Drama continues to surround the Jackson family. Celebrities from Dr. Drew to Gladys Knight (whose opinions differ by about one-hundred-eighty degrees) and a motley crew of notables and not-so-notables in between, have weighed in with their opinions. Dr. Drew stated (or agreed with a guest who stated such; I can't recall which with certainty) that Michael would be proud of Paris for standing her ground. Gladys Knight suggested Paris was very much out of line in tweeting the family's dirty laundry, that her aunt Janet Jackson was right to call her on it, and, had Paris called Gladys Knight what she called Janet, Paris wouldn't have any teeth.
Unless Gladys Knight is privy to details of the altercation between Janet Jackson and Paris Jackson of which the general public is not aware, it is my contention that she, Gladys Knight, misspoke. according to the reported account of the fracas, Janet Jackson called Paris a "spoiled little b---h," to which Paris responded, "This is our house, not the Jackson family house. Get the f--k out!" Again, if Gladys Knight knows something the rest of us don't know, it could put a decidedly different perspective on things. As it stands, however, while expletives were hurled on both sides, the only name-calling in that particular exchange came from Janet, not Paris, and the initial incidence of profanity came from Janet as well.
Moreover, Ms. Knight, you may very well have been raised in the south with a specific tradition that mandates respect of one's elders, but i would hope that those elders whom you were commanded to respect were in better control of themselves than was Janet Jackson on the day in question.
Prince Michael may or may not have weighed in on the situation via Twitter. It's at this point still unclear as to whether or not the tweets, some of which were removed, were authentic.
Janet Jackson reportedly has money of her own and has no need of a chunk of Michael's estate. I'm not sure if I believe this or not. Regardless, Jermaine and Randy do have a perceived need of the funds in Michael's estate.
I understand where Michael was coming from in outlining his will to provide for his heirs in the manner he chose. My parents, while comfortable financially, hold a combined wealth that would probably not pay the monthly fees that go to those charged with managing Michael Jackson's estate. Still, my assumption is that my parents' will stipulates that the holdings go to my brother and me, and that their own siblings are expected to fend for themselves financially except for the idea that anyone charged with overseeing my brother and me either physically or financially would be compensated. I assume also that my parents would have provided for my father's mother in the event that she survived my parents, were it not for the fact that her finances are secure.
Michael's siblings are not entitled to maintain a lifestyle any more affluent than what they can support through their own respective means and employment. Had Michael chosen to extend his wealth a bit further in their direction, the story would be different. His will, however, has already been found to be valid, and nothing Al Sharpton alleges is likely to change its presumed validity.
What Jackson's siblings do stand to inherit, unless terms of either Michael's will or of any will written and signed by Katherine Jackson dictate otherwise, is one-eighth of Katherine Jackson's twenty per cent of Michael Jackson's estate when she eventually dies. The irony here is that, if Michael's siblings were to be granted control of his estate, the portion of their late brother's estate they each might ultimately hold, under their own likely less-than-competent-management, would in all probability equal less than one-eighth of twenty per cent of the estate under its current management.