Skydragon said:
She seemed smart and down-to-earth, not a lazy aristocratic slouch who doesn't work but attends parties and polo matches, and generally has nothing going for them, like a career, in their lives.
What you are saying, is that anyone who is lucky enough not to have to work, is a lazy slouch and has nothing going for them.
It seems a very sweeping statement and very judgemental of a situation you are not privy to.
You seem to be stating that you or anyone who has visible employment, is smart, down to earth and not a slouch, when it is clear IMO, that some people who have a job are neither smart or diplomatic.
Why should Catherine let anyone know whether she is in paid employment and if she is not, why is that a reason to rip her apart?
If she hasn't got a job and doesn't need to work to have spending money, good luck to her, it will leave a job available to someone who has no option but to work for their living!
Bravo Skydragon! I haven't been on the forum for a while because I've been so busy with work, but the last couple of pages that I've read on this thread tell me that some things haven't changed!
I feel that you and Jo have stated some serious truths.
I'm an employed person who is neither particularly smart OR particularly diplomatic, and I say who are we to judge another person and say that they are lazy or any other negative adjectives?
As humans, we are more than the sum of our employment!
(Forgive my paraphrasing)
In all seriousness, some of the statements I've read posted on this forum and on different online tabloids regarding Catherine amaze me.
I've seen rude or harsh and judgmental statements about her needing to get a job, or being lazy, or just criticising her for attending polo matches, etc. as if she were obligated to behave according to someone else's dictates.
I do believe that a lot of complaints of this nature are based on several different things, the main one being smug narrow-mindedness.
They're basically saying : the only people that are worth something in this world are the people that live the way I live, or that live the way
I think they should live.
We aren't living her life, we don't know what goes on behind Catherine's or anyone's closed doors. She's living the life that feels right for her, and if she is financially able to afford to live as she pleases, so be it. Why should a person be ostracized because they're able to live as they choose?
I think one of the other elements is plain old-fashioned jealousy. A sort of "If I can't do it then you shouldn't be able to do it either" type of jealousy.
Well, there will always be those who are more fortunate than the rest of us. There is no point in condemning someone because their finances allow them to live a life that we can't.
And as for those who say that in that case her degree was a waste of time:
How so? She isn't your daughter/sister/niece etc, and it wasn't your expenses. If she and her parents are happy, then it should not matter to anyone else how she uses or doesn't use her degree.
A person should be considered on the basis of how kindly and compassionately they treat their fellow man, and whether or not they are an honourable, decent person.
Not much else really matters.