As for the allegation of Eliot not holding aristocratic (or high-class) love affairs approbrious, here are some instances that refute the charge:
The nymphs are departed.
And their friends, the loitering heirs of City directors;
Departed, have left no addresses.
Twit twit twit
Jug jug jug jug jug jug
So rudely forc'd.
     Weialala leia
     Wallala leialala
Elizabeth and Leicester
Beating oars
The stern was formed
A gilded shell
Red and gold
The brisk swell
Rippled both shores
Southwest wind
Carried down stream
The peal of bells
White towers
     Weialala leia
     Wallala leialala
Eliot's Notes to TWL: 
279. V. Froude, Elizabeth, vol. I, ch. iv, letter of De Quadra to Philip of Spain:
In the afternoon we were in a barge, watching the games on the river. (The queen) was alone with Lord Robert and myself on the poop, when they began to talk nonsense, and went so far that Lord Robert at last said, as I was on the spot there was no reason why they should not be married if the queen pleased.

--- On Sun, 8/23/09, Chokh Raj <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
I don't think physical blemishes in Eliot's poetry are class-specific -- they could signify inward corruption irrespective of class distinctions:
Princess Volupine extends
A meagre, blue-nailed, phthisic hand
To climb the waterstair. Lights, lights,
She entertains Sir Ferdinand
   -- "Burbank with a Baedeker: Bleistein with a Cigar"
The sable presbyters approach
The avenue of penitence;
The young are red and pustular
Clutching piaculative pence.
   -- "Mr. Eliot's Sunday Morning Service"
Diana Manister wrote Mon, 17 Aug 2009 13:10:32 :
The sexual interlude between the typist and her pimply lover was depicted as sordid because of it's working-class character. Note the one-room bedsit the typist occupies. If you believe Eliot's subtext, aristocrats don't get zits and their sexual activities are never approbrious.