This one is trickier than it appears. Let’s put it this way- did Frank Sinatra pull a lot of strings to get his kids opportunities in show biz? Of course! That said, Nancy Sinatra is famous because she recorded a few huge hits (most notably “The Boots Are Made For Walking”), while Frank Sinatra Jr. is famous for… Lenny’s Clam Bar commercials? So, Nancy does NOT belong in the “Only Famous Because of Relatives” category, but Frank Jr. does.
In the same way, there are LOTS of successful actors and singers who never would have made it so big without help from relatives… but face it, John Belushi has been dead for nearly 30 years! Even if you hate Jim Belushi, you have to admit he’s managed to find steady, profitable work on his own for a long time. By now, he’s famous for the lame movies he’s made and the lame TV shows he’s starred in, NOT just for being John’s brother.
Did Henry Fonda use his influence to get Jane into the acting biz? No doubt, and that’s a HUGE plus, in a field where getting a foot in the door is half the battle. But she’s proven herself as an actress many times over since then.
I think we have to stick to people who are famous SOLELY because of their relatives, and who’ve never actually DONE anything to merit fame on their own. The people who appear in People magazine every week, even though they haven’t made a movie, recorded a CD, or written a book, or done ANYTHING to merit attention.
Like them or not, Stella McCartney, Matthew & Gunnar Nelson, and Miley Cyrus have had great success. Do they owe a lot to their Dads? Yes, but they STILL produced something that millions of people liked. You have to give them credit for that.
Jackie Stallone, on the other hand, is famous SOLELY for having a famous relative or family. Ditto Paris Hilton and Rumer Willis.
I’d add Bijou Phillips and Christopher Ciccone.