CHAPTER 5

Boom and Bust

Abstract This chapter discusses years of “boom” and “bust” with

reference to globalization, fashion and luxury. It argues that during a
period of economic prosperity Tatler promoted an identity of (female)
restraint through the consumption of symbolic goods to secure distinc-
tion, while also celebrating the more excessive bling-bling in the new
millennium. While female and male hedonism and excess was lauded,
this was shown as performative, and it argues that what has been seen
as vulgar when applied to working-class women, here becomes a symbol
of admiration. Implicitly class is seen a “natural”, a denial of the “nor-
mative performative”. Representations of wealth, luxury and excess draw
attention to the way groups mark themselves as exclusive; the concepts
of time and space were important in defining luxury. The response to
the financial crash examines insider reports, which suggested the fault
lay with individuals, not with neoliberalism. Some features suggested the
impact on the wealthy was more assumed than actual.

Keywords Distinction · Boom · Bust · Chav · Luxury · Hedonism

Taste · Bling

© The Author(s) 2018 101

S. McNamara, Tatler’s Irony,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76914-1_5
102 S. MCNAMARA

INTRODUCTION
In September 1999, a Tatler feature was headlined “Goldman Sachs
Wives”, the subheading: “What will they do with all that money?”.1
This, by Martin Vander Weyer, detailed the shareholdings of the firm’s
partners (fifty-seven out of 221 based in London) following the bank’s
stock-market flotation in May 1999 as they received an average of
£50 million each, one or two as much as £200 million. In May 2010,
Charlotte Eagar reported on her discussion with journalist Vicky Ward,
who, in her book The Devil’s Casino: Friendship, Betrayal and the High-
Stakes Games Played Inside Lehman Brothers (2010), looked at cor-
porate culture at the by then bankrupt Lehman Brothers investment
bank in New York, referring to “insider battles, gargantuan greed and
bitter betrayals that brought the party to an end”.2 There were further
discussions of the parlous financial situation when in July 2009, Mark
Hollingsworth and M.A. Nicholas wrote “Conman About Town”, with
an account from Julia Fenwick, a former employee of imprisoned fraud-
ster Bernie Madoff, of Madoff’s investment advisory business which was
subsequently found to be a “colossal hoax”, his activities also known as a
“Ponzi scheme”.3 These articles encapsulate something of the extremes
of the period where, as acknowledged in Chapter 3, the early part of
the new millennium saw a strong economy and period of growth, with
an influx of new money, to be followed by financial collapse towards
the end of the decade. Both the UK and USA had seen a credit boom,
Phillip Inman noting in The Guardian that “In September 2008, the
month that Lehman Brothers collapsed and the banking crash triggered
a worldwide recession, the level of UK consumer credit debt hit a peak
of £208bn”.4
The global financial crisis began in the summer of 2007 with France’s
biggest bank, BNP Paribas, freezing funds because of problems in the
sub-prime mortgage sector, it continued with the run on the British
bank, Northern Rock also summer 2007, the bank subsequently nation-
alized in February 2008, in the US the rescue of American invest-
ment bank Bear Stearns in March 2008, and the collapse of Lehman
Brothers, 15 September 2008. Economist Thomas Piketty argues, “the
collapse of the U.S. subprime mortgage market and the September
2008 bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers can be seen as the first crisis of
twenty-first-century globalized patrimonial capitalism”.5 A discussion
paper published by the International Monetary Fund in April 2008
 5 BOOM AND BUST 103

looked at the banking crisis, finding evidence that the recent rapid credit
expansion in the subprime mortgage market was associated with easing
credit standards.6 The IMF paper “linked the current sub-prime mort-
gage crisis to a decline in lending standards, associated with the rapid
expansion of this market”. The financial crash impacted all social groups,
and with fewer reserves, was, and is, experienced more severely by the
poor. However, there was tragedy in all sections of society, some of this
referred to in two of the above pieces, and given Tatler’s readership, and
the likelihood that many of them would be affected by the fallout in
different ways, this chapter will consider the magazine response to the
boom and bust aspects.
Further context is Tatler’s high-end appeal and its focus on wealth
and luxury. What consumer goods could or would bonuses be spent on?
The period saw the domination of the global fashion brand, where own-
ership of the latest “it” bag was seen to confer distinction, and adver-
tisements for the latest fashion luxury brands appeared in all glossy
magazines. It is important to note the globalization of fashion, and
ownership of the major designer luxury brands by multinationals such
as LVMH, PPR/Gucci Group, Richemont, Prada Group, Aeffe Group,
as well as the shift from prêt-â-porter to cheaper diffusion lines aimed at
global audiences.7 In this connection, references have been made to the
“democratization of luxury”, and James Twitchell suggests it is unify-
ing and available to those who used to be excluded from the enjoyment
of luxury brands.8 Suzy Menkes comments that while a few products
remain an unattainable dream for the majority of fashion customers, it is
also “aspirational yet affordable”.9 Luxury is, of course, a complex con-
cept, and while there has been a rise in the more accessible, or “entry-
level” low-priced goods,10 the possession of which it is hoped will confer
some distinction on the wearer, as Patrizia Calefato argues:

luxury is sheer indulgence for its own sake. The sky is the limit. Luxury
disrupts democracy. Luxury isn’t hiring a limousine for a tour of
Manhattan. Instead, it is space travel for the eccentric, for those who can
afford to pay millions of dollars to orbit the planet.11

Thus, while the credit boom and overall economic prosperity pro-
vided the wherewithal for more to indulge in designer labels, albeit the
affordable, entry-level goods, luxury for the very wealthy is taken to
another level. How this is addressed by Tatler will be discussed in the
104 S. MCNAMARA

following sections. Firstly, “Looking at Luxury: Understated Bling”,

looks at brands, consumption and the construction of new identities.
The concepts of luxury, time and space, and links to exclusivity will be
explored in “Luxury and Personal Service”, while “After the ball was
over” looks at the magazine’s different responses to the financial crash.

LOOKING AT LUXURY: UNDERSTATED BLING

It is not difficult to find features to illustrate Tatler’s discussions of
wealth, and the Goldman Sachs wives referred to above is a useful place
to start. The title itself indicates the partners—earners—are male, while
the spenders/consumers are women, and the description of the “wives”
approximates that of the Park Avenue Princesses discussed in Chapter 4,
“picked”, Vander Weyer asserts, not just for her looks “but also for her
brains, taste and entertaining skills. Her conversation is restrained and
her manner impenetrable”, as well as being “efficient at running expen-
sive households and bidding discreetly in fine-art auctions”. This clearly
locates them as skilled in the consumption of symbolic goods, which
consequently serve as a means of securing social distinction.12 In the pro-
cess of creating symbolic capital, Vander Weyer reports that one wife had
arranged for “‘18th century wallpaper’ to be shipped over from a French
château […]”. The pursuit of distinction demands expenditure, or a
long investment of both money, and, importantly, time, which, as Pierre
Bourdieu argues, “cannot be acquired in haste or by proxy, and which
therefore appear as the surest indications of the quality of the person”,
evident in this purchase.13 Vander Weyer also suggests the Goldman
Sachs couple had a low-key lifestyle which would continue after flotation,
as the year-end bonuses would be spent “but not in an obvious way”.
Along with the high-end consumer goods noted above, “low-key” in
this context includes big houses in Chelsea and Holland Park, and villas
within reach of Nice airport. However, and this is where reader insider
knowledge would also be helpful, distinctions of taste are apparent in
this corporate culture, part of a struggle over what constitutes “legiti-
mate taste”,14 here made between Goldman Sachs and the Merrill Lynch
executive’s wife shown in a discussion of holidays, with the latter ask-
ing a travel agent for “two weeks’s [sic] holiday”, and “what’s the most
expensive thing you’ve got?”. Having the requisite cultural capital, the
Goldman Sachs wife has no need to ask this, she has already invested
time in researching and organizing holidays, and thus holds symbolic
 5 BOOM AND BUST 105

power. The feature is accompanied by a section listing suggestions

of how the money could be spent, such as on a Palladian-style house
(£2.5 million), building a private art collection, setting up a well-stocked
wine cellar, fine jewellery, a private island (£3.1 million), and staff: “To
retain a butler, house-keeper, nanny, gardener and chauffeur costs an
estimated £100,000 a year”.
In similar vein, and as part of the feature “What Kind of Rich Are
You” in April 2000 (discussed in Chapter 3), “How to spend a million
and hardly notice”,15 by John Graham acknowledges the strong econ-
omy by beginning with the assertion: “Britain, once a money-shy nation,
is in the grip of an unprecedented epidemic of affluenza, and how
to spend our new wealth has become a national obsession”. Graham’s
account refers to the “notional Mr Rich” [sic], states that he cannot
be rich unless £1 million a year is spent, and referring to index-linked
government security, Indexed Gilts, and 40% tax, suggests that the
original amount needed to achieve this level of expenditure is £50 mil-
lion. Natalie Richenberg provided a list of consumer items, with some
outgoings on staff noted, which together total £1,000,600. The cat-
egories include transport (including chauffeur at £20,000 per annum),
residence, holidays, clothes, and other necessities such as “Keeping
Well”, medical insurance and private dentist, and “Keeping Sane”
“Psychiatrist once a month; one week at the Priory, £4500”.
The feature on Goldman Sachs wives suggests understatement is a key
marker of taste, while the second, which references some luxury brands
(Toy Ferrari, Cartier Tank watch), is focussed on costs. However, a more
excessive lifestyle of glitz, and “bling bling” is acknowledged in other
features evident in the move into the new century. “Bling bling” is a
slang term popularized in hip-hop culture which first reached the main-
stream in 1999 when the song “Bling Bling” by rapper B.G. featured
Lil’ Wayne rapping about flashy, ostentatious or elaborate jewellery. It
also became linked to the flaunting/adornment of designer labels, as,
part of the globalization of fashion, brands put their logos on everything.
Interestingly, Tatler surveyed the global fashion market and spread of
designer labels and logos in November 1997. “Empire Lines” by Elaine
Deed16 is a lengthy report, which discusses American labels Ralph
Lauren and Donna Karan, British brands Paul Smith and Mulberry as
well as acknowledging fashion houses “of the old school”, Chanel,
Givenchy and Dior. As the title shows, what she describes is the building
of “empires”, and states: “ego-nomics is a phenomenon of contemporary
106 S. MCNAMARA

fashion. it has created the many kings and queens whose ultimate ego
trip is to put their name on anything that moves”. It is thus individual-
ized and avoids focussing on the shift where global multinationals took
over fashion houses. The public flotation of companies in 1997 is noted
with commentary on the billion dollar amounts involved: prior to going
public Polo Ralph Lauren was valued at $2.5 billion, afterwards the fig-
ure was increased to $3.2 billion. Deed points out the many diffusion
labels launched by different design houses, the “entry level” products
referred to above, which can include jeans, perfume, underwear, sports
and accessories. The report is accompanied by thumbnail breakdowns of
different fashion houses, the diffusion lines produced, licensees, number
of people employed.
Several things are important to note. The first, through bling-bling,
is the trend for excess, the second being the global fashion market
together with the impact of the brand and global logo. This combined
with, or became a marker of, changing female and male identities and
brand awareness as female—and male—bodies were covered with sign
value consumption.17 It is suggestive of a redefinition of taste, with overt
display and excess dominating. This is evident in the July 2003 feature,
“The Rise and Rise of Chessex Girl”,18 notable as it reworks notions of
class and taste via brands to construct a new feminine identity. “Chessex”
is a combination of Chelsea and Essex and used here to link two female
stereotypes. The first is “Essex Girl”, a derogatory label defined as: “a
young working-class woman from the Essex area, typically considered as
being unintelligent, materialistic, devoid of taste, and sexually promiscu-
ous”.19 The second is the Sloane Ranger, the social tribe first defined by
Peter York and Anne Barr in the 1980s,20 a middle-/upper-class group-
ing located around Sloane Square in Chelsea, and with a distinctive style
of pearls, pie-crust collars, and the waxed jackets worn in the country-
side; Princess Diana before her marriage was considered an exemplar of
the look. Tatler’s brief outline of Chessex has a reference to Germaine
Greer’s description of Essex Girl in The Guardian in 2001, and the part
they include reads: “She used to be conspicuous as she clacked along
the pavements in her white, plastic stilettos, her bare legs mottled patri-
otic red, white and blue with cold, and her big bottom barely covered
by her denim miniskirt”.21 Though not used as part of the Tatler piece,
Greer went on to comment: “The Essex girl is tough, loud, vulgar and
unashamed. Her hair is badly dyed not because she can’t afford a hair-
dresser, but because she wants it to look brassy. Nobody makes her wear
 5 BOOM AND BUST 107

her ankle chain; she likes the message it sends […] She is anarchy on
stilts”.22 For Tatler, the Sloane Ranger’s flash successor “lives in Chelsea
but takes Essex as her inspiration. She is groomed, tanned and super-
glam. Bye-bye Barbour, hello Dolce …”. Designer labels such as Louis
Vuitton, Dior, Pucci, Roberto Cavalli, Dolce & Gabbana, Jimmy Choo,
are essential as are jeans and Maharishi combats, which “can never have
too much embroidery, sequins and bling-bling chains dangling from
them”. Via the list provided, every part of the body is labelled with a
brand. Victoria Beckham, though originally from Hertfordshire is fea-
tured, and no longer described here as “Posh”, is designated the “high
priestess” and the “patron saint of Essex Girls, we salute you” attributing
this accolade to her love of designer labels. The summary suggests the
imitation of Essex Girl style by wealthy socialites is a compliment, she
is an envied style icon, as both Chelsea and Essex girls have “morphed
into one high-maintenance killer babe”. Providing a popular cultural
link to other, fictitious, working-class women, the character, “Sharon”,
is created for the feature: the BBC comedy series Birds of a Feather23 had
sisters Sharon and Tracey from Chigwell, Essex (the place also referred
to by Tatler) whose husbands were imprisoned for armed robbery, while
newspaper columnist Keith Waterhouse in The Daily Mail regularly fea-
tured “Sharon and Tracy” whose antics conform to the dictionary defini-
tion above. Class is thus an issue.
The compliment is at best backhanded, as while suggesting Chelsea
is imitating Essex, some distance is maintained in the photographs of
the supposed Chessex socialites that accompany the piece. The main
one of a young woman, said to be a billionairess, conforms in some way
to the outline from Greer, in that she is wearing a tiny studded denim
skirt, though this is where the comparison ends as she is tall, slim and
toned, has beautiful long blonde hair (possibly dyed), wearing a skimpy
top which while exposing one shoulder, is not blatantly revealing. It lists
Tatler women considered representatives of Chessex style, along with
suitable men, “her top catches”, one being the Duke of York, as well as
listing chic and expensive London venues where she can be found. “How
she maintains her Chessex glamour” shows the grooming required,
necessitating manicures and pedicures, the latter complete with tiny crys-
tals on the big toe, waxing, hair extensions, Botox and collagen injec-
tions, and lip fillers.
The class aspects are inescapable as a stereotype of a working-class
woman from Essex is reworked. Beverley Skeggs refers to working-class
108 S. MCNAMARA

women and what was identified as their excessive sexuality, defined

against the respectability of middle-class women, to argue that through
series such as Sex and the City, what was once “decried as immoral is
re-coded as modern cutting-edge entertainment” via its glamorous and
wealthy professional women,24 where wearing designer labels seemingly
allows for more moral latitude. An element of re-coding is also evident
in the Tatler piece, which while not about sexuality, is about wealthy
women adopting an identity previously seen as downmarket. But, with
the addition of designer labels, their distance from the description of
“Essex Girl”, as shown in the photographs to accompany the piece, the
exclusive London clubs, and, crucially, the body work involved, this is
shown as adopted, a lifestyle option, and as performative.25 This is unlike
working class women studied by Beverley Skeggs, who were, she argues,
symbolically positioned, this framing their ability to exchange the (neg-
ative) cultural characteristics by which they had been inscribed and
condensed on their body. She states that this marking “restricted their
ability to trade and convert their cultural resources as these were read
as worthless by those who participated in and institutionalized the dom-
inant systems of exchange”.26 This is not the case with these wealthy
women whose performance is celebrated. Further, the humorous inflex-
ion given in the piece also problematizes the reading position: Are they
being implicitly critical or celebratory? In this sphere, the identity once
adopted could just as easily be changed. It is important to note also that
in terms of the display of wealth, this is far removed from the unassum-
ing Goldman Sachs wives as it luxuriates in its exhibition, in designer
bling-bling and excess.
Performativity is also evident in the “social eyes” column in March
2005, where Simon Mills in “Nobs with yob gobs” combines the “chav”
epithet with aristocrat to look at the “chavistocrat”.27 As already noted,
and as Imogen Tyler argues, from about 2002, “chav” became the “pop-
ular pejorative name for ‘the underclass’ in Britain and in particular for a
generation of young people disenfranchised by neoliberal economic and
social policies”.28 Mills’ linking of these identities carries class criticism
as he refers to “pure council estate”, landed gentry who “lower the tone
of any social event”, bad behaviour coded as working class. While the
appearance might still be about excess, Mills states this is a combination
of “street”, labels such as Von Dutch and Reebok, and “ironic” jewellery
from Argos combined with Garrard “hip-hop rocks”. As the latter sug-
gests, other links are with rappers and footballers, with diamond-studded
 5 BOOM AND BUST 109

Jacob & Co watches (Puffy and David Beckham), and Jay-Z style train-
ers. Various male and female examples are cited, including Prince Harry,
“King Chavisto”, known for giving the “finger” to waiting photogra-
phers, as well as his cousin, Zara Phillips, particularly since her associ-
ation with rugby player, Mike Tindall. Lower income groups are more
likely to shop in Argos, and the piece refers to a Russian wedding ring
that costs £9.00, as well as other locations such as Blackbushe Market,
Basingstoke, for “knock-off” sportswear. However, the wealthy have the
wherewithal to be excessive, shop ironically, perform “chav”, secure in
their wealth and sense of entitlement. As Polly Toynbee stated in 2011:
“Poisonous class bile is so ordinary that our future king and his brother
played at dressing up and talking funny at a chav party mocking their
lower class subjects”.29
An element of bling-bling and excess is shown in the following, to
different effect. In May 2005, Camilla Long interviewed and profiled
Melania Trump, the third wife of real estate billionaire, Donald.30 Trump
at that time was known in the UK for his marriages, the first to Ivana
Zelničková (1977–1992), the second to Marla Maples (1993–1999),
and for his famous apartment which occupies three floors of Trump Tower
on Fifth Avenue, New York City. His lifestyle was reported in British tab-
loids and gossip magazines, Melania and Donald’s wedding featured in
Hello! over two weeks in February 2005.31 At that time, Trump would
also have been familiar for his real estate business and appearance on The
Apprentice television programme in the USA. Long’s interview is head-
lined “The lady is a Trump” and is an interesting profile which while
not being totally complimentary, is not overtly critical. Melania is placed
unofficially as “the Queen of New York”, as she landed “very firmly on
her French-manicured feet”, and along with Donald, is somewhere on the
symbolic boundaries of Tatler acceptability. Like Goga Ashkenazi, Melania
was also raised within the former Soviet Bloc, in Yugoslavia, where her
background is referred to as “middle class”. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the
former model is discussed in terms of sign value consumption and is shown
modelling clothes from luxury brands: Louis Vuitton and Lanvin, with
shoes from Christian Louboutin. One photograph shows her surrounded
by packages from Tiffany & Co., a reference to a comment in the article
concerning wedding presents, “piles of Tiffany boxes” she was too busy
to open; the wedding list was put together in thirty minutes, and Melania
comments: “[r]ed ribbons [on the Tiffany boxes] mean diamonds”. Lack
of haste in opening wedding presents, particularly from Tiffany, is perhaps
110 S. MCNAMARA

only a privilege of the very wealthy, the gifts denoting rational exchange
value, rather than agapic, romantic, spontaneous, and expressive gift-giv-
ing.32 Details of the wedding are provided in terms of quantity and cost:
the cost of the dress, $187,000 from Christian Dior, the price of the ball-
room built from scratch, $42 million, the ring $1.5 million from Graff
(who describe themselves on their website as “home to the most fabulous
jewels in the world”33). Implicit criticism of Melania concerns her accent,
“kittenish European”, and in reproducing her speech patterns, but more
so of Donald Trump through his misogynistic comments, and descrip-
tions of the Trump apartment. Regarding the latter, the interior with its
“twiddly gold fittings and chocolate-box paraphernalia” is described by
Long as “like a pile of Ferrero Rocher”, a reference to the chocolate brand
which, in the UK, was advertised to suggest good taste by being served
at a fictitious European ambassador’s official residence; the brand seen as
aspirational, although audiences in the UK took an oppositional response
viewing the advert with some humour. The apartment is a postmodern
“glitzy spectacle”, and as a simulacrum of the traditional chateaux referred
to by Bourdieu. Trump’s comments refer to the physical attributes of his
previous wives, of Melania and Ivana he is quoted as saying “European,
strong, smart, great legs”. The wedding, however, is described by Long
as a “hoedown”, the dress by John Galliano as “an astonishing Dior cou-
ture confection” (my emphasis); Melania also featured on the cover of
U.S. Vogue wearing the dress in February 2005. Apart from Hillary and
Bill Clinton, guests also included Simon Cowell, as well as the follow-
ing, though not mentioned in Tatler: singer Billy Joel, from fashion Anna
Wintour, Heidi Klum, musicians P. Diddy, Usher, politicians Arnold
Schwarzenegger, and Rudy Giuliani. This is a very obvious display and per-
formance of luxury.
In other areas, the interviews with Alex Curran and Goga Ashkenazi
in September and December 2008,34 respectively (see also Chapter 3),
both offer glimpses of a different kind of excess and luxury. As well as
the house, the cars, and the designer labels listed, some of which could
also be experienced as accessible luxury, the house Curran shares with
Steven Gerrard has a “Crystal Clear room”, which houses a Crystal Clear
microdermabrasion machine, as used in beauty salons. Bought prior to
their marriage a therapist would visit the house to give the couple treat-
ments. Goga Ashkenazi as “The Sexy Holland Park Billionairess” does
not display the same performative identity as shown in the Chessex girl
piece, nor obvious bling-bling, though this is an element, but refers to
 5 BOOM AND BUST 111

a lifestyle out of reach of all but the extremely wealthy. Ashkenazi was
said by Geordie Greig to have two butlers, two drivers, two maids, and
two PAs, a chef and “laundry girl”, two of each needed “‘as they can-
not work all the hours that I keep going’, she explains”. Along with the
designer couture—and this is important to note as it takes consump-
tion into a league above the diffusion labels operated by the different
brands—and her A-list celebrity friends, other aspects of her wealth
and lifestyle are noted. This includes staying, with friends at a seven
star hotel, with twenty-four-hour butler service, tips of €500 to drivers
and bar staff, and the loss of a €500,000 watch “of blinding caratage”,
replaced, with no hysterics or tears, by another, though lesser, diamond
watch, a lack of concern only available to the very wealthy. Bottles of
very expensive champagne (Dom Perignon) are consumed, as Goga
“drips in diamonds and fur”. The “seven star” hotel rating as a new
measure of luxury is important to note, emerging, as Tim Jackson and
Carmen Haid assert, out of the disaffection of the wealthier consumer
with the loss of exclusivity as more working people could, by saving or
indeed using credit, access five star hotels such as the Ritz, London.35
Overall, these two features suggest it is OK to flaunt wealth, to be obvi-
ous and excessive. It is difficult to see Camilla Long’s piece as totally
endorsing the Trump décor, but there is an indication of changing ideas
about taste and what confers distinction.

LUXURY GOODS AND PERSONAL SERVICE?

Tim Jackson and Carmen Haid argue that when luxury brands move from
being aspirational to accessible, they lose their integrity, going on to argue:

The formulas used by luxury brands to grow during the 1990s are now
regarded with scepticism by many. The post-9/11 and post-no-logo world
is beginning to see a change from overt product branding in European
markets towards greater customization and individual personalization—
both of product and service. Western consumers are also seeking new ways
to express luxury, including one-off experiences as opposed to simply buy-
ing more clothes, shoes, and bags. Personalization is as important in cus-
tomer service as it is in product design.36

Personalization of service is evident in various features, one noted

here. Simon Mills reported on Robert Hanson’s forty-fifth birthday,
112 S. MCNAMARA

the headline “You Hanson devil” in January 2006.37 “Personalization”

in this instance is shown by one of Hanson’s billionaire Russian friends,
also a major shareholder in an airline, and owning a luxury hotel com-
plex on the Black Sea, offering to fly “50 or so of his favourite people to
the Crimea for a birthday-party weekend, with Mikhail Gorbachev and
Mike Tyson lined up as guests of honour”. The feature has references to
Hanson’s hedonism, particularly to his many parties, held in the coun-
try, in London and New York, and his several properties, “apartments
in Belgravia and Cheyne Walk”, the polo ranch in Gloucestershire, and
the home of his late parents also in London. “Space is a key word in
the mythologies of contemporary luxury that narrate just how little space
there is in the world today”, observes Patrizia Calefato.38 Space can
be defined in different ways, the comment from Calefato relating to a
discussion of the Trump World Tower in New York, and refers to the
space viewed from the top of a tower in the middle of an overcrowded
city. “Space” is a useful metaphor to explore luxury, and it could refer
to actual physical space away from the crowds, at luxurious and exotic
destinations, or in the number of properties available to the ultra-
rich. However, for Hanson’s guests, space was also the privilege—and
luxury—to behave in ways outside of social norms, by starting the party
once the privately chartered Ukrainian Airlines plane, nicknamed “Billion
Air” by the passengers, left Luton Airport. One passenger was said to
have hijacked the pilot’s cap and the steward’s microphone to “enter-
tain” guests, there also being a reference to the “vodka-fuelled baccha-
nalia being played out in the aisles, galleys and bulkheads […], one with
a Chernobyl-strength drink in his hand”. The space to party in liminal
zones—something even A-list celebrities cannot entertain on scheduled
flights as safety and security is, of course, paramount, the above behav-
iour unlikely to be sanctioned, not least access to the pilot and cockpit.
Calefato states “[l]eisure and travel are two rhetorical devices of lux-
ury, two contexts in which one can unravel the thread of just how much
the word luxury has meant and still means today”.39 Continuing with
the concept of space, this can be applied to exploration and travel, and
two aspects are explored now. The first, “Bali’s angels” in February
200940 from Geordie Greig is a travel piece about Bali, devotees includ-
ing members of the Tatler Society set (Robert Hanson again), Victoria
and David Beckham, Kate Moss, who was given a private party with
Cirque de Soleil brought in to perform. It is important to note that
despite the crash business was said to be good, a place where Asia-based
 5 BOOM AND BUST 113

hedgefunders retreated to during the financial crisis, Greig saying:

“Fashion is booming—at heartbreaking prices. Boutiques trip over them-
selves to roll out the best collections”. Luxury is connoted through
the descriptions of the various hotels and villas which combine a sense
of Bali traditions along with modern grandeur, palm trees, and perfect
beaches, the contemporary indicated via availability of technology, per-
fect martinis, 24/7 butlers, “English-trained”, and adjectives such as
“vast, opulent”, “fabulous and fantastical”, “modest, soulful, uplifting”,
of the various hotels and villas. Every whim can be catered for, there is
the space of isolation. No prices are quoted, and the naming of wealthy
socialites, some of whom frequent Tatler’s pages, and other A-list celeb-
rities is suggestive of its exclusivity.
The second, and perhaps somewhat surprising destination, a point
also made by the writer, was Libya as Melinda Stevens in “Outta site!” in
June 2006, commented: “But why would you want to go to Libya?”.41
The specific destination is Leptis Magna, designated a UNESCO World
Heritage Site in 1982. A site of the finest remains of Roman architec-
ture, its history stretches back to the seventh-century BCE, founded
by Phoenicians and later settled by Carthaginians, becoming a major
Mediterranean and sub-Saharan trade centre. Interestingly, Stevens
begins by outlining what she sees as the negative aspects of the country,
such as no alcohol, the “third-rate” restaurants, shoddy hotels, “ham-
mams festooned in fungi and the entire country covered in rubbish”.
However, the grandeur of Leptis Magna is acknowledged, and to give it
a fashionable edge suggests it is “this year’s Angkor Wat, the cultural trip
with bite, the adventure with a hangover-free edge” (Angkor Wat: a tem-
ple in Cambodia, the largest religious monument in the world). Stevens
stresses the importance and beauty of the site, and feeling the “buzz of
the living city”, it is “uplifting”, and has an “astonishing grandness”, to
include “spectacular” vaulted baths “of striking architectural and engi-
neering ingenuity”, a mosaic-floored swimming-pool “once shaded by
a portico held high by pink Italian-marble columns”. Several things are
striking here. In Calefato’s discussion of luxury and travel, she comments
on destinations which have become so, not because of the severe condi-
tions, but the prohibitive costs, and the symbolic challenge represented.
This is extreme travel and it has to do “with a luxury that is uncom-
fortable, hostile and adverse”.42 In the context of a credit boom, and
the strong economy at the time, the tour could be available to a wider
group than perhaps the Bali holiday above. However, the destination
114 S. MCNAMARA

in Stevens’ feature can also confer a sense of distinction on the travel-

ler. Although the trip was organized by a London agent, and with an
English-speaking guide, the participants could see themselves as travel-
lers rather than tourists, and thus define themselves against “mass” tour-
ism of other class fractions.43 They would be closer to the “ego-tourism”
defined by Ian Munt, people who seek to establish social differentiation
and dissociate themselves from the tourism of other social groups.44
Despite the discomfort, this combines “the marriage of different, intel-
lectual, spheres of activity with tourism, of which academic, anthropolog-
ical, archaeological, ecological and scientific tourisms are indicative”.45
These travel experiences and personalization of service are indicative
of luxury, and while, as Jackson and Haid suggest, they offer alterna-
tive points for consumption, fashion is also important, but, as a marker
of exclusivity, specifically couture. In February 2000, Tatler included a
fashion shoot which drew together different aspects of global fashion,
of luxury, prêt-â-porter, of aspiration, entry-level products, together
with signifiers of Britishness, or Englishness. The coverline read: “Royal
Wedding Exclusive, Lord Frederick Windsor bags Kate Moss”,46 inside
the headline is: “What made Kate Moss say “I do” to Freddie Windsor”.
The narrative is a supposed wedding, one where everybody wears
Burberry and Burberry Prorsum, this latter being clothes shown as part
of their catwalk/runway show. The shoot is by Mario Testino, who also
shot the Burberry advertising campaign, which featured Moss. The tra-
ditional Burberry check predominates, in one Moss is wearing a long
check dress and bridal veil, Windsor wearing a Burberry check kilt, with
guests in check shirts, trousers, coats, hats, and scarves, it reads: “The
bride wore head-to-toe Burberry from belted mac over her dress to a
plaid bra and knickers”. It states: “Fashion aristocracy meets real-life
aristocracy”, the happy couple being Moss “of Croydon” and Windsor
“of Kensington”, and the different locations important to note. Moss,
as representative of the brand, although high fashion, is also aspira-
tional. Her original home of Croydon places her in a different class to
the aristocratic Freddie Windsor, the son of Prince and Princess Michael
of Kent. A traditional British brand, Burberry was being repackaged
and rebranded for the new global fashion elites, and part of their adver-
tising was the use of British models and settings. This shoot, at the
beginning of the millennium by linking different sections of society
is suggestive of inclusivity, perhaps representative of New Labour, and
Britishness, though interestingly not one that is multicultural. However,
 5 BOOM AND BUST 115

the Burberry check, when worn head-to-toe by the working class, worn
on the football terraces and linked to the “chav” identity, the notion
of inclusivity is shown to be problematic. James Hall in The Telegraph
reported a decline in Burberry sales 2004 because of its association with
“chavs”.47
No prices are provided for the clothes in this fashion shoot, and
although some would be those entry-level products, the majority are
couture pieces. This is important in Tatler as despite implications of
inclusivity, products included in the magazine are predominantly luxu-
rious, and expensive, consumer items. This refers to both hard and soft
luxury goods, categorized by Jackson and Haid as hard goods includ-
ing jewellery and watches, soft goods including fashion clothing, leather
goods, and cosmetics.48
Continuing with fashion and exclusivity, in May 2004, Vassi
Chamberlain wrote: “J’adore couture”.49 This refers to the couture
shows held annually in Paris in January and July, where, unlike the
prêt-â-porter shows that take place in the fashion capitals (New York,
London, Milan, Paris in February and September), only a few designers
meet the standards of the Chambre Syndicale de la Couture and allowed
to take part. The attendees, comprising a global mix of royalty, socialites,
celebrities, puts paid to the myth that only two hundred women in the
world buy couture. There was, Chamberlain notes, a “buying frenzy”
and the figure looked to be closer to 2000 women, perhaps an indication
of the inclusion of new money. There is criticism of some women, where
their bodywork is said to create a blanched face from too many chemi-
cal peels, commenting on “the wreckage of the bodies” of others, and
the irony that couture “cannot be afforded by the women who should
wear it”: presumably, it should only be worn by the young and beautiful.
American Vogue’s André Leon Talley is there choosing outfits for New
York women who cannot be present, described by Chamberlain, some-
what problematically, as “squealing with delight like Scarlett O’Hara’s
nanny Mamie in Gone With the Wind […]”. Along with the wherewithal
to purchase couture—one Chanel dress was rumoured to have cost
$250,000—and carrying a $15,000 alligator Birkin bag, luxury in this
context also includes flying by private jet, staying at the Ritz, Paris, for
a week. It is another working of the concept of space, the space to not
deal with the ordinary and the everyday: i.e. food shopping, queuing,
waiting for a changing room in Louis Vuitton, as Chamberlain com-
ments: “[…] money buys them the luxury to fly, shop and beautify
116 S. MCNAMARA

themselves in private”. Interestingly she finishes with a quote that is

suggestive of Thorstein Veblen’s arguments on conspicuous consump-
tion50: “In America, men don’t feel guilty about buying their wives
couture because they’ve worked very hard to make their money. They
like their wives to look good”, suggesting the men earn, the women
spend. Finally, the question is raised as to the point of couture, and sev-
eral, perhaps flippant, remarks are made about it keeping embroiderers
in work. This is important, as is acknowledgement of the work of these
very skilled artisans. In relation to luxury, and referring to the work of
Japanese designer, Issey Miyake, Patrizia Calefato states that the haute
couture garment is made to be seen as a work of art.51 Crucially, couture
is the antithesis of fast fashion, not only does it command high prices, its
production takes time: Yohji Yamamoto comments, “You design time”.52
It is not the fashion of the televised and talked-about runways, but
“the atelier, the artistic photo, the couturier who sews and embroiders
[…]”,53 this in itself having symbolic exchange value. It is the luxury of
time that is also being celebrated here.
In terms of couture and fashion, while looking at its response to
the crash, it is also interesting to note what Tatler does not do. While
other magazines included cheaper ranges of clothes and extolled the vir-
tues of the British fashion high street, Vogue’s “More Dash Than Cash”
being one example, Tatler continued to include couture, jewellery, and
other consumer goods from the exclusive designer brands. The display,
or performance of wealth, is, of course, part of their raison d’être, and
its continuance important in a time of economic downturn. However,
the impact of the crash, discussed below, is shown in both the UK
and USA with less money spent on luxury advertising: in April 2008,
British Vogue’s 308 pages was eighty fewer than April 2007, Simon Kurs
also reporting in The Guardian that circulation figures in the wom-
en’s lifestyle and fashion sector looked to be holding.54 As stated in
the Introduction, other reports noted Tatler’s stable circulation at this
time.55 There was some drop in its pages, however, for example, the
September issue of 2006 had approximately two hundred and eighty,
falling to around two hundred and fifty in September 2008, and approxi-
mately two hundred pages in September 2009.
When considering luxury and the financial crash, some areas of wealth
and investment looked to be holding their value. The complexities of the
art market were discussed by Godfrey Barker in June 2009 in “Masters
of the art universe”,56 where he asserts that despite the credit crunch,
 5 BOOM AND BUST 117

contemporary art was “magically holding its mega-value”, though as

Barker goes on to elucidate, it was less “magic” but rather manipulation
of the market by collectors. Despite the credit crunch, contemporary art
was selling with “unexpected good health”, the work of two artists said
to have risen by 300% in eighteen months. The list of ten billionaire con-
temporary art collectors which accompanies Barker’s feature, together
with some comments on their recent purchases, is further evidence of
this buoyant market. Examples of artworks sold at auctions in the recent
past are provided, thus at the time of the economic downturn, together
with the astronomical sums involved. This included Mark Rothko, White
Center, above $72 million, Andy Warhol, Green Car Crash, above $71
million and Jackson Pollock, No. 5, 1948, for $140 million, achieved
not by a crowded roomful, but “two chaps in conversation”. He states:
“all the staggering $100 million-plus prices that crown the summit of
art in 2009 have, in fact, been brought about by small groups of peo-
ple”. Two former Young British Artists (YBAs) Tracey Emin and Damien
Hirst are alluded to, Hirst particularly, described by Barker as the “most
astute manipulator of British art history”, having achieved a fortune of
over £500 million. Not included in Barker’s feature, Damien Hirst’s
For the love of God was produced and exhibited by him in 2007. This
was a platinum cast of an eighteenth-century skull, encrusted with 8601
flawless diamonds, including a pear-shaped pink diamond, known as the
Skull Star Diamond, placed in the forehead. It was sold to an investment
group for its asking price of £50m ($100m), who planned to re-sell the
piece later. Hirst retained part-ownership, and therefore would be able
to receive further profit from any future sale.57 Part of an exhibition of
new works by Hirst at the London White Cube Gallery, and bringing
the total amount sold from the exhibition to $350 million, the reports
of its sale in August 2007 coincide with reports of the start of the crash.
For the love of God is a good example of an item combining use-value,
exchange-value, and symbolic value58 in this luxury market.
Godfrey Barker’s main point concerns the manipulation of the art
market, that buyers were less interested in artistic value, or an emotional
response, but in the profits to be made in the contemporary market.
Given that many of the works of art discussed in his feature were sold
both during and after the financial crash, the sums are astronomical, and
some, the ultra-rich, were unaffected their lives seemingly continuing as
usual. It also perhaps provided useful advice for anyone with that kind
of wealth: here is a good investment. Pierre Bourdieu’s discussion of the
118 S. MCNAMARA

difference between the museum and the gallery argues that it provides
uniqueness on its purchase from an art gallery as a sign of distinction in
the context of cultural capital.59 As noted above, it looks to conform to
Bourdieu’s arguments:

The exclusive appropriation of priceless works is not without analogy to

the ostentatious destruction of wealth, the irreproachable exhibition of
wealth which it permits is, simultaneously, a challenge thrown down to all
those who cannot dissociate their “being” from their “having” and attain
disinterestedness, the supreme affirmation of personal excellence.60

Its uniqueness affirms the taste of the owner, the pleasure is in enjoying
the work of art, and more so in its ownership, and defeating a rival.

AFTER THE BALL WAS OVER

In May 2009, Julia Kolloewe wrote of the impact of the financial crash in
The Guardian, and reported:

Figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) showed consumer
spending fell by 1.2% in the first three months of the year. People spent
less on housing, household goods and services, while those who went on
holiday abroad also spent significantly less. Consumers tightened their
belts in the face of job losses, pay cuts or freezes and sharply reduced City
bonuses. The figures showed employees’ compensation falling by 1.1% in
the quarter, the largest fall since records began in 1955. Wages and salaries
declined, with lower bonus payments in the financial sector than normal,
while employment also fell.61

For the ONS Peter Gittins and Simon Luke wrote of the recession in
2012: “In the fourth quarter of 2008 the total amount spent by house-
holds (in current prices) fell by 2.0 per cent. This was the first fall in the
value of household spending since 1968. Spending then fell for a further
two quarters—the first time this had occurred since records began”.62
Much of this impact was felt by the poorer sections of society. However,
it is important to explore Tatler’s response. The regular and primarily
entertaining mix of features that are part of the genre have to continue,
thus a catalogue of all the woes possibly being experienced by the ultra-
rich would not be apposite. However, acknowledgement would have to
be made, but how?
 5 BOOM AND BUST 119

The two lengthy features referred to above on Bernie Madoff and

Lehman Brothers show the in-depth and serious approach taken by
the magazine. In July 2009, Mark Hollingsworth and M.A. Nicholas
interviewed Julia Fenwick, a former long-term employee of Madoff.
Hollingsworth and Nicholas note the amount swindled, $64.8 billion,
with one hedge fund manager losing £230 million. The piece pro-
vides insight into Madoff’s office in Mayfair, his activities when visiting
London, and what is described as his “bizarre obsessive-compulsive-be-
haviour world”. Madoff’s lifestyle is said to have included a £20 million
jet, staying at expensive London hotels, visiting private members’ clubs,
and while he was in the office his wife, described as “very materialistic”
spent her time shopping in upmarket boutiques. Following their London
visit, Bernie and Ruth Madoff would fly to Cap d’Antibes, where one
of their three boats was berthed. However, as well as the loss of astro-
nomical amounts of money, and interviews with some of the investors,
the feature tells of other and more tragic consequences. Two suicides are
reported, that of fund manager René-Thierry Magnon de la Villehuchet,
who had invested $1.4 billion on behalf of some of Europe’s royals, and
William Foxton, a retired and decorated British army major, who lost his
life savings.
In “Nightmare on Wall Street”, which looks at Lehman Brothers,
Charlotte Eager talks to journalist Vicky Ward about her book. Lehman
Brothers, America’s oldest partnership, went bankrupt on 15 September
2008, with debts of $613 billion “tied up in open-derivatives contracts
in 22 currencies in dozens of countries all over the world”. Ward says
of her account “It’s about humanity, greed, ambition and betrayal”.
It is important to note that while the culture inside Lehman Brothers
is described by Ward as “a culture of lies”, the piece also goes on to
state that competitors on Wall Street “always looked at their [Lehman
Brothers] earnings and just scratched their heads in bewilderment”, not
just other investment banks but “the Fed, Treasury or a vast number of
other financial establishments” (“the Fed” refers to the Federal Reserve
System, the central bank of the United States). “Bewilderment” is cited
again, as is “scepticism” and people being “astonished” at the figures
the firm put out, “quarter after quarter, year after year”. Those of us
unversed in the ways of corporate capitalism and the accounting proce-
dures of large companies might wonder why this scepticism and bewil-
derment continued without action. As well as discussing Ward’s book,
it also turns into an outline of biographical details, her background,
120 S. MCNAMARA

the “Suffolk-bred daughter of an English banker” (it doesn’t indicate

whether the banker was her father or mother) school and university, and
is accompanied, somewhat surprisingly, by a very glamorous photograph
of Ward in Times Square, New York, wearing a long, white evening-
dress, slit to the thigh, and sparkly, presumably diamond, jewellery.
In both cases, the blame is placed on individuals, Bernie Madoff in
the former, though Hollingsworth and Nicholas suggest his wife, Ruth
probably knew of the scheme. Eager’s discussion with Ward is a com-
plex account, with the focus on many characters, and includes discus-
sion of British involvement, and primarily the specific corporate culture
at Lehmans. However, Ward also cites Richard Fuld, the bank’s CEO
and Joe Gregory its president and chief operating officer until 2008,
who became obsessed with beating Goldman Sachs and took “more
and greater risks, like drunks at the roulette wheel”. This last observa-
tion is an obvious comment on the competition inherent in capitalism,
but overall, and probably unsurprisingly in both Ward’s book and Tatler,
there is no sense that global neoliberalism might have any role to play
here. Gerard Dumenil and Dominique Levy argue the crisis that fol-
lowed the subprime loan crash is a distinctive milestone in the history
of capitalism, the “crisis of neoliberalism” the fourth “structural crisis in
capitalism since the late nineteenth century”.63 Some acknowledgement
of the wider social impact of the financial crash, and the role these indi-
viduals and companies played in its cause, might have been helpful.
These were serious discussions. Being Tatler, the boom and bust
aspects are also discussed with some humour, suggesting some disa-
vowal of concerns. In August 2006, and with the coverline “Cash Cows,
the women who spend hubby’s money on the sly”, saw the start of a
new feature “Poor Little Rich Girl” (PLRG) by Vassi Chamberlain.64
“Cash cow” is jargon for a business investment or product that produces
a steady profit, though in the context of Tatler’s lad mag discourse, it
is hard to avoid the other offensive meaning when it can be used to
describe a woman as unpleasant or stupid. Like High Maintenance
Woman, PLRG also included expensive consumer goods and locations,
thus also a guide to contemporary desirable consumer spending. The
first column draws on stereotypes of a calculating gold-digging woman
and rather dim man who is easily manipulated by her seductive tech-
niques, as PLRG maximizes her cashflow by playing with other people’s
money, and “shamelessly steals from the hand that feeds her”, husband
or lover. In humorous vein, and while being implicitly critical of PLRG,
 5 BOOM AND BUST 121

the column, perhaps helpfully, shows what she does to achieve this.
November 2006 has the coverline “Husband Hunting, the first one’s for
love, the second for money”65 and continues in the same vein, though in
this column she is a forty-year-old woman looking for a second husband,
and, being done with the small house, wants “STATUS” (emphasis in
original), one with a “household surname”. Her travails include having
to compete with younger (fashion) models in an “imbalanced market”,
finally having to settle for someone a little dull, but very rich: “he does
live in the Boltons [an extremely expensive and desirable location in
South Kensington] and he does fly private”.
This humorous/satirical approach continues until January 2009 when
acknowledgement is made of the crisis: “How the credit crunch is kill-
ing off the trophy wife”.66 PLRG’s response is to first contact the best
divorce lawyer, then find the location of their joint assets. The divorce
lawyer was fully booked “since Lehman fell and there’s been a stampede
of hedgefund wives because of the VW-Porsche fiasco”.67 To help locate
their assets she is shown to use sex, buying Agent Provocateur under-
wear and contacting “Chelsea Escorts”, booking a prostitute, a 32FF
Pamela Anderson lookalike, blonde “Debbie from Essex”. Then, while
her husband frolicked nearby with Debbie from Essex, PLRG contin-
ues by making a mental inventory of what household items could be
sold. PLRG made her final appearance in February 2009, “Is PLRG’s
big-spending, party-hopping lifestyle over”,68 when, interestingly,
Chamberlain suggests that despite the credit-crunch little has changed.
She refers to the frivolous, and, given the financial context, somewhat
pointless consumer spending, as “wardrobe organisers were busier than
ever”, saying that women still arranged plastic surgery, lunched at chic
restaurants, that an exclusive resort in the Maldives was booked for
the year ahead, and “even the parties hadn’t stopped”. However, it is
suggested that it was of social importance “to act as if you were deeply
affected, even if you weren’t”, and the way to show this was by not con-
suming the latest couture: “Darling, you do know it’s no longer chic to
buy a new outfit for a party?” Devastated, PLRG then relocates to India,
described as both “spiritual and slimming”—a bout of dysentery to aid
weight loss—to return when the credit crunch had passed. Finally, don-
ning a blue and white stripy headscarf, PLRG hoped to fill the space left
by Mother Theresa.
As a satire on contemporary consumer spending, the PLRG column
is intriguing. The use of topical and satirical humour presupposes, as
122 S. MCNAMARA

Andy Medhurst notes, “familiarity with recognition of specific figures

or events”.69 Once again Dustin Griffin’s discussion of satire is useful,
the argument that it is often an “‘open’ rather than a ‘closed’ form, that
it is concerned rather to inquire, explore, or unsettle than to declare,
sum up, or conclude”.70 In this respect, some, if not all, of the activities
described—and some in the January column look particularly seedy—
were possibly recognized by readers. For those outside of the wealthy
circle included here, the lifestyle represented was excessive, and perhaps
narcissistic enough to suggest an idea of, or conform to, a myth of this
group. The open satirical form might also have worked to explore and/
or unsettle individual perspectives.
Sounding the death knell to the pleasures of excess is evident in two
pieces in 2009, one from Vassi Chamberlain in April, in “Faking it! The
New Faux Poor”, and Susie Boyt, “A Modesty Proposal” in June.71
Chamberlain’s criticism is of those who pretend to be no longer rich,
the New Faux Poor (NFPs), or the “Not Fucking Paying”. They are
described as hypocrites, as Chamberlain states that despite not los-
ing any of her fortune, one rich Chelsea woman recently sacked two
long-standing members of staff, “because she thought it made her look
good”, it is all for show. And with a voice of concern Chamberlain refers
to those former employees, two people being thrown on the street
during the worst unemployment crisis in recent history, while the only
uneasiness for “Chelsea woman” was the reaction of others. The NFP,
Chamberlain observes, want to be able to emote like the poor, but
“want to be part of this new movement that no longer reveres excess”,
suggesting this is more a shift in lifestyle. Susie Boyt starts her piece by
citing designer Karl Lagerfeld who decreed “bling is over. Red-carpety
[sic] covered with rhinestones is out. I call it the new modesty”. Moving
from a discussion of modest heroines in art and literature, Boyt sug-
gests the new modesty allows “us”, meaning, presumably, the very priv-
ileged, to dispense with frills that were never liked to embrace simpler
things, as she provides advice on clothes and food: “Toast, always a
treat, is the world’s most delicious food, but I know few women who
permit themselves to eat it”, it beats grilled fish with green sauce. She
notes that aprons were making a comeback on the catwalk—at a dinner
party an apron is very heartwarming. Times have changed, she suggests,
and rather than being associated with lowliness, modesty is implicitly
seen as another lifestyle option. It is “almost a luxury”, Boyt comment-
ing: “You have to be at the top of the pole with nothing to prove to be
 5 BOOM AND BUST 123

modest with impunity”. Well, quite. It does not appear to be an ironic

and humorous piece, and was not published in April, but, as already indi-
cated, it is possible to be outside of this “discursive community”, thus
the subtlety of the humour might have escaped this reader.72
Vassi Chamberlain’s is an interesting article, not just for the real sense
of anger at events over which “you had no control”, but the switch in
address, as she moves between “they” and “we” and “you”: “Money and
living like pashas (as we all did, whether we could or couldn’t afford it)
clouded their judgement, softened their morals. They were seduced by
the riches of people they didn’t particularly like”. She goes on: “It’s an
irony really. You spend, spend, spend […] You gorge on cavier […] You
drink yourself silly […] you fly on private planes […] then something
out of your control like the credit crunch comes along and shuts down
your party”. These pronouns may in some instances be generalizations,
and sometimes used to refer to a wide group of people, but “we” as first
person, and “you” which suggests directly addressing the reader/listener,
is accusatory and appears to include both writer and reader as complicit.
The distance created by using third person returns for the final para-
graph as the NFPs are said to spend secretly, buying £3500 embroidered
Balmain waistcoats and £1500 jeans that sold out in minutes, stating:
“Paris couture sales [are] up 20 per cent on last year”, and continuing
comments made in PLRG in January, they fill waiting lists at expensive
restaurants where “you still can’t get a table for love or money”.
Finally, while for some, the effects of the financial crash did not
appear to be too severe as they were able to purchase artworks, cou-
ture, have exotic holidays, in other quarters young women were poten-
tially being targeted to pay the price, with ideologies that run counter
to the argument presented by Angela McRobbie in Chapter 4. “The
son only rises”73 by James Delingpole in September 2010 considered
whether it was appropriate to pay public school fees for a son, while the
daughter went to state school. The subtitle reads “As public school fees
top £30,000, some parents are making the toughest cut of all—only
the boy goes private”. Dealing in stereotypes of masculinity and femi-
ninity, and still residing in a pre-feminist world, the girls, “especially if
they’re pretty” can marry someone rich, they are more nuanced, socially
adept and devious, “more capable of managing the complexities of the
state-school system […]”. The boys, however, are more likely to be the
breadwinner, they are lazier, need more sport, and the discipline of the
private-school system. His views are, unsurprisingly, backed up by two
124 S. MCNAMARA

interviews, both of whom confirm and conform to the gender stereo-

types noted. Apart from the financial crash, the inability to afford fees is
also linked to the impact of “soaring” fees, said to be three times the rate
of inflation, out of reach of many of the middle-class professions. The
feature is also used to implicitly criticize the state-school system, where
apparently, and anecdotally from his son, the “stupid boys” get the
attention, “and the teacher gives them sweets to make them good”. That
state schools may be underfunded, nor in receipt of money from fees, is
not acknowledged. Delingpole’s article does not appear to be written in
the satiric or ironic mode, nor is it April. It fills a space in the magazine,
presumably was included to stir up some controversy, and is interesting
to note in a magazine read predominantly by women.

CONCLUSION
The original Tatler aimed to comment on what was seen as the excesses
in their contemporary society, as they recommended simplicity in dress
and discourse.74 This was not the case here as, in line with the prevail-
ing context of economic growth, excess, conspicuous consumption and
overt display was welcomed. This suggested redefinition of what consti-
tuted measures of taste and behaviour, as well as the performance of dif-
ferent female and male identities as some were shown to be flirting with
the idea of being “chav”. Rather than being critiqued, it was shown as a
humorous performance when adopted by the wealthy. At the same time,
a level of restraint was suggested as social distinction was achieved via the
investment of time and money in the consumption of symbolic goods
associated with traditional elites. The concept of time was also important
as the very wealthy were shown to have the ability to redefine ideas of
space and time, and challenge behavioural norms. While the credit boom
enabled accessible luxury for some through “entry level” branded goods,
this was limited, the personalization of service was unavailable to all but
the ultra-rich; luxury enables groups to mark themselves out as exclusive.
One of Tatler’s USPs is its coverage of parties, and the hedonis-
tic approach to life. This of course, had to continue after the financial
crash: the show must go on. While features covered the implications,
and there were comments on moderation, it was also suggested that it
made little difference to many in this social group. The annual Crillon
Ball, or Bal des Débutantes continued to be a showcase for young women
wearing haute couture. Richard Dennen’s reporting on the ball held in
 5 BOOM AND BUST 125

November 2008, published February 2009, includes discussion of the

hemline of a couture dress, that perhaps it was “was going down with
the economy”75; no prices are provided for the clothes and jewellery in
the accompanying fashion shoot. Chamberlain’s features posit that there
was some performance of being no longer rich. Again, humour and the
use of irony and satire in some features disturbs any straightforward
response. Are they celebratory or critical?

NOTES
1. Martin Vander Weyer, “Goldman Sachs Wives”, Tatler, September 1999,
294/9, 75–76.
2. Charlotte Eagar, “Nightmare on Wall Street”, Tatler, May 2010, 205/5,
118ff; Vicky Ward, The Devil’s Casino: Friendship, Betrayal and the High-
Stakes Games Played Inside Lehman Brothers (Chichester: Wiley, 2010).
3. Mark Hollingsworth and M. A. Nicholas, “Conman About Town”,
Tatler, July 2009, 304/7, 116–120. A “Ponzi scheme” is named after
1920s American fraudster, Charles Ponzi, and is a pyramid scheme
whereby money from new investors is used to pay earlier investors, until
no more recruits are found and the scheme collapses.
4. Phillip Inman, “UK Credit Binge Approaching Levels Not Seen Since
2008 Crash”, The Guardian, 4 January 2017, available at: https://www.
theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/04/uk-credit-cards-borrowing-
debt-economic-crash-fears. Accessed 2 October 2017.
5. Thomas Piketty, Chronicles On Our Troubled Times, trans. Seth Ackerman
(London: Viking, 2016), 1–2.
6. Giovanni Dell’Ariccia, Deniz Egan, and Luc Laeven, “Credit Booms and
Lending Standards: Evidence from the Subprime Mortgage Market”,
IMF Working Paper, WP/08/106, International Monetary Fund, April
2008, available at: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2008/
wp08106.pdf. Accessed 2 October 2017, 18.
7. Valerie Mendes and Amy de la Haye, 20th Century Fashion (London:
Thames & Hudson, 1999).
8. James Twitchell, Living it Up: Our Love Affair with Luxury (New York:
Columbia University Press, 2002).
9. Suzy Menkes, “Democratization Is Chipping Away at the Elitist Peak of
High Fashion’s Pyramid: Is Luxury’s Triangle Eternal?”, The New York
Times/International Herald Tribune, 5 December 2002, available at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/05/news/democratization-is-chip-
ping-away-at-the-elitist-peak-of-high-fashions.html. Accessed 3 October
2017.
126 S. MCNAMARA

10. Tim Jackson and Carmen Haid, “Global Luxury Brands”, in The Fashion
Handbook, ed. Tim Jackson and David Shaw (London: Routledge,
2006), 60–61, 57–82.
11. Patrizia Calefato, Luxury: Fashion, Lifestyle and Excess, trans. Lisa Adams
(London: Bloomsbury, 2014), 35.
12. Pierre Bourdieu, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste,
trans. Richard Nice (London and New York: Routledge, 1984/2010).
13. Bourdieu, Distinction, 281.
14. Bourdieu, Distinction, 56–57.
15. John Graham, “How To Spend a Million and Hardly Notice”, Tatler,
April 2000, 295/4, 196.
16. Elaine Deed, “Empire Lines”, Tatler, November 1997, 292/11, 51–58.
17. Jean Baudrillard, For a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign,
Translated with an introduction by Charles Levin (Telos Press, 1981).
18. “Tatler’s Definitive Guide to Chessex”, Tatler, July 2003, 298/7,
142–146.
19. Collins English Dictionary, available at: https://www.collinsdictionary.
com/dictionary/english/essex-girl. Accessed 26 September 2017.
20. Peter York and Ann Barr, The Official Sloane Ranger Handbook: The First
Guide to What Really Matters in Life (London: Ebury Press, 1982).
Sociologist Garry Runciman referred to Sloane Rangers as “a stand”,
cited in Peter York, “The Fall of the Sloane Rangers”, Prospect Magazine,
19 February 2015, available at: https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/
magazine/the-fall-of-the-sloane-rangers-made-in-chelsea. Accessed 10
October 2017.
21. Germaine Greer, “Long Live the Essex Girl”, The Guardian, 5 March
2001, available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/
mar/05/gender. Accessed 9 October 2017; Germaine Greer, “Essex
Girls? We’re The Best”, The Guardian, 5 February 2006, available at:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/feb/05/britishidentity.gen-
der. Accessed 9 October 2017.
22. Greer, “Long Live the Essex Girl”; Greer, “Essex Girls? We’re the Best”.
23. Birds of a Feather, BBC One, 1989–1998. Keith Waterhouse, The Daily
Mail. See, for example, Sharon & Tracy & the Rest: The Best of Keith
Waterhouse in the Daily Mail (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1992).
24. Beverley Skeggs, Class, Self, Culture (London: Routledge, 2004), 104.
25. Judith Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity,
2nd edition (Abingdon: Routledge, 1999/2007).
26. Skeggs, Class, Self, Culture, 2.
27. Simon Mills, “Nobs with Yob Gobs”, Tatler, March 2005, 300/3, 102.
28. Imogen Tyler, Revolting Subjects: Social Abjection and Resistance in
Neoliberal Britain (London: Zed Books), 153.
 5 BOOM AND BUST 127

29. Polly Toynbee, “Chav: The Vile Word at the Heart of Fractured Britain”,
The Guardian, 31 May 2011, available at: https://www.theguardian.
com/commentisfree/2011/may/31/chav-vile-word-fractured-britain.
Accessed 10 November 2017.
30. Camilla Long, “The Lady Is a Trump”, Tatler, May 2005, 300/5,
166–171
31. Hello! 1 February and 8 February 2005, Nos. 852 and 853. Hello! also
featured Trump’s divorce from first wife, Ivana, 24 February 1990, No.
91; and, with second wife Marla Maples, his New York apartment, 28
September 1991, No. 171.
32. Russell W. Belk, “Studies in the New Consumer Behaviour”, in
Acknowledging Consumption: A Review of New Studies, ed. Daniel Miller
(London: Routledge, 1995), 53–94.
33. https://www.graffdiamonds.com. Accessed 13 October 2017.
34. Vassi Chamberlain, “Footylicious!” Tatler, September 2008, 303/9,
196–201; Geordie Greig, “Bullion Dollar Babe”, Tatler, December
2008, 303/12, 284–288.
35. Jackson and Haid, “Global Luxury Brands”, 58.
36. Jackson and Haid, “Global Luxury Brands”, 82.
37. Simon Mills, “You Hanson Devil”, Tatler, January 2006, 301/1, 32–38.
38. Calefato, Luxury, 81.
39. Calefato, Luxury, 62.
40. Geordie Greig, “Bali’s Angels”, Tatler, February 2009, 304/2, 140–142.
41. Melinda Stevens, “Outta Site!”, Tatler, June 2006, 301/6, 166–168.
42. Calefato, Luxury, 63.
43. Ian Munt, “The ‘Other’ Postmodern Tourism: Culture, Travel and the
New Middle Classes”, in Theory, Culture & Society (London, Thousand
Oaks, and New Delhi: Sage, 1994), Vol. 11, 101–123.
44. Ian Munt, “The ‘Other’ Postmodern Tourism: Culture, Travel and the
New Middle Classes”, 101–123.
45. Munt, “The ‘Other’”, 104.
46. “What Made Kate Moss Say ‘I Do’ to Freddie Windsor?”, Tatler,
February 2000, 295/2, 98–103.
47. James Hall, “Burberry Brand Tarnished by ‘Chavs’”, 28 November 2004,
available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2900572/Burberry-
brand-tarnished-by-chavs.html. Accessed 16 October 2017.
48. Jackson and Haid, “Global Luxury Brands”, 64.
49. Vassi Chamberlain, “J’Adore Couture”, Tatler, May 2004, 299/5,
154–159.
50. Thorstein Veblen, The Theory of the Leisure Class (Amherst, New York:
Prometheus Books 1899/1998).
51. Calefato, Luxury, 54.
128 S. MCNAMARA

52. Yohji Yamamoto, in Calefato, cited 54.

53. Calefato, Luxury, 54.
54. Simon Kurs, “Reliance on Luxury Could Prove Expensive”, The
Guardian, 13 April 2009, available at: https://www.theguardian.com/
media/2009/apr/13/magazine-advertising-trends-luxury. Accessed 1
November 2017; Stephanie Clifford, “For Luxury Brands, Less Money
to Spend on Ads”, The New York Times, 23 November 2008, available
at: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/24/business/media/24luxury.
html. Accessed 1 November 2017.
55. Matthew Bell, “A New Editor, But Tatler Won’t Be Joining the “Hello!”
Polloi”, The Independent, 8 February 2009, available at: http://www.
independent.co.uk/news/media/press/a-new-editor-but-tatler-wont-be-
joining-the-hello-polloi-1603734.html. Accessed 1 November 2017.
56. Godfrey Barker, “Masters of the Art Universe”, Tatler, June 2009,
304/6, 120–123.
57. “Hirst’s Diamond Skull Raises £50m”, BBC News Channel, 30
August 2007, available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertain-
ment/6971116.stm. Accessed 23 October 2017.
58. My thanks to Ronald Cowdery for this point.
59. Bourdieu, Distinction, 273–283.
60. Bourdieu, Distinction, 282.
61. Julia Kollewe, “Consumer Spending Falls at Fastest Rate Since 1980”,
The Guardian, 22 May 2009, available at: https://www.theguardian.
com/business/2009/may/22/consumer-spending-falls-ons. Accessed 2
October 2017.
62. Peter Gittins and Simon Luke, “Impact of the Recession on Household
Spending”, Office for National Statistics, 21 February 2012, available at:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160129161152/http://
www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171766_256980.pdf. Accessed 2 October
2017.
63. Gerard Dumenil and Dominique Levy, The Crisis of Neoliberalism
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2011), 1–2.
64. Vassi Chamberlain, “Poor Little Rich Girl”, Tatler, August 2006, 302/8,
39.
65. Vassi Chamberlain, “Poor Little Rich Girl”, Tatler, November 2006,
302/11, 80.
66. Vassi Chamberlain, “Honey, I Shrunk Your Allowance! The Trophy Wife
Gets Credit-Crunched”, Tatler, January 2009, 304/1, 60.
67. This refers to the attempt by Porsche to take control of the profitable VW
company, but in the process, were hit by the financial crisis of 2008, with
banks refusing to lend them more money for acquisition, and calling in
loans on existing purchases. According to Automobile, Porsche virtually
 5 BOOM AND BUST 129

“collapses into the arms of VW”, becoming the group’s tenth brand in
2011. Tyson Mangeldorf, “Porsche and VW: What the Hell Happened?”,
Automobile, 26 October 2009, available at: http://www.automobilemag.
com/news/porsche-and-volkswagen-what-happened/. Accessed 18
October 2017.
68. Vassi Chamberlain, “Is PLRG’s Big-Spending, Party-Hopping Lifestyle
Over”, Tatler, February 2009, 304/2, 50.
69. Andy Medhurst, A National Joke: Popular Comedy and English Cultural
Identities (London: Routledge, 2007), 10.
70. Dustin Griffin, Satire: A Critical Reintroduction (Lexington: University
Press of Kentucky, 1994), 95.
71. Vassi Chamberlain, “Faking It! The New Faux Poor”, Tatler, April 2009,
304/4, 72; Susie Boyt, “A Modesty Proposal”, Tatler, June 2009,
304/6, 60.
72. Linda Hutcheon, Irony’s Edge: The Theory and Politics of Irony (London:
Routledge, 1994), 92.
73. James Delingpole, “The Son Only Rises”, Tatler, September 2010,
305/9, 111–112.
74. Sir Richard Steele, Joseph Addison, 1709, The Tatler, Vol. I, iii, availa-
ble at: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=wEoJAAAAQAAJ&p-
g=PA117&dq=tatler&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwis45fpitDPAhWk-
IMAKHUchBikQ6AEIKTAC#v=onepage&q=tatler&f=false. Accessed
24 September 2015.
75. Richard Dennen, “Waltz & All”, Tatler, February 2009, 304/2,
124–128.