To think (generationally) wealthy people are better looking?

[LylaLee]

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.

As many many posters have said, the upper echelons did not benefit from selective breeding based on looks. They bred for increasing or maintaining wealth and power. The men went off and got their jollies with pretty young girls from other classes. So often inbred like our RF. It's the well off middle classes who tend to benefit from good looks

@Needsomesupport84 It is an observation. I also don't think British people are particularly good looking either.

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

But yeah having money for great food, nice clothes, good skin and hair care, exercise and dentistry really helps. There are a few things money can’t buy though - good cheekbones, height, good hair, a good shape (waist, boobs, bum).

I am a republican so think the whole lot of them are appalling (including H&M)! but Meghan isn’t average looking at all? And she looked BEAUTIFUL on her wedding day (saddo fawning eyes aside - that shot was a bit vomit inducing, because come on, no one should be fawning over Harry who is a complete fool).

KM has rich-person hair which I am a bit envious of. Needs to put the eyeliner down, though because it is SUCH a dated look.

And what about Charles / Harry and their elf ears? Definitely not true although people with more money often have a better diet and more money for clothes, hairdressers, personal trainers, etc.

@VanityDiesHard @KimberleyClark
I don’t think Kate is beautiful. She’s very attractive, well groomed and styled but she’s a bit too bland and conventional looking to be a beauty.

She is very generic looking. Her sister is slightly prettier but again absolutely nothing outstanding IMO.

Neither are particularly attractive. Both have peculiar short legged body types with no hips or breasts. Their faces are bland. I disagree that Pippa is prettier. She had a moment when young where the glory of youth made her look ok but look now. They gave poor facial structure.

What they do have is discipline, fitness, good nutrition and are very thin so clothes hang well. They are well put together and glossy rather than attractive or pretty.

And don't forget an Oompa-Loompa!

I thought he was funny in Dungeons and Dragons.

Otherwise, meh.

@Sususudio Spencer Matthews family, good looking & on the rise…Matthews fam have UMC background I think.

@zaazaazoo Kate M is most certainly pretty or attractive by anyone’s definition.

I can't imagine ever giving this kind of thing headspace?

Well clearly not everyone's definition as I am one who thinks not!! If you take away all that is bestowed upon her and take it back to the actual features she is very very ordinary looking. She could be any random mum at the school gate and she has a very unfortunate natural figure. Very short legs and no shape.

But this isn't supposed to be a Kate bashing thread. I am merely pointing out that a lot that makes the wealthy look better as the post questions, is money. Grooming, time to look after ones self, lack of daily grind.

Pop Kate in a hypothetical world where she was a regular person and no one would look twice. Very plain. Put her in Jenny Packham with a delicate sprinkle of Botox and filler and an underweight frame that clothes hang beautifully on and she looks like a star

It's just idle musing on a Saturday! I often think beauty standards are very narrowly defined though.

I am going off on a complete tangent here, but I have been rewatching The Good Wife and am just struck by Archie Panjabi's beauty. Her eyes are just incredibly mesmerising and expressive. And no filler or filters, I think.

@zaazaazoo most people don’t look as good. I take your point but she looks, at least, attractive, in shots you’ve selected.

Presumably you're basing that thought on a Westernised view of what is considered good looking - in the eye of the beholder, and all that.

I've never known anyone to judge a whole nation's looks!

I bet a lot of people from "old money" have some rogue genes thrown in there. There must have been plenty of Lady Chatterleys fed up with their more or less arranged marriage to someone rich.

@DrCoconut in past it was less common than people imagine, esp the Lord getting the parlourmaid pregnant apocryphal myth.

As for the late Queen and Princess Margaret... there are some iconic photos from when they were young looking very beautiful, but I think most of us when aged around 25, dressed in Norman Hartnell and photographed by Cecil Beaton would have looked very lovely!

In everyday photos they were very average, indeed frumpy, in the looks department.

The average height of women in the countries you mention is around 5'7". Taller but not as tall as you

150 years or so ago the Dutch were one of the SHORTEST people. After the Italians I believe. The time frame till now can not be explained by genetics

Princess Margaret was stunning when she was young but smoked and drank heavily so that probably played a part and she was in poor health in later life. The queen was never even close to as beautiful as Margaret was and would probably have been described as pleasant looking rather than pretty or beautiful.

I am not sure I agree. Just look at the Royal Family. Charles is deeply unattractive and Camilla isn’t much better. They got Diana into the gene pool so Wills and Harry are reasonably attractive and married very attractive women. But don’t forget Charles loved the horse faced woman more than he loved the beautiful Diana. Going back, Philip was very good looking but the Queen not so much. They had one good looking child out of four.
Nowadays rich people have cosmetic surgery to improve their appearance and sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn’t. Sometimes it makes them look worse. I personally think it’s a shame to interfere with the way you look, because your face is part of you and your heritage.

> But what about the royal family/aristocracy??!?

I acknowledged in my OP that at certain strata marriages are for land/alliances not looks. In a separate post I clarified that I'm talking about people who are wealthy but probably better defined as upper middle class.

Interesting thread! I think wealthier people are often good looking - lifestyle, diet, good clothes, haircuts, more time, less worry, etc will clearly help you make the most of what youve got and enable you to look polished and glowing.
Re royal family prince Philip and the Queen were attractive in their youth as was Princess Margaret. Anne is meant to be good looking in real life but not photogenic, Andrew was considered handsome when he was young.
I think stress and strain and does age you and money is definitely a buffer to a lot of worries and gives you
access to better food and time to exercise and relax.
People often respond more favourably to attractive people which gives them confidence through a lifetime positive reactions to them.
Wealth is an aphrodisiac so wealthy people attract beautiful partners who wouldn't look at them twice if they worked in Tescos.
So gene pool improves.
Agree with pp that you can look at a headshot of a child and often tell if they have the pinched look of poverty. Often the body keeps the score and stresses through your life add up and contribute to both health and looks.