So saw this article about how Meghan’s face has almost perfect symmetry matching something called the golden ratio. I understand how symmetry is strongly associated with beauty but I’m not sure how that particular ratio has anything to do with it.
I assumed that by “most mathematically beautiful”, they meant that she has two of everything.
That’s not much of a compliment. I think I’m more mathematically beautiful that the royal family. Perhaps for Meghan we could set the bar a little higher?
Her face may be all that the OP says (I don’t know one way or the other) but to me it is curiously uninteresting, too conventionally beautiful but without much apparent animation that comes from an inner life. Of course, I have only seen her face when she is on public display. Maybe she adopts that sort of mask of inanimacy as a means of protecting her emotional privacy. Time will tell, certainly. There is an old saying (maybe I made it up, I’m not sure) that everyone, by age 40, has the face they deserve. Nowadays that may be by age 55.
https://www.canva.com/learn/what-is-the-golden-ratio/
includes a picture of a beautiful woman’s face, beautifully divided by beautiful golden-ratio-symmetrical lines… thus making her look creepy. 
But you get the idea.
The golden ratio face stuff is almost certainly nonsense. If you tried applying it to Lupita Nyong’o or Shiori Kutsuna, it’d probably be way off and yet there would be no question of whether those women were beautiful. Look at the diagram in chappacula’s post. That is a Caucasian nose that the diagram is mandating. Unless we declaring that Caucasian is the most beautiful ethnicity, then we have to assume that the dude who came up with this scheme was bullshitting himself.
It’s pretty easy to see how that would have happened. The guy who figured out the points, I assume back in the 50s, put together a bunch of Caucasian models, averaged their faces together and then found a way to draw lines such that the golden ratio would appear. That’s bass-ackwards. There’s no particular reason to put a dot or line in the places where he put those dots and lines.
She’s definitely beautiful and has a really nice smile, Lady Amelia Windsor is more my taste personally though.
I had only ever seen photos of her and considered her absolutely average until I watched the wedding. What a gorgeous smile. And the way she looks at Harry is very endearing and makes her look that much more beautiful.
Well that’s true enough. The Royals have spent the last 1000 years marrying their cousins whereas Meghan succeeded in an industry that only accepts the top 1% of the top 1% of women in terms of beauty. Plus mixed race girls are hot
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
The Golden Ratio came from observing other natural phenomena like plants and sea shells, afaik, not Caucasian faces.
All the Maths in the world ain’t gonna convince me!
No, the Golden Ration came from abstract mathematics, and then some math nerds tried to find examples of it in the real world because, well, they’re math nerds. Some of the examples are more or less true (spirals) but for fairly obvious and unsurprising reasons, once you look at the math. Most of them – including all the examples of Golden Ratio rectangles being ‘most beautiful’ – are just finding things that are roughly in the range of 1.5 to 2.0 and calling them all exactly the Golden Ratio. Or, more or less the same thing, drawing a Golden Ratio rectangle first, and then using that to define the spots that are being measured.
Are the royals known for their beauty? It doesn’t seem to be that hard a contest to win. Amelia Windsor seems like the only blood relative that would be in the running. Certainly you would expect a model and actress to have an advantage over others.
Yeah, they were in dire need of some “good looking” genes when Princess Di came along. Kate and Meghan will add another dose. so ERII’s grandkids should be doing pretty well.
I did not make that claim.
Yup, the golden ratio is bunk. All its mysticism comes down to its being the solution to the equation x^2=x+1. This is a fairly simple equation and so it pops up here and there in various contexts not all of which are related. If list all these contexts one after the other, than it sounds like there is some magical order to the universe all directed around this number. But no, there is nothing special about it. Unlike pi, it even has a simple closed form solution (1+sqrt(5))/2.
As far as it being the perfect proportion of the human face, Divinci liked the whole perpetual square idea and found that it made for a relatively pleasing rectangle so he used it a bunch in his paintings, and wrote some treatise about how perfect it was. But that’s just one man’s perception of beauty there is nothing authoritative about it.
I was just watching a Numberphile video which said that there’s a set of ratios that create spirals, of which the Golden Ratio is just one, and that usually it’s not actually the golden ratio which is found in nature. Generally, it’s one of the others.
It’s not nonsense in that there is indeed a strong correlation between those factors and what is considered conventionally beautiful.
The disconnect is the incorrect notion that those factors are required to be beautiful. They’re not. Many women who’s faces don’t fit that model and/or have facial proportions that are not considered ideal are famously beautiful.
Keeping in in the Caucasian sphere: Take Christy Turlington (aka the face that launched 1,000 lip injections). Her upper vs. lower lip proportions are “wrong,” but she’s considered devastatingly beautiful - but she is a bit of an unconventional beauty.
Did I hear correctly that her title is Duchess of Sussex? Any way to say that without sounding like Daffy Duck?
So, ignoring all of the cases where it’s wrong - which is the majority of the population of the world since most people are Chinese or African - it’s correct?