Kids in Bad Company

Company magazine: often, it’s the lesser of many evils. It isn’t edited (usually) by 40 year old women who purport to fancy Harry Styles. It isn’t a member of the Trashy Weekly Glossies club, and it doesn’t have tip after tip about how to ‘please your man’. It is basically the monthly edition of all the twentysomething high street style bloggers you stumble upon now and then, mixed with the odd feature, some beauty tips, and the latest, most inoffensive music you should be downloading. It’s printed on nice paper and it only costs about two quid. All in all, it’s often safe to say that it is not as deserving of Vagenda ire as its slightly more evil sisters on the mag rack. But then, this month, along came a clanger.

Now, before I dissect the offending article, I am well aware that Grazia follow Suri Cruise’s wardrobe with the same enthusiasm they once reserved for Carey Mulligan’s about two years ago, so the fact that another women’s magazine has picked up on the fact that we women (what we like, eh?) tend to coo over toddlers in cute clothes isn’t a huge surprise. But the comments accompanying the pictures are. 

The article is six pages long (okay, they’re small pages, but still) and is titled ‘The kid’s got style’. It then lists the apparently readers’ vote of the 25 most stylish celebrity kids. Each entry is accompanied with a comment from “Company fash” whom, I am assuming, is someone on the fashion team at Company magazine if I’ve understood my women’s magazine’s abbreviations correctly, and a comment from one of two children helping out with the judging; the Editor’s five-year-old son and an eight-year-old dubbed as a “future fashionista”. Hmm. 

Judging by the fact that this article is tucked away at the back of the magazine, I don’t think it’s high on their list of “Articles that took us absolutely ages to research and we are monumentally proud of”, but it all starts off fairly light-heartedly, with each toddler receiving a comment next to their picture - which was taken of them against all of their knowledge and purely because mummy and/or daddy is famous, of course. Harper Seven is critiqued on her choice of glads (I swear, I am not making this up) and it’s mooted that she’s already part of the infamous FROW. She’s one.

But here is where the article started to seem really weird to me. In at Number 5 is Lila Grace Hack - daughter of model Kate Moss and journalist Jefferson Hack. In the picture, seemingly taken on holiday, her face is blurred out thanks to the strict privacy laws Mossy has imposed on pictures of her child being printed and she’s wearing what you would expect a typical 11-year-old to wear on holiday; a printed sun dress and a stack of friendship bracelets. The comment from the “Company fash” team says, creepily, “She’s inherited the Moss legs!”


Did I mention this child is 11? And is not showing her legs off for any reason other than she’s warm?

Next on the ‘Now this article is getting really weird’ topic was Flynn Bloom - owner of awesome name and son of Victoria’s Secret model Miranda Kerr and actor Orlando Bloom. His outfit is average to say the least - jeans, a jumper and, admittedly, quite a cute hat - but, according to Company fash, having your son balanced so jauntily on your hip a-la Miranda is, and I quote, “the ultimate fashion accessory”. Now, I’m not an expert on matters - and I don’t want to come across as patronising - but don’t young girls read this magazine? Young, impressionable girls? I’m not suggesting comments like this will make them run around having children because Miranda Kerr makes it look so effortless, but come on. Give little Flynn a bit more kudos than a handbag dog, C-Fash.

And last but not least, little Shiloh Pitt - the daughter of Actual Hollywood Royalty and the subject of much debate surrounding her dress sense because, shock horror, this little six-year-old girl dresses rather tomboyish. A lot tomboyish, in fact, but who cares? Company certainly don’t! No way! She’s the “ultimate androgynous muse!” Did I mention she’s six? SIX. Being an androgynous muse at the age of six just means you’d rather climb trees than play kiss chase - why are we, seemingly mature women, using her penchant for jeans over Juicy Couture as being muse-worthy?

These magazines just don’t seem to realise that these kids (or us) don’t care where they rank in the fashion stakes. They don’t give a shit that they make a fabulous fashion accessory for their model mother or that you think their androgynous style is a deliberate attempt at becoming a style icon unique enough to grace their pages. They don’t care that you think their dress has a “cute prairie style with a harajuku edge” (I am not making this up. It was about Violet Affleck) and they most definitely shouldn’t know (or care) that they have inherited their supermodel mother’s legs when they’re not even in high school yet.

Let these children be children; their parents are the famous ones. And when you’re deconstructing their dress sense in a freakishly long feature, it feels like they’re in very bad Company indeed.