It was considered degrading practically everywhere. Very few English aristocrats engaged in any kind of work until the nineteenth century.
However, the bigger problem for the French is their definition of the nobility. Under English law, nobility was conferred via the title which passes to the heir. One heir. All other descendants were not of the nobility. For these people, earning a living was an unfortunate necessity.
In the French system, nobility was conferred through legitimate birth to noble parents. All the children of a nobleman were noble. And so were their children (assuming proper marriage). At some point, you run out of sinecures for all your nobles.
I do not agree that in England commerce and commercial activity was considered degrading. Obviously, at the lowest level it would be. No peer was going to stand behind a shop counter serving customers.
But , for instance, the first Duke of Bridgewater built the Bridgewater canal (obviously, not with his own hands) , and made a fortune out of it.
A LOT of peers and noblemen had shares in the East India Company. In Elizabeth's time, noblemen , and the Queen herself, sent off trading adventures. Prince Rupert of the Rhine was extensively involved in commercial ventures (Hudson Bay Company, fex), and manufacturing ventures (he set up a gun making company, amongst other things). And he was more German than English, though he operated in England.
Peers and gentry were enthusiastic about exploiting coal mines and minerals on their estates (I think this happened in Germany, too).
And of course were intensely involved in property development. And banking . And insurance.
And that's only counting the old families that were involved, without considering the new families that made their fortunes in commerce and gained titles - the Childs, Barings, Tilneys lots of others
A lot of these initiatives gave employment and income to younger sons. First son takes the title, second into the army, third into the church, fourth into the law, fifth into commerce. But , almost all wealthy peers made financial provision for younger sons, in the first generation at least. Often quite generous ones, the literature the time is full of peers complaining that they are financially crippled by portions for daughters and younger sons. And the strict settlement s of the day , with estates settled in conditional fee tail, meant they had no choice in the matter.
I don't think that the test of "nobleman" is correct either. A younger son of a peer was considered a member of the nobility. The main thing was whether he could matriculate his arms with the College of Heralds. What was different about England to the Continent, was that in England, apart from the actual holder of a peerage, being noble gave no advantages and had no visible distinction.