Paul McCartney

[india7]

Well, it depends on your notion of "pretty". I think Jane Asher had that conventinal prettiness about her - she didn't look any different from any of the dozens of pretty girls back then. Linda wasn't conventionally pretty and I daresay she was actually kind of plain (and I don't mean that as an insult - I loved Linda!). But I'd read an interview with Paul where he explained that what attracted him to Linda over Jane was that Jane was just this girl. He said Linda was a woman - she'd been divorced, she had a child who she was raising alone, she had an interesting career that went beyond just sitting around looking pretty. She definitley had more substance to her than Jane, IMHO, and alot of times, that's just better than a cute face and a perky ass.

And if you look at Jane and Linda from the viewpoint of Beatles fans who took interest in the relationships, most of whom were screechy teenage girls, that's all that would matter to them - which one was more conventionally pretty. Not which one he was better suited for, not which one had really lived an interesting life that fascinated him, not which one he himself considered a woman instead of a girl. Just which one had longer lashes and better hair.

[Deleted]

Maybe now at least Paul can toke in peace.

[Peggy Lane]

But I'd read an interview with Paul where he explained that what attracted him to Linda over Jane was that Jane was just this girl. He said Linda was a woman - she'd been divorced, she had a child who she was raising alone, she had an interesting career that went beyond just sitting around looking pretty. She definitley had more substance to her than Jane, IMHO, and alot of times, that's just better than a cute face and a perky ass.

It's sort of to bad that Sir McCartney didn't remember his preferences for grownups when he got involved with the soon to be former Lady McCartney. You are right, though. Jane Asher was an adorable girl living the cool London life that I bet a lot of Paul's fans wanted to be. Linda was far more complicated.

[beautifulanddamned]

I liked Linda fine, but I think that's being pretty unfair to Jane Asher. She grew up in an eccentric. cultured, well-educated family and started acting professionally at the age of five. She started her career before Paul started his. And from everything that I have read, Paul couldn't stand that she didn't give up her career to follow him around and cook him dinner and have his babies. After all these years, Jane is one of the few people associated with the Beatles that haven't sold out and written a tell-all. She seems pretty class to me. If having a child and being divorced gives you substance then Linda had it and Jane didn't, I guess. But Jane was more then a pretty face.

Anyway, I liked Linda. And can't stand Heather Mills.

[redpanda]

nursenoir said:

Maybe now at least Paul can toke in peace.

As it should be done!
Blaming the media is so old and played out. They could have come up with a better excuse.

[Deleted]

india7 said:

Well, it depends on your notion of "pretty". I think Jane Asher had that conventinal prettiness about her - she didn't look any different from any of the dozens of pretty girls back then. Linda wasn't conventionally pretty and I daresay she was actually kind of plain (and I don't mean that as an insult - I loved Linda!). But I'd read an interview with Paul where he explained that what attracted him to Linda over Jane was that Jane was just this girl. He said Linda was a woman - she'd been divorced, she had a child who she was raising alone, she had an interesting career that went beyond just sitting around looking pretty. She definitley had more substance to her than Jane, IMHO, and alot of times, that's just better than a cute face and a perky ass.

And if you look at Jane and Linda from the viewpoint of Beatles fans who took interest in the relationships, most of whom were screechy teenage girls, that's all that would matter to them - which one was more conventionally pretty. Not which one he was better suited for, not which one had really lived an interesting life that fascinated him, not which one he himself considered a woman instead of a girl. Just which one had longer lashes and better hair.

I just want to add that although I adore Paul McCartney and really liked Linda, I have to take exception to him comparing Jane and Linda. Jane dumped Paul for cheating on her with Francie Schwartz (sp?) after Jane apparently walked in on them when she came home unexpectedly. Jane, much to her credit, has never spoken about it or spoken about Paul even though she has been asked repeatedly to comment. However, Paul has over the years taken small potshots at Jane which I can't understand since she has shown such restraint and class. But as
beautifulanddamned pointed out, he was bothered by the fact that she didn't give up her career to follow him and I also think that his ego can't take the fact that she was the one who dumped him. Its fine if he wants to explain why he loved Linda and why he married her but it shouldn't be at the expense of Jane and implying that Jane didn't have enough substance for him and/or wasn't good enough for him.

Anyway, I feel sorry for Beatrice. And I detest Heather Mills-McCartney.

[Deleted]

borborygmus said:

My impression of HM was that she's a forthright, take no shit kind of woman. I liked her in TV interviews; she seems attractive and genuinely interested in helping people. The public never gave her a chance, IMHO, and she could never live up to Saint Linda.

I dunno. When she and Paul first started dating, I thought Heather was gutsy and honest. And anyone who can take off a false leg on national television has my support. But (among other sentiments on this board), she quickly appeared to be cold and steely. And the more I heard about her, the less I liked her. I think that anyone re-marrying a famous widow is going to have to ensure a certain level of crap from the public. Yet after a few years, genuinely endearing people tend to win at least SOME public support. And you'd think someone who's been in the public eye for, what, 13 years (first in '93 after losing her leg, then as an activist) would be know how to hold some vague public appeal. I don't think she married Paul for money and fame, I just think she's got an attitude of 'my way or the highway'. She's a trail of marriages/engagements lasting for a very short time, a sign of someone who, despite being likeable, is obviously a bit hard to live with.

Poorfrances -- I agree that Paul and Linda had the occasional problem (who wouldn't during 30 years of marriage?), but I don't think it's a case of the public 'forgetting about it'. They spent only three nights apart (not counting his 10 days & nights in incarceration in Japan) which doesn't allow for too much 'going off to blow off steam'. Marriage is a matter of give and take, which Linda was evidently able to do without sacrificing her sense of self. I think Heather, largely due to her upbringing (or lack thereof), was (is?) unable to 'give' without feeling threatened. I don't think Heather's a malicious person, just a bit of a pain in the arse.

Have to admit as a Beatles fan it's a bit sad that Paul will be spending his 64th birthday alone. Out of all birthdays to be separated, you know? Poor bloke.

[Ginger]

I don't believe Paul cheated on Linda. Whenever there is a happy, long-lasting couple, somebody makes that kind of vague accusation with no proof whatsoever. (See also: Newman and Woodward.) Paul only spent a few nights away from Linda and involved her in all of his activities, including his band. His life was not set up to accommodate cheating. I'm going to have to hear some specific names and occasions before I'll believe it.

What I find odd is that they are blaming the media for being to intrusive in their lives, therefore making a normal marriage impossible. But wasn't the media more intrusive when Linda was alive? I never hear about Heather and Paul unless she's doing some charity event, but then again the American tabbies don't really write about them. (are they staple fodder in the British tabbies?)

I don't find it odd that they are blaming the media since Heather has gone on and on whining and complaining about how awful the media is. She said the first year of her marriage was the worst of her life because of it. (Even worse than when you lost your leg, Heather? Jeez.) It bugged the hell out of me because she was clearly the one who was chasing after the publicity. (Paul was too, but since he wasn't that way before Heather, I have to believe she was the one leading the way.) And then once they had the baby, they seemed to completely disappear and were never in the media anymore (except for recently on their anti-fur/anti-seal hunting campaigns). Maybe Heather's upset because she's not getting enough publicity these days.

[Shanmac]

Have to admit as a Beatles fan it's a bit sad that Paul will be spending his 64th birthday alone. Out of all birthdays to be separated, you know? Poor bloke.

Aw. I hadn't thought about that. I love Paul, so that makes me really sad.

[celebrityfly]

redpanda said:

nursenoir said:

Maybe now at least Paul can toke in peace.

As it should be done!
Blaming the media is so old and played out. They could have come up with a better excuse.

I totally agree with you. They need to accept the responsibility for the relationship ending. You have a huge fortune, you can afford to live a very private life at some big private estate in England.