To commemorate the 40th anniversary of RFK's assassination, Glamour commissioned a several page article about Kennedy's daughters and granddaughters entitled "Bobby's Girls." We got a press release about it this morning and my initial reaction was: What? Let's start with the title. It's obvious from the get-go that these women are only being featured because of their kinship with an ultra-powerful patriarch. But calling them Bobby's Girls? Patronizing much? Which is not to say that these women haven't done impressive things in their own right (Kathleen is a former lieutenant governor of Maryland; Rory directed The Ghosts of Abu Ghraib), but to feature them only within the context of their deceased father is an odd and somewhat infantilizing choice. Then there is the question of why. Why, of all magazines, is Glamour celebrating RFK's legacy? Last time I checked, Glamour's "serious" articles are generally Marianne Pearl's international beat: stories of hope about far-flung female heroines. The rest of Glamour is dedicated to the usual lady-mag detritus. So I'm wondering if it's because Glamour employs one Carole Radziwill.
For those of you unfamiliar with the Kennedy family tree, Carole is the daughter-in-law of Jackie Kennedy's sister, Lee Radziwill. Perhaps the story was written simply because it could be; because they had access. Or perhaps it's just a further extension of the Vanity Fair JFK-love, showing a rosy, scandal-free portrait of what was, by all accounts, a somewhat troubled family.