This really about a definition of “working class”. What’s always interesting to me in these arguments is that it’s a Britishism originally tied to class consciousness more than economic circumstances.
Vicars, writers and such were examples of “genteel poverty” who were very well educated but still lived a hand-to-mouth existence. They were not considered part of the working class even though they very much had to work, and were often poorer than many tradespeople. Because of education and contact with the well-to-do, those workers had an expanded world view and thus not considered part of the “working class” who were focused on tawdry gossip, when they were going down to the pub, and what was for lunch.
This really about a definition of “working class”. What’s always interesting to me in these arguments is that it’s a Britishism originally tied to class consciousness more than economic circumstances.
Vicars, writers and such were examples of “genteel poverty” who were very well educated but still lived a hand-to-mouth existence. They were not considered part of the working class even though they very much had to work, and were often poorer than many tradespeople. Because of education and contact with the well-to-do, those workers had an expanded world view and thus not considered part of the “working class” who were focused on tawdry gossip, when they were going down to the pub, and what was for lunch.