One picture can answer so many questions....

The picture to the left has been doing the rounds for just over a week now and at first I was really against posting it (pictures of celeb kids I've always thought to be incredibly distasteful), however upon reflection I find it interesting how one picture can say so much.

The boy in this picture is Prince Jackson the eldest child of Michael Jackson who until recently along with his two siblings, was not thought to be biologically related to Jackson. Although when looking at this photo (which has not been retouched) it's obvious that Prince has been stripped of the pigmentation at the top of his right arm - suggesting, perhaps, that he suffers from vitiligo, the disease that for years Michael had insisted he suffered from. So not only could this photo prove that Prince is indeed the late superstar's biological son, but that Michael really did suffer from vitiligo and was not 'bleaching' his skin as had been widely assumed by most of the press and public.

I find it fascinating that in death, we have learned more about Michael Jackson than we ever did during his life. The fact that he probably could have scuppered rumours of his children's true biological identity and his own skin condition by showing Prince's loss of pigmentation, suggests that his children's dignity mattered more to him than his own public persona. Michael Jackson, the perfect father? Perhaps not, but he certainly couldn't be anywhere near as terrible a father as his own.

On a related note, I never found it that strange that Jackson always tried to hide his children's faces and identities in public (before his death last June, the Jackson children were normally only seen behind masks and vales) - it's easy to understand that someone who grew up in the public eye and had been scrutinised since childhood would want to shield his own kids from a similar fate. I mean, it hardly did Michael's psyche any favours. Here's hoping that Prince and his siblings continue to grow up away from the public spotlight, although this very post suggests otherwise.