When Caroline Aherne’s character Mrs Merton asked Debbie McGee, the wife of the TV magician, “So, what first attracted you to the millionaire Paul Daniels?”, status was wittily laid bare as motivation in what was touted as a romantic liaison. We all duly laughed. But is it really so ridiculous to choose someone, at least partly, on the basis of status?
Alain de Botton in his book Status Anxiety acknowledged that the modern journey of the individual is, at root, the quest for status. Peer pressure is inescapable. Ask yourself, would you be with your partner, however much you liked them, if you knew your friends would disapprove of them, or even laugh at them?
In a pure world, it would just be the inner beauty that mattered. Beauty and the Beast is meant to illustrate this very principle. But it’s no coincidence that the beast was a prince, and not a peasant with a winning personality.
Everybody likes to think his or her choice of partner is based purely on romantic love (whatever that is, as Prince Charles almost said). But most people before the 20th century would have found the idea of romance being the only determinant of marriage eccentric. Even today, the idea of status being openly linked to marriage is still a given in many parts of the world.
No one particularly objects if you go for someone, at least in the first place, because they are physically attractive. After all, in the chimp brain, which persists in all of us, “good looks” do not only announce fertility, good health and robust genes. They are also a form of status, of display. So why not, likewise, admit that some people select partners for power, or money – at least in the first instance? Sense of humour? Necessary, but not sufficient. Endearing personality? Close, but no cigar.
Once a partner has been chosen, and a coupling established, the idea of your significant other acting as a symbolic representative of your status does not go away. If your partner behaves in an embarrassing or inappropriate way in public, most people will feel it reflects on them, too – it will, in other words, impact on status. Strictly rationally, how your partner behaves says little about you – I don’t judge any of my friends by the quality of their partners – but in your own mind, your partner can be a potent symbol of who you think you are, or want to be.
This partner-as-representative extends to all areas of activity. If your partner is rude to a waiter or waitress, “You’re embarrassing me!” is a common response – whereas surely the only people being embarrassed are the one being rude and the person they are being rude to. This happens because, once in a relationship, people begin to leak into one another.
This is not an entirely bad instinct. It’s perfectly healthy to want to be “proud” of the person you are with, just as you want to be proud of your children. This may account for the rarity of dustmen marrying duchesses, or shopgirls princes, despite the fairytale myths. Prince Charming may have fancied Cinderella, but in the weeks and months after the wedding when they had to attend social events in the court calendar and she was picking her toenails or emptying the ashtrays, he might well have regretted his admirably democratic glass-slipper strategy.
Status is just another one of the weapons in the armoury any of us have in the fight to secure a partner. Money, looks, success, height, celebrity, even breeding have all counted in the past and continue to count. To convince me of the opposite, I will be interested to hear of any ugly, low-status men having any lengthy relationships with beautiful, high-status women, or vice versa.
Love was, is and remains transactional – at least at first. Later, as time passes – and everyone ends up old and ugly sooner or later – it matters less. But even then, status is inescapable – for what is higher status than a long and happy marriage?
