Obviously he brought them all up as his kids but Paris is clearly not his biological daughter, with the same applying to Prince.
But I've just seen some pictures of his third kid, Bigi (formerly Blanket) Jackson and he definitely has something of a resemblance to Michael. Is it possible that he's actually his real biological offspring?
yup (Blanket) is 100% his real son.look at recent pics of him.
shareYeah, I think it was recent ones I was looking at...
Anyway, I should have posted some links I guess. So,
Paris & Prince:-
https://people.com/thmb/mtVzW8OQ6kUPtgK5TnXpiKo5OWg=/1500x0/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():focal(769x259:771x261)/Paris-Jackson-Prince-Jackson-082024-02-2000-81ebd46630664ebb9c879a861259d4e6.jpg
(Clearly not related)
Bigi:-
https://cdn.i-scmp.com/sites/default/files/styles/768x768/public/d8/images/canvas/2021/11/03/3db5e12a-1ac6-48c9-b8b5-67d9fd355c72_326671f0.jpg?itok=LRy2J4E5&v=1635933636
(Quite possibly, Wacko's offspring)
Btw Blanket has his own podcast and is quite the movie nerd here: https://youtu.be/DHh7OY5ItfQ?si=mRZ9lQkXu0HHZEiO&t=10
Thanks for sharing that. He seems like quite a down to earth, level headed kid given his background.
And definitely looks like he could be Jackson's biologically. Which is interesting in that, if that's the case, I have no idea why he seems to have adopted the other two before just having a kid...
How would Paris & Prince look different if they were his children? Mother: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Debbie+Rowe&iax=images&ia=images
an anonymous surrogate mother gave birth to his third child, Prince Michael Jackson IIhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Jackson#See_also:~:text=an%20anonymous%20surrogate%20mother%20gave%20birth%20to%20his%20third%20child%2C%20Prince%20Michael%20Jackson%20II
I read his mom is Mexican.
share"(Quite possibly, Wacko's offspring)"
*sigh* Why don't you people stop with the coded tabloid insults and just call him the N word like we all know you want to? Anyway, not that it matters but none of Michael Jackson's children are his biologically, including "Blanket". I honestly don't even see any accidental resemblance and it's very, very unlikely that a kid who has 50 percent black American ancestry is going to end up with hair that's naturally straight. Michael Jackson had naturally kinky hair which is a very strong genetic straight that nearly always gets passed on from parent to child.
"(Quite possibly, Wacko's offspring)"
*sigh* Why don't you people just stop with the coded tabloid insults and just call him the N word like we know you want to?
"LOL 😂 That's pretty poor. He's been known as Wacko Jacko since the 80s due to his obsession with plastic surgery, having a pet monkey and playing with kids at his ranch. Literally everyone knows that and it has nothing to do with race..."
https://twitter.com/tajjackson3/status/1310293569849061376?lang=en
Michael Jackson and his family have publicly rebuked the name as the racist, dehumanizing slur that it always was. Your "Nuh uh, because I say so" logic to try to justify using it anyway simply means you don't care & as I originally suspected, get off on using it as a coded placeholder for the N word.
Again, not that it matters but Blanket is almost certainly not Michael's biological child. Perceiving some vague resemblance is one thing but you would have to be either blind or dishonest to claim that his hair is phenotypically consistent with Michael Jackson's natural hair in his youth.
You should watch the video the MC contributor einstein posted further up. If you look at his hair in that, you can see it's definitely got some afro-ness quality to it...
I really can't add anything further to your attempt to bring racism into something as embedded in history as "Wacko Jacko". I've already explained the origins of that and no one in their right mind would subscribe to anything different... Except perhaps modern day Americans attempting to bring racial divide into play over anything they think the possibly can.
"Why are you bringing race into this tabloid slur I insist on using to refer to Michael Jackson that Jackson and his family publicly rebuked as a dehumanizing, racist insult" i.e. "Nuh uh, because I say so"
shareSorry, like I said - b-llshit... You'll need to see if someone else is gullible enough to rise to such nonsense if you want to keep kicking this particular can back and forth.
No more from me. Good day to you Sir 👍🏽
"Sorry, like I said - b-llshit." aka "Nuh uh, because I say so"
I posted a direct source to the Jackson family where he & his family publicly rebuke the slur "Wacko Jacko" as a dehumanizing, racist insult. Your "I say so" routine just isn't going to cut it. If you want to use racially tinged insults to refer to black icons than at least own it instead of being a dishonest & weaselly about it.
LOL. You posted a link to a twitter comment from 2020 attempting to retcon the meaning behind a title coined in the EIGHTIES to describe his whacky behaviour.
As I said further up:-
Except perhaps modern day Americans attempting to bring racial divide into play over anything they think the possibly can...
Michael Jackson and his family are on record condemning the tabloid insult as dehumanizing, thinly veiled racism & no amount of doubling and tripping down on "Nuh uh, because I say so" will change that.
How does wacko translate to nig--r? Oh wait it doesn't
shareParasites all need to be doing forced labor in work camps.
sharemmm... I don't think that's fair. Michael took them all on legally, so they're entitled to their share of his wealth either way.
shareNah, they earned none of that money. Have you ever worked for the profligate son of a rich man? Incompetence. Nepotism and inherited wealth is killing this country. None of them did anything to deserve a dime other than be born to a kiddy diddler.
shareSo what should happen to the money any rich or poor person earns after death?
shareThere must be a cap on inheritance. Make them earn their own way. Nepotism destroys the meritocracy.
Of course if you're poor and all you own is a house, that goes to your children. But extra millions and billions? Fuck that shit. Those brats didn't earn any of that.
They claim in this country that people get rich because they work hard and deserve it. That's not true at all. Most wealth is inherited. I've seen more than one profligate son destroy his father's business through complete mismanagement.
Take them all - this idiot named "Blanket" (What a buffoon! 🤣), Paris Hilton, Prince George, Jaden Smith - and put them in work camps to wash off the sense of self entitlement.
You do understand that your smallminded point of view would demolish one of the biggest incentives for people to do anything?
Ownership means something is MINE and I will do and give it to whomever I want, now or when I die. No caps.
Succession taxes are there to somehow, possibly in a just and proportional way, redistribute some of that wealth.
But I don't think it's fair that somebody, smart or capable enough to own more than another, would be levelled down to that other's same level.
That is at the base of what is wrong with communism: it takes away the incentives that make people strive for achievement.
No, the big lie is that most these millionaires and billionaires earned their fortunes through hard work. That's the great myth of the 1%. Most wealth in this society is inherited, not earned.
And parents can and often do leave their children out of the will.
We want a true meritocracy. We don't want resources horded by the 1% and then given to their lazy profligate children.
We need a heavily progressive income tax on all inherited wealth.
You give your children the best upbringing and education possible. Then they're on their own. That's how smart people have always done it before we had idiot multi-millionaires named "Blanket".
the big lie is that most these millionaires and billionaires earned their fortunesin the mixed economy?
We don't want ... We needYou don't speak for me! share
Look, I agree with the meritocracy but I am saying is, what about the right of EARNING my property and giving it to whoever I want?
shareThat's bad for society. Like I've said, I've seen two good companies go down the tubes when a skilled father left control of the business to his lazy sons.
Nepotism and inheritance are bad. Tax the hell out of it to minimize its negative effect.
Like I already told you.
IT IS WAY MORE DAMAGING TO SOCIETY TO TAKE AWAY THAT RIGHT, THUS TAKING AWAY AN INCENTIVE TO DO MORE.
If I know that everything I own above 1 million dollars will be taken away from me and redistributed, why would I ever strive to do more than that?
THAT IS THE MAIN REASON WHY COMMUNISM DOES NOT WORK.
You work for yourself and the betterment of your family.
But I never expected my dad to provide for me.
This idiot "Blanket" doesn't need 150 million dollars. Tax the hell out of it and leave him comfortable but not ridiculously wealthy when he's done nothing to earn it.
That's not communism, it's a progressive income tax.
1 Blanket, nor anybody else on the planet, does not need 150 m.
2 His father EARNED that money
3 His father had the right to do whatever he wanted with HIS money
How do you solve this conundrum?
I give the precedence to the earner and HIS rights with HIS stuff.
You give it to the Blanket and his needs (or lack of thereof).
I see society as a cohesive whole. My argument is that nepotism and inheritance have an overall negative effect on society. I'm not a libertarian. I believe income tax should be used to level the playing field and stop the excess.
Jackson did not make his fortune independent of this society. The wise use of limited resources takes precedence over what Jackson wanted. Without this society, Jackson would have had nothing.
Nope.
Society is there to help and push each and everyone to their goals.
This strive to reach these goals in turn pushes society forward.
One of the clearest goal is economic success.
You take away this push in ANY way, and the result is inevitably people stting on their ass because...what is the use to do anything?
I honestly don't think a young Michael Jackson did anything for future children who never existed at that time. He did it for himself and his immediate family.
That's like saying that single people with no children just sit on their ass and don't do anything.
Single people with no children do whatever they want KNOWING THAT THEY CAN LEAVE THEIR SHIT TO WHOMEVER THEY WANT.
Take that away and they will sit on their ass right away.
Like you said, MJ did it for himself AND his immediate family.
Anyway, I am not saying that people ONLY do stuff for their heirs. I am saying that a huge incentive to keep doing is the notion that that stuff is YOURS to use or to give, instead of yours temporarily to be taken away from you when you die. That to me makes it not mine right away: I build a house that I own, it's MINE to use or to give away, not the fucking state's.
Still, Blanket Jackson has a net worth of 150 million and the dumb kid probably doesn't know how to wipe his own ass. That's 150 million in resources which could be better spent elsewhere.
So there is something wrong with the system. And this is why Marx proposed an end to this system.
And if we don't want to go so far as to take people like Blanket Jackson out into the fields and shoot them in the back of the head, like Mao did, we have solutions like the progressive income tax which can tax the fuck out of inheritance and leave Blanket and Paris Hilton a small tidy sum. But no way in hell should they be living like they do.
So there is something wrong with the system.
Correct!
And this is why Marx proposed an end to this system.
Sure!
Is the solution worse than the problem?
Fuck yeah!
This issue is similar with government systems.
Democracy is the worst kind of government-except for all the others.
Capitalism is the worst kind of economy-except for all the others.
No, I'm suggesting that rather than have a Marxist revolution to solve the problem, we use a progressive income tax.
So rather than put Blanket Jackson on a reeducation camp chain gang, we tax away 99% of his inheritance windfall.
Yes, and I'm suggesting that what you are suggesting is not different than what Marx suggested.
The reality is this: no matter how much you proportionately tax the rich, the gap will always be there. Unless you go crazy like you or Marx suggested, which is take away everything they have.
Then you have to take away everything everybody has.
Then nobody does shit anymore, like in communism.
Just see it as a whole: you are changing the system to correct its unbalance, but breaking its fundamental basis of incentives, thus you are effectively breaking the system.
Can't have it both ways: either you have people working for themselves, or you have people having others work for them.
In the first system, you have a higher economic output because everybody has to work and has a chance to actually becoming rich, thus more wealth is produced (which also goes around).
In the second system, you have a bunch of slackers (which would love to be given a chance to become rich, but the system prevents them) and way less production overall (unless you start whipping people like slaves, which most commuist countries do anyway).
I prefer the first system.
You see everything in all or nothing extremes - communism on one end, anarchy on the other.
I used to be a libertarian until I realized they were just shills for the wealthiest 1%. No regulations on business, no social responsibility. Bottom line, if you want rat hairs in your food - vote libertarian.
The best system for us now is free enterprise with a strong proactive progressive government to put checks on the excesses of the 1%. That's why we have a graduated income tax.
Sorry, but no way in hell is this simp Blanket Jackson the best person to wield control over such a large share of our society's resources. Resources are finite. And if this guy hordes more, others have less.
It seems like you do not read what I write.
I agree with all your points.
But progressive taxation does NOTHING to solve the problem, unless it becomes extreme (like tax 99% above 10 million).
But that is a milder form of communism, and it will bring society to the same results as any other form of communism.
Like I said, your solution to this problem is a Pandora box to a horde of other WORSE problems.
It's not communism. It affects no one who even leaves a million bucks to their kids.
It only prevents the inheritance of immense wealth and power from a parent to a child who never earned it.
It allows for a true meritocracy.
I already acknowledged its advantages.
You have ignored my point about ts biggest flaw: it leads to people refusing to do anything, it kills ambition and the human spirit.
LET ME PUT IT IN YOUR LANGUAGE: IT CREATES A WHOLE SOCIETY OF BIGI THAT DO NOTHING AND EXPECT IT FROM THE STATE.
That makes no sense. I work for myself and my family now. I give the best foundation and education for my children now. When they graduate from college they're ready to begin their own lives.
If Bigi has nothing he better get off his ass and earn it. That's the incentive.
Look, you dream of living in this ideal world where faulty social mechanics don't lead to extremes.
As you can see, THEY DO.
In capitalism, the faulty mechanic you are clumsily trying to fix, is "people have no limit to accumulate as much as they can". This leads to idiots inheriting fortunes.
You reverse that and put a block to that (any limit that is indeed effective, like you propose) and you get communism. Give it enough time and the limit you set will lead to people not doing shit.
Put a billion dollars limit for instance, that's a huge amount of money for a single individual. There would be no Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, etc. since all of their founders had the exact idea of building a company that competes on that level to GET THE ADVANTAGES that kind of company entails.
No founders, no company, no jobs and economic prosperity for everyone else neither, nor the state.
Your solution, which seems fair and appropriate, just breaks the economy for what it is, and turns it into what I am telling you it would: communism.
No, we have a graduated income tax already. We just need to use it to target the unproductive hoarders - especially those who gain their ill-gotten gold through inheritance.
You don't affect the profit motive because higher taxes on profligates like "Blanket" Jackson mean lower taxes for those of us who work our butts off for our families NOW.
Rich man did something to deserve to leave his wealth to his kid, or what-/whomever?
shareNo.
shareWhatever rich man produced, doesn't belong to rich man?
shareWhat he produced belongs to him. What he inherited is subject to taxes. I pay like 40% tax on my income. This idiot named "Blanket" is worth 150 million. Why does he pay less percent taxes than me? 99.6% of his inherited wealth should have been taken and redistributed for the benefit of society, not his fat black ass.
shareNone of those children are his biological. Take pictures of Blanket and 17 years old Michael Jackson. Before operations and vitiligo. There is nothing alike.
God knows who are their fathers. Probably took sperm donor. And it's speaking that Michal Jackson did not pick up sperm donor of black man. Instead chose white women and white father for his children. Also you can see that there were no "black boys" that he took on tours and invited to live in his house. He obviously didn't like his race.
Sometimes black/white parents give white passing children. But not all 3. And they often have curly afro hair they try to hide. Halsey, Wentwort Miller, Meghan Markle.
At least Paris and Prince know who their mother is and have relationship. Poor Blanket doesn't even know who his mother is. I assume Jackson just bought him. They found young pregnant woman who wanted to sold her child for adoption. They gave her money and that was it. I'm sure she didn't even knew who that child was for. She dealt with lawyers.
All of them are his adopted children. And it's funny how Paris, a 100% white woman, sometimes runs around and pretends to be black or bi-racial. Her mother Debbie knows if she had sex with Jackson and could say it publicly. But she wont spoil her kids legacy. Won't be surprised if they implanted sperm in her and told her it's actually Jacksons. So she might believe it is.
Like Jackson could really do that and be actual biological father. But I assume he didn't want black kids. That's the only explanation. Or he was impotent and could not do that.
Well I'd 100% agree with you re Paris and Prince. And a few days ago (since I didn't really have any particular interest in this) I'd have agreed with you re Blanket.
But, just digging around, looking at a few photos, definitely shows some resemblance and he definitely has some black genetics, unlike the other two:-
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fmichael-jacksons-son-blanket-looks-unrecognisable-during-v0-rrxvp4ptdhlb1.jpeg%3Fwidth%3D1140%26format%3Dpjpg%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3D991bd517d707989a0236d8732219168363bf3881
It's kind of funny because if it turned out he WAS actually Jackson's biological kid, that would be the bigger surprise!
There is nothing alike. 2 eyes, nose, mouth. People want to see what they want to see and take pictures from similar positions and imagine. You cant put him next to pictures of RDJ, Brad Pitt and any other famous celebrity and "they would look alike".
People also forget that children don't look like their parents most of the time. It's rare. They don't have to.
Take Matt Damon kids. None look like him
https://people.com/thmb/BK_twOF2zmEXc0aoFimMzlAYBqY=/1500x0/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():focal(689x9:691x11):format(webp)/Matt-Damon-Laughs-with-Daughters-and-Wife-Luciana-Barroso-at-Air-Premiere-032823-12jpg-50e87dbbfc00499b811f82b5f63f3241.jpg
Sarah Jessica Parker and Matthew Broderick. Zero resemblance.
https://people.com/thmb/GQa_fGYfAhkIrUNv82cForeRqu4=/1500x0/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():focal(719x9:721x11):format(webp)/Sarah-Jessica-Parker-and-Matthew-Broderick-Hit-Red-Carpet-with-Their-3-Kids-in-Rare-Family-Outing-121222-1-c0bc62bef3de4651bd9f25361661d343.jpg
Brendan Fraser's Sons
https://people.com/thmb/rummnluu3ko3siv3nqJDbiMt4HM=/1500x0/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():focal(704x9:706x11):format(webp)/brendan-fraser-with-his-sons-at-the-whale-premiere-113022-1-ba501c1d93604e9d8e2c83f9268cc474.jpg
Gwyneth Paltrow's
https://people.com/thmb/YvpsGwcjneKG0dnqdcdPuEM-tWE=/1500x0/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():focal(719x0:721x2):format(webp)/gwyneth-paltrow-kids-1-9522-26e5f08ba9a947a49a451be9cd390901.jpg
Russell Crowe sons
https://people.com/thmb/pxxE1LDT7yTRBOno-qQBIcToLGY=/1500x0/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():focal(495x207:497x209):format(webp)/russell-crowe-a422cb15dd7547a6850ede85ee096240.jpg
Nicole Kidman
https://people.com/thmb/QUWRuy1obW3SeLUKxbPD-1bMiQU=/1500x0/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():focal(749x0:751x2):format(webp)/nicole-kidman-69844db2b372473197c09ea298589daf.jpg
>>God knows who are their fathers<<
It's been pretty much confirmed that Michael's dermatologist, Arnold Klein, is the bio father of Paris and Prince, there's several articles about it on the net. But who knows about Blanket? It could be anyone.
And unfortunately, Klein died a few years ago. The kids won't be able to have a relationship with him.
None of that is proven. Just another wishful theory. Their fathers are probably sperm donors.
shareI don't think it is, I think it's Klein, he even confessed that it is. Plus, look at this picture, they look almost identical...
https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.7d2d34ca2aa09c77521e61d052a7e052?rik=0o9XrCTk5QcEnA&pid=ImgRaw&r=0
Children don't always look identical to their parents. Why do people made that up and started searching for proofs in pictures of adults around Jackson circle I don't know. He could easily be son of any other friend of Jackson who looks nothing alike.
Look at Kristen Stewart parents. They look nothing alike. Yet related.
https://people.com/thmb/1F8QELitksZVIHWueSYz7q_0vpg=/1500x0/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():focal(748x126:750x128)/Kristen-Stewarts-Parents-John-and-Jules-Mann-Stewart-021524-1-69e0fe3cb63c4c39991cb6078959c197.jpg
Michael hanged out with Emmanuel Lewis.
A biracial child can look white with straight hair. And yes, all the couples' children could look white. I personally know plenty of biracial kids who look 100% white.
Ex. This is Eartha Kitts' daughter
https://www.bet.com/article/yl4dal/eartha-kitts-daughter-kitt-shapiro-talks-about-being-questioned-if-shes-truly-earthas-daughter-due-to-her-complexion
Two black people can have a child who looks white, too. Some of Oprah's boyfriend's family looks white although everyone is black.
I believe Debbie said sperm was used in an interview. She never had sex with him. She told him that he would be a great dad and agreed to carry the children for him. She immediately signed away her rights.
Blanket's mother could be Prudence Solomon, a South African actress and friend. Blanket resembles her and MJ said B's mother was black.
It appears Michael preferred to have friends parent the children. Debbie for the two oldest. Maybe Prudence for the youngest. Oldest looks like Dr. Klein.The daughter doesn't and I don't believe they share the same father.
Eartha Kitt is biracial herself and her father is white. Michael is black-black.
Prudence Solomon looks biracial and Michael is black. I can't see them having completely white child.
I'm not saying it's impossible. But no way he had 3 children and all 3 are perfectly white passing. Not even curly hair. Even Meghan Markle has curly hair she tries to hide.
Is there a family of balck-white parents where all 3 children would be 100% white? Where black parent is black and not bi-racial?
I think Jackson was impotent and he could not have give sperm. There is not one person out there who said they have sex with Jackson while dating. And they would come out by now, proudly to brag. He was fake dating Brook Shields. Fake married to Presley daughter. None of them slept with him. And those boys Safechuk and Wade Robson said he tried to have it with them but nothing came out. It looks like Jackson could not put it up.
That's why they used some other guy. And with Blanket he could just buy random child from a young mother who was already pregnant and wanted to give for adoption. I believe it was like that.
To clarify, I wrote that Jackson probably never used his sperm for any of his kids since he had a complex about his features thanks to dad's "joking". I believe all 3 children had different fathers.
It appears he wanted to know the mothers. He could have adopted the first two, but chose to "marry", impregnate using sperm and giving her money. That's a lot of trouble to go through instead of just getting a kid through a private adoption. Surrogacy /friends appeared to be his preference.
Presley said they had sex.
He could have been mainly asexual, too. Too shy, too many hangups, low self-esteem, or just not his thing. We'll never know for sure.
Blanket strongly resembles Prudence. I'm betting she's his mom. They have the same eyes, brows and facial bone structure. His dad's unknown.
Dark-skinned blacks can have a 100% white-looking kid with straight hair, white skin and facial features. I had a neighbor and schoolmate's sibling who did.
Paris has actually taken a DNA test and has Sub-Saharan ancestry, so there!
https://furienna.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/screenshot_20240317-164702_photos2.jpg
Maybe.
I read a long time ago that Bigi's mother was a South African actress named Prudence Solomon who was a friend of Michael's. I see the resemblance and Michael did say Bigi's mother was black. They have similar eyes, jawline and facial structure.
https://www.google.com/search?q=prudence+Solomon&client=firefox-b-1-m&sca_esv=d143a126214438bd&sca_upv=1&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi2zZXn29KFAxWXkokEHXaCCvgQ_AUIBigB&biw=372&bih=678#imgrc=ArDqdAfe6IwGlM
Interesting. I agree re the resemblance around the eyes.
But anyway who is that other chap and what first attracted that beautiful woman to him?!
MJ appeared to have many friends who would help him if asked. I think both Rowe and Prudence agreed to be surrogate moms for MJ.
Other chap? I'm not sure to whom you're referring. Prudence married and they have a daughter.
Other chap? I'm not sure to whom you're referring. Prudence married and they have a daughter.
Jerry Inzerillo.
https://www.arabnews.com/node/1932266/saudi-arabia
Wedding video with MJ!!
https://reuters.screenocean.com/record/993288
I hope one of the kids writes a tell-all one day. Then, some of the mystery will be solved.
UPDATE: I found this:
Page 201 of " My Friend Michael" by Frank Cascio: describing MJ looking through a book of donors for Blanket's conception.
"I liked her eyes and her skin tone. She had beautiful black hair.The bio said she was part Italian and part Spanish" and " ultimately she was the one he picked".
"A surrogate mother was pregnant with Michael and the donors baby".
So far this is the only account from someone close to MJ. Blanket does look as though he is a combo of Italian, Spanish and black to me."
She was married when Blanket was born, so this book could be true. Who knows?
People are just projecting and start searching any random people who were near Jackson circle and declare: "That's father or mother".
At this point I think this woman would come out after Jackson died if she was the mother and would have relationship with Blanket. The way Debbie Row has some relationship with her children.
Children do not have to resemble their parents. Prince looks noting like his mother Debie Row. If his mother would be hidden - people would jump at any random women around Jackson circle and try to put pictures together and say: "Look, he slightly looks like this woman".
Apples and oranges. Rowe was married to Jackson. She signed away her rights to both children and left them for Jackson to raise completely alone as per their initial agreement. A depressed and suicidal Paris sought out her mother and wanted a relationship with her which is the only reason Rowe is in her life. Prince has nothing to do with her.
Prudence is married and has her own family. Blanket is doing fine without her.
The truth is one DNA test away if the children choose to go that route.
Kids resemble a parent, both parents and/or grandparent(s). If you don't resemble any of the above, then you're adopted. Dont be like this guy:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rDJ16Vr-Ow0
I don't think his children would now run around and ask any adult who Internet conspiracy theorists thinks can be their parents for DNA test.
- Mam? Excuse me. Here these people on the internet put together our picture and claim you are my mother. Would you please take DNA test? Oh. test showed you are not. Ok, I will now go and ask another person who Internet named....
Kids don't resemble. Sometimes they do slightly. Most of the time they don't. I know plenty of friends, family, neighbors. I look at them and their parents and they don't resemble each other in any form. Brothers and sisters don't resemble. No, they are not all adopted. LOL.
I've taken DNA tests. You spit in a tube and anonymously send it to a lab. You can see relatives pop-up and their likely relationship. Many will use their real names so I can tell if they're on my dad's or mom's side. A couple of distant cousins have contacted me and we have exchanged family tree history and photos.
I hope you liked that scene from The Jerk. Funny movie! You linked photos of kids who did resemble their parent(s) although you said otherwise. You may not have a good eye for it.
How do you know Prince has nothing to do with her?
I actually never understood Debbie Rowe. Like fine, she honored her deal why Jackson was alive.
But then he died. And kids were small and alone and were willing to have relationship. And it's not like she is anonymous womb donor. She was legally married to kids father. There are pictures where she is holding both children. She was in their life. She is their Mother. Not some distant biological. Real.
Why didn't she start spending more time with them when he died? It would be better for their mental health and happiness. Because they never had mother. Yet she actually is here and you can touch her and spend time with her.
You can actually see how Paris inserted herself in her moms life and sees her as her mom.
https://people.com/celebrity/paris-jackson-celebrates-badass-mom-debbie-rowes-last-chemotherapy-treatment/
I wonder why Prince is not that much into having relationship. I guess girls need mother more then boys. Paris wanted to have mom and reached out. While poor Blanket has no one to reach out to. I wonder if he actually can research his own existence. There have to be documents. Jackson could not just steal him. There has to be birth certificate.
At the time, I was bothered by the agreement that MJ would raise the kids without her, too.
She basically acted as a surrogate, not a real wife. The fake marriage could've been about respecting his mom's religion since out of wedlock kids is unacceptable. Rowe said in an interview that she told him he should be a dad. It was her idea. She would volunteer to carry the baby as a gift for him. She made it clear that the kids were his alone and she would have nothing to do with their upbringing or lives.
Paris appears to be more sensitive and emotional than her brothers. I think she took MJs death harder, too. All the children have their grandmother and other family members. They have a huge family and appear to be close. They appear to be enough for the two boys.
DNA test would reveal family.
I think it's great that Rowe and Paris bonded and support each other.