It’s certainly nothing new. Think John F. Kennedy Jr. or Princes William and Harry of Whales…tabloid photos of the children of celebrities seems to have reached hysterical levels! You cannot pass through the checkout line in your local grocery store without learning about the length of Kate Hudson’s son Ryder‘s hair, or what Matilda Ledger is up to since her father Heath Ledger‘s death, or that Suri Cruise still uses a bottle, or how much her second birthday party cost. Surely by now you know all of the intimate details about the family with a higher per capita population than Branson Missouri, known as the Jolie-Pitts?

When these celebrities sell the exclusive rights to the first photos of their newborns they’re putting the seal of approval to have their entire lives documented, tabloid style. And even when the celebrity parents don’t exploit their children money still changes hands for coveted shots between the paparazzi and the media outlets. A side effect of making such a to-do about these innocent bystanders is that the tabloid coverage is creating celebrities out of the children themselves. These children didn’t agree to this. They were simply born; whether that be to entertainers, politicians, heads of state, or royalty. Or some billionaire tycoon [can I get an Athina Onassis up in here?]. Coping with celebrity status is difficult and sometimes damaging even for the seasoned child star. Do I really need to mention Lindsay Lohan, Britney Spears, one of the Olsen twins [I know they're fraternal but I can't tell them apart and "the skinny one" isn't exactly a big help] or eighties sitcom star Dana Plato who eventually took her own life? So what of these children who didn’t ask to be in the spotlight but simply are because of who their parents happen to be or the womb in which they were created?

Are they guilty by birthright?

Brought to you by Tootsie Farklepants who can be found on her blog Vintage Thirty where just about anything is the topic du jour.

(photo source photobucket.com)