Asymmetrical Information

being a member of the royal family looks like possibly the worst job in the world that doesn't involve handling human waste.

I'm not so sure I can agree with you on this. If it's the job itself, you've got to be kidding me. Basically the job is travelling around in absolutely ostentatious splendor smiling and exchanging pleasantries with people under public attention. I'd take it any day of the week. I think where the real downside of the job appears to be is that you wind up with really crummy coworkers.

You're strange.

women have a natural attraction to high status men, who is more alpha than prince william?

Why does anyone care about that pack of inbred Krauts? I've never understood the fascination with the Brit royal family on the part of anyone outside of their realm. Especially Americans, wasn't there some unpleasantness or other back in the 18th and early 19th centuries about kings and suchlike stuff?

Especially Americans, wasn't there some unpleasantness or other back in the 18th and early 19th centuries about kings and suchlike stuff?

I loved watching Bozo the Clown when I was little. I still wouldn't want him ruling over me.

A colossal mistake if he dumped her, perhaps. Hardly surprising that she'd dump him, though, once she realised that the constant intrusive attentions of the tabloid press wouldn't get any less intrusive as time went on, and after she'd had time to think about the sort of life his mother and, while she was married to his uncle, Sarah Ferguson had.

You Americans must realise that it's a constitutional impossibility for the heir to the throne to be dumped by his girlfriend -- probably high treason or something. Consequently he must have dumped her.

JG-

I don't quite understand that, of course, since being a member of the royal family looks like possibly the worst job in the world that doesn't involve handling human waste.

Excuse me!

It must be a tough life... A $400+ million/yr annual income solely due to your grandparent's heredity?

For that kind of money, I'd be the very best shit-handler the world has ever seen!

On the BBC tonight they showed Kate Middleton getting out of a car and walking down the sidewalk, but it was a wide shot that showed at least 5 other cameramen on the sidewalk ahead of her. Give me human waste any day over living like that.

It must be a tough life... A $400+ million/yr annual income solely due to your grandparent's heredity?

I think the Queen's total personal wealth is about that, so she's not even Forbes 400 eligible. The rest of her stuff is state property. But I'd be happy to handle shit for a $10 million/year perpetuity, too.

But I'd be happy to handle shit for a $10 million/year perpetuity, too.

Even at just one million a year I might be interested.

Elllipsis --

What's not to understand? Human beings, in the vast majority, are painfully insane. See, for example, the magazines "People" and "Us".

Especially Americans, wasn't there some unpleasantness or other back in the 18th and early 19th centuries about kings and suchlike stuff?

Lately Americans have become surprisingly willing to be led by the son of a former leader.

John Quincy Adams doesn't count. He lost the popular vote. It was America's way of rejecting a son of privilege but being slapped down by the elite anyway.

Warmongering Lunatic, it must be time for me to read "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds" again, I'm slipping up. Thanks for reminding me.

How many non-royals ever break up with a boyfriend or a girlfriend?

And would you refuse to date a guy just because he'd had one long-term relationship break up in the past? I mean, c'mon, complete rejection is appropriate for men who had five wives who all disappeared mysteriously, but if one serious break-up makes it difficult to attract a second partner then the human race will have problems surviving.

I'm not so sure I can agree with you on this. If it's the job itself, you've got to be kidding me. Basically the job is travelling around in absolutely ostentatious splendor smiling and exchanging pleasantries with people under public attention. I'd take it any day of the week. I think where the real downside of the job appears to be is that you wind up with really crummy coworkers.

I would say that the downside is that it's quite difficult to do much of anything that doesn't involve being isolated in ostentatious splendor. It's life in a gilded prison (or maybe on gilded parole). He can fly off to the Caribbean any old time but can't wander around London unmolested. That may sound like a good deal to you, but it sounds pretty bad to me.

"Who is more alpha than Prince William?"

Any bloke with an IQ of above about 90 and his own set of opinions.

The guy is an uber-cretin, end of quiz. Not only is he beginning to look more and more like his father, he's beginning to behave more and more like the cloth earred, pompous twit his father has become.

Erm. I know that it's bad form to come into a thread and state that you're too cool for the thread, and all, but really, why do people (especially in the US) care about English royalty?

Well, I shame-facedly admit that I (and I'm *Indian* American, which makes it a thousand times worse) used to love reading about Princess Diana as a teenager. I'm not sure why, except that it was pretty common to discuss her clothes and hair among my Sixteen Candles/Pretty in Pink/the Police, slightly vapid, yet ernest, 80's teenage 'set'. I suppose it was just another celebrity-type to entertain us, except, like, classier and stuff. Had we had a William back then, rather than the male group on display at that time, I imagine we would have eagerly read all about him in People, as well. I dunno. I just spent the past hour listening to Ann Althouse and Robert Wright discuss some blogger row, amusingly enough, on Bloggingheads tv, so I can't really understand the People magazine disdain voiced by some! Gossip has it's high and low forms.....we often partake of it more than we care to admit.

Valuing the Royal Family's wealth is a rather fraught exercise. They are rather anxious to dramatically downplay their wealth.

Prince Charles has a personal income just from the Duchy of Cornwall (he has other assets) of 13 million pounds. All of his personal staff are charged to the Duchy's operations and so his 100+ staff at Clarence House come for no charge to his personal income. How would you value an asset heavy company that owns 135,000 acres in the UK that was also producing 13 million pounds in income that was tax exempt and the proprietor was voluntarily paying 25% of his income as tax? The Duchy has to be worth dramatically more than $400 million that the Queen is supposedly worth.

When looking at the Queen, everyone takes out the state assets. However the family has constructive ownership of those state assets, they're just rather heavily entailed. Replacement cost is rather high, just Buckingham palace is far past 400 million dollars in value, given that Lakshmi Mittal's place (12 bedrooms, 60,000 square feet at 18/19 Kensington Palace Gardens) was purchased for $128 million in 2004. Then there's all the staff paid for by the state. Plus the Duchy of Lancaster (the monarch's personal operations, just like Cornwall is for the heir).

Even if the marriage doesn't work out, you still get access to palaces. Both Fergie and Di lived in apartments in some of the palaces after their marriages disintegrated. Given the prices of central London, having free access to a nice set of rooms in Kensington Palace, Clarence House, St James' Palace, etc is worth quite a bit.

Most people would put a VERY high value on all of that, and marrying the direct heir to all that is a very secure job. It's getting to the chapel that is totally horrid, since there's not too much that can be done officially until you're at least in a stable and secure relationship that's on the glide path to the chapel. Ms. Middleton's status in early 07 shows both the problems and the benefits of being "engaged to be engaged".

"It's life in a gilded prison (or maybe on gilded parole)." More like a gilded cage in a zoo - except that packs of reporters are worse than the worst-behaved zoo sightseers, nor are the royals allowed to throw dung at them.

I'd work at a sewage treatment plant for far under $1 million, but I wouldn't accept the Royal Family's life for anything. You've got to be raised to it...

"nor are the royals allowed to throw dung at them."

Couldn't they detail that to one of their retainers? There would be plenty of applicants for the job of throwing dung at paparazzi; they wouldn't even have to pay much.

Anthony, I think that even delegating that job would destroy the last shreds of the Windsors' dignity and reputation. OTOH, if you want to make being a monarch attractive again, just allow them once again to scream, "Off with his head" occasionally, and have it happen, right then. Wisely used, it would greatly improve the behavior of the press, and give the public a reason for keeping this Royalty thing going after QE II dies. ;-)

You've not touched on the suggested snobbery that Kate's family - the mother in particular - were judged just too 'common' for William to be allowed to marry the gal.

Chewing gum in public, saying to the Queen 'Pleased to meet you', asking for the 'toilet' and so forth.

None of this would have mattered to Her Majesty, who is thoroughly middle-class herself and who rather liked Kate, though it would be a shame and slightly shaming if William allowed himself to be swayed by his toff friends. (Diana would have been exceedingly cross if so.)

William has now made it clear he has no intention of marrying for some five or so years. Makes that a bit tricky for any gal now to put herself forward as potential mate.

Nor have you mentioned that Kate has great legs. Though I now have.