It Was Inevitable

[Chad Thorne]

McCartney and Heather Split

 

Not more than five days ago I was thinking about Sir Paul and his trophy wife and suddenly thought, "I bet they don't stay married."

[vikingrat]

Gotta love the reporters throwing every McCartney sons they can into the report.Some ex.Well I guess Heather's gotta a ticket to ride.I guess money cant by paul love after all.Looks like Heather and paul cant work it out.Guess heather wont need paul when he's 64.On and on.must be a slow news day.

[Kramer Ferrington III.]

Originally posted by vikingrat:

Gotta love the reporters throwing every McCartney sons they can into the report.

Well, at least they're staying away from her missing leg. "Heather Hasn't Got a Leg to Stand On!", "Heather Puts Her Best Foot Forward!", "Heather Is Hopping Mad!" and other tasteless headlines that would never occur to me in a million years.

 

I guess nobody believed that she wasn't a fancy gold digger.

[vikingrat]

Originally posted by Kramer Ferrington III.:

Originally posted by vikingrat:

Gotta love the reporters throwing every McCartney sons they can into the report.

Well, at least they're staying away from her missing leg. "Heather Hasn't Got a Leg to Stand On!", "Heather Puts Her Best Foot Forward!", "Heather Is Hopping Mad!" and other tasteless headlines that would never occur to me in a million years.

 

I guess nobody believed that she wasn't a fancy gold digger.

Oh my God!Its 4.10 in the morning and you got me laughing my ass off!

[Corner Pocket]

Ah yes, Heather Mills and Paul McCartney, or as I like to think of them:

 

Hop-Sing

 

I read there is no pre-nup. This might be better than a powerball win.

[Eric Iverson]

It infuriates me that people are so callous about this.. Paul and Heather are human beings the same as you and me... would you like people to make sarcastic jokes at your expense,publicly where hundreds of strangers will read it, if it was YOUR marriage falling apart?? And it IS the same thing! I love Paul's music, but that gives me right whatever to stick my nose into his private business!

 

Forgive me if I sound angry, it's only because I am! I just don't the fact that a person is rich or famous or talented gives us the right to set on them like a pack of wolves!

[Corner Pocket]

Originally posted by Eric Iverson:

It infuriates me that people are so callous about this.. Paul and Heather are human beings the same as you and me... would you like people to make sarcastic jokes at your expense,publicly where hundreds of strangers will read it, if it was YOUR marriage falling apart?? And it IS the same thing! I love Paul's music, but that gives me right whatever to stick my nose into his private business!

 

Forgive me if I sound angry, it's only because I am! I just don't the fact that a person is rich or famous or talented gives us the right to set on them like a pack of wolves!

Heather and Paul have used and manipulated the media to promote their causes over the years. Of particular note to me was their appearance on Larry King where they treated Danny Williams, the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, with contempt and complete disrespect. Heather Mills, while on the ice flows in Canada, violated federal marine wildlife protection laws, and was given a pass.

 

You or I would NOT be treated the same as Paul and Heather in that situation.

 

Both Paul and Heather CHOSE to become media darlings, and as such they are fair game for speculation and ridicule. They are still protected by libel and slander laws, and are protected by laws related to paparazzi type behaviour. But satire humour and ridicule are still fair game.

 

Paul and Heather issued a press release about the state of their marraige. Unlike them, you or I would not be doing that. That makes them different from you and I. If you don't want the world to comment on the state of your marraige, don't announce the state of your marraige to the world.

 

Princess Diana was in the same position. She used the media for her own purposes, but also had to put up with the less-than-positive media coverage.

 

Have you ever noticed that some celebrities manage to stay out of the tabloids? Warren Buffet, waaaay wealthier than Donald Trump, stays out of the spotlight, while The Donald is everywhere. Don't you think Donald has a role in that? Don't you think The Donald has to accept some of the collateral damage created by actions HE intitiated????

 

Nick and Jessica put their wedding, honeymoon and marraige out there for all to see as part of entertainment television. When their marraige fell apart, well that's gonna be part of entertainment television too.

 

When the jokes started about Nick and Jessica, where were you defending their honour? Or are they less worthy because they are not former Beatles?

 

Ultimately, you dance with them what brung ya, and if you choose to use the media to promote your interest, you lose the right to complain when the media uses you to promote theirs.

[Eric Iverson]

OK, maybe you have a point, that they chose to be media darlings. And people who beg for public attention may have to live with the downside of it.

 

As far as Nick and Jessica, I don't even know who are. And it has absolutely nothing to do with my point!

 

For me, it's not about defending anyone's honor. I just don't find people's marriages falling apart to have any "entertainment value".

 

Having said that, I think I'll sign off on the issue. I just hope all of YOUR marriages stay together.. and if I were to hear they didn't, I wouldn't throw a party over it!

[The Big G]

Eric

I think you just have to let it go, people have always had a laugh at other peoples misfortune, nobody is really trying to do them harm just making light of the things that happen every day and to many average people who dont recieve the support or the critisism the famous do. But yes they use the public mediums to further there causes so people have a right to voice there views in public about them. Also it can be funny sometimes. So please just let it be, sorry couldnt resist it.

[marvar]

I threw a party when my marriage was over...

[miroslav]

Originally posted by Eric Iverson:

For me, it's not about defending anyone's honor. I just don't find people's marriages falling apart to have any "entertainment value".

It all depends on how you look at it.

 

Theres nothing wrong with laughing at something/someone if it's for your own private entertainmentyoure not going to go to hell, or anything medieval

 

And yeah...divorce can be VERY funny... when viewed from the proper perspective.

A marriage falling apart is usually the result of issues between the two parties...and not influences from the outside world.

 

And like others have said...when your entire life is "in the media"...then you can't expect your divorce to happen in private.

Also....there are a lot of people that are quite glad of the split, as many felt she was a bad choice for Paul.and now that they are divorcing...it appears to have been a valid perspective.

[fantasticsound]

It's about class. McCartney has it and those making rude jokes don't.

 

Whether or not they're subject to endless news stories about their divorce because of their celebrity status isn't the point. There's a difference between reporting the news and ridiculing the couple whose marriage is ending.

 

I think the fact Paul, from what I've heard, has been defending Heather against talk that she's simply a gold-digger in the aftermath of their announcement speaks volumes. If he doesn't have issues with her motives why does the media and the public feel free to continue saying those motives are suspect?

 

Instead of telling Eric to let it go, Big G, perhaps you should be telling the rest of the world to get over it. Issuing a statement was only acknowledging the public interest. It wasn't an invitation to pry into the whys and wherefores surrounding the dissolution of their marriage.

 

As the cop says... "Move along.. There's nothing to see here, move along..."

[Chad Thorne]

"I think the fact Paul, from what I've heard, has been defending Heather against talk that she's simply a gold-digger in the aftermath of their announcement speaks volumes. If he doesn't have issues with her motives why does the media and the public feel free to continue saying those motives are suspect?"

 

Of course, if she were a gold-digger, it wouldn't enhance Paul's reputation to admit that he fell for such a person just because she was half his age and pretty (not IMHO).

 

FWIW, I don't think Heather is a gold-digger. She just never seemed like a very nice person to me, strident and self-righteous.

 

Paul, I hear Sheryl Crow is unattached...

[Guitar55]

Originally posted by rockincyanblues:

Both Paul and Heather CHOSE to become media darlings, ....

Princess Diana was in the same position. She used the media for her own purposes, but also had to put up with the less-than-positive media coverage.

.......

Nick and Jessica put their wedding, honeymoon and marraige out there for all to see as part of entertainment television.

You're kidding, right? Heather Mills and Princess Diana used their celebrity to do good for OTHERS. You cannot possibly speak about them in the same breath as "Nick and Jessica". Give me a break.

[Guitar55]

Originally posted by Chad:

McCartney and Heather Split

 

Not more than five days ago I was thinking about Sir Paul and his trophy wife and suddenly thought, "I bet they don't stay married."

"Trophy wife"????? She's very attractive, but with a leg missing, I hardly think you could call her a "trophy wife".

 

Just a few days ago I was thinking that Paul was the only Beatle who had never been divorced....oh well.

[Corner Pocket]

Originally posted by Guitar55:

[You're kidding, right? Heather Mills and Princess Diana used their celebrity to do good for OTHERS. You cannot possibly speak about them in the same breath as "Nick and Jessica". Give me a break.

1) Not the same breath, they were actually two statements a few paragraphs apart. (Although thanks for helping to make some of the points here. You just manipulated media to make me look like I said something I did not say. :-))

 

2) Princess Di was well known for tipping the media to leak information that would be less than positive about her rivals. Yes she was a very public and important spokesperson for AIDS, landmines, etc, but she also used the media, (and the media allowed itself to be used), for petty and vindictive puroposes. Her "candid interview" on television after her divorce was staged to prop up suppport for her by making it seem that she was the only one not in the loop on waht was essentially an arranged marraige.

 

2) Heather Mills was calling the newspapers from her hospital bed after she lost her leg. (co-incidentally, the police motorcycle that hit her was responding to a false alarm at the official residence of Princess Diana). I've never had an injury as severe as Heather Mills, but the folks I know that have did not make calls to the media a top priority.

 

My point was simply that those who use the media to promote their own interestes, either selfish or altruistic, must be prepared to have the media use them in return. You don't get a free pass because you are a "better celebrity".

 

Now back to the funnies: I just re-read the lyrics to "When I'm 64", and there is NOTHING in there about being single with daughter in diapers.

[Eric Iverson]

Remind me never to become rich and famous, if you have to deal with:

 

1) Total strangers, madly in love with your image, standing in line to tell you how wonderful you are, and

 

2) These same people, if you do something they don't like, standing in line to talk trash!

 

I'd rather have REAL friends, and if it so happens, REAL enemies, than any of that phoney baloney!

[Corner Pocket]

Originally posted by Eric Iverson:

Remind me never to become rich and famous, if you have to deal with:

 

1) Total strangers, madly in love with your image, standing in line to tell you how wonderful you are, and

 

2) These same people, if you do something they don't like, standing in line to talk trash!

 

I'd rather have REAL friends, and if it so happens, REAL enemies, than any of that phoney baloney!

I agree. The cult of celebrity is a forced and artificial life. The season ending episode of "Boston Legal" touched on that. The threats to "celebrities" are real, and must be taken seriously. The "price" of celebrity is not something I'm mentally and emotionally equipped to pay. (Oh yeah, and a lack of talent is hindering me too!!!!!)

 

But some celbrities have to acknowlege that they have a role in how their relationship with the media works. Paul's upcoming divorce is headline news. Ringo's been divorced and it doesn't play as strong in the media. Yes, Ringo is a "lesser celebrity" than Paul, but still, he's a Beatle. You don't get much higher cachet than that. But why does Ringo fly uner the radar????? I think it's because Ringo chooses to manage his relationship with the media in that manner.

 

Paul McCartney once said, (and I hope that I'm quoting him correctly), "The only thing worse than people stopping you to ask for an autograph, is people stopping to ask you for an autograph".

 

Some folks set out to become famous at all costs. Sometimes that cost is higher than anticipated. If the worst thing that happens to McCartney is that some low level jokesters throw his lyrics back at him, that's not so bad.

 

John was killed by a "fan".

[Eric Iverson]

Well, you do have a point - nobody is pointing a gun at Sir Paul - at least I sure HOPE NOT!

[Eric VB]

Wow. Hard to move on after Paul's last comment.

 

I think there is a love/hate relationship between the masses and the celebs. If we didn't love them, they might not be celebs. (Sure, there's other ways to become famous, but I'll stick to this method.)

 

At some level we have to be jealous of their fame. Probably the most primal is the alpha male thing: that guy can get any chick he wants. If they just stuck to one partner, we probably wouldn't mind so much.

 

But we've come to expect Hollywood marriages that are just short of being a farce. For the masses, it's "until death do us part". For celebs it's obviously something different.

 

I used to to be much more cynical about the whole affair until Brittney came along. Mind you, I don't hold her musical skills in high regard, but I genuinely feel sorry for her as a person. It's obvious now that what she really wanted was to just have a family. Unfortunately, her stardom prevented her from many things, such as dating like a normal teen. I mean, come on, I'm sure if she were unknown and went to a 5-minute date party she'd find someone better suited for her than someone she paid to constantly watch over and protect her. The only reason that house of cards hasn't fallen over yet is because I feel she's trying so hard to live the fantasy that she can just be a normal mom in a normal 2-parent family.

 

And that's the crux of it, as far as I'm concerned. There's no good foundation for many of these relationships. If you see a little pig foolishly building a house of straw, of course you'll react when the wolf blows it down.

 

But it's not entirely the celebs fault that they have to play that game. In some ways their fame acts to isolate them from society. Especially when it comes time to look for a life-long partner.

 

If you really think about it, if you went looking for your soul mate and all you had to pick from was a small percentage of the population that was famous, could you do it?

[Kramer Ferrington III.]

I don't know about the "they wanted to be famous, now they should accept certain changes to their lives" argument.

 

As RicBassGuy pointed out, there is more than one way to be famous. Assasinating someone famous, for example. So I don't know that someone like Paul MCC actually wanted the fame per se. Had he wanted that, he could have found much quicker ways to be in the papers. He's a cluey sort of bloke.

 

So I'm sure he's chuffed that people like his songs (even the silly love ones) but I don't think he set out to be famous in an abstract, tabloid sort of way. Winning the lottery (and the fame+money), wouldn't have been the same at all.

 

had he done something superficial like win the Guiness worm eating record (yes, there IS such a thing, folks), he would have been fair game. But would any of you have pulled back and gone for a safe anonity had you been in his shoes back in 1962 or whenever it was?

[Eric Iverson]

I think the Beatles just started to play rock'n'roll for the love of it, and while of course they wanted to be successful, were amazed by the whole Beatlemania thing. From what I've read, they never expected their fame to last all that long.

 

Of course, they did continue to make great records, and also, movies etc. (of varying quality). They played the game in a certain sense, it's true. And Paul has continued to make music over the years, off and on. I really don't see where he ever did anything to hurt anyone, though. His success wasn't built on swindling anyone on the stock market or anything else destructive, was it?

 

You could argue that he made his bed and now has to lie in it, in the sense that the price of fame is to be in the cross-hairs sometimes. Maybe it IS the ugly truth!

 

Having said that, I still don't care to poke my nose into celebrities' personal lives, and paparazzi are high on my endangered species list. To my way of thinking, it's indecent. Evidently, some of you disagree with me. Well, it's a free country after all.... post away, full speed ahead, damn the torpedoes!

 

Just please don't send any paparazzi my way ... isn't paparazzi short for "pepperoni pizza" or something like that??

 

On that note, I think I'm heading for the nearest pizzeria, and put this whole subject behind me.

 

Cheers

Eric

 

PS At least in Guitar Player, they stick to asking people about their guitar playing - it's one magazine that ain't a tabloid!

 

PPS How do you guys like YOUR pizza?

[Chad Thorne]

As a recovering lawyer I can tell you that the expectation of privacy is different for a famous person than for a non-famous one. The circumstances under which celebrities can sue for slander and libel, for instance, are much narrower, the rationale being that if they want fame they have to take the not-so-good with the good, as in when somebody makes sport of them. It's why Jerry Falwell lost when he sued Hustler magazine for suggesting his first sexual experience was with his mother. The court ruled that it was satire, protected by (God bless it) The First Amendment.