Menu
Cart
Name Price QTY

Subtotal:
Tax included. Shipping calculated at checkout.

View cart

Your cart is empty

    Disclaimer: The content on this site is for informational purposes only and should not be considered professional advice. Always consult with a qualified healthcare provider before making any decisions regarding your health or wellbeing.

    Photo Credit: ishy

    The Nepo Baby Debate Is Missing the Point

    The Nepo Baby Debate Is Missing the Point

    The nepo baby debate is louder than ever — but it’s missing the point. This piece looks beyond famous surnames to ask a harder question: is the real issue talent, or access?

    The nepo baby debate is louder than ever — but it’s missing the point. This piece looks beyond famous surnames to ask a harder question: is the real issue talent, or access?

    BY HARRIET ISHBEL SWEENEY / 06 JANUARY 2026

    BY HARRIET ISHBEL SWEENEY / 06 JANUARY 2026

    Photo Credit: ishy

    Disclaimer: The content on this site is for informational purposes only and should not be considered professional advice. Always consult with a qualified healthcare provider before making any decisions regarding your health or wellbeing.

    I’ve always said it’s not about what you know, it’s who you know. It’s a phrase people repeat with a knowing shrug, usually right before admitting that the world doesn’t work quite as fairly as we’d like to believe. And yet, nowhere does that sentiment provoke more fury, moral panic and selective outrage than in the ongoing nepo baby debate — a conversation that feels increasingly loud, increasingly circular, and increasingly determined to miss its own point.

     

    The latest flashpoint came when Kate Winslet publicly defended her son’s work as an actor and screenwriter. Winslet’s argument was neither radical nor evasive. She simply stated that growing up around an industry does not negate the effort required to work within it, nor does it guarantee success. Yes, her children understand the world of film — they’ve absorbed its rhythms, language and expectations by proximity alone — but that doesn’t magically turn them into capable creatives. Access may open a door, but it doesn’t write a script, sharpen dialogue, or sustain a career.

     

    The reaction, however, suggested something deeper than disagreement. It was outrage tinged with moral accusation, as though acknowledging advantage without apologising for it were somehow offensive. The subtext was clear: privilege must be disowned to be acceptable, even when it’s obvious, even when denying it borders on absurd.

     

    Among those who pushed back was Scarlett Curtis, daughter of Richard Curtis and Emma Freud, who argued that the comparison doesn’t hold. Children of doctors, she said, still have to pass exams. Children of lawyers still have to qualify. Entertainment, by contrast, allows famous offspring to bypass formal barriers entirely. It’s a compelling argument — but also a comforting one. It relies on the idea that other industries operate on pure merit, insulated from soft power, inherited confidence, and the quiet advantage of familiarity. In reality, they don’t. They’re simply less visible about it.

     

    What often gets lost in this debate is a far more honest observation, articulated with refreshing clarity by Kate Hudson during a conversation on The Graham Norton Show with Ben Stiller. Hudson didn’t deny privilege; she explained it. When you grow up inside an industry, you don’t just inherit contacts — you inherit fluency. You know how meetings work, how rejection works, how momentum is built. You learn how to enter rooms because you’ve been watching how they operate your entire life.

    This isn’t cheating. It’s environmental education. And it exists everywhere.

    Embed from Getty Images

    Which is precisely why the nepo baby debate so often feels intellectually dishonest. We pretend the issue is lineage, when in reality it’s access. We pretend we’re defending meritocracy, when what we’re really defending is the myth that talent alone has ever been enough. In creative industries especially — subjective, taste-driven, emotionally responsive — success has never been a clean equation. Timing matters. Visibility matters. Confidence matters. Being encouraged to try matters. None of those things are evenly distributed, and they never have been.

     

    This is where talent enters the conversation — and where it becomes uncomfortable. If someone genuinely has the ability, the discipline and the presence to do the work, should their surname disqualify them from legitimacy? Dakota Johnson is often cited for good reason. Few people seriously argue that she lacks screen presence or range. Her family may have opened a door, but it didn’t hold it open indefinitely. Audiences did that. The resentment seems to stem not from her success, but from the absence of visible struggle — as though suffering is the only acceptable proof of worth.

     

    And yet, the frustration sharpens when talent is conspicuously absent. Brooklyn Beckham has become the unofficial shorthand for this side of the debate — a figure whose repeated reinventions feel less like organic exploration and more like parental overcompensation. When opportunity persists despite a lack of aptitude, when credibility is insisted upon rather than earned, the audience bristles. Not because nepotism exists, but because we’re being asked to pretend it isn’t happening.

     

    Which brings us back to the real issue — the one the debate keeps skirting around. Nepotism is not unique to Hollywood. It thrives in finance, tech, media, law, start-ups and venture capital. In any large fintech firm, there is almost always someone whose path was smoothed by proximity to power — a son of a friend, a daughter of a board member, a well-connected graduate whose CV landed at the top of the pile for reasons that had nothing to do with brilliance. The difference is that those surnames don’t trend on Twitter.

     

    So what is the nepo baby debate actually about? It’s not about famous parents helping their children — most parents would, if they could. It’s about our discomfort with admitting how much access matters, how unevenly opportunity is distributed, and how fragile the idea of meritocracy really is. It’s easier to critique celebrity children than to confront the systems that quietly reward familiarity over fairness across every industry.

     

    And that’s why the nepo baby debate is missing the point. The problem isn’t that privilege exists. It’s that we still pretend it doesn’t — or worse, that acknowledging it somehow invalidates talent, effort or ambition. Once we stop demanding denial and start demanding honesty, the conversation shifts. It stops being about surnames and starts being about structures. And that’s a far more uncomfortable — and far more necessary — place to land.

    Share

    Title

    Subscribe to claim your exclusive discount & receive our weekly newsletter

    Thank you for joining Dandy! Expect premium wellness insights, exclusive offers, and updates straight to your inbox.
    New In

    From innovative essentials to indulgent must-haves, explore fresh arrivals regularly unveiled to enhance your journey

    SHOP NEW IN

    SHOP NEW IN

    Title

    DANDY DOSE

    DANDY DOSE

    Disclaimer: All images are used with credit to the original creator where possible. Please get in touch if an image needs updating or removing.

    We use cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website.