention of bicycle!

Noblemen riding by in Civil war times spotted local lasses they knew were likely illegitimate, high born girls, exotic blooms not ‘field flowers’…

NB: the influx of WW2 GIs on UK hamlets, many were deemed to be impossibly handsome & charismatic. More of a mixed gene pool there.

User14March · 16/12/2023 19:57

@SwedishEdith Diana had the dreaded 80s hair for the most part & some said a large nose. Yet speak to those who met her & they’ll tell you she was breathtaking in the flesh.

LylaLee · 16/12/2023 20:30

User14March · 16/12/2023 19:54

Historically, those in UK were married to those who lived within walking distance, villages & war memorials, note the names. There’s even a story that incest levels dropped significantly on invention of bicycle!

Noblemen riding by in Civil war times spotted local lasses they knew were likely illegitimate, high born girls, exotic blooms not ‘field flowers’…

NB: the influx of WW2 GIs on UK hamlets, many were deemed to be impossibly handsome & charismatic. More of a mixed gene pool there.

Noblemen riding by in Civil war times spotted local lasses they knew were likely illegitimate, high born girls, exotic blooms not ‘field flowers’…

Could you explain, please?

OP posts:
zaazaazoo · 16/12/2023 20:31

HRTQueen · 16/12/2023 19:20

I think Kate M is pretty, not stunning she has beautiful hair. Her mum is very good looking and has something about her she certainly isn’t from money. Her sister has that too

I think confidence is often attractive few very wealthy people lack confidence ds private school has certainly armed him with confidence

Seriously? Carol M has a very plain face. I didn't think anyone thought she was a looker. She has piggy eyes and quite a masculine overall look. She is a perfect example of what this thread is about. Wealth can help even the plainest look good due to styling and grooming. Place carol on Eastenders and she'd fit right in

To think (generationally) wealthy people are better looking?
User14March · 16/12/2023 20:48

@LylaLee writing by K. Winsor. Talking about illegitimate noblemen’s kids put out to cottager’s wives in Civil War times. No more like them ‘than a field flower is a like a cultivated one or a sparrow is like a golden pheasant’. They haven’t the look of a farmer’s daughter, in other words.

Allthatwegotisthispalebluedot · 16/12/2023 21:23

zaazaazoo · 16/12/2023 20:31

Seriously? Carol M has a very plain face. I didn't think anyone thought she was a looker. She has piggy eyes and quite a masculine overall look. She is a perfect example of what this thread is about. Wealth can help even the plainest look good due to styling and grooming. Place carol on Eastenders and she'd fit right in

The taste in harsh eyeliner on the waterline/under eye must be inherited. It makes their eyes look so small! Wtf are they doing?

VanityDiesHard · 17/12/2023 00:06

User14March · 16/12/2023 19:11

@VanityDiesHard if KM is ‘plain’ albeit, pleasantly, then most of us are plug ugly. I find it absurd to suggest she’s below average looks wise. She certainly can look very striking.

Pleasantly plain describes her very well. I was at a university in London twenty years ago and she would have been just on average to slightly below (UCL, which to be fair is known for good looking people) Most people are not 'plug ugly' compared to her, how ridiculous.

User14March · 17/12/2023 00:07

@VanityDiesHard I mean if she’s ‘plain’, heaven help the majority.

VanityDiesHard · 17/12/2023 00:08

Thank you!! I genuinely think I'm taking crazy pills with these people saying Kate and her mother are good looking. No, they are not. Kate is slightly better than Carole because she has her father's genes as well, Michael is actually quite attractive. James is the only properly attractive one of the three children, both girls are really quite plain.

VanityDiesHard · 17/12/2023 00:11

User14March · 17/12/2023 00:07

@VanityDiesHard I mean if she’s ‘plain’, heaven help the majority.

Piggy, sunken eyes, thin thin lips, puffy cheeks. Plain is the perfect word for her.

To think (generationally) wealthy people are better looking?
User14March · 17/12/2023 00:14

@VanityDiesHard we’ll have to agree to disagree. She can look stunning. I think she’d be first to say not a model but it’s simply unfair & untrue to say she’s unattractive.

VanityDiesHard · 17/12/2023 00:14

User14March · 17/12/2023 00:14

@VanityDiesHard we’ll have to agree to disagree. She can look stunning. I think she’d be first to say not a model but it’s simply unfair & untrue to say she’s unattractive.

We certainly will. She has never looked 'stunning' in her life.

BouncingJAS · 17/12/2023 00:15

Google "assortative mating" and you will understand.

Its hardly surprising that higher earners mate with similar higher earners.

This then perpetuates the underlying genetics.

Its not always rosy as you can get very ugly kids as a product of said union. But given access to better nutrition and healthcare, the end result for most kids prouduced by said unions is much improved over the average of the population.

CarpetSlipper · 17/12/2023 00:27

I think rich people married rich people. If anything they are worse looking due to inbreeding to keep the money in the family. Certainly no lookers amongst the posh Eton educated politicians and the royal family are all below average in looks.

SOxon · 17/12/2023 02:37

VanityDiesHard · 16/12/2023 12:13

Still wrong. They are called 'chinless wonders' for a reason. That's a joke, of course, but there's some truth to it. If you think about it, most top movie stars are people who come from normal backgrounds (I'm not counting this generation of nepo babies) Julia Roberts, George Clooney, Brad Pitt. None of them are generationally wealthy, yet it's safe to say that most people would say they were more attractive than the British Royal Family. And a generationally wealthy family, the Kardashian Jenners, are none of them remotely attractive without ten layers of makeup and fifteen filters.

I think we would be moving this discussion sideways here by bringing in American film stars. Most or many of them have such a mixed racial ancestry they are bound to look different. Even two races can look spectacular, especially mixed colour,
Halle Berry, Naomi Campbell, Neneh Cherry, Norah Jones, Whitney Houston, Muhammed Ali (part Irish!)
Or white but racially mixed, Joni Mitchell, an extraordinary looking lady, part Sami, as is Renee Zellwegger.

However! the vogue for (rich) American heiresses, the Buccaneers, marrying
British aristocracy did nothing to improve the physical beauty of their descendants.
The beautiful, vivacious Jenny Jerome married stuffy round cheeked Randolph and begat a British Bulldog,
Nancy Astor was a striking looking lady who gave the handsome Lord Astor 5 children, none of whom would pass the MN litmus test.
Hundreds ! of rich American ladies married into the British aristocracy. I’m not sure where this places my argument, probably that, as already been stated many times here, the inbred genes must be dominant for the influx of New World breeding
to be so subsumed.
Diana’s great grandmother was American. In this instance, she did good.

Do aristocrats know they are inbred? Many of them are certainly eccentric, possibly bonkers.
The men are often tall, gangly, etiolated, will marry small petite, pretty women,
produce massive sons and dainty daughters.
Of course they intermarry, these are the upper eschelons of society, intermingle,
interact.

We have the example of Anne, APB, Camilla, Charles to see how that works.

Photographs of a young Philip show a very attractive man, be he Dane or Greek,
of good looking parents, although only Edward favours him, physically.
Goodness knows where they found Charles, considered attractive in his youth. Anne is Hapsburg, with Mark Phillips produced two very good looking children. Andrew is neither.
The dumpy QM also had a question mark over parentage. Her two daughters were petite, pretty girls and women. Thank goodness for Philip, Diana and Catherine.

SOxon · 17/12/2023 03:16

Sususudio · 16/12/2023 13:01

I must stick up for Hugh Grant. I think he has been brilliant in his recent movies, as a villlain/curmudgeon/general bad egg.

I never was a Hugh Grant fan at all, the self effacing repressed Englishman act
when we knew he was caught en flagrante, with Liz Hurley at home - until I was
dragged off to see ‘Florence Foster Jenkins’ (Meryl Streep).
Hugh was a revelation as the husband.
His bum shaking dance to the Pointer Sisters in Love Actually, showing off his
body at last, also a great surprise.

My daughter discovered him in ‘Paddington’ I guess that is the villain you mean?

Gowlett · 17/12/2023 03:23

What I hate is when good-looking, wealthy folk get cosmetic surgery.

Gowlett · 17/12/2023 03:25

Caroline Stanbury is a good example. And Kate Beckinsale.
Great looking women. Now they look like Footballers Wives.

Gowlett · 17/12/2023 03:29

And Helen from Corrie. She was so naturally gorgeous!
I know she is a WAG now, but good-looking people don’t need it. Only Fans fodder fine, who are very ordinary girls who want to “improve” themselves with boob jobs, lips etc…

BouncingJAS · 17/12/2023 03:49

Based on my observations maybe 1 out of 20 English women are "attractive". The "peaches and cream" complexion is rare.

This becomes easy to see when you visit countries like Brazil, Spain, Netherlands, Sweden, Portugal, Italy etc were the ratio is 1 in 10 (or lower).

Its due to the climate and poor nutrition. It really doesnt do wonders for looks.

HamBone · 17/12/2023 04:21

Hmm, I know a few ppl from families with generational wealth and I wouldn’t say that they’re especially good looking. They look fine and have good teeth, but they’re not gorgeous, despite having trust funds. I don’t think any of them indulge in Botox or anything like that either. They have large houses, send their children to private schools and travel extensively. 🤷

User14March · 17/12/2023 05:20

@SOxon your post reminds me of bloodstock, horses. Shetland ponies & racehorses, racehorses begetting racehorses. Etc:)

Kate Beckinsale has mixed heritage via her father, Cheryl (as she once was/is ) Cole, I had thought so too, more distantly, via her mother. Explains their beauty, in part, possibly.

Gene dominance, interesting to ponder, the sire, being more important? Now thinking of Mike Tindall for some reason. :)

Lady D’s nieces I think are very beautiful.

You, mention character/temperament, vivaciousness etc. This of course also makes someone attractive, or otherwise, wit/IQ etc being aphrodisiac & more enduring than mere looks.

User14March · 17/12/2023 05:23

@Gowlett I think a fear of ageing, in the shallow world of instagram, drives some of this.

SharSharBinks · 17/12/2023 06:11

THisbackwithavengeance · 16/12/2023 06:59

Of course.

Good genetics, lots of money and easy life lacking in graft = good looks.

Hmm, I think men that graft often have much better physiques. Give me a boxer over a fat office worker anyday.

readymealeater · 17/12/2023 07:19

Re height:

The Royal Family are surprisingly short on average. Diana brought a little height into the family.

16 Royal Family Heights From The Shortest To The Tallest | LittleThings.com

I come from common rural Highland crofting stock going way back and we were all tall. I'm nearly 5'11", my grandmother, born in 1910 was 5'10", grandfather born in 1900 6'3". I had a great grandfather who was 6'5" (became a policeman!) and so on. My father and his 3 brothers all tall. Height on both side of family.

Must be something in the water up there...

I would dwarf most Royals, even today!

Family, Parenting, Pet and Lifestyle Tips That Bring Us Closer Together | LittleThings.com

https://littlethings.com/lifestyle/royal-family-heights/3591096-7

Swipe left for the next trending thread