WS MoreOrLess: Princess Charlotte

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: More or Less (BBC Radio 4)

Episode: WS MoreOrLess: Princess Charlotte

Air Date: May 11, 2015
Host: Tim Harford
Guests: Charlotte MacDonald (royal baby correspondent); Prof. Sir David Spiegelhalter (University of Cambridge)

---

Episode Overview

This episode of More or Less investigates dubious statistical claims connected to the birth of Princess Charlotte, the latest member of the British royal family. Host Tim Harford and correspondent Charlotte MacDonald debunk headline-grabbing numbers, exploring how such figures are concocted and their true economic impact. Later, Tim invites statistics expert Prof. Sir David Spiegelhalter to discuss how we should interpret statistics—particularly those about sex and relationships—using a “star system” to rate their reliability. The tone is light, witty, and curious, blending statistical analysis with warm banter.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Royal Baby Name Popularity

• Royal Connections & Name Trends
  • [00:18] Tim Harford jokes about the possible inspiration for Princess Charlotte’s name, introducing Charlotte MacDonald as the “royal baby correspondent.”
  • Charlotte explains her own name’s popularity, correcting her mother’s claim that it was the most popular girls’ name in her birth year. She clarifies, “Charlotte was the most popular name...among the births announced in the Times newspaper.” ([01:12])
  • She admits: “No, I’m not posh enough for that,” when asked if her name appeared in The Times announcements. ([01:29])

2. Debunking Dubious Economic Impact Claims

• Absurd Economic Predictions

  • The media reported that Princess Charlotte’s birth would inject US$80 million (£50 million, or US$120 million) into the UK economy ([01:38]).
  • The figure stems from the Centre for Retail Research, which “pumps out shopping data” ([01:38]), citing surveys on expected spending for the royal birth—£28 million (US$42 million) on drink and £25 million (US$38 million) on food ([02:02]).

• Skepticism and Critique

  • Tim: “Do British people really need much of an excuse to buy food and drink to celebrate?” ([02:23])
  • Charlotte points out much of this spending “would happen anyway,” casting doubt on claims the spending is extra or due to the royal event.
  • Media exaggerations included the claim that by age six the princess would contribute £1 billion to the economy—“That’s about £1 and a half billion US dollars.” ([02:52])
  • Charlotte remains skeptical: “Which is why I’m pretty skeptical of the figures. Although the centre says they didn’t claim that this was extra expenditure. It’s actually the newspapers that have been talking about boost to the economy.” ([02:52])

• Academic Insight

  • Referencing finance professor Costas Milas (University of Liverpool), Charlotte shares, “He found no discernible impact on the economy” from previous royal births such as Prince Charles or Prince William. ([03:20])

3. Grading Sex Statistics – Sir David Spiegelhalter’s System

• Different ‘Stars’ for Different Stats

  • Description of popular and often dubious “sex statistics” found on the internet.
  • “We know there’s lots of sex going on, but we can’t count it like we can count road accidents...many of the statistics that get reported...most of them are pretty bad.” — Sir David Spiegelhalter ([04:07])
  • Introduction of a rating system:
    • Four-Star Statistics: “We can actually really believe them. They’re official numbers—births, marriages, divorces, abortions. We know those, we can count those.” ([05:00])
    • Three-Star Statistics: Reliable large surveys (random, representative samples, confidentiality, accuracy within ±20%). Useful for tracking trends like sexual frequency and partners. ([05:15])
    • Two-Star Statistics: Historically significant but methodologically flawed data, e.g., the Kinsey reports. “His methods and his data are largely discredited now...he didn’t believe in random samples...he deliberately target[ed] groups where he suspected...extreme behavior.” ([07:39])
    • One-Star Statistics: Online surveys or magazine questionnaires, often with self-selecting samples. “Even when they’re big—10,000 responses from Time Out magazine—I still wouldn’t trust it at all.” ([08:35])

• Notable Findings from Quality Research

  • “The frequency of sex among opposite sex couples has gone down over the last 20 years from a median couple having sex five times every four weeks—it’s gone down to four times to three times now.” ([06:39])
  • “Same-sex behavior in young women has increased massively…Now one in six reports some same-sex experience and one in 20 having a same-sex partner over the last five years.” ([06:39])
  • The cliché “seven year itch” actually matches divorce statistics: “When you look at the peak risk time for marriages, it is seven years in. I thought it was just a cliche. Well, that’s an official statistic. That is true.” ([05:15])

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Royal Name Popularity:

  • Charlotte MacDonald (01:12):
    “Charlotte was the most popular name the year I was born. Among the births announced in the Times newspaper.”
  • On being “posh”:
    “No, I’m not posh enough for that.” — Charlotte MacDonald (01:29)

• Economy & Royal Babies:

  • Charlotte MacDonald (01:38):
    “Oh, it’s got to be the idea that the birth of Princess Charlotte will contribute US$80 million, that’s US$120 million to the UK’s economy...comes from the Centre for Retail Research, which pumps out shopping data.”
  • Tim Harford (02:23):
    “Do British people really need much of an excuse to buy food and drink to celebrate?”
  • Charlotte MacDonald (02:52):
    “Which is why I’m pretty skeptical of the figures...it’s actually the newspapers that have been talking about boost to the economy.”

• Debunking the Impact:

  • Charlotte MacDonald (03:20):
    “I spoke to finance professor Costas Millas from the University of Liverpool...he found no discernible impact on the economy.”

• On Grading Sex Statistics:

  • Sir David Spiegelhalter (04:07):
    “We know there’s lots of sex going on, but we can’t count it like we can count road accidents...most of them are pretty bad.”
  • On Kinsey:
    “His methods and his data are largely discredited now...he...didn’t believe in random samples...he deliberately target[ed] groups where he suspected...extreme behavior.” (07:39)
  • On online surveys:
    “Ah, yeah, one star. One star I regard as the sort of statistics that you get when you look on an Internet site or open a magazine where we’ve done a reader’s survey...I still wouldn’t trust it at all.” (08:35)

• Surprising Official Statistic:

  • Sir David Spiegelhalter (05:15):
    “The peak risk time for marriages is seven years in. I thought it was just a cliche. Well, that’s an official statistic. That is true.”

---

Important Timestamps

• 00:18: Introduction of episode, royal baby angle
• 01:08 – 01:30: Name popularity discussion, witty banter
• 01:38 – 03:20: Dissecting the economic impact of Princess Charlotte’s birth; source of statistics; academic perspective
• 04:07 – 09:01: Interview with Sir David Spiegelhalter on statistics about sex and relationships; star rating system explained; examples from British surveys; Kinsey and online statistics critiqued

---

Summary Takeaways

• Media statistics tied to royal events are frequently overblown and rarely supported by reliable data. Retail spending attributed to royal babies is mostly not attributable to the occasion itself, and proper academic research shows no measurable impact on the economy.
• Statistical rigor matters: Not all statistics are created equal. Official figures (births, marriages, divorces) are solid, major surveys (e.g., National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles) are trustworthy within limits, historic studies like Kinsey have significant flaws, and self-selecting online surveys should be viewed most skeptically.
• Sound research sometimes confirms clichés: The "seven year itch" does appear in official divorce statistics, showing a correlation between relationship length and divorce risk.

The episode uses humor and accessible language to remind listeners: be skeptical about striking statistics in the news, especially when tied to trends, sex, or royal babies. Always check the source and reliability.

---

Transcript

[Charlotte MacDonald]

This is the short edition of More or Less, first broadcast on the BBC World Service.

[BBC Podcast Announcer]

Thank you for downloading from the BBC. For details of our complete range of podcasts and our terms of use, go to bbcworldservice.com podcasts

[Tim Harford]

hello, and welcome to More or Less on the BBC World Service. I'm Tim Harford. The British royal family has a new member, the Queen's great granddaughter, Princess Charlotte of Cambridge. And no sooner was Charlotte born than some absurd statistical claims were being made about her. So here is Charlotte to talk about them. No, not the princess, silly. Here's Charlotte MacDonald, our royal baby correspondent. So, Charlotte, welcome. Do you. Do you think William and Kate named their baby after you?

[Charlotte MacDonald]

Well, I do walk past Buckingham palace every day, and I did meet Princess Anne once when I was working as a waitress. But actually, in reality, Charlottes are pretty plentiful. I'm the same age as Prince William, and my mum is always saying that Charlotte was the most popular girl's name the year I was born.

[Tim Harford]

Really? So your parents are actually just as conservative in their choices as the royals are?

[Charlotte MacDonald]

Well, I did go and fact check my mother, to be sure, and it turns out there don't seem to be officially published lists of most popular names dating back as far as my advanced age. But Charlotte was the most popular name the year I was born. Among the births announced in the Times newspaper.

[Tim Harford]

Was your name in the Times newspaper?

[Charlotte MacDonald]

No, I'm not poshner for that.

[Tim Harford]

Okay, let's stop all this name chat. Tell us instead, what was the silliest statistic that you saw in relation to the royal birth?

[Charlotte MacDonald]

Oh, it's got to be the idea that the birth of Princess Charlotte will contribute US$80 million, that's US$120 million to the UK's economy. It was reported in a handful of the newspapers, and it comes from the Centre for Retail Research, which pumps out shopping data.

[Tim Harford]

So that's not such a big number. That's only a bit more than a pound a person, but it seems a bit arbitrary. So how do they work it out, Charlotte?

[Charlotte MacDonald]

Well, they're carrying out surveys of shoppers and retailers about whether they think people will buy things to celebrate the royal birth. Now, they reckon, for example, that 28 million pounds, that's 42 million US dollars will be spent on drink and another 25 million pounds, or 38 million US dollars will be spent on food.

[Tim Harford]

Do British people really need much of an excuse to buy food and drink to celebrate?

[Charlotte MacDonald]

Well, exactly. I think a lot of this expenditure would happen anyway for Example also calculates that in the future, the new princess could contribute 150 million pounds. That's 230 million US dollars each year to businesses, as people flock to buy clothes just like hers.

[Tim Harford]

But surely parents were going to buy baby clothes for their children anyway, and shops were planning to sell them regardless of the royal baby.

[Charlotte MacDonald]

Which is why I'm pretty skeptical of the figures. Although the center says they didn't claim that this was extra expenditure. It's actually the newspapers that have been talking about boost to the economy. And what was more ludicrous is that some of them were multiplying up. So saying things like, by the time the princess is six, she'll have contributed £1 billion to the economy. That's about £1 and a half billion US dollars.

[Tim Harford]

I don't suppose there's been any proper serious academic research into this.

[Charlotte MacDonald]

I spoke to finance professor Costas Millas from the University of Liverpool, who actually took the time to do a proper analysis of the economy in. In the years after royal babies were born. So for Prince Charles, Prince William, for example, and it may not surprise you to know that he found no discernible impact on the economy.

[Tim Harford]

Thank you very much, Charlotte. Can we ever trust statistics about sex and relationships? Sir David Spiegelhalter, Cambridge University's professor for the public understanding of risk, has written a book called Sex by Numbers. But it's not just a book about sex. It's also a book about the way different statistical claims about sex should be viewed very differently. Indeed. He's created a system to rank how seriously we should take sex statistics.

[Sir David Spiegelhalter]

We know there's lots of sex going on, but we can't count it like we can count road accidents or something like that. And so we have to either ask people, in which case we have to try really hard to get accurate answers, or kind of infer behavior from official statistics that we can believe. But of course, many of the statistics that get reported about sex, if you just go onto the Internet, there's endless lists of sex statistics, and most of them are pretty bad. And so what I've done is try to make an attempt to grade the numbers that we hear. So if we think of the best ones, I call them four star statistics. Four star statistics. We can actually really believe them. They're official numbers. Births, marriages, divorces, abortions. We know those, we can count those.

[Tim Harford]

Looking at official statistics produced in the uk, Sir David found a number of surprising facts. Many people may have heard the saying, the seven year itch, the idea that people get disenchanted with their relationships. After seven years, it turns out when

[Sir David Spiegelhalter]

you look at the peak risk time for marriages is seven years in I thought was just a cliche. Well, that's an official statistic. That is true. Next down is three star. Now these are ones which I regard as really good surveys, big expensive surveys where they make a huge effort to get a representative sample, a random sample and interview them with full assurance of confidentiality, with great care. Now these numbers I trust reasonably well. I particularly trust their trends and I think they're accurate to about sort of plus minus 20%. They're not perfect, they're not perfect at all, but they're good enough for planning health services and for evaluating what's going on. The kind of three star statistics that generally quoted are to do with how often people had sex, the changes in same sex behaviour, how many sexual partners people have had in their lifetime and so on.

[Tim Harford]

One of these surveys that Sir David would give three stars to is the British National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles which is conducted every 10 years since the 1990s. Researchers in the UK interview thousands of people. It's one of the largest and most detailed scientific studies of sexual behaviour in the world. Results for the most recent survey came out not long ago. Some of them quite surprising.

[Sir David Spiegelhalter]

I think the ones that people seem to pick up on immediately are the findings that the frequency of sex among opposite sex couples has gone down over the last 20 years from a median couple having sex five times every four weeks. It's gone down to four times to three times now. And all sorts of people put all sorts of reasons about why that might have happened to do with the Internet and so on. I think the other one is that the same sex behavior in young women has increased massively. Probably this is one of the biggest changes of behavior over the last 20 years. Now one in six reports some same sex experience and one in 20 having a same sex partner over the last five years.

[Tim Harford]

This British survey is rigorous. A random sample of thousands of people trying hard to get a representative cross section of society. But it was born out of previous attempts by researchers to conduct surveys into people's sex lives. Perhaps the most famous are the Kinsey reports. But for David those reports only receive a two star rating.

[Sir David Spiegelhalter]

Alfred Kinsey was US biologist who conducted these massive surveys in the 1940s in which he interviewed around 15,000 men and women using his, you know, very idiosyncratic interview technique where he would sit people down with a cigarette and chat to them in the vernacular, asking questions about all aspects of their life. And he also had this form of questioning where people had to actively deny their behavior. So he would just ask someone, when did you first have sex with someone you know other than your wife? His methods and his data are largely discredited now. He was a biologist. He didn't believe in random samples of a population. He believed in trying to find the extremes of identifying every type of behavior. So he deliberately target groups where he suspected they would have some extreme behavior.

[Tim Harford]

There's still merit in a two star statistic and we can still learn from it. But what about a one star?

[Sir David Spiegelhalter]

Ah, yeah, one star. One star regard is the sort of statistics that you get when you look on an Internet site or open a magazine where we've done a reader's survey and it's where people just put up a form, they just stick it up on a website and people who feel like it fill up the form and say what they get up to. And these surveys can be very large. The Last one from timeout was 10,000, but I still wouldn't trust it at all.

[Tim Harford]

Professor Sir David Spiegelhalter and that's all we have time for. If you have any story ideas, please email More or [e-mail] or find us on Twitter BC more or less.

[BBC Podcast Announcer]

There are dozens of different podcasts now available from the BBC, including news, documentaries, science, business, arts and sports. For details of them all, go to BBC World Series Service. Com Podcasts.