U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Entertainment and Arts > Celebrities
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
Old 01-09-2014, 12:38 PM
3,279 posts, read 3,756,513 times
Reputation: 6149


I don't get into celebrity news very much, but for some reason it bothers me that Britney Spears, apparently, is still in a conservatorship when she clearly (at least from what you see in the news, you don't know what goes on behind closed doors typically) seems to have recovered very well. Why should someone else still be in charge of what is HER money? To me it's her life to do with as she pleases, even with kids involved I still believe this.

The whole thing upsets me anyway. The very idea that someone can label you "crazy" (I'm not saying she wasn't having problems in 2008 etc) and then now control your money just boggles the mind, even if there is longtime precedence for it. You can't argue with the improvements to her health, but fundamentally, it is my belief that if a person wants to live crazy and such then that's their business to do so and it's their money to do with as they please. And yes, even if you have kids I believe this, except maybe for stipulations in place to keep someone with violent tendencies from hurting them, in which case I don't know there should be any kids around at all to start with. Even if you are a rich person with people working under you, I STILL believe this, where it regards your PERSONAL money (obviously someone who is CEO of a company it's a different story, and again not sure such a person should be CEO anyway).

The only reason I can see this being a valid thing is if her problems are to where she could at any time physically harm her kids a la Andrea Yates etc and that they WERE willing to let her do with her money whatever she pleased but she could only have her kids home with her if she agreed to controls per their safety while in her care. Otherwise it seems like an abuse of a person's liberty to live their life in their own realm however they jolly darn well please to.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Old 01-09-2014, 12:50 PM
377 posts, read 407,504 times
Reputation: 417
in a what?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 01-09-2014, 01:04 PM
Location: League City, Texas
2,813 posts, read 4,311,765 times
Reputation: 5796
I think it's possible that the situation just "works" for her. It would appear that her illness, while it may be controlled with medication, is chronic. Severe mental illness never goes away.
As long as it seems to be good for both her & her family, why change it. Why put her in a position to "go off her meds" & risk her life or those of others. I'm no Dr, but she appeared to be suffering from classic bipolar (manic) disorder before the conservatorship was placed. Now she appears to be thriving.

People don't choose to be mentally ill. I can't imagine she would prefer pursuing her life in a raving manic manner if she doesn't have to do so, just to have her "personal liberty".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 01-09-2014, 05:38 PM
Location: Sunny Bay Area, CA
1,568 posts, read 1,711,277 times
Reputation: 3236
At one point, before she was led away on a gurney, she had locked herself in a room with her sons and a loaded gun. She had a lot of mental issues and I'm glad her father stepped in to take care of her and protect her money. He's done a great job and I believe that as far as I'm aware he's trustworthy with it and acts in her best interests. I also feel that there must be a reason why the conservatorship hasn't been released yet. I don't believe she is capable of making sound decisions on her own, and I'm not sure if she ever will. I'm glad her Dad stepped in.

Someone as famous as Britney, in the public eye like that, and with two innocent sons...no way that no one would have stepped in to help her, as drastic as it may seem.

We have no idea how bad it really was (I suspect it was even worse than we know about) and I think it was a wise decision. Obviously needed. Like hellpaso said, she's thriving now. Good for her.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 01-10-2014, 09:43 AM
912 posts, read 1,189,455 times
Reputation: 2268
She needed that conservatorship at the time -- and a lot of serious mental help, which she clearly got. Mental illness coupled with being mega-famous at a young age is a potent cocktail, and I am thankful for her sake and for her kids that an intervention happened.

The arrangement has clearly worked for all involved, and allowed her to focus on herself without having to deal with Britney Spears The Business. As a result, she's gone back to performing and does seem happier and healthier than ever. It may be a case of "don't fix what isn't broken," or perhaps there are still behind the scenes struggles.

I don't think she'll be in one for the rest of her life, but in the scheme of serious mental illness, 6 years isn't an incredibly long amount of time, particularly when you add in the unique elements of her life. Sure, she has all of the money in the world, but she has a lot of pressures/publicity to go along with it. I couldn't imagine having to be "ON" every time I left the house, having to worry about the motives of everyone I meet, etc -- and thankfully, I also don't have a mental illness.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 01-10-2014, 02:37 PM
260 posts, read 369,625 times
Reputation: 479
This article from TMZ was written back in 2012:

"There's a reason Britney Spears' conservatorship has lasted 4 1/2 years with no end in sight -- it's because she has a serious medical issue that prevents her from making consistently sound decisions ... TMZ has learned.

Documents were filed Tuesday in the conservatorship case, urgently asking the judge to seal certain records. In the papers, lawyers for the conservators called the records "highly sensitive," adding "irreparable harm and immediate danger" would befall Britney if the documents weren't sealed.

Multiple sources with firsthand knowledge tell TMZ ... the records are medical documents outlining Britney's condition and treatment.

We're told the singer has a disorder affecting her personality that can affect her state of mind. We're told she is doing "extremely well" but needs the safety net of a conservatorship.

Sources tell us there is no plan to end the conservatorship, and the judge is completely down with it."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 01-10-2014, 03:31 PM
3,279 posts, read 3,756,513 times
Reputation: 6149
My thought on the matter is simply this--does she WANT this? Is it voluntary? Is this something BRITNEY wants due to realizing that she is her worst enemy & if it takes something like this to protect her from her ownself then so be it?

If so, then that's fine.

But if not, it should be rescinded, NO MATTER how much it has helped her, because if she wants to live crazy and do crazy things, it's her business to do so--yes, even with children in the house. (If such means she might lose custody of the children, then that's another story.)

Basically, I don't believe in involuntary arrangements along these lines unless the person could harm someone ELSE. If they want to harm their own selves & want the freedom to do so, then have at it, I say.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 01-10-2014, 05:02 PM
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
407 posts, read 648,049 times
Reputation: 356
I don't know about her, but Lindsay Lohan sure needs one
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 01-24-2014, 09:19 PM
6,308 posts, read 7,990,836 times
Reputation: 7903
How could anyone here possibly know what will happen in the future with Britney Spears and her conservatorship. Why don't you write to her father and ask him; he manages it, so he would know.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 01-29-2014, 01:00 PM
Location: Underneath the Pecan Tree
15,989 posts, read 29,784,428 times
Reputation: 7238
She will be as long as she's in the industry. She clearly has no passion for what she does and needs to retire. Her Vegas show has been getting horrible reviews and she has said several times she's not cut out to be a celebrity. She may have the talent, but the mentality she doesn't.

The best thing for Britney is to live a normal life or at least take an extended break from the industry and focus on herself and her family.

It was the same thing with Whitney Houston and Michael Jackson. They didn't know how to take a break or just focus on healing from everything they've been through. You don't just get off drugs and go straight back to the thing that drove you to addiction. You heal, live and than try it again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.

Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Entertainment and Arts > Celebrities
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top