In the British context: sort of, but not really for their percieved/real wealth, mostly because British socialism in this period is weird (which is why it is so fun). There is a lot more to say but I will try to keep in the ruts of the question for precision and/or getting back to the important but mind-numbing book this question is ably helping me avoid (thanks u/AN_ANGRY_BONER).

The (later) 19th Century British socialist response to Marx himself is naturally very mixed and changes with time, place, and convenience of the internecine petty squabbles of the moment among British socialists. Crudely, while there is at times a gesture towards undermining the legitimacy/questioning the conclusions of Marx and Engels based on their (perceived) material comfort (slightly more so Engels but surprisingly not that much) alone, in reality it forms a secondary adjunct to a broader challenge of him among British socialists. The reasons for this relative lack of attention to the supposed hypocrisy of their own economic status vary and remains debated, but it probably has a lot to do that on average British socialists were rarely members of the proletariat themselves. This is likely combined with a conception of class and privilege which understands class identity beyond simple material calculations and include cultural practices and intellectual positions. One could be wealthy and, at least in some circles, not a champagne socialist/hypocrite. The bourgeois champagne socialist was as much identified by their manner and mind as their depth of pockets.

That being said, the idea of Marx and Engels being out-of-touch was a lot more common, to the point of probably being the norm in 19th century British socialist circles. Much of this comes down to the peculiar traditions framing the understanding of British socialists at the time. The socialism of the British commentariat was largely made of small circles of disproportionately non-conformist, Scottish, and/or middle class individuals (while subject of a wild dispute it is broadly agreed that a Marxist or even particularly ideological form of socialism had not really penetrated popular political culture to a degree which would render intellectual engagements in these disputes). The conceptual framework behind their socialism in turn was also far more inspired by a tradition which challenged the corrupting effects of individualism and commerce (a legacy of the domestic forms of socialism generations before) than a particular (pejoratively described as ‘continental’) emphasis on working class solidarity or mechanistic explanations of society.

This is huge for Marx’s place (or lack thereof) in early British socialism. In the older literature and some sections of popular imagination Marx’s works almost have a ‘eureka’ quality in the history of socialism, where all bets were off and socialism was redefined (even invented in some less tempered perspectives). Yet in reality Marx, Engels and Marxism arrived into an existing tradition and set of intellectual horizons defined by said focus on pollution of individualism/commerce and thus to a degree modernity. It did not help that the English translation of Marx’s work was significantly later than that of those on the continent, meaning the generation who defined the late Victorian and Edwardian socialism were far less acquainted to his ideas than they were Carlyle, Jevons, Owen etc.

When read by eyes for whom socialism had a quality of human improvement in the face of crushing individualisation and grubby capitalism Marx was rather lacking. Some quibbled with his methodology, preferring epistemologies and methods of knowledge production more in line with that of British thought of the time. Others debated his starting assumptions around human nature and the narrative of industrialisation, preferring their more familiar conceptions derived from a motley collection of English medievalists, Romantic-era writers, and Scottish-enlightenment-infused thinkers. The greatest critique was that Marx and Engels (although less so Engels) had fundamentally failed to answer the social question (the nature and remedy for the descent of man due to the grubby individualism of modern economic forces). The preoccupation of British socialists was very much focused on this question as opposed to the economic one of Marx's attention meaning that even to his supporters Marx felt incomplete (indeed even self-described Marxists in the period frame their ideas as an attempt to 'complete' Marx rather than that of discipleship). Moreover the sins of his adherents only further served to warp the mainstream socialist conception (i.e. sideways glance) of Marx and his work. Therefore, it is not that they were dismissed as cranks or idiots, many recognised (a degree of) brilliance behind the ideas, even being influenced to an extent by some ideas. But there was something unmistakably 'continental' about the socialism of Marx and Engels in the minds many of the British socialist thinkers, he was awfully German in methods and meanings, which made him a little too out of touch.

This was not helped by the fact that his early exponents (Hyndman, the future leader of the Marxist-ish SDF and closest thing to a Marxist party-thing in the late 19th century) were often unmistakably of the elite themselves (Hyndman found Marx’s writing while holidaying in France, he was able to read the French edition thanks to his public school (elite private school to non-Brits) education – he is also in the paraphrase of one historian the only revolutionary Marxist who played cricket for his county, and another charts the various rise and falls of Hyndman’s SDF to his volatile performance at playing the stock market, the proceeds of which largely funded the movement). These men came to socialism from radical toryism (traditionally seen as a right-wing set of ideas given its affiliation with the conservative party). Bemoaning the corrupting influence of capital and grubby individualism on society and human nature deriving ideas from diverse sources (most notably Carlyle) they saw a home in a form of socialism which defined itself against capitalism. Such a coupling of revulsion of the social impacts of individualism and a thrust toward nostalgia/traditionalism had existed in the British left and radical Tories for generations, and is captured most famously with the ideas of William Morris (who was briefly a member of the SDF before falling out with them – a very common phrase in the literature). Hyndman and most of the SDF leadership found Marx brilliant but nonetheless needing the social question addressed …. From radical Toryism. This led to the weird spectre of the most radical Marxists at the turn of the century (and closest to working class revolutionaries) such as Victor Grayson simultaneously proclaiming Marxist revolution and triumphing the empire, imperialism, racism, jingoism, anti-Semitism and other common tropes of the radical toryism. A great example is that it was disproportionately the moderate socialists (who dominated the Labour party), such as my boy Ramsay MacDonald, who protested WW1... many/most of the radical Marixsts from the SDF and innumerate splinter groups actively campaigned for the war effort.

So even among the Marxists themselves Marx was seen as needing to be brought into the ‘real world’, while simultaneously their adherents further rendered Marxism (and thus Marx and Engels to a degree) in the British context alien. Often seen as a distant continental academic he was a theorist to respect (if not agree with) based on his interesting (rather than correct) and robust writings. He was too continental in his obsession with mechanistic theories, scientific bent, and lack of interest of questions around a socialist humanity. In short he was ‘too German’. In the late 19th Century he was therefore very much a marginal figure intellectually (not helped by his frequent squabbles), if culturally he loomed larger. This image of out of touch Marxists only worsened with the type of people who became associated with him (I am being crude for brevity there are figures who are a more interesting and arguably more faithful-ish adherents, such as O’Brien/Bax but their influence was either fleeting or indirect at best). Therefore, among even working-class representatives the feeling that Marx & Engels, Marxism, and their adherents were out of touch dry academics and philosophers pervaded, that he was of Bloomsbury rather than Bradford, not really connected to the working class struggle.

So we end up with a situation where British socialists at the end of the 19th century, many of whom were at one time or another members of the SDF, simultaneously had Marx and Engels in their midst, yet rather than being at the centre of the intellectual ferment they were at best passively stared at with the incorrigibility of Brits looking across the channel. Were they viewed as out-of-touch due to their wealth… no, not hugely (obviously there were always exceptions). Were they viewed as out of touch because of the vast gulf in political culture? Yes. Think of them as being viewed as interesting men to talk to at parties (due to curiosity and status, rather than mind) but no more than that…. It is crude, but not far off.

Sources

Bevir – The making of British Socialism

Pugh – Speak for Britain

Thorpe – The History of the Labour Party

Marquand – Ramsay MacDonald

Moore – The emergence of the Labour party 1880-1924

Hinton – Labour and socialism

Elliot – Labourism and the English genius

Drucker – Doctrine and ethos of the Labour party

Marx and Engels themselves complained about what we can call 'champagne socialists' in their most famous work, the Manifesto of the Communist Party(1848)(1888 translation by Samuel Moore, edited by Engels.) In chapter 3, "Communists and Socialists," they list various forms of socialists, whom they consider "reactionary" and "Conservative or Bourgeois".

First, the reactionary socialism of the "German or 'True' socialism". In this section Marx and Engels hurled critique at their former comrades in the German literati, the German philosophers they knew from their days as members of the Young Hegelians, and whom they had decicively taken distance from during the 1840es, with works such as The Holy Family(1844) subtitle: or Critique of Critical Criticism sub-subtitle: Against Bruno Bauer and Company. Comparing the German professors to the Catholic monks of old, they criticised them for "emasculating" French socialism and directly representing the interests of the German philistines. To quote the radical couple:

And on its part, German socialism recognized, more and more, its own calling as the bombastic representative of the petty-bourgois philistine.

[...] It went to the extreme lenght of directly opposing the 'brutally destructive' tendency of communism, and of proclaiming its supreme and impartial contempt of all class struggles.

Needless to say, "Bruno Bauer and Company" became the proto-expression of the Kathedersozialisten.

Marx and Engels' real complain about what we would call "champagne socialists" however is the one against "Bourgeoisie Socialism." In this section, they directly attack the Frenchman Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, when they talk about the parts of the bourgeoisie who are concerned about addressing the ailments of the proletariat. "To this section," Marx and Engels write "belong economists, philanthropists, humanitarians, improvers of the condition of the working class, organisers of charity [...]" and many more. This form of "socialism" however, Marx and Engels said, was false, and rested on the idea that "The bourgeois is a bourgeois – for the benefit of the working class."

Now, of course professors and bourgeois philanthropists are the target of Doktor Marx and Herr Engels' ire. And it may seem like a somewhat weird critique to make, considering that Marx was a doctor of philosophy, and Engels came from a wealthy family of capitalists, but, it is important to remember, that what Marx and Engels gave the socialist movement wasn't these ready-made solutions, rather, Marx and Engels functioned not as philosophers, but as agitators, revolutionaries, etc., and they saw themselves in this way. Marx's famously horrid economical situation is also a good place to start, before we consider Marx a bourgeois, though Engels was most definitely.

And this was noticed by their contemporaries. Most famously perhaps by the German utopian communist Wilhelm Weitling. Weitling was a tailor by trade, but despite me calling him an utopian, you shouldn't imagine him as some calm reformist. No, Weitling was a radical, a putschist and was, along with Marx and Engels, proposing that simply workers taking control of the state wasn't enough, but that a change of property relations was necessary. At a meeting of exiled radicals, according to Russian radical Pavel Annenkov, in 1846, Weitling had been agitating in Germany, and Marx confronted him with this, asking, on what basis and with what aims did he do so, etc. Weitling responded evasively, and accused Marx of writing howsky-snowsky up-in-the-air texts, with no relations to the workers at all. This enraged Marx, who in turn slammed his fist on the table and exclaimed with all his might: "Ignorance has never yet helped anybody!"

Another indication of Marx's position as not necessarily a "champagne socialist", but then at least a Kathedersozialist, was when Proudhon, in a letter, warned him of "becoming another Luther", as in, ending up as the ultimate sectarian, and ordering the workers, like how Luther with the peasants, put down like sick dogs—though I do not think there was ever much of a chance of this happening with Marx.

There is also the whole debacle between the putchists and the commune-ists, i.e. those who created utopian communities, within the utopian camp to take into consideration, but my expertise is sadly narrowed to Marxism. I hope this at least constitutes a partial answer, which can help you find more, perhaps in this very community as well.

---

Works:

Engels, Friedrich and Marx, Karl. "Manifest of the Communist Party" in Marx, Karl. The Political Writings. 2019. Verso books.

My ever trusty Marx biography; Liedman, Sven Eric. A World to Win. 2018

Marx, Karl. The Holy Family. 1844

Marx, Karl. The Poverty of Philosophy. 1847

Woods, Allan. "Ignorance has never yet helped anybody!". 2009 as foreword to a 2015 reprint of Engel's Anti-Dühring by Danish publisher Forlaget Marx.