laurolive

[laurolive]

Too adorable not to reblog. 😘💕

This was obviously inspired by the Beatles’ last photo session, which took place on August 22, 1969, at John and Yoko’s 72-acre estate, Tittenhurst Park. Yoko and Linda appeared in some of the photographs. Both Paul and John had been married to their respective brides for five months.

Love the cute details captured in the drawing: The side part in Linda’s hair. Linda’s pregnancy bump. Linda’s maternity dress with the embroidered bodice. Paul and Linda’s matching apparel colours. Paul’s hair length. Linda’s sandals … with the toe strap too!

Side by side, and always thisclose.

”I see a lifelong marriage and four beautiful children on the horizon.”

Paul and Linda … and some other people.

”Heh, heh, heh, we ditched George.”

Eight arms to hold you. 💙 And dig those sandals! 🩴

Tiny Paul & Linda

[laurolive]

What to make of this comment?

Without context, I found it odd that she didn’t say, “I feel the most relaxed around Paul.” The guy is, after all, her husband-to-be at this time (early 1969)— the one she’s been living with and is pregnant by — who at this point is presumably her most intimate friend and confidante.

This is akin to hearing a married (or practically married) woman say, “The man I feel the most relaxed around — with whom I can just unwind and be myself and not have to worry about being judged — is my husband’s co-worker Joe.” lol. It almost made me wonder what’s so intimidating about Paul (or what’s so insecure about Linda) that prevented her from feeling 100% relaxed, comfortable, and unselfconscious around Paul.

Well, context changes everything. Paul and Linda were fine, perfectly relaxed together. I haven’t seen the Get Back documentary; but I gathered that the subject of Ringo was brought up in conversation (by Michael Lindsay-Hogg?). I think Linda was sharing her opinion on the Beatle with whom she felt most comfortable chatting on her own without Paul there to be buffer and protector. John might have been too unpredictable because of his drug use and George too moody for conversation, especially given the tensions in the band at this time. Ringo was the least threatening of the three.

Linda was also navigating new waters because her life was becoming more public now that she was attached to Paul. For the first time, she was in front of the lens instead of behind it. She was getting enough public scrutiny as the latest Beatle love interest; she didn’t need to contend with John’s and George’s conflicts with Paul possibly spilling on to her. Let’s face it, John and George could be such divas, simultaneously resenting Paul’s imposition yet competing for his attention.

Perhaps out of Paul’s colleagues, Linda felt the most relaxed around Ringo because Paul currently had the most easygoing relationship with Ringo out of all his bandmates. She didn’t have to worry about Ringo starting an argument and her having to defend Paul. Ringo was no diva.

And it’s hard to feel relaxed around divas.

________________________________________

©️ laurolive, laurolive.tumblr.com, www.tumblr.com/laurolive, www.tumblr.com/blog/laurolive, 2025

________________________________________

Paul & Linda McCartney with Ringo Starr, July of 1980.

❝ I feel the most relaxed around Ringo. ❞

- Linda McCartney talking about the beatles in the Get Back/Let It Be documentary.

[laurolive]

A Kiss that Made the Papers

Where were you in ‘82?

24 September 1982, London. A triple threat event: Linda’s 1st London photography exhibit, launch party for her 2nd photo book, and possible birthday party. Photo by Robert Rosen.

(See also The Guardian Archives 21 Sept 1982: First London exhibition for Linda McCartney. Although the article states that the events occurred on her 40th birthday, Linda was actually born in 1941; so this would have been her 41st birthday.)

“I got it!” recalled celebrity photographer Robert Rosen of the moment his camera captured a kiss between the McCartneys. “That photo went worldwide…” [link1, link2]

It instantly appeared on page 5 of the Friday 24 September 1982 issue of The Daily Mirror [link], complete with its own title and a little essay (reproduced below).

YESTERDAY… And after 13 years together a kiss is still something special for Paul and Linda by WILLIAM MARSHALL GENTLY, almost shyly, Paul McCartney kisses his wife, Linda. It happened at a party in London to launch Linda's latest book of photographs. The kiss is loving, sexual in a restrained kind of way, absolutely decent and breathes of a solid conventional marriage of four-square family values. The normal pattern for a multi-millionaire star like Paul would have been several divorces, a string o1 multi-coloured affairs, and a rapidly fraying life. Instead, McCartney, at 40 an enduring elder statesman in the ragamuffin rock world, beats a steady path into middle age with an ex-divorcee for a wife. They married more than 13 years ago. When I first met Paul twenty-odd years ago in the rackety, smokey music cellars of Liverpool he was a bright-faced kid for whom the world had suddenly been flung at at his feet — along with the rest of the Beatles. But even then, while all about him exploded into hysteria and chaos, he viewed the present and future with an eye like an experienced general before a battle. He came from a steady home background, adored his father and never subscribed to the passing whims and fancies that dictated that families, kids and lifelong marriages should be kicked out the door.

Takeaways

Paul doesn’t look so shy to me, ha ha (neither of them do).

An elder statesman of rock?? Beating a path to middle age?? But he’s only 40! And a young looking 40 at that. Let’s not call him an elder statesman until he gets some gray in his hair or until he reaches the titular age of 64, whichever comes last. On a more serious note, though, Marshall was probably speaking of generational impact rather than literal age. McCartney wrote more influential music before he turned 30 than most composers had written in a lifetime.

“… families, kids and lifelong marriages…” Count Mr. Marshall as a perceptive observer who could tell that what Paul and Linda had was a lifelong marriage — even at the relative “newlywed” stage of a mere 13 years. 😎

And Paul and Linda loved the photo. They have a copy. 💋

In a 20 Sept 2017 interview in I-D magazine [link], Rosen was asked which one of his photos he was really proud of. It was the Paul and Linda kiss photo, of course. Rosen says,

“I love the shot of Paul and Linda McCartney kissing. As soon as I had it developed I just thought, wow, I did that. I sent them a print but didn't hear anything more until a few months later, when, Paul and Linda turned up to a gallery event I happened to be at. At one point, Linda tapped me on the shoulder and said, 'Are you ignoring us?' She gave me a big hug and told me they loved the photo. That obviously meant a great deal to me.”

_____________________

[laurolive]

This is hilarious. 😆🤭

I’ll file this under “Things Yoko Ono never said,” but boy, that’s the most entertaining fan fiction I’ve read recently.

“I think that if it wasn't for me, he never would have married Linda at all… He just married her to prove that I didn't mean anything to him.”

This was published in 1989. The guy made his female protagonist delulu before delulu was even a thing.

On the other hand…

I had some qualms about calling this “hilarious” and “entertaining” because I don’t want to encourage memoirists like John Green to put lies into the mouths of famous persons.

Yet this conversation / interview is so OTT that it harms no one’s reputation; no one would take it seriously (I hope).

The passage says more about John Green than it does about Yoko: It says Green is the type of guy who won’t let reality interfere with an amusing narrative. 😎 This made-up account, as humourous as it is, also reminds me to keep the truth in mind after I’ve had my chuckle. I recall the eloquent and sincere tribute Yoko wrote for Linda after her death in 1998 [link, alternative link], which keeps me grounded in reality.

This ‘quote’ from Yoko is certainly something

"It's a pity, really. I like Paul! I think of him as a friend. John is the one who doesn't like Paul. Paul was always the cute one and John was jealous of that. When I first met Paul I was attracted to him. I'm like that when I really like someone. I try to get close to the guy who's close to the guy I like. That's why I was getting close to John, so I would be near Paul if he wanted to make a move. And Paul was attracted to me, I could see that. But he couldn't handle the idea of being attracted to somebody John was with because that would be a violation of the fraternity rules. I was someone else's property; that's how men think, you know. So then Paul was very frustrated because he wanted me and felt that he couldn't have me. That's why he always acted so mean to me. Men always think like that, you know. If they can't have a woman they want to punish her. But I think that he was always a little interested because of the way he looked at me. Even when he used to come here with Linda, he was always looking at me funny when he knew Linda and John couldn't see him doing it. There were other things too, like he got married because John and I did."

"I thought that he got married to Linda before you married John."

"Well he did, but he knew that John and I were planning to, so right away he married Linda so he would get the headlines first. He's like John that way, very competitive. I think that if it wasn't for me, he never would have married Linda at all. She was just a groupie, you know. I don't think they ever would have married if it wasn't for the competitive pressure between John and Paul and Paul's frustration about me. He just married her to prove that I didn't mean anything to him. I think he does still feel something about me though. Do you want to read on that and see how he's feeling about me?"

I did and it didn't look like love. Disdain, maybe, contempt certainly, but definitely not love.

"He seems to have gotten over his infatuation with you."

"Are you sure? That's very funny. Well, he hasn't seen me in such a long time, so maybe that's it… I don't know why men think that I'm so attractive. But they all seem to. I can tell from the way they look at me—Do you think if Paul were to see me that he would be attracted again? I still like him, you know."

Excerpt from ‘Dakota Days’ by John Green

[laurolive]

Paul and Linda go to the Movies

Here they are attending the U.K. premiere of Midnight Cowboy on Sept. 25, 1969. Hmm, I wonder what other movies they saw around that time…

Paul and Linda after seeing Ringo’s movie The Magic Christian. Paul is delighted that the movie wasn’t his idea and that he wasn’t in it. Linda is happy for Paul that his hit song was the only good thing about the movie.

____________

Paul and Linda after seeing The Magic Christian.

Linda: Why the big smile? You said it was dreadful.

Paul: But it made Magical Mystery Tour look like a masterpiece in comparison.

Linda: Well if you’re happy, I’m happy!

____________

Paul and Linda after seeing the final version of the film Let It Be.

Paul: That dredged up the bleakest memories of the band’s disintegration.

Linda: Cheer up! Just think about the time Ringo farted in the studio.

Paul: Linda, you’re brilliant. Now I can’t wipe the smile from my face. 😆😆 🤣🤣

____________

Paul: That Rosemary’s Baby was hilarious.

Linda: Totally, but everyone else seemed scared.

Paul: Maybe we should stop smoking pot before we go to the movies.

____________

Linda: That Midnight Cowboy sure had a downer of an ending.

Paul: Then why is it we can’t stop laughing?

Linda: Pot.

Paul: Oh yeah… pot.

____________

Paul: The best part of Midnight Cowboy was the acting.

Linda: The worst part of Midnight Cowboy was not having any Paul McCartney music on the soundtrack.

Paul: Hey, I knew I married the right girl! 🥰

____________

Disclaimer: Of course, I don’t know Paul and Linda’s actual opinions of any of the movies mentioned. 😎 😉

________________________________________

©️ laurolive, laurolive.tumblr.com, www.tumblr.com/laurolive, www.tumblr.com/blog/laurolive, 2024

______________________________________

[laurolive]

A Retro Moment

For mercy’s sake, Paul, dedicate this one to Linda. 🎵 🎶

After the premiere of his classical composition Ecce Cor Meum (Behold My Heart) at the Royal Albert Hall on 3 Nov. 2006, McCartney gave an interview the next day for BBC Radio 4's Today programme, which was reported by The Daily Mail [link].

From the interview:

“He said Ecce Cor Meum was inspired by his first wife Linda, who died from breast cancer in 1998. She was with him when he was first asked to write the piece 10 years ago and after her death he stopped working on it due to his grief.

"’When Linda died, that was obviously a huge shock and a very difficult time for the family and it stopped me writing anything,’ he said. ‘It was a year and a half after that when I started to creep back into the studio and see if I could do anything.’ Sir Paul said the Interlude part of the composition was particularly sad and his ‘cathartic’ way of getting back into music.

“But the musician said he had not dedicated the piece to Linda because by the time it was finished he had a new love interest. ‘I had found a new woman in Heather and it wasn't really appropriate to dedicate it to Linda,’ he said.”

What nonsense did I just read?

It was inspired by Linda; the interlude expressed his tentative emergence from grief after Linda’s death. BUT he couldn’t dedicate it to Linda because there was a wife no. 2 on the scene?

Paul McCartney, sometimes you make no sense, and this was one of those times.

Why would it be inappropriate to dedicate it to Linda regardless of whom he is married to? She was an important figure in his life for three decades, who joined him in his love of music, and with whom he raised four children who gave him (and her) much joy. If he had written a piece inspired by his friend and collaborator John Lennon, he would (rightfully) have no issue dedicating it to John regardless of whom he is friends and collaborators with now. Why should it be any different with Linda?

Paul himself said of Linda in an interview with The Times [link] in June 2011:

“She is a very powerful memory because I was married to her for nearly 30 years. Now, in my relationship with my new girlfriend, Linda is a powerful presence…”

At least Paul was of sound mind at that time. Where was this sentiment in 2006?

_________________________

Paul married Heather Mills in 2002 over the protests of his children, who deeply disliked and distrusted her. She likewise disliked his children; but not only that, she had no respect for the memory of their mother. Mills was jealous of Linda and could barely abide her name being mentioned.

Paul, who was by all accounts a devoted family man, has stated that he loves being a dad and that his children are his proudest achievement. In an appearance on The Oprah Winfrey Show in 1997, he stated that the greatest gift he and Linda gave each other were their kids. (I would post a link, but that segment doesn’t appear to be on youtube anymore.)

How Inexplicable

How inexplicable then, that he chose for his life partner someone who positively bristled against his children, for whom the loss of their mother was still fresh.

💔

Maybe it’s poetic justice for being so inconsiderate of his children’s feelings that McCartney sounds like such a fool when looking back, as this passage from The Guardian (2008) shows:

“… on their engagement, he [McCartney] commented that "being in love with her makes me want to write songs." and one composition inspired by her was used as the bridal march at their wedding. (Among the lyrics prompted by their love was the deadweight ‘She makes me feel glad/I want her so bad.’) 🙄

“But even as muse, Mills annoyed some members of the public — after all, hadn't that always been Linda's role, wasn't she usurping that perfect first wife?”

_________________________

As for Heather (and Nancy ❤️)

As for Mills, she presented as self-centred and craving recognition. Despite her charitable campaigns that raised millions for amputees, her affinity for the ulterior benefits of charity — the media attention, the praise from dignitaries, etc. — tainted her contributions in the public eye, rightly or wrongly. This was in contrast to Linda, whose sole concern in her vegetarian projects really was strictly for the animals, as she didn’t expect to gain any praise at all [link, p. 617].

This quote from The Guardian in 2008 suggests what might have been Heather Mills’ primary attraction to Paul McCartney:

"Mills is very much a product of our society, a person in love with fame and celebrity, and that dazzled her."

Even if it wasn’t exactly a love match on Mills’ part, she still rankled if she wasn’t the centre of the relationship. She certainly had her issues, as is evident in this fascinating article from 2009. She did not seem to grasp that Paul’s marriage to Linda was not severed by alienation or breakdown, but that he lost her while he still very much loved her. That love doesn’t turn off like a tap; he will always have a strong spiritual and memorative link to her. If Mills couldn’t handle that, she shouldn’t have married him.

Thank goodness for Nancy, who has the generosity of spirit to understand that Paul can’t simply sweep Linda out of his memory. She knows that he has room in his heart for both of them.

_________________________

So let us return to where we began:

“But the musician said he had not dedicated the piece to Linda because by the time it was finished he had a new love interest. ‘I had found a new woman in Heather and it wasn't really appropriate to dedicate it to Linda,’ he said.”

Um … how about because your children would like to see it dedicated to their mother?

Honestly, what kind of brain fog was McCartney under during his marriage to Mills that made him forget he had children with Linda, and that these children had feelings? SMH. 🤦‍♀️ Why tiptoe so gingerly around Mills’ feelings? This was late 2006; he had already filed for divorce months earlier.

Come on Paul, do the right thing next time. If it was inspired by Linda, originated with Linda, and evokes Linda, then dedicate it to Linda.

________________________________________

©️ laurolive, laurolive.tumblr.com, www.tumblr.com/laurolive, www.tumblr.com/blog/laurolive, 2024

______________________________________

[laurolive]

Paul and Linda Photo Poll

This has been asked before BUT, unbelievably, the Ram sessions were omitted from the choices. 🙀 This egregious oversight must be rectified with a revised poll. Without further ado, please decide…

Representative photos are below.

May 19, 1967: Sgt. Pepper press launch at Brian Epstein’s house

__________________________________________

Jan. 1969: Get Back sessions

__________________________________________

Mar. 12, 1969: Wedding day

__________________________________________

London 1970: Hugs at home, in the garden

__________________________________________

Late 1970 / early 1971: The Ram Sessions

Work on the Ram album began October 1970 and was completed in March 1971. The photos of Paul and Linda in the studio were taken at CBS Recording Studio in New York City, probably late 1970.

Right photo: Scotland 1970, included in the Ram Songbook, 1971.

_____________________

[laurolive]

The Paul and Linda romance and relationship "this is so none of my business, but I wonder about it anyway" Poll

The poll is back with a fresh one-week run time. I had taken it down early due to technical glitches with my blog (since resolved by Tumblr). I hope those who voted in the earlier version of the poll before it was deleted will recast their votes here. ☮️

Yes, it's none of my business, and the lovely couple have never said (and were never under any obligation to do so; they don’t have to tell the fans and the public everything).

But that won't stop social media from speculating. When you are "Rock's Greatest Love Affair," people are going to be curious about when the special and significant moments occurred.

💘

Look what you started, Paul and Linda❣️❣️

_____________________

[laurolive]

Paul and Linda performing a Blackbird / Bluebird / Michelle / Heart Of The Country medley (x) For @thebeatles

[laurolive]

Hilarious Journalism: A look back at the “Linda Tapes” The Daily Mail’s 2006 headline story (“Macca buys Linda tapes for £200,000”) is one WTH and SMH of an article.

Here’s a recap of what the “Linda tapes” were about:

In 1987-89, vegetarian writer and literary agent Peter Cox assisted Linda McCartney with her first vegetarian cookbook, Linda McCartney’s Home Cooking. He said that they made use of tapes to record recipes and ideas.

In Oct. 2006 — seventeen years after his collaboration with Linda — Cox told the British tabloid The Daily Mail that some of the tapes contained Linda’s emotional confessions: she felt trapped in her marriage and considered leaving Paul because of his controlling nature. [Daily Mail 28 Oct. 2006: “Linda wanted to leave Macca.”]

The following week, Nov. 4, 2006, The Daily Mail reported that McCartney met with Cox and paid him £200,000 in exchange for the tapes. [Daily Mail 4 Nov. 2006: “Macca buys Linda tapes for £200,000”.]

The first article (“Linda wanted to leave Macca”) was ridiculous enough — a tabloid story full of sensationalistic tabloid language. (Among the gems was Cox’s recollection that Paul’s eyes “were deader than any I had ever seen.” 😒 Did Cox meet Paul McCartney or Satan? 😈)

But the follow-up article, “Macca buys Linda tapes for £200,000,” was something else again.

_____________________________

A headline spun out of thin air

Here is how The Daily Mail began the article:

MACCA BUYS LINDA TAPES FOR £200,000 Daily Mail.com Showbiz 17:00 EDT 04 Nov 2006, updated 05:47 EDT 05 Nov 2006 “Sir Paul McCartney has secretly paid £200,000 to secure audio tapes which reportedly contain explosive allegations about his marriage to his first wife Linda. The recordings — which his second wife Heather Mills wants to use as part of her divorce claim that he was abusive towards her — were handed over to Sir Paul during an extraordinary cloak-and-dagger meeting in a Central London café. “Sir Paul bought the tapes from literary agent Peter Cox, who made them with Linda when he was co-authoring her 1989 book Linda McCartney's Home Cooking.”

The rest of the article contains not a shred of information about this reported purchase. How did The Daily Mail find out about this “secret” payment? Who was its source?

When was this money paid? Where? How?

Where did the figure of £200,000 even come from?

The Mail quoted plenty of witnesses to the two men breakfasting together at a London café called Eat on Wed. 1 Nov. 2006, BUT it supplied no witnesses to any payment being exchanged or even discussed. We don’t even know if tapes were actually handed over; the witness saw only the transfer of an envelope.

WTH, Daily Mail? You gave us more details about what Cox and McCartney had for breakfast than you did about where you got your headline.

🤦‍♀️

The headline reminds me of this maxim:

What is presented without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

Just declaring out of the blue, without explanation or evidence, that McCartney paid Cox £200,000 for Cox’s tapes makes the declaration dismissible. It’s so devoid of confirmation that no reader can be expected to give it credence.

_____________________________

I thought surely The Daily Mail was playing an inside joke for its own amusement by posting this OTT piece.

So McCartney and Peter Cox had an “extraordinary cloak-and-dagger meeting in a central London café.” Could someone explain to me how two persons have a cloak-and-dagger meeting (read: furtive, secretive) in broad daylight at a café frequented by the public? How clandestine could it be where patrons could recognize one of the parties and overhear practically everything he said? 🤭

SMH. Leave it to The Daily Mail to carry on like it exposed high level espionage when it basically reported that one guy passed an envelope to another guy over coffee.

After the introductory paragraph(s), The Daily Mail ditched any pretense of having a report to back up its headline, and instead turned its attention to the REAL story: 20 paragraphs of McCartney complaining about what a bitch his soon-to-be ex-wife Heather Mills was.

Well, it seemed like 20 paragraphs, brought to us courtesy of eavesdropping café patrons.

That’s when I was convinced that The Daily Mail fabricated this entire piece from whole cloth, with the staff writers particularly flexing their comedic creative writing muscles.

According to one of the eavesdropping diners:

"Paul told him he had been followed by a journalist that morning but had lost him by getting the driver to double back a few times to give him the slip. He said his driver was up the road keeping a look-out."

The Daily Mail can’t help aggrandizing its own reporters at McCartney’s expense. For all his caution to avoid journalists, ol’ clueless Paul, as per The Mail’s portrayal, failed to see that they were right under his nose. That crack team from The Daily Mail had stealthily infiltrated the café and were ready to pounce on patrons for quotes.

[a customer said,] "… they took the table next to me. Paul didn't seem to be worried about who was listening or he wouldn't have spoken the way he did.” “One diner said: ‘… the next minute Sir Paul was telling him all these things that left me unsure of where to look.’”

Good thing McCartney and Cox took a table out in the open. Good thing too that McCartney spoke loudly enough for fellow diners to hear him, or else The Daily Mail wouldn’t have had this story to give us. 😜

McCartney was reported to have said this:

“It's just my luck to have all these problems. I am really miserable, bullied actually. It just p***** me off, it is such c**p. I am being described as a b****** and it's just not true'."

What language! The Daily Mail writers must have had a good chuckle pretending that the publication for which they work is too refined to display low-class words like “pisses,” “crap,” and “bastard.” At the same time, though, it’s not so refined that it can’t regularly publish unverified hearsay.

Then we have this from a witness who also heard McCartney speaking to Cox:

“He said no one had told him what Heather was really like when he married her. He said his daughter Stella was the only one who warned him. Then he said, "She (Heather) really hates Stella".

Ah, if only someone had warned him, he would have surely listened and called off the whole marriage. PMSL. 🤣 He didn’t even listen to his own daughter. Paul “Imma do what I want” McCartney brought this one on himself, I’m afraid.

“Last week it was claimed that Stella had to be restrained from launching a verbal assault against Heather...”

What key words will readers remember from this sentence? RESTRAINED ..: LAUNCHING … ASSAULT. Much more dramatic than writing Stella had to be talked out of giving Heather a piece of her mind.

In an odd juxtaposition … to be continued.

_____________________________

I thought no way would McCartney meet with Cox in public just to chat, let alone chat about such personal matters.

But…

When photos of the two men at the café surfaced, I had to admit that they must have had a personal meeting after all. Since that part was true, I guess the article couldn’t have been a TOTAL invention.

Maybe the conversation was trustworthy, even if not 100% accurate; I’m just not sure. I must say, though, that it warmed my heart to read about Paul finally regarding his 2nd wife with clear eyes and acknowledging that Stella was right. 👍

And please Daily Mail, I beg you, if you wrote anything else that was true here, let it be this quote: “One diner said: ‘They spoke about Linda at first and it was clear that both of them really adored her.’” ♥️

_____________________________

The Daily Mail article was originally accompanied by these photos of the two men together at the café, which have been reproduced on the web site Celebitchy [link]. The photos seem to support that the pair did meet in person.

Wed. 1 Nov. 2006. Paul McCartney and Peter Cox met for a half-hour breakfast at 10:00 a.m. at the café Eat in SoHo Square, London. Peter Cox’s identity confirmed from the photo on his wikipedia page [link].

_____________________________

SMH to see that some people have brought up this tabloid fiction (Macca paid Cox £200,000 for tapes) in Beatles forums over the years and have taken it seriously.

Moreover, they maintain that, since Paul bought the tapes, he must be guilty and doesn’t want the truth to come out.

People need to go to the source and read the original article more critically and see it for the phoney baloney it is.

The Daily Mail’s headline made no sense. As the article stated, Cox was already legally barred from making the tapes public or quoting them. What good would it do McCartney to buy them? Cox could have made copies of them for all he knew.

🤷‍♀️

Again, WTH Daily Mail? It’s like you’re pointing arrows at your own report and saying, “This is so tabloid. Don’t believe everything you read!”

… and maybe that was the point.

In this particular article, and I’m sure others, The Daily Mail had a core story, which it surrounded with obvious tabloid elements, which I think were inserted to protect itself from libel lawsuits. The core story here looked to be McCartney’s unfiltered opinions on Heather Mills.

If Mills had sued, The Daily Mail could argue that the half-humourous tone of the piece, its unsubstantiated headline, and its implausibilities were proof that its show business section peddles unconfirmed celebrity gossip and is not meant to be taken seriously. It is strictly for entertainment purposes, and its readers know to take its articles with a grain of salt. Instant defense.

At least that’s one theory to explain this bizarro article to myself.

_____________________________

And finally, here are 3 other sources that bolster the conclusion that McCartney did not buy Cox’s tapes

No. 1

Peter Cox’s 2007 interview with John Buckman, in which he said he never sold the tapes. Per Cox’s wikipedia page 2007 to 2021 [link]:

“The ‘Linda Tapes’ “Media interest in Sir Paul McCartney’s divorce from Heather Mills McCartney resulted in much speculation concerning the contents of tape recordings made by Linda McCartney and Cox during their time together. Despite reports to the contrary, Cox has denied selling them and has called most press speculation wildly inaccurate.”

John Buckman [link] established Peter Cox’s wikipedia page on 19 Oct. 2007. He claimed that much of his material came from a private interview he did with Cox [link - Comment 1].

The statement was removed from Cox’s page on 3 Dec. 2021 [link] when it was found to contravene wikipedia rules that prohibit contributors from using their own research as a source. See endnote 1.

No. 2

Philip Norman’s 2016 biography, Paul McCartney: The Life, states that Cox didn’t give McCartney any tapes when they met in person [Norman 2016, p. 771, search term: Cox]:

“The Daily Mail subsequently reported a clandestine meeting between him [Paul] and Peter Cox…. at which Cox had handed over a large brown envelope. According to the Mail, this contained audio tapes she’d [Linda] made with Cox on which she’d talked of her victimisation by Paul, and which he was now buying for £200,000 to prevent them being used against him in the divorce. 

“In fact, the envelope contained only a copy of Cox’s book, Why You Don’t Need Meat, containing a foreword by Linda that Paul had never seen.”

Since Cox didn’t hand any tapes over to McCartney, presumably McCartney didn’t pay £200,000 for something he didn’t receive.

I have to ask, though, who was the source of this “fact” that the envelope contained only a book? BTW, see endnote 2 about accessing Norman’s book online.

No. 3

This 2017 development cautions against trusting original stories published by The Daily Mail.

In 2017 wikipedia banned The Daily Mail from being used as a source, describing it as unreliable and citing its “reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication.” [Link] Although this ban occurred over a decade after Cox’s original allegations appeared in The Daily Mail [“Linda wanted to leave Macca”], it has been applied retroactively to Cox’s own wikipedia page. See endnote 3.

_____________________________

GOT SOME ENDNOTES HERE

(1) Peter Cox’s wikipedia page

Wikipedia rules: A contributor can’t use his own original research or self-published content as a source for any wikipedia entry, and certainly not in a living subject’s page [link].

(2) Accessing Paul McCartney: The Life by Philip Norman (2016) online

The book can be downloaded from scribd.com if one signs up for a 30-day free trial [link]. 

The U.K. version, titled Paul McCartney: The Biography but otherwise identical, is searchable on the internet archive [link]. Enter a search term to read any pages containing that term. 

Hint 1: To read the pages preceding or following your searched item, enter the applicable page number as a search term. 

Hint 2: There may be restrictions on the number of pages you can view in an hour (“Limited Preview” message); just try again later.

(3) The Daily Mail’s poor reputation led wikipedia to ban it as a source in 2017. This also affected Peter Cox’s wikipedia page.

The sections of Cox’s page titled Involvement with Linda McCartney and The “Linda Tapes” (both viewable here), which had been part of Cox’s page from 2007 to 2021, were both removed by 3 Dec. 2021 (link1, link2) because the only source cited for them was The Daily Mail (specifically its original story about the tapes [link]).

________________________________________

©️ laurolive, laurolive.tumblr.com, www.tumblr.com/laurolive, www.tumblr.com/blog/laurolive, 2024

________________________________________

[laurolive]

That is a great find. I’ve never seen these polaroids before.

I think, though, that Rosen is mistaken on the event and the season in which he snapped those pics (hazards of a busy party schedule, I suppose 😊).

The photo below, also by Rosen and viewable on prahranlegacy.org, appears to be from the same event as where the three polaroids were taken: same clothes, same hairstyles, and Linda is wearing the same necklace.

That event was Linda’s 1st London photography exhibit / launch party for her 2nd photo book (and possible birthday party) on 24 September 1982. (See also The Guardian Archives 21 Sept 1982: First London exhibition for Linda McCartney.)

Caption: Robert Rosen (1982) Paul & Linda McCartney at Abbey Road Studios London.

______________

I believe this is the photo that Rosen says went worldwide. The photo’s publication in The Daily Mirror on Friday 24 September 1982 is also shown on prahranlegacy.org:

Caption: Robert Rosen Daily Mirror – Friday 24 September 1982 p.5

______________

😘

And of course we can’t omit this lovely interpretation of the photo as given by The Daily Mirror: ❤️

“The copy in the Daily Mirror decodes the image for breathless readers:

“Gently, almost shyly, Paul McCartney kisses his wife, Linda. It happened at a party in London to launch Linda’s latest book of photographs. The kiss is loving, sexual in a restrained kind of way, absolutely decent and breathes of a solid conventional marriage of four-square family values. The normal pattern for a multi-millionaire star like Paul would have been several multi-coloured affairs, a string of divorces, and a rapidly fraying life.” 💋

______________

Rosen also talks about the snap in this excerpt from a 20 Sept 2017, interview in I-D magazine:

What's one photo you're really proud of? 

Robert Rosen: I love the shot of Paul and Linda McCartney kissing. As soon as I had it developed I just thought, wow, I did that. I sent them a print but didn't hear anything more until a few months later, when, Paul and Linda turned up to a gallery event I happened to be at. At one point, Linda tapped me on the shoulder and said, 'Are you ignoring us?' She gave me a big hug and told me they loved the photo. That obviously meant a great deal to me.

Paul & Linda McCartney photographed by Robert Rosen, 1982 (x) "There was a Music Awards Party at Abbey Road, the famous recording studio. It was 1982 and I crashed it. Paparazzi were outside, it was snowing and they were there freezing with their zoom lenses. My snappy was in my pocket, the security guy saw me and because I always liked to dress well must have mistaken me for a pop star. He said, "Hurry up inside the awards are starting," and whisked me through the doors. Next thing I know I am inside standing next to Paul and Linda McCartney. We began a conversation and I asked to take a shot, they were in a joyous mood and most accommodating as you can see. On the third click they kissed - I got it! That photo went worldwide and I sent them a print to say thank you. Six months later I bumped into them again, but didn't assume they would remember me; however Linda called to me, "Darling are you ignoring us? Come on, give me a hug." It meant so much to me, maybe more than anything, that she loved that photograph." -Robert Rosen

[laurolive]

What is toddler James McCartney trying to tell his Dad?

Ah, the possibilities…

Little James: Daaad, you’re supposed to give me all your attention every second of the day, 24/7 !!!

More:

Little James: Mommy’s trying to feed me vegetables. Quick, daddy, hide me under your shirt!

____________

Little James: You’ve got three seconds. Give me my pacifier or your shirt is going in my mouth.

____________

Little James: Daddy, it’s an emergency! My nappy’s gonna need changing soon, and I’m not even wearing one yet.

____________

Little James: Will somebody PLEASE finish dressing me?

____________

Little James: I feel a draft. Daddy, lend me your shirt.

____________

Little James: Don’t worry daddy, I’ll have this shirt stretched into a horse blanket in no time.

____________

Little James: 🎵 I’ve got a feeling 🎵 … that my nappy needs changing. [Pretend he’s wearing one.]

Little James: That reminds me, where’s my pacifier?

More:

Little James: Daddy, why do I have to give up my pacifier but you get to keep yours?

____________

Little James: Daddy, I know that’s not a pacifier in your mouth. I wasn’t born yesterday.

____________

Little James: Either give me pants or you’ll have to hold me like this all day to keep my bottom warm.

____________

Paul: When James said, “Daddy, I wanna get high,” I was so relieved when I realized he just wanted to be picked up.

____________

Paul: His first words were “fag” and “pot.” Do you think that’s a sign that I smoke too much around the kids?

____________

More McCartney Photo Captions

Linda, reading an excerpt of a Paul biography: Paul, you had THAT MANY girlfriends?

Paul, reading an excerpt of a Linda biography: I’m not even mentioned in here at all!

More:

Linda: I can't believe they gave us such a bad review!

Paul: I can't believe they gave us such a good review!

Linda: Are you sure this dance is the twist?

Paul: Yeah, it’s the latest one. You twist your partner into a pretzel!

Linda: I don’t get the joke.

Paul: Linda hon, my 70s facial hair IS the joke… so let’s laugh it up. 😆

More:

Linda: Ho hum, another day, another platinum record.

Paul: Yeah, we can make a platinum record anytime, but this fashion ensemble only comes around once an era.

Paul: Who needs two ears anyway?

More:

Paul: Linda said, “Hey Paul, lend me an ear,” and next thing I know, this was happening.

Paul: She’s the boss. Nothing I can do.

More:

Paul: When the argument gets to the lapel-grabbing stage, I’m just gonna say, “Yes, dear, you were right and I was wrong.”

____________

Paul: When she says, “Drive my car,” I say, “What time do you want me to pick you up?” I can’t help it. I’m at her command.

____________

Paul: When she says, “Get back,” I say, “How soon do you want me there?” I tell you, I CANNOT help myself! I have no willpower with her.

____________

Paul: When she says, “Carry that weight,” I say, “How many kilos? How far? Where to? When?” If you haven’t yet noticed, I CAN’T help myself!!! I am putty in her hands.

Sign Language for Rock Music Couples (L to R)

(1) Muted husband sign: Wife puts hand over husband’s mouth when he says something stupid like, “I could have had Billy Preston on keyboards.”

(2) Permission to speak sign: Muted husband raises index finger, which means, “I’m ready to apologize now.”

(3) Argument over sign: After proper apology, husband playfully nibbles on wife’s thumb, which means, “Let’s be besties again. You know it’s only fun for me when you’re part of the music.” This sign only works when you’re Paul McCartney.

Linda: Paul, if your right hand is in your pocket, and your left hand is on my back, what on earth is that on my shoulder?

Your expression during your interview for a secretarial job, when the manager asks if you can play keyboards and sing harmonies. 🤔 🫤

More:

Secretary’s face when the boss asks her to take a letter and it ends up being the lyrics for “Jet.”

Wardrobe Dept: Mr. McCartney, would you like your attire to be comfortable or flashy?

Paul: Yes.

Paul: What do you mean we HAVE TO get married?

More:

Linda: You look like the cat who swallowed the canary.

Paul: No, I’m just the groom who hid the ring in his fly.

Paul practicing his Santa Claus impression. Ho Ho Ho!

Now asking Linda’s opinion:

Paul: Linda, how do you like my Santa Claus impression? Ho Ho Ho!

Linda: It’s good, but I think you’d be the type of Santa to say, “Hi Hi Hi!”

What’s the better encore? Linda’s leaning toward “Let It Be,” but Paul’s trying to pull her to the “Hey Jude” side.

True Love: When Paul says he's got a new Beatles joke, and Linda still laughs even though she's heard it a hundred times.

More:

Paul: So, I was thinking, Let’s go on a date night. I can take you to dinner somewhere close by, then we can stroll arm-in-arm in the moonlight on the way to the theatre.

Linda: You had me at “Let’s go.” 😊

May 14, 1968. John & Paul at a press conference at the Americana Hotel in New York City to promote Apple Corps. Linda was one of the press photographers taking pictures.

But who cares about Apple Corps. This day is momentous in Beatles history because on this occasion Paul McCartney obtained Linda Eastman’s phone number‼️ 📞

____________

Paul is too distracted after seeing Linda

John: Paul, what have you been smoking? You look like you’re in dream land. You better let me do the talking.

Paul: Nonsense. My clear is perfectly head.

John: And I suppose you’re capable of questioning any answers.

Paul: Of course. That says without going.

John: This should be interesting…

____________

➡️ Crave more McCartney captions? See these posts:

Paul and Linda: Fun with Captions

Paul and Linda: More Fun with Captions

____________

©️ laurolive, laurolive.tumblr.com, www.tumblr.com/laurolive, www.tumblr.com/blog/laurolive, 2024

________________________________________

[laurolive]

McCartney six months after Linda’s passing: Wife meant "everything”

Tampa Bay Times Oct. 21, 1998

🌹

It was one of the 20th century's most famous love affairs, and it ended tragically six months ago when Linda McCartney — celebrated photographer, committed vegetarian and long-suffering Beatle wife — died of breast cancer.

Now Sir Paul McCartney has talked for the first time about his adoration of Linda, the woman who meant "everything" to him.

In an interview with British television host and musician Jools Holland, McCartney spoke touchingly of his romance with Linda, who shared his life for more than 30 years.

"As a wife, Linda was the best that anyone could ever want," he said. "I always thought of her as my girlfriend. I still do, really. And even though we kind of spent years together, our relationship never really altered much.

"We grew to know more about each other, but it was just sort of girlfriend and boyfriend. So, as a wife, she was fantastic. She was very supportive.

"I'd write bits and pieces of poetry, so I'd come back after a jog or something and I'd thought of a couple of lines of poetry, and I'd tell them to her, to remember them before I wrote them down. I'd try them out on her, and she often said, "What a mind.' As a guy, it's great to hear that. Your little heart just goes boom, boom."

Linda died at age 56 last April after a long battle against cancer. McCartney, 56, said he knew she had only days to live a week before her death but decided not to tell her. "I didn't think she'd want to know," he said.

The pain has been unbearable for him. He didn't sleep for three nights after she died and has sought counseling to overcome his grief. He said he still thinks about her constantly. "The worst thing about losing Linda is that I enjoyed being with her so much," he said.

They met in the late '60s when the Beatles were at the height of their fame. It was not an easy relationship initially because they had to bear much sniping from the media and fans.

"I think Linda, when we got married, was perceived strangely by a lot of people _ the media, the fans _ and we never really felt like we had to justify it. I just said: "Tough if they don't understand it. It's our marriage, it's not them.' So we never went on talk shows, saying, "She's all right, she's okay.'

"There was a lot of jealousy I suppose, but the media used to make fun of her. They used to say, "She plays with one finger on the keyboard.' Well, anybody who knows anything about Moog synthesizers, which is actually what she played, you can only play this mini-Moog with one finger, so they were ignorant, and she was doing the right thing.

"She did actually often play the electric piano with more than one finger _ they just weren't looking then. So she took a lot of flak, and it was very painful to her."

The McCartneys had four children _ Heather, Mary, Stella and James _ who were constantly at their side no matter where they toured in the world.

Asked how Linda would have liked to have been remembered, McCartney quickly replied: "For being a good mum. Between us we've got quite a few achievements, and we used to say, "Our greatest achievements are the kids because they're really good kids.' "

One of his greatest regrets is that her cancer was not diagnosed sooner. "Unfortunately, in Linda's case, we really got to it too late.”

"If you were to ask me or ask any of our kids what Linda meant as a mother, they would say "Everything,' which is a little expression we have."

The interview is likely to be shown on British television soon, but it has not been decided where.

An album of Linda McCartney's songs entitled Wide Prairie will be released next week.

💘

[laurolive]

Linda Pix: A Smiles Collection

Jan. 1969 From the Get Back documentary

March 12, 1969 Wedding Bells

1969 London

1969 with baby Mary at High Park Farm, Scotland. An understated, lovely smile.

December 1969 Antigua.

1970 Scotland

Date unknown

Looks like 1972 on the top deck of the Wings over Europe tour bus.

Date unknown

Appears to be from 1974. Linda with Stella.

1974, screen captures from YouTube video Paul McCartney & Wings - My Love [Partial] [Rehearsal] [High Quality] Per youtube description, the video is from One Hand Clapping, 1974.

June 16, 1974. Backstage at Opryland in Nashville, Tennessee, where they met Dolly Parton and Porter Wagoner.

Sept. 9, 1974 (some accounts say Sept. 12), London. At the wedding of songwriter, arranger, and record producer Mike Leander to model Penelope Carter.

1974 at the London premiere of the movie That’s Entertainment.

Fall 1974 during early sessions for Venus and Mars at Abbey Road.

Appears to be from 1974.

1975 A sleepy-eyed smile while holding Eric Clapton's book, Music Life.

1986 video shoot for “Seaside Woman.” Linda wrote the song in 1972 when it was recorded by Wings under the name Suzy and The Red Stripes. It was reissued by Epic in 1977 (America) and 1979 (U.K.), then again by A&M in 1980 (under the name Linda McCartney). In 1986, EMI released it with a new remix and a promotional video.

October 13, 1993. Paul and Linda during concert at the Palais Omnisports de Paris-Bercy in Paris, France.

Date unknown

Dates unknown

[laurolive]

And They Said It Wouldn’t Work

Came across this lovely photo of Linda on the cover of the April 30, 1977, issue of the U.K. weekly Woman. Her interview is titled “All you Need is Love, and a Beatle called Paul: Linda McCartney's story” by Bonnie Estridge (p. 28).

That’s all the info I have since the story is not reproduced anywhere online that I can see (though it’s obtainable from other sources).

______________________________________

Turning my attention to the cover text, when “they” said the marriage wouldn’t work, “they” were not without just cause, IMO. Circumstances pointed to a relationship destined for failure.

______________________________________

McCartney juggled multiple girlfriends simultaneously and had never practiced commitment in his adult life. Linda counted among her lovers many of the rock musicians she photographed. McCartney pursued and slept with Linda (among others) while engaged to someone else (Jane Asher).

So here we have a courtship, begun in deceit and sneaking around, between two people who still appeared to be enjoying the free love era. “If he’ll cheat WITH you, he’ll cheat ON you” goes the adage. The guy couldn’t even stay faithful to his fiancée. Is this the behaviour of a future responsible family man?

Beatles biographer Hunter Davies didn’t think the marriage would last [link]. John Lennon gave it two years [link]. The civil wedding seemed to be arranged in a rush with a bride who was three months’ pregnant. The night before the big day, the couple had such a huge argument they nearly canceled the ceremony [link]. No wonder the marriage was given such poor prospects.

______________________________________

Yet it became rock music’s most famous love affair and its most enduring monogamous union. HOW? For one, it goes to show that it’s easy to make predictions based on superficial knowledge.

Observers saw a womanizing Beatle rock star who would never settle down with one woman. It turns out McCartney had deeper layers than met the eye, and they meshed with Linda’s. We just didn’t know his REAL values in life until he talked about them.

______________________________________

Some men are womanizers and stay womanizers. That’s who they are deep down inside. Monogamy has no appeal.

Some men are womanizers when young. It’s an experience to try, not a practice to live by. I think Paul falls into this category. Deep inside, he was a family man. Going by his interviews, where he often speaks tenderly of Linda and rhapsodizes about fatherhood, one can sense that he believed in romantic love. He wanted a soulmate; he wanted children. He matured, and his ingrained values came to the forefront.

He didn’t become husband material right off the bat. It was a process, probably a difficult one given his status. When he played the field in the later 60s, perhaps it was not totally to have fun, but also to seek out girlfriends with whom he had a real connection. These he called his “serious relationships” [link]. Some of those girlfriends claimed he wanted to marry them [link1, link2]; yet even when he did get engaged, he seemed to be unsure and still searching. (I guess he didn’t consider it cheating if he wasn’t married.) Recalling those days for the 2001 documentary Wingspan, McCartney tells his interviewer (who is also his daughter Mary) that it was time to get serious; and he especially felt that way with her mother. He didn’t want to remain a bachelor playboy all his life.

______________________________________

And so he got serious. Once he committed, he was husband and father all the way.

“I had my wild life,” he declared in a 1974 interview [New York News magazine: Just an Old-Fashioned Beatle, April 7, 1974]. “But I told Linda everything about that and all the rest. I have no secrets from Linda. I had my time, in my time. But I am much happier now. This new life means more to me.”

______________________________________

He expressed similar sentiments in other interviews over the years, such as TV interview with Barbara Howar, Aug. 23, 1986 and The Guardian: After Linda by Simon Hattenstone, Sept. 11, 2000, just to name two.

________________________________________

©️ laurolive, laurolive.tumblr.com, www.tumblr.com/laurolive, www.tumblr.com/blog/laurolive, 2024

________________________________________

[laurolive]

Mystery of the “Very Easy” GIF

WHAT was very easy??? What was he talking about???

It was a mystery to me until I found the original youtube clip from which the GIF was derived.

The entire clip is at https://youtu.be/jKCCDlPdlq4?si=gRa4PjGOVRsRGAmw. (BTW, don’t worry about the “mature audience” warning at the beginning; there is nothing offensive in the video.)

To summarize: Paul and Linda answer questions from “reporter” Norman Gunston (played by comedian Garry McDonald) during a mock press conference in Perth, Australia on Nov. 1, 1975. (Wings was on their Australian tour at the time.)

At the 1:00 min. mark, we have the context of “very easy.” So heartwarming. 🥰

Gunston: When you were here last time, you came as a sex symbol to millions of teenagers. This time you come as a responsible family man. How hard was the transition?

Linda: Terrible wasn’t it? Paul: Very easy.

Gunston: Is he a good family man? Linda: He sure is, the best — best in town.

❤️

[laurolive]

Help! Is this a true McCartney quote? What is the source?

______________________________

“We had something special, we really loved one another deeply.”

- Paul McCartney 💘

______________________________

I’ve seen this quote attributed to McCartney on instagram (usually alongside a gifv or still image of him and Linda from the “My Love” video), but no indication of the source. I haven’t been able to find this quote online, and a google search gives no results at all.

Did McCartney actually say this? When? Where? An interview? A book? A podcast? Album liner notes? A bio? Is it associated with “My Love” (and possibly in a book like The Lyrics?)

If you know, please share.

Don’t ever ask me why I never say goodbye to my love. 💞 💓