Sting is right about one thing: money can absolutely become ‘an albatross around your neck.’ But he may be underestimating the other burden his children were born carrying: being Sting’s children. In a new interview with CBS News Sunday Morning, the 74-year-old musician doubled down on his long-held belief that telling children they never have to work is ‘a form of abuse.’ The former Police frontman explained that while he supports his six children, he has never wanted them to simply inherit endless wealth and drift through life untethered from purpose.
‘All of my kids have been blessed with this extraordinary work ethic, whether it’s the DNA of it or whether I’ve said to them, “Guys, you’ve got to work. I’m spending our money,”‘ Sting continued. ‘”I’m paying for your education. You’ve got shoes on your feet. Go to work.” ‘That’s not cruel. I think there’s a kindness there and a trust in them that they will make their own way. They’re tough, my kids.’
It is a sentiment that, on paper, sounds admirable and may just spare the world from six more trust-fund zombies floating around Malibu in $600 distressed denim, discussing crypto start-ups they never actually launch. Yet there is something strangely incomplete about the way celebrities like Sting talk about nepotism and inherited privilege, as though the only inheritance that matters is financial. Because being born to one of the most famous men on Earth is itself a kind of inheritance, and it is one that can shape your entire identity before you are old enough to understand what identity even is.
The Psychological Weight of Inherited Fame
Dr. Katie Barge, a prominent child and educational psychologist, explains: ‘There is evidence that children of high-profile parents are more vulnerable to what researchers call “identity foreclosure,” where a young person adopts roles or paths without full exploration, often due to pressure, expectation, or perceived inevitability (Marcia, 1966). In celebrity families, this can show up as feeling defined by a parent’s legacy before having the opportunity to define oneself.’
Sting’s Children: A Case Study
Sting was married to actress Frances Tomelty from 1976 to 1984. The pair share two children: son Joe Sumner, 49, and daughter Fuschia Sumner, 44. The singer then married Trudie Styler in August 1992 after nearly a decade together. Sting and Styler share four children: Mickey Sumner, 42; Jake Sumner, 40; Eliot Sumner, 35; and Giacomo Sumner, 30. All of Sting’s children are in show business, except for Giacomo, who is a police officer in London.
Joe Sumner, Sting’s eldest child, has spoken openly about the impossible balancing act of trying to build a credible music career while also being painfully aware people would assume he only got opportunities because of his father. He addressed the nepotism involved in his band Fiction Plane getting the gig to open for The Police in 2007, joking: ‘We earned it, man. We worked from the street. No, my dad called me up and gave me the gig. I almost said no because I feel like it’s a big sellout in a lot of ways. I figured if I don’t do it, I’ll just be pissed for a long time.’
Four out of five of Sting’s other children also followed in their father’s footsteps. Mickey Sumner and Fuchsia Sumner became actresses. Jake Sumner works in film and directing. Eliot Sumner pursued music and acting before reinventing themselves as DJ Vaal. Even Giacomo, who studied criminal justice and joined London’s Metropolitan Police, still found headlines describing him primarily as ‘Sting’s son joins the Met.’
Why Celebrity Children Often Follow Their Parents
Dr. Barge explains: ‘The tendency for celebrity children to enter entertainment or public-facing careers is also understandable from a psychological and environmental standpoint. Social learning theory, associated with Albert Bandura, suggests that children model what they see. When a parent’s world is highly visible, creative, and rewarded, it becomes both familiar and accessible. There is also a practical element – existing networks, opportunities, and industry exposure lower barriers to entry. Psychologically, it can feel like the “safest” way to belong within the family system, even if it comes with comparison pressure.’
Imagine trying to become an accountant when half the office spent their teenage years listening to your father sing ‘Every Breath You Take,’ which means you are suddenly reduced to who your father is, not who you are. Perhaps most painful of all, ordinary people get to fail privately. In the age of the internet, famous children often do not.
Public Scrutiny and Its Impact
Dr. Barge notes: ‘Intense public attention also alters the developmental landscape. Studies on adolescent brain development show heightened sensitivity to social evaluation (Somerville, 2013), meaning that public scrutiny can amplify self-consciousness, anxiety, and perfectionism. When feedback is not just peer-based but global, persistent, and often critical, it can significantly impact self-esteem and emotional regulation.’
Every awkward phase, every bad haircut, every failed audition, every career pivot exists under the looming pressure of comparison – not just comparison to peers that we all experience, but comparison to an almost mythological parent whose achievements have already been culturally canonised and which you almost certainly will never live up to.
The Complexity of Inheritance
Perhaps these conversations about inheritance become more complicated than celebrities sometimes allow. While enormous wealth can absolutely damage motivation and distort somebody’s relationship to work, fame itself can distort a person’s relationship to selfhood. Children of hugely famous people frequently grow up inside a strange hall-of-mirrors existence where their identity becomes inseparable from public perception. Outside celebrity circles, they are often reduced to shorthand versions of themselves: so-and-so’s daughter, so-and-so’s son, another nepo baby trying acting, another rich kid making music.
None of this means Sting is wrong to want his children to work. As Dr. Barge notes: ‘There is some evidence that unearned wealth can complicate intrinsic motivation. Self-Determination Theory, developed by Edward Deci and Richard Ryan, highlights that autonomy, competence, and relatedness are key drivers of motivation. If a young person feels their future is already secured or externally defined, it can reduce the drive to develop mastery or pursue personally meaningful goals.’
But inherited wealth is not the ‘child abuse’ Sting makes it out to be, either. Dr. Barge goes on to say that the effect wealth has on a person ‘is highly dependent on parenting style – wealth itself is not inherently harmful, but how it is framed and managed is crucial.’ In fact, withholding wealth from one’s offspring has the potential to be just as damaging as offering it freely. Dr. Barge notes that ‘withholding wealth is experienced as conditional love, control, or unpredictability, it can create insecurity, resentment, or relational strain. The healthiest approach tends to be one where financial privilege is paired with clear values around effort, contribution, and autonomy, rather than extremes of either complete provision or complete withdrawal.’
So while Sting is not wrong to encourage his children to build their own livings, there is an irony in framing inherited wealth as the primary danger, when inherited fame may be just as psychologically complicated. After all, money can buy you freedom. Being born into fame often steals it.
