Social Secretary Ella Kipling details the history of Britney Spears’ conservatorship and considers whether allowing her to appoint her own lawyer might lead to progress for the Free Britney movement
Content warning: this article discusses emotional and physical abuse/control, which some readers may find disturbing.
In early July 2021, Judge Brenda Penny granted Britney Spears the right to choose her own attorney for her conservatorship. On July 26th, Mathew Rosengart, Britney’s chosen lawyer, submitted a 120- page petition to the Los Angeles Superior Court, arguing that Jamie Spears, Britney’s father, needs to be removed from overseeing her financial affairs immediately.
But what exactly is a conservatorship, and why was Britney placed under one? A conservatorship is granted by the court for those unable to make their own decisions, for reasons which include dementia or mental illness. Britney’s conservatorship began back in 2008 after a public mental breakdown which followed her divorce and loss of custody of her two sons.
Jamie Spears was originally in charge of both parts of her conservatorship (one is for her estate and financial affairs, the other is for her as a person) but stepped down as Britney’s personal conservator due to health reasons in 2019. He was replaced by Jodi Montogomery, a care professional, on a temporary basis, though Britney has requested that this change be made permanent.
If this has been going on for 13 years, why has Britney’s case only just gathered large scale public support and media attention?
One can’t help but wonder, if this has been going on for 13 years, why has Britney’s case only just gathered large scale public support and media attention? If the Free Britney movement had begun years ago, would things be different for the pop star?
Back in 2007, a video went viral online showing Chris Crocker, a Britney fan, begging the paparazzi to ‘leave Britney alone.’ This YouTube video was credited with being one of the very first viral clips, and in April this year, Crocker sold it as an NFT for $41,000. At the time, they were ridiculed and cyber bullied relentlessly, sent death threats and ‘physically assaulted at gay clubs.’ Now, the Free Britney movement has become popular, particularly online, and the same space which ignored and struck down Chris Crocker has become an encouraging space for the campaign to have Britney’s conservatorship removed.
13 years ago, the internet was a less accepting space, and Crocker’s appearance as a trans woman was mocked, leading to a response to the video which was strongly rooted in transphobia. Crocker has recently stated that ‘no one could argue’ with what was said in their video, people just ‘did not like the messenger.’ In an interview, Crocker told NPR that ‘society gets really uncomfortable with truths that they’re not willing to accept from the messenger.’ Instead of people focusing on the message about Britney, Crocker quickly became a laughing stock and was even parodied on shows such as South Park, turning Britney’s struggle into a mere comedic sketch. If people had truly listened, had taken the time to see past the exterior of the messenger and heard the message Crocker was putting out, would ‘Free Britney’ have taken place back in 2008 when the conservatorship began?
Whilst in court in June, Britney stated that the conservatorship meant that she was unable to start a family with her boyfriend Sam Asghari. Her medical care is controlled by the conservatorship, and Britney claimed that she is unable to remove her birth control, stating ‘I have an [IUD] inside of myself right now so I don’t get pregnant…but this so-called team won’t let me go to the doctor to take it out because they don’t want me to have children.’
Britney also claimed that she was forced to take lithium (a mood stabiliser) against her will, something which she stated made her feel ‘drunk’ and unable to ‘have a conversation’ about anything. Other restrictions Britney claims were placed on her personal life by the conservatorship include being barred from seeing her friends, speaking to the media, and being banned from being driven in her boyfriend’s car.
The ‘Toxic’ singer summed up the situation perfectly when she stated that she ‘should not be in a conservatorship’ if she is able to make money for other people. A conservatorship is put in place for someone unable to make their own decisions, but if Britney is able to perform night after night, and entertain thousands of people without a hitch, then why is she held captive by a conservatorship? In my opinion, the answer, no doubt, is money.
Why is she held captive by a conservatorship? The answer, no doubt, is money
Court documents revealed by the New York Times showed that Britney was given an allowance of $2,000 per week, while her father Jamie received a conservator salary of around $16,000 a month, in addition to money for office space rental and a percentage of deals signed for Britney.
By being isolated away from sound advice, Britney was unable to stay informed about her own situation. Shielded from knowledge of her own rights, those in control were enabled to continue to exploit Britney and make money off of her.
Following the large-scale media coverage and influx of public support for Britney, the pop star took to social media to share her thoughts on the matter, claiming that she never spoke out about her situation for fears that no one would believe her. Yet even now, the exploitation of Britney continues. Online, support from a plethora of celebrities has poured in over the past few months, but Britney has spoken out about the lack of sincerity, posting on Instagram that ‘There’s nothing worse than when the people closest to you, who never showed up for you, post things in support of your situation.’
Britney claimed that many celebrities were posting things in support of her ‘just to save face’ and that they never ‘put a hand out’ to help her at the time. In 2015, rapper Iggy Azalea publicly tweeted that Britney’s team refused to allow them to do promo for their collaborative song, and also claimed that her entire house was checked prior to the two stars meeting up. At the time, Iggy was deemed a ‘hater’ and when called a hypocrite for tweeting her support of Britney in June, Iggy reminded fans that she was one of the only people to speak out against the controlling nature of Britney’s team, and was ridiculed for it. She also informed fans that Jamie Spears has ‘a habit of making people sign documents while under duress’ and that she herself was forced to sign an NDA, which has prohibited her from speaking out further over the years.
It appears that a conscious effort has been made to keep the extent of the conservatorship under wraps. By having collaborators sign NDAs, prohibiting Britney from speaking to the press, placing her on lithium, and not allowing her to choose her own lawyer, those in control have been able to remain in that position and continue to exploit Britney for money and power. For the first time in years, it seems Britney has a chance to be free from this conservatorship and she needs all the support she can get.
Read more from Comment:
Body Positivity on Instagram: The Condescending Side
Comments