Photo Credit: Pacific Coast News

Michael Jackson’s exwife Debbie Rowe decided NOT to get dressed up and go to his memorial service today at the Staples Center. She had a front row seat reserved for her, but we wonder if she felt awkward running into her children, Prince and Paris, whom she deliberately hasn’t seen in years. (We have a feeling they wouldn’t be thrilled to see HER, either.) Instead Debbie lounged around her ranch in Palmdale wearing her pajama top that says “Hi Ho! Hi Ho! It’s Off To Sleep We Go!” and cared for her horses.

Posted by Janet on July 7, 2009

There are 15 Comments.  TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK!

15 Comments so far

  1. By The Dudette
    On July 7, 2009 at

    It’s all weird isn’t it?

  2. By Tanzy
    On July 7, 2009 at

    Just ask the 3 kids who they want to live with.

  3. By Beachy
    On July 7, 2009 at

    I’d choose a horse, too! This chick is the KEY to the child molester’s mind.

    A horse? or a dead child molester? Hmmmm…

    I’ll bet his contract with her didn’t include post-mortem details. Maybe not – but her actions speak volumes.

    Those poor tube-test babies.

  4. By Reta
    On July 7, 2009 at

    She is one hideous bitch! Why she didn’t chop HER face up like he did is beyond me, she certainly deserved it more than he did!! She has GOT to have the ugliest chin in all of “entertainment” so to speak, and should get the gross thing whittled down to a manageble size before she gives her horses a heart attack. I know the kids are NOT biologically related to this pig, none of them have her hideous chin! Thank god someone donated eggs and someone else donated sperm so these kids have a chance at turning out normal and not scared by the freaks who claimed to birth them. DNA!!!!

  5. By right
    On July 7, 2009 at

    Those are awful astute comments for someone who can’t even keep their website up & operable. btw- how many responses you have? 5. Its a wonder the server hasn’t crashed with all this traffic.

  6. By Lulu
    On July 8, 2009 at

    Janet and the site rocks

  7. By captain america
    On July 8, 2009 at

    WHO, the hell, IS THIS FAT & LAZY PIECE OF SHIT, folks?

  8. By T C
    On July 8, 2009 at

    Hmm…Debbie Rowe and MJ had a deal. She trusted him to be a good dad and he was. However, unexpectedly and unfortunately MJ is no longer in the picture. There is no deal between Debbie Rowe and the Jacksons. And it is her right now to re-evaluate with the circumstances at hand.

    There have been reports that the children were not close to MJ’s family either. Right or wrong about that, Katherine Jackson is 79 years old and not only is near the end of her life span but probably unable to keep up with 3 fairly young children. Not in the best interest of these children.

    Moreover, Katherine was apparently not very effective at keeping Joe Jackson away from MJ (who verbalized abuse at the hands of JJ) and probably will even be less so now; a potentially dangerous situation for MJ’s children. I believe both MJ and Debbie Rowe were/are adamant about Joe Jackson being kept away from these children. She wants a RO on JJ, which would seem to be in the best interest of the children.

    So who in the Jackson family will actually raise these children? a nanny/parent? will the children be shuttled from one Jackson relative to another? Terrible ideas. (although keeping previous nanny does sound like a good idea…just not in a parental role) Children need stability and 1 parent at least, not a committee. Not in the best interest of the children.

    Debbie Rowe has offered to take all 3 of the children. I do believe that under these unexpected circumstances that she wants these children and will do right by them. It would be traumatic to separate them.

    Debbie Rowe, as well as some well-known close friends of MJ (Eliz Taylor) purposely did not attend the MJ memorial to avoid the whoopla. Admirable, this shouldnt be a public side-show. But that was MJ’s life and most of the Jacksons’ lives as well. Give these children a chance at a different choice.

    To all those “haters” out there..have you ever made a decision when you were young that you regretted? If you say “yes” you’re human, if you say “No” you’re a liar.

  9. By Hoolia
    On July 8, 2009 at

    Does anyone think she would have been welcome at the memorial? The Jacksons hate her and will do anything to keep her from getting the kids because they want access to MJ’s bank accounts. They don’t give a rat’s azz about those kids.

  10. By angel
    On July 8, 2009 at

    Janet site ROCKS.

    afew days prior to Michael Jackson’s death Janet had an Article showing Michael Jackson with prince Michael going to Dr. Klien’s office and two days later he was rushed to the hospital , that Dr. looks so cripy , maybe that’s why they are looking into it to why what happen during that visit and what he priscriped to him.

  11. By Debbie
    On July 9, 2009 at

    She looks like one mean bitch…

  12. By Dianon
    On July 10, 2009 at

    There were A LOT of good friends of MJ who didn’t attend. Diana Ross was one in particular. SO WHAT? I HATE funerals and would prefer to never attend another!

    Debbie didn’t attend because MAYBE, just MAYBE she wanted the fans/media to focus on MJ’s memorial and not sensationalize her being there.

    This woman can’t win with the media – either she’s horrible because she wants her kids or she’s horrible because she’s stepping back for a moment to think about things.
    From my viewpoint, SHE needs to get the kids out of Hollywood. It’s not like they were super close to the rest of the JAcksons – MJ banned them all when they tried to stage an intervention a few months ago. I am just glad someone let them show their faces!

  13. By Bettye Bluejay
    On July 11, 2009 at

    Oh please, she’s not the biological mother. Of course, she’ll take the kids, lots of moola in that to mismanage for the next 15 years.

  14. By Obama
    On July 12, 2009 at

    Judgemental aren’t we? It is obvious that their pregnancys were a business arrangement. No one should villify this woman because she AND Michael had a deal going.

  15. By Ricky
    On October 10, 2009 at

    I might perhaps have done the same thing, i mean it is so embaracing to stand in front of her kids which i might say she abandoned.Its even good she didn’t attend because she could be emotionally uncomfortable since Michael was once her love. it’s easy to comprehend and who knows what happened, the kids ain’t even hers.


XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

By submitting a comment here you grant Janet Charlton's Hollywood a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/web site in attribution. Inappropriate comments will be removed at admin's discretion.

Follow Janet

blog advertising is good for you


Custom Search
© 2006-2012. All rights reserved. Janet Charlton's Hollywood.
Web Development by Strange, Funny, Weird, Dark | Private Policy

blog advertising is good for you


    This bad boy seems to have calmed down since he got serious about his former pornstar girlfriend and he has his friends wondering WHY. What’s so special about HER? We hear she keeps him satisfied by supplying her MALE porn costars for his entertainment. The bad boy pays each guy $5000 per visit so they are highly motivated to make him happy. It’s a family affair – the girlfriend watches while the bad boy fiddles around with the guys!


  • RSSArchive

Hottest Movies This Week!

Janet Charlton’s Hollywood Blog Archives

Previously Posted Items

October 2016
« Sep