Posted:
The Lady's criteria for the Suitor Lad
Yesterday, a Lady set forth to her daughter's suitor the criteria by which she would determine whether he ought to be awarded the title of her son-in-law.
First, the Suitor Lad must not be one who takes decisions to close one of his largest factories in order to gain minor profits. [That would display a bad business sense, eh?]
Second, the Suitor Lad lad must not be one who gets affianced to one girl, while harbouring dreams of marrying and loving another. [Well, who can fault that?]
Third, the Suitor Lad must not be one who has no name or fame of his own or one who owes all things he possesses to the largesse of his father. [Should he fail to satisfy this criteria, he ought to be willing to leave his father and his father's largesse to obtain the coveted title.]
To confound the Suitor Lad further, the Lady also said that the Suitor Lad must be honest and love her daughter and that she cared not a whit for his name or fame. [Well, to be honestly honest, the second point did have me thinking otherwise.]
Now, in no uncertain terms, the Lady indicated to the suitor that he had satisfactorily failed to satisfy the eligibility criteria.
Yet, if my memory serves me right, except for the second criterion set forth, wasn't the same Suitor Lad heralded with much pomp and splendour and confetti as the Lady's prospective son-in-law, albeit by a virtue of marriage to another of the Lady's daughters?
So, does the Lady in question have different eligibility criteria for her daughters? Or did An Observer miss something?
Yesterday, a Lady set forth to her daughter's suitor the criteria by which she would determine whether he ought to be awarded the title of her son-in-law.
First, the Suitor Lad must not be one who takes decisions to close one of his largest factories in order to gain minor profits. [That would display a bad business sense, eh?]
Second, the Suitor Lad lad must not be one who gets affianced to one girl, while harbouring dreams of marrying and loving another. [Well, who can fault that?]
Third, the Suitor Lad must not be one who has no name or fame of his own or one who owes all things he possesses to the largesse of his father. [Should he fail to satisfy this criteria, he ought to be willing to leave his father and his father's largesse to obtain the coveted title.]
To confound the Suitor Lad further, the Lady also said that the Suitor Lad must be honest and love her daughter and that she cared not a whit for his name or fame. [Well, to be honestly honest, the second point did have me thinking otherwise.]
Now, in no uncertain terms, the Lady indicated to the suitor that he had satisfactorily failed to satisfy the eligibility criteria.
Yet, if my memory serves me right, except for the second criterion set forth, wasn't the same Suitor Lad heralded with much pomp and splendour and confetti as the Lady's prospective son-in-law, albeit by a virtue of marriage to another of the Lady's daughters?
So, does the Lady in question have different eligibility criteria for her daughters? Or did An Observer miss something?
Mangal Lakshmi
Bade Achhe Lagte Hain
