I'm probably wrong here, but forever , there was always a battle between being fashionable and trying to be fashionable.
Also a battle between looking like you have money vs actually having money.
I recall living in a small village where my dad had a shop. This was 60s to early 80s.
I was regarded as 'trade.'
Thus looked down upon.
However , we were only ever looked down upon by 'new money.'
A Duke, two Heiresses. a Lord and an Archbishop lived in our little village.
My dad's business relied on deliveries.
The duke, the Lord and one of the heiresses all pitched in during bad weather to help out , in their Rolls', Jags etc...
The wealthy middle class just phoned constantly to ask where their delivery was.
During my years there I learned that style didn't happen to the less moneyed. They had to follow , via Tatler, Vogue, Cosmopolitan etc.. and copy but what the proles didn't get was that, as soon as the middle classes got hold of a 'style' they dumped their preferences as they became ubiquitous. Yet the upper classes remained steadfast and didn't change. Consequently there are legion aristos, inherited wealth folk who slum around in 30 year old Volvos, decrepit Land Rovers, out of fashion clothes yet aspirationals are desperate to be seen as wealthy, hence the disgusting greed over designer handbags, stupid , feet deforming shoes etc..
Aspirationals are desperate to be seen as wealthy by following the new money and the ugly oligarchical fashions.
Hence the Primark wearer who fusses about which LV bag to buy.
The trackie wearer who fusses about which is the best trainer to wear.
It's all rather sad and pathetic really.