X Close

Britain needs its luxury class Artisans will rebuild the nation's spirit

Naomi Campbell walks the runway at the Alexander McQueen SS24 show during Paris Fashion Week (Dave Benett/Getty Images for Alexander McQueen)

Naomi Campbell walks the runway at the Alexander McQueen SS24 show during Paris Fashion Week (Dave Benett/Getty Images for Alexander McQueen)


September 4, 2024   7 mins

It’s an idyllic Friday in Spring and I am standing on the factory floor of a silk factory in the heart of Suffolk. Guiding me through this labyrinth of looms is Julius Walters, the 11th-generation Managing Director of Sudbury Silk Mills, a world-leading purveyor of fine silks to both fashion and literal royalty. “Our customers are focused on doing things exceptionally and beautifully,” Walters tells me over the thrum of his weavers. “It’s part of their philosophy to buy the very best materials — and they view us as the epitome of the best.”

This passion for excellence over exuberant attention-seeking mirrors the wider British luxury industry. Unlike France and Italy, we lack iconic listed luxury growth engines. There is no British Louis Vuitton-Moet Hennessy (£285 billion market cap) or Ferrari (£71 billion). Our greatest champions of Burberry (£2.4 billion) and InterContinental Hotels Group (£12 billion) languish at the bottom of the FTSE 100.

Of course, Britain is still a playground to the wealthy. As Butler to the World, we serve the globally rich with private schools, real estate, and a historically handy tax regime. Savile Row and Jermyn Street are luminaries of menswear. Our luxury automotive industry remains iconic, albeit foreign-owned. However, our disdain for poor taste and glitzy tat prevented us from becoming a gigafactory of shallow status symbols. Unlike our continental counterparts, we have failed to feast on the desires of the growing hordes of global affluence.

But what if this snobbishness was a well-placed long-term bet? Over the past two years, I have been conducting anthropological research into the lives and desires of ultra and high-net-worth individuals — or “(U)HNWIs” to the brands and banks that seek their riches. From Manhattan and Monaco to Singapore and Seoul, I have found that the aspirations of the global rich are undergoing a subtle but tectonic shift. The superficial brand mythologies and logos that have fuelled much of the European luxury boom are fast falling out of fashion.

Instead, these HNWIs are embracing deeper forms of luxury, rooted in a different set of values. They are increasingly rejecting the obvious and explicit badges, instead preferring more subtle, meaningful, and nuanced forms of distinction. “I used to spend lavishly on clothes, mostly buying major French and Italian labels,” explains Bao, a venture capitalist based in Guanghzhou, China. “Now, I spend more pragmatically. I buy less and focus on quality, long-lasting items. It should have its own special story and design, not just a logo.”

Among the global new elite, there is a feeling that not only are conventional status symbols no longer markers of distinction, but they also fail to satisfy deeper emotional needs. “There’s a sense of emptiness, of just consuming things, because they’re showy, or they’re pretty and you get that kind of consumer lust for them that you want to sate,” explains Nadia, a jet-set entrepreneur living between Dubai and Monaco. “It has an emptiness that a new handbag won’t fill.”

None of which is to say that the rich no longer care about status. Quite the opposite: expressing “status” is now increasingly about conscious virtue rather than chest-beating dominance. To these HNWIs, distinction is not about having the shiniest watch, but signalling an appreciation of craftsmanship, community, patronage and planet.

What’s driving this shift? First, the sheer scale and growth of HNWIs is galactic, and the wealthy need new ways to distinguish themselves. UBS’s 2024 Global Wealth Report estimates there are currently 59.4 million millionaires globally. That number is expected to grow to 86 million by 2027. In a slightly more exclusive tier, there are 243,000 ultra-high-net-worths — those with over $50 million. This cohort of living gods is projected to rise to 372,000 by 2027.

In his Theory of the Leisure Class (1899), Thorstein Veblen argued that luxury is essentially a symbolic social performance where the excess time and wealth of the rich are displayed through unnecessary, conspicuous consumption. Yet, in a world where 100,000 millionaires are born every week, signalling that distinction has become harder. Behind these astronomical numbers and opaque acronyms, the reality is that owning a Rolex does not set you apart. Being rich isn’t rare anymore.

To further distinguish themselves in a crowded elite world, HNWIs are embracing what Giana M. Eckhardt et al. call “inconspicuous consumption”. This holds that, amid the flash and the fakes, true distinction now comes from signalling to their in-the-know micro-peers groups. The masses are now cottoning on with the Succession-inspired #quietluxury TikTok trend garnering half a billion views.  While online mainstream interest in the trend might have dipped slightly since its zenith in 2023, it still represents a paradigm shift. Over the past 12 months, the stock market value of quiet luxury’s poster children Brunello Cuccinelli (+21%) and Hermès (+15%) far outstrips the now shrinking LVMH (-13%).

Related to this, the global rich are also increasingly mindful of impact of their spending. Endless studies indicate that younger luxury consumers seek sustainability. By 2030, the wealthy youth will make up 80% of the global luxury consumer base. “These younger consumers are more interested in the ethical aspects and the stories behind the products than older generations,” explains Helen Chislett, co-author of Craft Britain: Why Making Matters. In this new landscape, the ethical origin is no longer a side perk but essential to the foundations of the luxury myth. As Chislett explains in a distinctly Carolean tone: “They now seek products that tell a story, with authenticity and a clear lineage. This isn’t just about luxury; it’s about connection and understanding the provenance of the things we bring into our lives.”

“In this new landscape, the ethical origin is no longer a side perk but essential to the foundations of the luxury myth.”

Which brings us back to Britain. In this shifting cultural environment, many of France and Italy’s maisons have sold out the quality and authenticity to fatten themselves on the fruits of globalisation. Britain’s luxury artisans, by contrast, stood their ground. Save for the prodigal Burberry’s years in the wilderness, the local industry has consistently maintained its reputation for sustaining a tradition of tasteful craftsmanship, understated timeless design and ethical leadership. As the nouveau riche reach their era of maturity, Britain can feast on the Europeans’ lunch.

In her introduction to Walpole’s 2024 British Book of Luxury, CEO Helen Brocklebank emphasises Britain’s unique opportunity. “All the elements for success are there,” she writes, “a growing market, a new generation of young, savvy consumers, and a shift in what luxury means towards qualities and values where Britain has always excelled.”

And yet, few in Britain seem to care. Parliament endlessly debates the importance of building Tech Britain, which certainly makes some sense: the tech sector contributes £150 billion to our annual GDP. However, the luxury sector, despite contributing £81 billion annually, supporting 450,000 jobs, and paying in £25.5 billion to the exchequer, is almost never discussed by politicians. Apart from stopping Russian oligarchs from buying luxury cars — they get them via Azerbaijan now — and occasional attempts to bring back VAT-free shopping, the British luxury is hardly on the political agenda.

Why ignore this engine of growth? Most likely, it is seen as frivolous. As Brocklebank writes: “Luxury brands create some of the most beautiful, exclusive, and desirable products on the Earth and yet our industry is rarely seen as serious… [It is seen as] indulgent, transient and nonessential.” More cynically, it’s likely that pseudo-salt-of-the-Earth politicians seek to avoid association with a sector they perceive as intrinsically serving the rich and powerful. When Prime Minister Keir Starmer explained last week that “those with the broadest shoulders should bear the heavier burden”, he obviously only meant taxes. Actively persuading the rich to volunteer their cash through craft and charm is nowhere near the agenda.

Elite commentators often reflect this myopia. Writing in The Financial Times, Janan Ganesh recently suggested that luxury is “Europe’s joke on the world” and “profits from the cultural insecurities of other regions”. While he accepts that these businesses pay taxes and employ people, he critiques the supposed “ghastliness of the products” and international consumers’ “postcolonial urge to ‘mimic’ the metropole”. But what if, rather than being merely a job and tax revenue creating “joke”, the luxury sector is something deeply good for both the economy and the spirit of the nation?

In her four-part review of Kenneth and Gillian Bartlett’s The Renaissance in Italy, Angela Nagle explores the historical realities of an industrial policy that celebrates luxury and beauty. Focusing on the glass-blowing industry, Nagle argues that “the first lesson of Venice is that industry and beauty are not incompatible, as some sentimentalists believe, but can be entirely complementary. This is especially true if you choose to invest in producing luxury or high-quality goods and take pride in their quality.”

This is just as potent a force in Renaissance Venice as it is in 21st-century Sudbury. Employees across the silk mill beamed with glee at the splendour of their businesses. Even beyond the creatives, this pride resonates. “I used do accounting at a sock business, we were just making black socks all the time, you wouldn’t feel the same investment in that,” says one woman in the silk mill’s finance department. “But here there’s a lot of pride that goes into what we do, because we’re always creating something different.”

Her colleague continues: “We make high end fabrics, for absolutely everybody. It’s not an off-the-shelf process — it’s a collaboration of all the people that want to make something very special. From start to finish, everyone is involved, and when we see some of our fabrics on TV or in a magazine, we all think ‘I’ve got a piece of me in that’. Everyone feels connected when we produce a finished product.”

In this, we find a vision of British industry that is truly inspiring. In stark contrast to the soulless WeWorks of London, where dead-eyed graduates, over-qualified and under-skilled, waste away their twenties selling B2B software subscriptions, we encounter a vibrant, joyful community of art and commerce. Here, highly skilled creatives, manufacturers, and professionals work seamlessly together, united by their shared admiration for the craftsmanship of a truly exquisite product.

In 18th-century Britain, there was a deep pride in luxury craft. In a 2023 essay Fired by Creativity, Tristram Hunt, Director of the V&A and former Labour MP, delved into the epoch-defining impact of Josiah Wedgwood — porcelain industrialist extraordinaire. In Wedgwood’s time, Hunt explains, there was no embarrassment in celebrating the merits of high-end craftsmanship. On the contrary, the intertwined economic and cultural significance of openly supporting and taking pride in one’s luxury industry was regarded as a noble pursuit. As Hunt puts it: “There was nobility and virtue in seducing the buyer, in pleasing the consumer, and in expanding the provision of material goods” to sustain the region’s thriving industries. Quoting Prime Minister William Gladstone, Hunt further emphasises that “Wedgwood was the greatest man who ever, in any age, or in any country…[who] applied himself to the important work of uniting art with industry.”

In an era where the winds of luxury are once again turning in Britain’s favour, we could do worse than reanimate Wedgwood’s spirit. And there are endless policy reforms that would unleash British luxury — from reinstating tax-free shopping and making exports easier to protecting IP rights and apprenticeship reforms. First, however, we must renew a sense of pride. Once that’s achieved, we will still be a long way from Making Britain Cool Again. Perhaps, in the meantime, we can make it craft again.


Louis Elton is a theological anthropologist, strategy consultant and conceptual artist.


Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

27 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Milton Gibbon
Milton Gibbon
3 months ago

I knew that getting back late from a night out would do me the world of good! Now listen up. I have thought for ages that there was something to be said for “cottage industries” in the true sense of the meaning. The wealth of Northern Europe was to a large extent based on this sort of thing from the middle ages until the industrial revolution. A few summers back (BC – Before Children) I and my wife went on a driving holiday around northern Scotland; I thought we would do it while it was still part of the UK, I’d never set foot there again if they left. I would highly recommend it.
We went round the coast from Inverness to the Isle of Skye and while we were touring around there saw a small sign indicating there was a weavers right in the middle of nowhere (a farmhouse on its own in the midst of rocky heather). We went down and found this chap:
Our Videos | Skye Weavers in Motion | Short films about weaving
Sat at his loom peddaling away. He said he got about one visitor a day during the summer so wasn’t surprised to see us rock up and ask to see what he was doing. He spent about 15 minutes going through the process and the history – how he had learnt the craft off somebody else on another island and fixed up the loom himself, attached to a bicycle which powered it. Brilliant. It would be even more brilliant if this sort of thing was promulgated more widely. If only he was a blind, Italian nun he could probably sell the finished products for 10x the price he is currently.
Another cottage industry that really fascinates is lace-making because of how widespread it was even at the beginning of the 20th century but a list of endangered crafts can be found here:
Crafts – Heritage Crafts |
Please post other such examples as I for one would be fascinated to know what is out there.

jane baker
jane baker
3 months ago
Reply to  Milton Gibbon

Absolutely right.

Lancashire Lad
Lancashire Lad
3 months ago
Reply to  Milton Gibbon

Great comment. I’m off to Skye at the end of the month (fourth visit, gets better each time, especially when the summer hordes have left) so i’ll check your link and see if we can fit it in.

Where i live (no prizes for guessing) there are still many old three-storey weavers cottages. The top storey was where the weaving took place (most light) and these skills helped in forming the basis of what became the driver of British manufacturing: the cotton industry; but, something was lost in the process.

The cottages themselves were very well-built, hence they survive. Craftmanship will never go out of fashion, and becomes ever more valuable in a world of cheap trash.

Louis Elton
Louis Elton
3 months ago
Reply to  Milton Gibbon
jane baker
jane baker
3 months ago

I have heard that among the super rich,many of whom now are Asian,it is common and vulgar to wear garments with the brand name showing. They do indeed purchase clothes that their friends and anyone in the know would recognize but someone like me wouldn’t which would signal to them I wasnt in their world (or it could be you)and thus not worth cultivating or even speaking to. I’m ok with that. It’s how it is. Now,at the peril of being IST I’m going to point out something,it’s a media trick or con that’s still being foisted on us. Every time Muslim people ,brown skinned people,Asian people get spoken of in our legacy media it’s as a PROBLEM. One that requires a White Saviour solution. Brown skinned people are poor,they are underpriviied ( a weird term. So who is over privileged and what is the defining factors of just being privileged,it’s a complete nonsense term) anyway Black,Brown,Asian.people need literacy classes and befriending. All this BS is to keep OUR EGOS topped up. And it’s nonsense. The Muslim women I live among don’t need literacy classes and they don’t need patronising from.me. They dress smartly in beautiful robes and even if black on closer inspection the black is shot through with sparkliness,they have gold and jewels, they.drive upmarket cars,they make my “white privilege” look pretty hollow! I’m joking I dont accept the privilege idea in the first place. I live near the city of Bath and right now that place is full of Asian young people who are all loaded,no I’m.stating a fact not expressing envy. Our media is messing with our minds in that we generally get shown a muddy village full of poor people but Asia is now full of mega-cities and Asian people don’t seem to find mega -cities fazing ie psychologically disturbing the way we do. Most young Asian people are well educated and have breathtaking wealth,it never worked that way for British people in general back in the day but maybe that was because consumerism was invented to get the money.bsck off them.

Brett H
Brett H
3 months ago
Reply to  jane baker

Quite an odd comment. I don’t think the general impression people have of Asia is “a muddy village full of poor people”. Nor do I understand why you believe people would think that.
As far as wealth never working that way for the British and your observation that the new super rich wear clothes without brand names, and that anyone in the know would recognise but you would not, is similar to the British aristocracy and all their rules, like which knife and fork to use, and only the insiders would know those rules, in all their breathtaking wealth.

Vijay Kant
Vijay Kant
3 months ago
Reply to  Brett H

Exactly. The aristocracy does not wear branded clothes because it is itself a brand. It does not need other brands to be recognized in public. The fact that ordinary English people define taste and style based on the behavior of the aristocracy is a unique phenomenon common to countries with a recent history of aristocratic rule. Asians and Americans, on the other hand, do not suffer from this ‘curse of aristocracy’ in anchoring their taste and culture to some social class.

David Morley
David Morley
3 months ago
Reply to  Vijay Kant

Americans seem currently obsessed with the old money aesthetic. That seems to at least approximate to aristocracy.

Milton Gibbon
Milton Gibbon
3 months ago
Reply to  jane baker

The trouble is you are conflating many “Asian” groups together (even British Asians and Asians living in mega cities). You say Muslim as if that is in and of itself one group in this country. The stats bear out that Indian “Asians” – generally not muslim – have about double the number of high-earning households (14%) than the general population (7%). Pakistani and Bangladeshi “Asians” – generally muslim – have much lower rates (3% and 5%). What I would say is that outward displays of wealth are not an indicator of actual wealth, especially in a highly debt-laden society like ours.

David Morley
David Morley
3 months ago
Reply to  jane baker

OK – but that’s Bath – it’s where people with money go.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
3 months ago

Everyone should read Rob Henderson’s essay on luxury beliefs. The ultra wealthy have eschewed many luxury items because more and more people can afford them, and knock-off fakes are virtually indistinguishable from the originals.

As the author mentions in this essay, the wealthy are interested in buying products that have a story – and some authenticity. They have also adopted a wide range of social and political beliefs that set them apart from the herd. They are looking for sustainable products, but they also adopt hysterical beliefs about climate change and support the dysfunction of net zero.

https://quillette.com/2019/11/16/thorstein-veblens-theory-of-the-leisure-class-a-status-update/

Cottage industries like fabric making and glass blowing are wonderful addendums to the economy, but these are niche industries. You build a strong, vibrant national economy by selling products to 8 billion people, not 60 million millionaires. The author says the luxury industry employs 450,000 people and generates 81 billion in revenue. I’m skeptical and would love to see a breakdown of those numbers.

Brett H
Brett H
3 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

“the tech sector contributes  div > p > a”>£150 billion to our annual GDP. However, the luxury sector, despite contributing £81 billion annually, supporting 450,000 jobs, and paying in £25.5 billion
Skeptical? As you should be. The 150 billion figure takes us back to another story that also gives no reference for such figures. Nor does the 450,000 and 25.5 million figure have any reference in this article itself. Unherd deserves criticism for publishing such a story. They should know better, in fact i’m sure they do, so why let this through.

Peter B
Peter B
3 months ago
Reply to  Brett H

The fact that the figure isn’t supported by references doesn’t make it untrue. You’d do better to present your case as to why you think it so.
A starting point might be to note that £150bn/75 million = £2000 per person per year in GDP. And the UK GDP is around £35Kpa. So that’s around 6-7% of GDP. I’m assuming an actual current UK population of 75 million here (supermarket financials suggest it’s already over 70 million – haven’t checked the sewage treatment stats, but those may also be more reliable than the official stats sicne you can’t fake sewage). 6% of GDP isn’t impossible, depending on how you define the “tech sector”. Remember, North Sea oil used to be 10% of UK GDP at one point.

Brett H
Brett H
3 months ago
Reply to  Peter B

Why might I think it’s unreliable? Because there’s no reference. It’s not up to me to prove them untrue. If there’s no reference then they can’t be relied on. What I’m asking for is not too much from any writer who uses figures to make a point.

Louis Elton
Louis Elton
3 months ago
Reply to  Brett H

Here’s the reference — from the Walpole, the UK’s Luxury trade body. Research conducted by Frontier Economics. Should be hyperlinked in the article: https://drive.tiny.cloud/1/uzek3g09l88jlwua2pj1dwb052z9k43cs6c1jlv5jxbhqp9s/aecd6c42-abf2-4aa7-9054-165986e3353a

A huge chunk of that value comes in automotive — think Rolls Royce, Bentley, Jaguar Land Rover etc (see the Bain study)

David Morley
David Morley
3 months ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

the wealthy are interested in buying products that have a story – and some authenticity

Sure – but a lot of those stories are made up, or bought with a brand name, and the products then sold at hyped up prices. We are dealing with the hyper real here, not the real. The “authentic” not the authentic.

Peter B
Peter B
3 months ago
Reply to  David Morley

I think we’re dealing with both.
The article slightly blurs its core craft emphasis with luxury and fashion. There is a demand for both – this is simply market segmentation and leaves the question of which market is larger (it’s luxury/fashion). But I’m also convinced that unique/craft/quality is also a significant and growing market.
That should be no surprise as there’s a very large proportion of the UK population (and in other countries) who have a large disposable income and want something unique. And that may be something bespoke with no brand name at all (which is the way I’d go if I had the money).

David Morley
David Morley
3 months ago
Reply to  Peter B

Good clarication, thanks.

Quality items tend to be good value for money, though not cheap.

Luxury items (in the current sense) tend to be very poor value for money and very expensive. Their main value is in social signalling – that I am the kind of person that can afford this. The purpose of much of the marketing is to disguise this behind heritage, craftsmanship, taste and the rest.

The author seems to mix this a bit with Designer (roughly anything sold at an airport) which is midrange price wise, mediocre quality but with high brand recognition reinforced by mass advertising. This is the visible logo stuff.

Trevor Q
Trevor Q
3 months ago

This is one aspect of the argument David Goodhart makes in his book ‘Head Hand Heart’. Essentially we under-reward craftsman and people with emotional skills at the expense of the health of our society.

Brett H
Brett H
3 months ago
Reply to  Trevor Q

What is meant by emotional skills?

Peter B
Peter B
3 months ago
Reply to  Brett H

People like Naomi Campbell (a strange choice for an article about crafts) and those involved in fashion ?
Liked this article and largely agreed with it. Craftsmanship over fashion every day. But I think removing the emphasis on luxury and fashion and focusing on crafts, quality, uniqueness and authenticity would improve it.
And full marks for highlighting Janan Ganesh’s ghastly inverted snobbery.

David Morley
David Morley
3 months ago

Well perhaps. But we live in an accelerated age. Stealth wealth and quiet luxury are currently a thing, but perhaps they will soon be passé. Already there are influencers online advising on how to achieve the old money aesthetic without the old money.

The one thing one can always be sure of in the luxury market is that while secretaries like being mistaken for billionaires wives – and will blow out their credit card to do so – billionaires wives don’t like being mistaken for secretaries, and will soon move on to the new thing if they are!

David Morley
David Morley
3 months ago

he critiques the supposed “ghastliness of the products” and international consumers

If you want to gauge this, just pop along to the trade fairs that promote this stuff, pick up the free magazines, listen to the conversations – jewellery, clothes, watches, take your pick. Some of it is beautiful, most of it is expensive kitsch, and some of it really is ghastly.

Saddest of all are items which use expensive materials, hours and hours of artisanal labour, to produce something expensive but almost embarassingly awful. Some old firms have sold their brand, some have sold their souls – and it’s all flogged – next to longevity and cod spirituality – wrapped up in the most god awful pretentious marketing material.

No reason Britain shouldn’t get its share of all this – but you need to hold your nose a bit!

Josef Švejk
Josef Švejk
3 months ago

I have searched and searched and finally found Pseud’s Corner in Unherd.

Cathy Carron
Cathy Carron
3 months ago

Logos are not ‘beautiful’ they are just an expression of insecurity. An object or piece of clothing should speak for itself.

David Morley
David Morley
3 months ago
Reply to  Cathy Carron

Sure, for those that have ears to hear. But most people can only judge the quality of a piece of clothing, say, by its brand name or price. They are unlikely to even to be able to tell what it is made of. Most people think polyester fleece is made of wool.

Logos really simplify the whole process of social signalling. You buy x with a visible logo, the company’s adverts let people know x is cool and expensive and associated with fictitious good looking rich people, signal is received and understood.

Ian Wigg
Ian Wigg
3 months ago
Reply to  David Morley

Unfortunately you are correct.

Basically the definition of “old money” vs “new money” which actually applies to both “Aristocratic” and “Industrial/Agricultural Working Class.” as opposed to the “aspirational middle class.”