When Michael Jackson died the world let out a gasp.

Some did so out of a profound sadness, some out of shock, and some just because now their wee sons could go outside unattended.

Not long after, people started worrying about Jackson’s estate. Who would get his Beatles rights? Who’d inherit the dusty set of Captain EO - and what was to happen to his pickled penis?

We heard it’s had kind of a dill/vinegar wrap on since he was twelve.

It ends up the will that made such material designations – according to Randy Jackson – it has a forged signature.

It’s a rough time to be MJ. Not only have all his songs been stolen by Hispanics like 18 years before he recorded them, but at this very moment he’s probably realising that being surrounded by senior citizen women with a Jesus-juice allergy most likely implies that wherever he is – it certainly isn’t his heaven.

A harsh awakening, no doubt.

Well we only wish we could tell him that his name is still wrapped in turmoil down here too. Sure, we finally got the ultimate destination of his children figured out – but what about the rest of his crap? You know, like his pickled penises. And his pants.

It seems some nefarious fellow decided to ensure those pickled penises and pants don’t get to the person whom Michael had intended at all. We know this because it’s recently been made clear that MJ’s 2002 will has a forged signature gracing the long line at the bottom.

That’s what Randy Jackson thinks anyway. TMZ sums things up:

“Randy Jackson claims Michael Jackson could not have signed his 2002 will, because he was 2,475 air miles away from the place the document was supposedly inked. According to the will, it was signed on July 7, 2002 at 5:00 PM in Los Angeles. Randy Jackson tells TMZ he has proof MJ was in New York from July 5 through July 9, on a campaign against Sony honcho Tommy Mottola claiming Mottola had a thing against Black artists.”

Hecklerspray thinks this is most likely a matter of Randy not getting any monkeys out of the deal. Imagine, your brother Michael Jackson dies and you don’t get any monkeys. We’d probably complain too.

We’d complain until we at least got a walrus. Michael probably had dozens of those stashed away. Whoever the proper walrus-inheritor is probably won’t even miss just one.

Follow hecklerspray on Twitter

For it seems that those who are fit to make claims – i.e. the British tabloids – are doing just that, in claiming that Michael Jackson has an illicit love-baby who is now a full-man.

Yes, a full-man named Omer Bhatti, who also happens to be a Norwegian rapper.

Well that’s it settled then – if he’s a Norwegian rapper he has to be Michael Jackson’s illegitimate, product-of-a-one-night-stand son.

But wait – there’s science involved too! For the non-believers out there, who do not believe this potential child of Jacko could believably be his loveproduct, incontrovertible fact has been thrown the way of the world. For you see, Omer looks a bit like everybody’s favourite terrified-looking child, Blanket.

Scientific fact in your face, right there. Say what you like about waiting for actual proof, there’s still something special about the old-fashioned “possibly looking a bit alike, maybe” approach.

According to the best newspaper in the world, The Daily Mail:

The Thriller singer reportedly told close friends several years ago that he fathered Omer after a one night stand with a Norwegian fan in 1984.

The second best newspaper in the world, The Sun, quoted Omer’s father as using these words in a few sentences:

“Yeah, yeah, I know because I was watching. I told my wife, ‘Just wait until the press see this. It’s not a small thing’… Make what you like. I don’t want to discuss anything.”

What is really shocking isn’t the fact that Michael Jackson possibly has an illicit love-child. What is shocking is the fact that Michael Jackson allegedly had full-on, proper grown-up sex with a lady, in which he probably saw her completely bare.

Wasn’t he the type to normally have his spawn created from vats of primordial goo? Adult sex seems a bit out of character for Jacko, is all.

Regardless, if Omer Bhatti is Michael Jackson’s son (who he got through proper sexing) then at least the little tyke is following in potential daddy’s footsteps in becoming the Greatest Entertainer In The World (who we haven’t heard of until today). Though we have to say it’s a bit strange he chose now to appear to the world, what with the will popping up and all…

We don’t want to say it – we have to.

Bhatti is reportedly seeking a DNA test as we speak, so this should be over sooner rather than later.

Or at least that’s the theory. Having allegedly made enemies of his friends, neighbours and everyone who’s ever seen Zardoz from start to finish, Sean Connery has now apparently turned on his son Jason.

According to a book written by his ex-wife Diane Cilento, Sean Connery’s tricks have included removing Jason from his will and threatening to kill him during an argument about his name.

Apparently, it was all an effort to get Jason to stand on his own two feet, and it worked – without Sean’s help Jason would have never founded the My Dad’s A Miserly Bald Sod Who Inexplicably Wants Me Dead support group. Thanks Sean!

Sean Connery has had a life so completely different to ours that it’s hard to get a handle on the man. For instance, we haven’t been megastars for almost 50 years and he has, we’re not 77-year-old Scots and he is, and we’ve never been publicly referred to as a ‘rude, foul-mouthed fat old man’ by people we live near.

Sean Connery, as if you need to be told, apparently has.

What we’re trying to say is that it’s difficult for us to understand why Sean Connery does some of the crazy, anti-social things he allegedly does. Perhaps he’s got perfectly decent explanations for them all.

Perhaps, for instance, Sean Connery only allegedly punched his wife because she was a massive bitch. Nobody thinks of that, do they?

And maybe Sean Connery only decided to write his son Jason out of his will and threaten to kill him because he’s a useless layabout who wouldn’t know a decent day’s work if it came up and sliced his nipples off and who’ll never be as good at anything as Sean Connery because Sean Connery is 100% Sean Connery and Jason Connery will only ever be 50% Sean Connery at best.

That claim – the one about Jason Connery being disinherited – is made in a new book by Diane Cilento, the ex-wife who Sean Connery apparently slapped around a bit. According to Cilento, Sean and Jason fell out over an acting role, as The Sun reports:

“Sean said, ‘You only got this job (an acting role) because your name’s Connery,’” said Cilento. “Jason said, ‘Well, I’ll change it to something else.’ Sean said, ‘If you do that I’ll fucking kill you.’ Jason loves him but Sean has a problem about relationships, as everybody round him knows.”

We should probably remember that – although it’s not an impossible stretch to see Sean Connery as a cranky, foul-tempered, old bastard – this is from a book written by a woman with a grudge, so maybe it should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Still, we’d be eager to discover which acting role it was that caused the schism between the Connerys. Was it Jason’s role as James Dunham in one episode of Casualty 11 years ago? Or his turn as Professor Joel Barash in Wishmaster 3: Beyond The Gates Of Hell? Maybe it was Jason’s critically-acclaimed role as Bennington in the seminal TV show Mary Kate And Ashley In Action!

Because if it was that last one, there’s no way that being Sean Connery’s son affected his casting. No, he got that role the old-fashioned way – by being the only actor alive prepared to degrade himself enough to star in a Mary Kate and Ashley TV show. We hope Sean Connery feels very silly indeed now.

So we have nothing but respect for the family and former manager of Ray Charles, who managed to remain peaceful and amicable until he was long-dead, completely cold and probably quite rotten, and then they started having bitter, distasteful fights about his possessions.

Ray Charles’ 12 children have accused manager Joe Adams of tarnishing their father’s memory by releasing two Ray Charles albums posthumously that Ray would have never approved. We’re not so sure about that – Ray Charles Sings The Hits Of Emma Bunton and Ray Charles Mumbles To Himself About His Slippers have always been long-time favourites of ours.

When Ray Charles died, he went out with a bang. Not literally, of course – people didn’t drag Ray Charles onto a beach, stuff him full of dynamite and explode him like a whale or anything – but he made sure he went out at the height of his powers.

The last album Ray Charles made, Genius Loves Company, won eight Grammys and the film about his life that was made as he was dying, Ray, won two Oscars. So between that – and the money that Ray Charles accumulated in the 53 years since his first recording, you’d think that everyone would be happy with their inheritance.

Not a chance. The 12 children that Ray Charles fathered by nine women have all got the hump with Ray Charles’ manager Joe Adams. And that’s either because Joe Adams has systematically mismanaged Ray Charles’ estate since his death in 2004 or because they’re pissed off that Ray didn’t leave them a bunch more money in his will and they’re lashing out. Who knows? Either way, as The Associated Press reports, now the FBI is getting involved and all sorts:

Ray Charles’ children are accusing his longtime manager of mismanaging his estate and trusts and tarnishing his legacy by releasing two posthumous CDs the late singer never would have approved, according to a published report. In allegations outlined Sunday in the Los Angeles Times, several of Charles’ 12 children accused Joe Adams of holding too much power over Ray Charles Enterprises and the Ray Charles Foundation and excluding them from business dealings. They’re seeking a formal investigation and audit looking into their father’s estate, trusts and foundation for possible wrongdoing.

According to these allegations, Ray Charles’ kids all received $500,000 each in his will, along with a woolly-worded hint about possibly getting more “down the line.” Meanwhile Joe Adams – who’d been Ray Charles’ manager since 1961 – didn’t receive anything in the will, but he stayed in charge of all the business rights.

What this scrap boils down to, essentially, is the Ray Charles’ image rights. No mention of it was made in the will and the children are trying to gain control over it. Should they win, this row will disappear instantly and everything will go back to normal.

OK, that’s a lie – what we expect will actually happen is there’ll be a bunch of new lawsuits between the various children about how Ray Charles’ image gets used. For instance, one of them will probably want to remaster his back catalogue for iTunes, another will want to make a Ray Charles museum complete with lucrative giftshop, another will want to make a Hammer Man-style Saturday morning cartoon about Ray Charles’ adventures fighting crime and another will want to sell out old Ray Charles songs for the remix album Ray Charles Says: Poop Poop! All Aboard The Vengaboys Express!

All of which we’d be OK with, incidentally. Except the museum one. Ugh.

Read more:

Ray Charles’ children, ex-manager battle – AP

Because, without an illegitimate love child there'll be nobody around to contest our will and heap even more emotional suffering on our already distraught loved ones. And that's as big a part of death as toe-tags and scratching on the inside of your coffin at your own funeral.

Luckily though, Heath Ledger was ready for death because if reports are to be believed, Heath Ledger fathered an illegitimate love child when he was 17. Now, finally, perhaps people can start gracelessly squabbling over Heath's estate in a way that's uncomfortable to watch. About time too, if you ask us.

The sense of shock felt when Heath Ledger died earlier this year resonates even now. But, as is only natural, the shock has evolved and adapted over time. Now the gut-punch that accompanied initial reports of Heath Ledger's death have been replaced with a range of more nuanced reactions.

Yes, there's anger that a young man with such a bright future was snatched away from us in his prime. There's also possibly hyperbolic praise of Heath's work – his turn as The Joker in The Dark Knight will be one of the most praised of the year regardless of the actual quality.

And then, of course, there's greed. Pure, flat-out frothing-at-the-mouth greed. That's an important one.

The potential for things to go severely wrong reared its head a fortnight ago when it transpired that Heath Ledger's daughter wasn't in his will because he wrote it prior to his relationship with Michelle Williams. However, that was all put right when Heath's family promised to look after Matilda and Michelle. Snafu averted.

Or at least it would have been averted if only Heath Ledger had remembered to keep it in his pants when he was a schoolboy. Because now there's apparently a Heath Ledger love child running around with an eye on half of Matilda's inheritance. Metro reports:

Ledger had an affair with a 25-year-old woman when he was a 17-year-old schoolboy, according to reports by Sydney's Daily Telegraph newspaper. The woman was living with another man at the time of the alleged affair. Ledger's uncle, Hadyn Ledger said: "There is a very real possibility that Heath was the father." Another family source said: "She had the baby. Everyone lived under the assumption that she was the daughter of the mother's boyfriend and that is how she has been brought up."

Let's not forget that some quarters of Heath Ledger's family are still angry about the way that Heath Ledger's father dealt with his own father's inheritance, so this love child story could simply be an invention designed to sully reputations and anger other family members.

If it's true, though, and Heath Ledger did have an illegitimate daughter then the child could be entitled to a large slice of his inheritance. And as we all know, there's only one way to determine a the paternity of a child. It's thought that Maury's being airlifted to Australia now for this very purpose. Well, either that or one of Heath Ledger's relatives is a secret transsexual who wants to surprise their boyfriend. Maury's good for both.

Read more:

Did Heath father a secret love child? – Metro 

Because Heath Ledger didn't do that at all, which means his daughter Matilda has been left out of his will completely.

But rather than tear the Ledger family apart, as is usually the case when a celebrity dies with an out-of-date will, Heath Ledger's father has said that Matilda is the family's highest interest and that she will be 'looked after'. At least we think that's what he said. He was a little out of breath from shovelling all those shoe boxes of cash underneath the floorboards at the time.

If you ever want a perfect example of how to balls up your own death, look no further than James Brown. As sad as it was when James Brown died, it was nothing compared to the revelation that he had about 700 children and they all wanted a slice of his money. While they fought over the will, James Brown rotted away unburied in a corner of his house.

And, as Heath Ledger was often known as 'the white, Australian, young, unfunky, non-musical James Brown' before his death in January, it was only natural that he'd have an equally out-of-date will. As it turns out, that was completely the case. According to reports Heath Ledger's will was written in 2003, long before he got together with Michelle Williams or had his daughter Matilda.

As such, the will splits all of Heath Ledger's assets between his parents and siblings, missing out Williams and Matilda completely. However, knowing that raising a baby on the acting salary of Michelle Williams alone would result in starvation and probably death, Heath Ledger's father has stepped in to promise that Matilda will get her rightful share. MSNBC reports: 

After documents filed in Manhattan Surrogate's Court revealed that Heath Ledger's will left all his assets to his parents and siblings, the Ledger family is speaking out. "Matilda is our absolute priority and Michelle is an integral part of our family," Heath's father, Kim Ledger, said in a statement to the media. "They will be taken care of and that's how Heath would want it to be." … Ledger's rep quickly put to rest any speculation that Matilda and Michelle Williams would not be provided for, telling People, "The story is getting taken out of context and media is speculating that this means Matilda and Michelle will not be taken care of. I want to make it very clear nothing could be farther from the truth."

And that's it. No lengthy legal battles, no whispers of conspiracy, no reported videos of gay sex. Just a nice, normal, friendly agreement that makes quite a lot of sense for everyone involved. It's disgraceful. Everyone knows that when a celebrity dies, the surviving relatives should spend at least a fortnight tugging on the limbs of the corpse trying to get a bigger slice of the estate. That's the law.

And because that didn't happen, we're going to have to stop thinking of Heath Ledger as a celebrity at all. Not like Anna Nicole Smith who, according to our freakishly impaired logic, is now more famous than Jesus and Elvis Presley combined.

Read more:

Michelle Williams, toddler not in Ledger’s will – MSNBC 

In a recent interview, Nigella Lawson has stated that she's refusing to leave her children any money in her will, because she thinks that rich kids are arseholes and that not earning money "ruins people."

Nigella Lawson married a man worth £100 million and lives in his £7 million Belgravia mansion. And her dad used to be Chancellor Of The Exchequer. We're just saying.

You know what the world needs more of? Poor posh people. No, really, poor posh people are the best. With a poor posh person, you get all of the grating behaviour you'd except from the privileged – like the nails-across-a-blackboard voice, the embarrassing name, the condescension, the endless talk of childhood skiing holidays – with none of the upsides, like them suddenly deciding to buy you a pony on a mad posh whim.

Plus, since they're poor, they've probably decided to give dreadlocks a go. Poor posh people are brilliant. So it's just as well that Nigella Lawson is hell-bent on creating a couple more of them by not leaving her children any money at all when she snuffs it.

Speaking to My Weekly, Nigella Lawson revealed her plans to leave the kids out of her will:

"I am determined that my children should have no financial security. It ruins people not having to earn money. I argue with my husband Charles, because he believes that you should be able to leave money to your children. I think we'll have to agree to disagree."

In a way, we can see where Nigella Lawson is coming from here. She just wants to protect her children and stop them turning into Paris Hilton, and that's fair enough. Plus this way Nigella's final words get to be a croaked "fark off, you ain't getting nuffink!" and who can really say they haven't wanted to go out like that?

Plus all child psychologists agree that the healthiest thing a parent can do is raise their children in a £7 million mansion with a fleet of staff to carry out their every whim surrounded with enough money that they could literally want for nothing and then tug it all away from them by screwing them over in the will leaving them with tit-all. We swear we read that somewhere.

But now that she's not going to leave diddly-squat to her children when she dies, that leaves Nigella Lawson with an awful lot of money to try and burn through in her final years. Whatever could she spend it on? More tinfoil dresses? Enough cream cakes to make her arse continue to swell up like an infected cyst?

Or will Nigella Lawson spend her money on furthering the ridiculous Nigella Express pretence that she's a normal busy mother who rides the bus to work by recreating a full-scale Victorian slum to set her next series in, where all her recipes will heavily feature dead rats and baby-scabs, because she read in Tatler that that's how normal people live these days?

Frankly, who gives a shit. But at least it's good to see that Nigella Lawson is already giving her two kids – Mimsy Sniggleberry and Tarquarthaaar VIII, we think they're called – a head-start on knowing what it's like to be poor by giving them the shittest haircuts in all of history. That's bound to help them when she dies. That and the commemorative spatula she plans to leave them. They have to share it, though – Nigella's seen how one spatula each can ruin people.

Read more:

No millions for Nigella's children – Press Association