PDA

View Full Version : Paul McCartney and Heather Mills separate



savafan
05-17-2006, 11:44 AM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=386557&in_page_id=1773&ico=Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=News&ct=5

Sir Paul McCartney and his wife Heather Mills McCartney have confirmed they are to separate.

McCartney said in a message on his website that there was "not an ounce of truth" in suggestions that his wife had married him "for the money".

He said: "By now you will have probably heard the unfortunate news that Heather and I are going our separate ways.

"We have issued a statement expressing our sadness at this turn of events but I would like to let people know my feelings about some of the stories which have appeared in the media over the past few days.

"I'm really disappointed that during a very difficult and emotional time for both Heather and myself there are certain people in the media who are writing things about Heather that are just plain untrue.

"It's been suggested that she married me for the money and there is not an ounce of truth in this.

"She is a very generous person who spends most of her time trying to help others in greater need than herself.

"All the work she does is unpaid so these stories are ridiculous and completely unfounded.

"I'm very sad to see that some insensitive people would choose a moment like this to spread these vicious rumours."

In a joint statement earlier today the couple said: "Having tried exceptionally hard to make our relationship work given the daily pressures surrounding us, it is with sadness that we have decided to go our separate ways.

"Our parting is amicable and both of us still care about each other very much but have found it increasingly difficult to maintain a normal relationship with constant intrusion into our private lives, and we have actively tried to protect the privacy of our child.

"Separation for any couple is difficult enough, but to have to go through this so publicly, especially with a small daughter, is immensely stressful.

"We hope, for the sake of our baby daughter, that we will be given some space and time to get through this difficult period."

McCartney's spokesman would not be drawn on the prospects of the marriage ending in divorce, insisting that the couple had merely agreed on a separation.

But a lawyer said that if the break-up went through the courts, it could end up being the biggest divorce case in British history.

It has been suggested that Lady McCartney could walk away with around £200 million of his £800 million fortune despite the couple being married for just four years.

McCartney is Britain's richest musician and made £48.5 million last year from record sales and his US tour.

Leading divorce lawyer Alan Kaufman, head of family law at London firm Finers Stephens Innocent, said: "This will be one of the biggest, if not the biggest, divorce cases to hit the English courts, if it gets that far.

"If I was acting for Sir Paul and he wanted a fight - and he can certainly afford one - I would take it all the way through the courts and argue that a fair settlement would be a lot less than £200 million."

McCartney, who has spent the last two weeks apart from his wife of four years, made his shocking decision known to friends and family today.

Sir Paul was reported to have told one friend earlier: "We really can't go on like this. Enough is enough."

The friend added: "This hasn't just come from Paul. They've decided together that this is the best thing to do. It's by mutual agreement."

The couple had agreed to meet in London for "crisis talks" last week. But according to friends, 37-year-old Heather pulled out in order to stay at home with her sister in East Sussex, where she is recovering from a revision amputation on the leg she lost in an accident 13 years ago.

McCartney, who originally told friends he was planning a trip to New York to see lawyers, is thought to have changed his mind in the hope that he and his wife can sort out their differences.

A 'source' said earlier today: "Paul hasn't come to this decision lightly but felt things couldn't carry on as they were. He and Heather were getting on so badly it became impossible for them to sleep under the same roof.

"It's terribly sad for both of them. We're very concerned itís all over. But nobody has lost hope."

Lady McCartney has revealed in the past that she offered to sign a prenuptial agreement before marrying Sir Paul, but said he turned her down.

The former model said she was prepared to draw up an agreement which would protect the ex-Beatle's estimated £800 million fortune if they split to show that her affections were genuine.

"I wanted to prove that I love him for him," she told Vanity Fair in 2002.

But she told the magazine that she would always remain financially independent.

"I believe every woman should have a reserve, because you never know what will happen in life.

Guys can get bored, especially if they feel they've just got you there," she said.

She gave birth to the couple's child Beatrice, who is now two, in the autumn of 2003.

McCartney already has three children from his marriage to Linda, who died in 1998 - musician James, photographer Mary, and fashion designer Stella.

He also has a stepdaughter, Heather, from Linda's first marriage.

minus5
05-17-2006, 03:38 PM
I most every interview of the two of them I have seen, she came off as very unlikable and Paul came off as a man on a leash.

KronoRed
05-17-2006, 04:17 PM
If he felt the need to say that she wasn't in it for the money then that makes me think all the more that she was.

vaticanplum
05-17-2006, 04:23 PM
I most every interview of the two of them I have seen, she came off as very unlikable and Paul came off as a man on a leash.

Hey now, this is a great woman, she has come out of a very rough early life with a good and dutiful attitude and has devoted almost her whole life to charity since she lost her leg. This doesn't necessarily mean she's a nice person, I guess, but she always struck me well.

As for Sir Paul, no one can be whipped without giving his permission to be so. Metaphorically speaking, anyway.

KittyDuran
05-17-2006, 04:34 PM
Hey Paulie! I'm available! :luvu:

Larkin411
05-17-2006, 05:21 PM
Hey now, this is a great woman, she has come out of a very rough early life with a good and dutiful attitude and has devoted almost her whole life to charity since she lost her leg. This doesn't necessarily mean she's a nice person, I guess, but she always struck me well.

As for Sir Paul, no one can be whipped without giving his permission to be so. Metaphorically speaking, anyway.

Yeah I never really warmed up to her but there's a lot to admire about her. Of course with her early life, it's probably a long-shot to hope for a successful marriage on top of her other success. I hope they try therapy, everyone should except me cause I'm perfect:).

...Oh and Britney Spears shouldn't try therapy either, she should just feel free to flush that marriage right down the crapper. Although perhaps therapy for why she would choose such a loser is in order.

IslandRed
05-17-2006, 06:13 PM
Holy cow, he's rich. At current exchange rates, he's worth roughly $1.5 billion.

redsfanmia
05-17-2006, 08:17 PM
Holy cow, he's rich. At current exchange rates, he's worth roughly $1.5 billion.
Umm yeah, he was in a little band called the Beatles.

redsfan1966
05-17-2006, 08:32 PM
If a divorce were filed, she could take him for an arm and a LEG....ha ha

KronoRed
05-17-2006, 08:33 PM
Umm yeah, he was in a little band called the Beatles.
The Who? ;)

Reds4Life
05-17-2006, 08:44 PM
No prenup, Paul = :owned:

macro
05-17-2006, 10:35 PM
All You Need Is Love?

marcshoe
05-17-2006, 11:07 PM
I guess this answers the question he asked long ago. No, Paul. Not when you're 64.

GAC
05-18-2006, 08:51 AM
Sorry to hear this about Paul and Heather.

From listening to his last few albums, I think Paul really misses Linda.

As for prenups, and Paul not signing one, I have no problem with that.

Marriage is suppose to be about love and trust.

If you feel that is not there, and you need a prenup, then you probably shouldn't be getting married.

It's not a business transaction. It's about a committed relationship to each other.

And after all, Paul knows that "money can't buy me love". ;)

Aceking
05-18-2006, 09:10 AM
A huge chunk of Paul's money has come from other publishing rights he's snatched up over the years. You'd be amazed at some of the songs he owns the rights to. The "Grease" soundtrack is one that comes to mind.

dabvu2498
05-18-2006, 09:13 AM
"...And you know you should be glad..."

Benny-Distefano
05-18-2006, 09:19 AM
"And in her eyes you see nothing... no sign of love behind the tears cried for no one." -PM

MrCinatit
05-18-2006, 09:52 AM
The Who? ;)

No, No, No...The Who were that one there group that did American Woman. :p:

IslandRed
05-18-2006, 10:16 AM
Umm yeah, he was in a little band called the Beatles.

Yeah, I'm sort of aware of that. But there's rock-star rich and then there's billionaire, is all I'm saying.

marcshoe
05-18-2006, 10:40 AM
No, No, No...The Who were that one there group that did American Woman. :p:


Guess again.

savafan
05-18-2006, 11:59 AM
A huge chunk of Paul's money has come from other publishing rights he's snatched up over the years. You'd be amazed at some of the songs he owns the rights to. The "Grease" soundtrack is one that comes to mind.

Yeah, Paul was the one who gave such business advice to Michael Jackson, who then proceeded to buy up the publishing rights to the Beatles' catalog.

KronoRed
05-18-2006, 03:31 PM
Yeah, Paul was the one who gave such business advice to Michael Jackson, who then proceeded to buy up the publishing rights to the Beatles' catalog.
Grr..Beatle songs in reebok commercials.

Heath
05-18-2006, 04:05 PM
Can't buy me love, love
Can't buy me love

I'll buy you a diamond ring my friend if it makes you feel alright
I'll get you anything my friend if it makes you feel alright
'Cause I don't care too much for money, money can't buy me love

I'll give you all I got to give if you say you love me too
I may not have a lot to give but what I got I'll give to you
I don't care too much for money, money can't buy me love

Can't buy me love, everybody tells me so
Can't buy me love, no no no, no

Say you don't need no diamond ring and I'll be satisfied
Tell me that you want the kind of thing that money just can't buy
I don't care too much for money, money can't buy me love

redsfanmia
05-18-2006, 05:11 PM
Yeah, I'm sort of aware of that. But there's rock-star rich and then there's billionaire, is all I'm saying.
Yeah I know, but Linda was an Eastman of Eastman Kodak so im sure that her family helped Paul with the investments.

KronoRed
05-18-2006, 05:37 PM
but Linda was an Eastman of Eastman Kodak so im sure that her family helped Paul with the investments.
Actually she wasn't
It is often stated that Linda McCartney is related to the Eastman Kodak dynasty. This is a myth and McCartney had no connection with the family, as she herself explained in an interview. Her maiden name of Eastman was an anglicised version of her family's original name, Epstein.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Eastman

redsfanmia
05-18-2006, 07:19 PM
Actually she wasn't
It is often stated that Linda McCartney is related to the Eastman Kodak dynasty. This is a myth and McCartney had no connection with the family, as she herself explained in an interview. Her maiden name of Eastman was an anglicised version of her family's original name, Epstein.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Eastman
thank you for clearing that up, I always had heard that

captainmorgan07
05-18-2006, 08:49 PM
she's gonna take him to the bank and the cleaners he aint gonna have much left

GAC
05-19-2006, 10:18 AM
she's gonna take him to the bank and the cleaners he aint gonna have much left

I doubt that very much. It's guesstimated that she could get as much as 200 mil at the most. The court system in England is not gonna allow her much more. They will protect SIR Paul. ;)

WMR
05-19-2006, 10:32 AM
Sorry to hear this about Paul and Heather.

From listening to his last few albums, I think Paul really misses Linda.

As for prenups, and Paul not signing one, I have no problem with that.

Marriage is suppose to be about love and trust.

If you feel that is not there, and you need a prenup, then you probably shouldn't be getting married.

It's not a business transaction. It's about a committed relationship to each other.

And after all, Paul knows that "money can't buy me love". ;)

Ummm, actually it is. When you sign that marriage contract, there is now a third party involved in your relationship: The State. It is no longer a romanticized solemn vow between two people: You have entered into a contract, and if you don't protect yourself beforehand, there is a greater than 50% chance (the divorce rate in this country) you will lose half the assets you bring into the marriage.

Circumstances change, emotions change, people change (or perhaps your understanding of them does).

Any man(or woman) who possesses any sort of net worth that they don't want to take a 50% of having cut in half is insane for getting married without a pre-nup.

Dom Heffner
05-20-2006, 11:07 AM
Marriage is suppose to be about love and trust.


:jump:


Then if she really loved him, she wouldn't take the money, especially given the amount of time she was with him.

A prenup protects everybody in case things don't work out. In LeaveIttoBeaverVille there's no need for locks on our doors. We also don't wear seat belts because no one has car wrecks. Kids play unsupervised. Things are supposed to be fine and perfect.

There is nothing wrong with signing a prenup, especially since McCartney made every single dime of that money without her assistance. He shouldn't have to give that much money to her because things didn't work out.

Marriage should not be an opportunity to get rich off of someone else's hard work.

I wish the law protected people like him more. Someone could just come along and be totally fooling someone just to get their hands on some easy cash.

GAC
05-21-2006, 07:57 AM
:jump:


Then if she really loved him, she wouldn't take the money, especially given the amount of time she was with him.

A prenup protects everybody in case things don't work out. In LeaveIttoBeaverVille there's no need for locks on our doors. We also don't wear seat belts because no one has car wrecks. Kids play unsupervised. Things are supposed to be fine and perfect.

It's not about "LeaveIttoBeaverVille"; but today's societal view on marriage, which contributes to the 50% divorce rate.

For the most part, and generally speaking, it's selfishness by either party that leads to marriage breakup. The commitment part is defined as "me, me, me".

If you are more concerned about protecting your material assets then the realtionship involved, then you'll most likely end up in divorce court.

Which is what happens with alot of these celebs.


There is nothing wrong with signing a prenup, especially since McCartney made every single dime of that money without her assistance. He shouldn't have to give that much money to her because things didn't work out.

Marriage should not be an opportunity to get rich off of someone else's hard work.

I understand that Dom. But you must also understand that it was reported that she offered to sign a pre-nup and Paul said it wasn't necessary.

It hasn't been proven yet that she is trying to "get rich" off of him.

And by the way - he chased and heavily pursued her, and not the other way around. Paul since he lost Linda (married for 28 yrs), and the fact that his kids are now all grown, fears lonliness in his old age. He has stated so in the past, and it is evident in his music since Linda's death. He also deals with depression.

He may have "jumped" to fast out of that fear.

And personally, if I was asked to sign a pre-nup, which I would interpret as meaning "In case I tire of you I can dump your butt", then the marriage/relationship would be off immediately.

But that's just me. I value and place more importance on marriage then many do obviously.


I wish the law protected people like him more. Someone could just come along and be totally fooling someone just to get their hands on some easy cash.

Which is why people should be a little more cautious and understand what the institution of marriage requires BEFORE entering into that relationship.

I know that to you, and obviously many others, this may seem like an archaic concept; but then, that is why the divorce rate is above 50%. ;)

We treat marriage today like buying a car. Once you get tired of it, and it no longer suits your needs, then trade it in on a new one.

Dom Heffner
05-21-2006, 11:08 AM
It hasn't been proven yet that she is trying to "get rich" off of him.


And it hasn't been proven that McCartney is being selfish as you put it, either. There are any number of reasons that people's marriages fail, and we can't assume that the reason theirs failed is the reason that you think marriages fail.


I understand that Dom. But you must also understand that it was reported that she offered to sign a pre-nup and Paul said it wasn't necessary.


I'm just saying that the law should not give 25% of someone's estate to another person because a marriage failed after two years.

In Florida, we have equitable distribution, which would normally stop this kind of nonsense. If you had it coming in, you are leaving with it. That's fair.

Love should not be not a financial opportunity. It's odd that you have all this respect for love and marriage but then think it's perfectly okay for someone to take 25% of someone's hard earned money simply because they were married for two years. This isn't what marriage is intended to do.


And personally, if I was asked to sign a pre-nup, which I would interpret as meaning "In case I tire of you I can dump your butt", then the marriage/relationship would be off immediately.


Talk about a selfish viewpoint. In this situation you are only thinking of yourself.

The person offering the prenup could be thinking, "What if you tire of me?"


But that's just me. I value and place more importance on marriage then many do obviously.


If it's not about money- and just about the marriage- then why not sign a prenup? You only care about love and honor, right? What does someone else's money- that they worked for, not you- have to do with love? By not signing a prenup, it appears that you are only worried about the money.

GAC, I'm for what's doing right, and taking 25% of someone's money that you did nothing to contribute to is downright cold. It's not what Jesus would do, friend.

And I'm not talking about a marriage where two people build something together and then split. This is obviously a different case. Heather Mills was not around when McCartney was writing his songs.

I realize what the law says Miss Mills is legally entitiled to, but that doesn't mean she has to take it. I got screwed by a step-mother on this sort of thing, and I tell you, your talk of "love and marriage" is just shallow, hollow, cliches.

Of all the parties involved, she was the only "Christian." I felt like an African nation under colonial rule: I got a prayer and she got a lot of cash.


I know that to you, and obviously many others, this may seem like an archaic concept; but then, that is why the divorce rate is above 50%

The problem with your argument is that it assumes that if no one divorces, then everyone is happy.

There are people who don't get divorced who are miserable. There are people who are in relationships that don't marry who are incredibly happy. These things are more complicated than simply looking at a percentage.

I had an Aunt that held your point of view. She stayed married to some guy she couldn't stand for years. During the courtship- the period where you should "be a little more cautious and understand what the institution of marriage requires" as you put it- this guy was the most wonderful person in the world. Ten years into it she discovers he is a lying cheating jerk. I guess she wasn't a very selfish person because she wasted her life with this guy, listening to the same hogwash that you are giving us here: if you want out of marriage you are selfish, you have to make it work or you are a bad person, in yesterday's world people were better so be like them, blah, blah, blah.

The divorce rate is 50% because people no longer feel the social pressure to stay in lousy marriages where people cheat, abuse, or simply give up. One cannot "research" or "be cautious" about what another person will do 10 years from now.

Sure, the divorce rate may have been lower 40 years ago, but I'll bet you there were just as many people who were miserable- they just felt like they couldn't get out.

We can't compare divorce rates from different eras, especially when the social attitudes towards divorce are different. It was not any better then, GAC, it's just that divorce was looked down upon so people didn't do it.

Being miserable is not selfishness. In fact, asking someone to stay in a relationship in which they are not happy is selfish, whether it be by society or the person who wants to keep the marriage going.

You got lucky in that you are in a happy relationship, GAC, and that is all. Your viewpoint about marriage doesn't make your wife any better than she is-she could have turned out to be a very bad wife and your opinion of marriage wouldn't have done anything to alter it, even if you were cautious and "understood what the institution of marriage required."

People can change over time, or aren't always as advertised, and it has nothing to do with selfishness.

And that doesn't mean you have to put your head down and simply be unhappy.


We treat marriage today like buying a car. Once you get tired of it, and it no longer suits your needs, then trade it in on a new one.


And in many cases, we should. If it no longer works, it just sits still and doesn't go anywhere, which doesn't help anybody or make the world a better place.

westofyou
05-21-2006, 11:16 AM
We can't compare divorce rates from different eras, especially when the social attitudes towards divorce are different. It was not any better then, GAC, it's just that divorce was looked down upon so people didn't do it.Yep, on the other shoe divorced woman were "scandalous" and "trouble" even in the show Happy Days they were "Hot to Trot"

It was a different era with different morals and viewpoints.

How different was it?

Here's a fine example.

My grandfathers father died and his mother remarried, in this different era that favored "marriage" and "morals" over todays wicked times you would think that that tale would have a happy end. Instead it has a creepy and sad end. The new husband wanted nothing to do with her family, just her... so they dropped the kids off at the local orphanage and went on their merry way.

The good old days weren't always so good.

GAC
05-21-2006, 12:33 PM
And it hasn't been proven that McCartney is being selfish as you put it, either. There are any number of reasons that people's marriages fail, and we can't assume that the reason theirs failed is the reason that you think marriages fail.

I never said the Paul was being selfish. I've never seen anyone make assumption and stretches like you do. But I am use to it with you.

I said that the root cause for a majority of marriages (outside of abuse) is selfishness on one of the parties part. Whether it is Paul or Heather we do not know. But there is obviously a reason that has led to their separation and possible divorce.


I'm just saying that the law should not give 25% of someone's estate to another person because a marriage failed after two years.

More like 4 yrs and a child. ;)



Love should not be not a financial opportunity. It's odd that you have all this respect for love and marriage but then think it's perfectly okay for someone to take 25% of someone's hard earned money simply because they were married for two years. This isn't what marriage is intended to do.

I never said that Dom. More wild assumptions on your part.

No, that is not what marriage is intended to do. But it is the end result when they are dissolved. It is the system that has evolved and become the by-product of such a high divorce rate.




Talk about a selfish viewpoint. In this situation you are only thinking of yourself.

Uh....no Dom. My position or attitude is that if the other has so little regard for me, and the level of their commitment to the marriage/relationship going in, and before we even enter into it, is dependent on protecting their stock portfolio, then I want that to come out, and be brought out into the open beforehand.

There obviously isn't that level of trust that is needed in any marriage when a prenup is required


The person offering the prenup could be thinking, "What if you tire of me?"

Then if they hold that doubt before going in, they probably shouldn't be getting married. And if they do, then there is the strong possibility they'll end up like Lee Marvin. ;)



If it's not about money- and just about the marriage- then why not sign a prenup? You only care about love and honor, right? What does someone else's money- that they worked for, not you- have to do with love? By not signing a prenup, it appears that you are only worried about the money.

That's your interpretation (concerning my stance);but you've been wrong about me before.


GAC, I'm for what's doing right, and taking 25% of someone's money that you did nothing to contribute to is downright cold. It's not what Jesus would do, friend.

Again. Never advocated it just because I don't like prenups. More assumption on your part. And what do you know what Jesus would do? You're one that loves to use Jesus only when it serves your convenience. 99% of the rest of the time you'd ignore him.

You certainly don't agree with Jesus' stance on divorce now do you?

Can you show me where Jesus advocated prenups Dom? ;)


And I'm not talking about a marriage where two people build something together and then split. This is obviously a different case. Heather Mills was not around when McCartney was writing his songs.

I realize what the law says Miss Mills is legally entitiled to, but that doesn't mean she has to take it.

But she is "entitled" to something for her 4 years and the child she produced and will get custody of. And it's up to the courts under current law to interpret what that is. I never said she should get 25%.... I simply repeated what was reported in the articles I read. Geez!


The problem with your argument is that it assumes that if no one divorces, then everyone is happy.

No Dom, I'm not that gullible to believe that, and all marriages are "happy ever after". What I simply have said is that society today needs to hold marriage in a hiher regard, and before entering into it, really understand the commitment it involves to make it work.

No marriage realtionship is a piece of cake. It takes work and a level of commitment that many in today's society don't either grasp, or refuse to make.

And why should they when we have made marriages so disposable?

savafan
05-22-2006, 02:07 AM
There are people who don't get divorced who are miserable. There are people who are in relationships that don't marry who are incredibly happy. These things are more complicated than simply looking at a percentage.



My parents have been married for 32 years, and I love them both dearly, but it is obvious to everyone but my father that my mother is no longer in love with him, but stays with him out of loyalty to her vows. Part of me respects that, but another part of me hurts to see my mother hurting so much. I just continue to pray that my dad will eventually see how to be a better man.

I was married for two years. It wasn't exactly a fun time. After we lost our baby, my wife fell into depression and began to abuse alcohol and drugs. I was brought into therapy where I was told that I was the cause of all of her problems. Eventually, I caught her cheating on me. After that, she moved in with her aunt, who she idolized and had herself recently gone through a divorce where she cheated. She did this so she could continue cheating, thinking I wouldn't know about it. She told me that she just needed to think some things through. After a little more than six months apart, with her still on my medical insurance, I began to get doctor and hospital bills for her. We'd talked several times, but she kept reassuring me that she didn't want to end the marriage. Turns out she didn't want to do that, because the guy who she was now pregnant by didn't have health insurance, and she was planning on coninuing to send her bills to me. I couldn't take it anymore, and finally I had to end that marriage, but it wasn't pretty. It still hurts to this day.

Sorry, I started typing and forgot what point I was going to make. I know that I was hopeful that we could work things out, because my marriage model given to me by my parents is to stick together no matter what, but there came a time when it all just became too much for me. My parents ended up having to take out two loans in order to help me pay all of the bills she left me with, and we're still paying on those now, some four + years later.

GAC
05-22-2006, 08:43 AM
sava - I'd say there are an awful lot of marriages today that started out in love, and then, over the years, it faded.

Is that still justification for divorce?

savafan
05-22-2006, 11:24 AM
sava - I'd say there are an awful lot of marriages today that started out in love, and then, over the years, it faded.

Is that still justification for divorce?

I know the correct answer is no. That's why I respect my mom so much. I don't want to get religous here, but even with my situation, I didn't feel comfortable going through with divorce until I had read Matthew. Like I said before though, even today, I still feel like a bit of a failure because my marriage went bad, even though it wasn't my fault. My ex-fiancee's parents used the fact that I was divorced to try and talk her out of not marrying me, and my current fiancee's parents are doing the same thing...

It seems like a lot of people think that if a man is divorced, he had to have done something to make it happen. I know in my heart that I did everything I could and loved my ex-wife all that I could have, but it didn't matter to her. I was even willing to take her back after she cheated the first time, but still people who have no knowledge of the situation like to automatically paint me as the bad guy.

I hate when filling out forms and it asks for marital status they put married, single and divorced. I don't believe that divorced is actually a marital status, and I don't want to be labeled by that title, so I always refuse to check that box.

REDREAD
05-22-2006, 03:34 PM
I hate when filling out forms and it asks for marital status they put married, single and divorced. I don't believe that divorced is actually a marital status, and I don't want to be labeled by that title, so I always refuse to check that box.

Can't you just put down 'single'.. I mean, I doubt they have a legal right to know, unless you have alimony obligations.

savafan
05-22-2006, 10:12 PM
Can't you just put down 'single'.. I mean, I doubt they have a legal right to know, unless you have alimony obligations.

That's what I do.

GAC
06-15-2006, 02:55 PM
It's getting ugly with the tabloids. They are saying she once worked as a high-priced call girl, and have even brought out some who say they have worked with her.

I guess they also got ahold of parts of a diary that she once kept, that possibly confirms this.

M2
06-15-2006, 04:21 PM
Yep, on the other shoe divorced woman were "scandalous" and "trouble" even in the show Happy Days they were "Hot to Trot"

It was a different era with different morals and viewpoints.

How different was it?

Here's a fine example.

My grandfathers father died and his mother remarried, in this different era that favored "marriage" and "morals" over todays wicked times you would think that that tale would have a happy end. Instead it has a creepy and sad end. The new husband wanted nothing to do with her family, just her... so they dropped the kids off at the local orphanage and went on their merry way.

The good old days weren't always so good.

Something similar happened to one of my great grandfathers.

KittyDuran
06-15-2006, 10:34 PM
Yep, on the other shoe divorced woman were "scandalous" and "trouble" even in the show Happy Days they were "Hot to Trot"

It was a different era with different morals and viewpoints.

How different was it?

Here's a fine example.

My grandfathers father died and his mother remarried, in this different era that favored "marriage" and "morals" over todays wicked times you would think that that tale would have a happy end. Instead it has a creepy and sad end. The new husband wanted nothing to do with her family, just her... so they dropped the kids off at the local orphanage and went on their merry way.

The good old days weren't always so good.I'm pretty sure that happened a lot, woy. My great uncle had 3 kids from his first marriage, but his wife died. He leaves the kids with my grandmother and great aunt to raise, goes out to CA to work as an extra in the movies, then gets married but w/o them. Also, one of my aunts had a son by her first marriage but leaves him in the care of my grandparents (her parents) and remarries and has 3 more kids by the second husband. Up until I was almost a teenager I assumed that 1st son was my uncle because he called my grandparents "Mommy and Poppy" just like my Dad because they raised him. :confused:

It's more violent in the animal world - doesn't the new male lion kill the cubs of a previous father so the lioness will go into heat?

Roy Tucker
06-16-2006, 08:50 AM
The flip side happens as well.

My wife's great-grandfather and great-grandmother had 12 kids. The great-grandmother died and the great-grandfather remarried. Then he died.

The step-great-grandmother remarried and she and her new husband raised the kids as their own even though there were no blood ties. The family tree on that side is a mess.

Chip R
10-11-2007, 04:51 PM
Well, it looks like Ms Mills is going to become a very rich woman very soon and Sir Paul is going to be a bit poorer.

http://omg.yahoo.com/mccartney-and-mills-back-in-court-over-divorce/news/3020

redsmetz
10-11-2007, 05:40 PM
Eh, Paul wont' be hurting - 70 million Pounds off a worth around 825 Million bounds. He'll manage.

WMR
10-11-2007, 05:45 PM
What a travesty.

WMR
10-11-2007, 05:45 PM
Who says England doesn't have legalized prostitution.

texasdave
10-11-2007, 06:30 PM
Ms. Mills was heard humming the tune "I've got to admit it's getting better" as she exited the courtroom.

WMR
10-30-2007, 02:20 PM
Heather Mills Throws Daughter $200,000 Birthday Party

It's no secret that kids' birthday parties have been out of control for a while now, but Heather Mills has managed to stand out from the celebrity crowd when it comes to childhood celebrations.

The former wife of Beatle Paul McCartney marked their daughter's birthday this year with a Disney-themed bash complete with a pony, cinema, fountains, trampolines, bouncy castles, actors dressed up as Cinderella, Snow White, and Tinker Bell, fireworks, and a black tie dance for the adults.

Little Beatrice will have limited memories of the $200,000 bash seeing how SHE JUST TURNED FOUR.

http://www.parentdish.com/2007/10/29/heather-mills-throws-daughter-200-000-birthday-party/

redsfanmia
10-30-2007, 03:08 PM
Heather Mills Throws Daughter $200,000 Birthday Party

It's no secret that kids' birthday parties have been out of control for a while now, but Heather Mills has managed to stand out from the celebrity crowd when it comes to childhood celebrations.

The former wife of Beatle Paul McCartney marked their daughter's birthday this year with a Disney-themed bash complete with a pony, cinema, fountains, trampolines, bouncy castles, actors dressed up as Cinderella, Snow White, and Tinker Bell, fireworks, and a black tie dance for the adults.

Little Beatrice will have limited memories of the $200,000 bash seeing how SHE JUST TURNED FOUR.

http://www.parentdish.com/2007/10/29/heather-mills-throws-daughter-200-000-birthday-party/

Honestly why is this a story? Heather Mills spending $200,000 on a birthday party is like you and I spending $20 on our kids birthday party.

M2
10-30-2007, 03:22 PM
Honestly why is this a story? Heather Mills spending $200,000 on a birthday party is like you and I spending $20 on our kids birthday party.

No, it's like spending $200,000 on a birthday party. Sure, she can afford it, but it's still phenomenal excess.

As a side question, when a $200k birthday is the norm through your formative years what are the chances that you'll find joy in anything as your grow older? Also, what are the chances that you'll ever bother to produce anything?

WMR
10-30-2007, 03:28 PM
No, it's like spending $200,000 on a birthday party.

M2, you crack me up. :laugh:

Joseph
10-30-2007, 04:04 PM
No, it's like spending $200,000 on a birthday party. Sure, she can afford it, but it's still phenomenal excess.

As a side question, when a $200k birthday is the norm through your formative years what are the chances that you'll find joy in anything as your grow older? Also, what are the chances that you'll ever bother to produce anything?

Sean Lennon keeps trying. Maybe she'll grow up and be a quirky video maker, sometimes singer song writer, and celelutante?

WMR
10-30-2007, 04:24 PM
Joseph, I prefer "celebretard."

Chip R
10-30-2007, 04:27 PM
I guess Daddy wasn't invited.

westofyou
10-30-2007, 04:28 PM
As a side question, when a $200k birthday is the norm through your formative years what are the chances that you'll find joy in anything as your grow older? Also, what are the chances that you'll ever bother to produce anything?

I know that pain, for my ninth birthday I went to Farrell's (Got The Zoo) then went and saw Willie Wonka, then we went to McDonald's (when it was not the ubiquitous grease pit it is now)

As far as birthdays go it's been all downhill since that birthday.

redsfanmia
10-30-2007, 05:17 PM
No, it's like spending $200,000 on a birthday party. Sure, she can afford it, but it's still phenomenal excess.

As a side question, when a $200k birthday is the norm through your formative years what are the chances that you'll find joy in anything as your grow older? Also, what are the chances that you'll ever bother to produce anything?
I am with you and I agree that the $200,000 is extreme excess but I dont think Heather Mills is going to take Beatrice to Dame Judy Dench's Fish & Chips or Krusty Burger for her birthday.

GAC
10-30-2007, 09:37 PM
As a side question, when a $200k birthday is the norm through your formative years what are the chances that you'll find joy in anything as your grow older? Also, what are the chances that you'll ever bother to produce anything?

And Paul and Linda, as rich as they were, in raising their kids, were very frugal (some even contend cheap). And their kids have even stated that. They didn't want their kids caught up in all the trappings.

Strikes Out Looking
10-30-2007, 09:41 PM
And Paul and Linda, as rich as they were, in raising their kids, were very frugal (some even contend cheap). And their kids have even stated that. They didn't want their kids caught up in all the trappings.

Boy, the trappings would sure be swell.

sonny
10-31-2007, 02:56 AM
Honestly why is this a story? Heather Mills spending $200,000 on a birthday party is like you and I spending $20 on our kids birthday party.

My parents have given me $20 every year for my birthday since I was 12 or so. Back then $20 was a big deal, but I'm thirty now!

But hey, I can't complain, that's a quarter tank of gas these days.:thumbup:

Yachtzee
10-31-2007, 08:29 AM
I am with you and I agree that the $200,000 is extreme excess but I dont think Heather Mills is going to take Beatrice to Dame Judy Dench's Fish & Chips or Krusty Burger for her birthday.

Have you ever been to Dame Judy Dench's Fish & Chips? It's awesome! ;)

GAC
10-31-2007, 08:47 AM
Boy, the trappings would sure be swell.


Maybe not so much if you're trying to raise well-rounded kids. They probably didn't want a Paris "I'm so hot" Hilton to have to deal with who, when they got in trouble, turns and crys "Mommy!". ;)

Chip R
10-31-2007, 09:43 AM
You know that kid would have thrown a fit if Heather had only spent $100K.

westofyou
10-31-2007, 10:07 AM
My parents have given me $20 every year for my birthday since I was 12 or so. Back then $20 was a big deal, but I'm thirty now!

But hey, I can't complain, that's a quarter tank of gas these days.:thumbup:
My wifes grandparents give her $50 for every birthday... errr until you get married that is.. then you get $25 and your spouse (that would be me) gets the other $25 for their birthday... apparently if you have kids then it filters even more, my BIL has two boys and he told us that he now gets a check for $12.50... as does his wife, and kids... but only on their birthday.

WMR
02-11-2008, 09:11 PM
HEATHER Mills CHEATED on Sir Paul McCartney for SIX months with a secret lover, the News of the World can sensationally reveal today.

Our bombshell exposé of her secret betrayal explodes as the couple prepare for a showdown week in their bitter multi-million-pound divorce battle.

We can reveal that Mucca romped with handsome film editor Tim Steel THE NIGHT BEFORE joining Macca on a romantic Caribbean Valentine's holiday.

The one-legged ex-hooker even brazenly showed her lover Sir Paul's tender texts—before leaping into bed with Tim for marathon sex sessions.

"I didn't mind—I suppose I was flattered that Heather still wanted to have sex with me despite being pursued by this musical demi-god," says Tim, breaking his silence on an affair that will stun the nation.

"Heather was insatiable between the sheets and she liked to call me her four-times-a-night guy. Our record was six.

"Most of the time it was multiple orgasms. Heather has a very unusual erogenous zone—her stump. I used to massage one particular sensitive area of it and give her an orgasm!

"But it was strange lying in bed talking about Paul McCartney. I would be with her when he called or texted her. She'd even show me the texts!"

Leeds-born Tim's shocking account of their affair will deal a heavy blow to 65-year-old Macca's pride—and put a time-bomb under Mucca's bid to squeeze an £80million pay-off out of the pop legend.

She even confided in her lover as she decided whether or not to commit to Paul.

"Marriage to him opened lots of doors for her—and that's the only reason she did it," says Tim, 45. "She falls in and out of love with men on a whim and she messes with your brain.

"When she bedded me for the first time it was in her fiance's flat! She was that kind of girl."

Tim had already been seeing Mucca—then a model turned charity campaigner—on and off for three years when Sir Paul fell for her at a bravery awards ceremony in May 1999. The star started dating her in August.

"I'd been working abroad for a few months and was surprised when she told me she was dating Paul McCartney when I got back in September," says Tim.

"When we met up it turned out to be the same vegetarian restaurant down in Hove where HE had been taking her on dates.

"Paul even sent Heather a lovey-dovey text as we ate. She showed me it and casually quipped, ‘I'm being pursued by a Beatle'.

"We both had a good laugh about it and then we went back to the house she shared with her sister Fiona and had sex—and as usual it was mind-blowing.

"My friends would ask me what it was like with a woman with one leg and I'd tell them, ‘No different to making love to a girl with two legs'.

"I'm a fit guy but she had tremendous stamina. We'd be at it like rabbits. She was up for it anywhere too. Once she gave me a ******* under the desk while I was working in my editing suite. And on a holiday in South Africa we stripped and made love in the shelter of a sand dune—even though tourists were watching."

The two were leaping in and out of bed behind Sir Paul's back right up to the Valentine's holiday the smitten star planned for them in 2000 on the private island of Parrot Cay.

The star was already out there in an £8,000-a-week beachside cottage when Heather, now 40, headed to Tim's London flat for a night of lust before flying out to join him.

"I was glad she wanted to stay with me," says Tim. "She was in two minds about him and was wondering if she was doing the right thing.

"She seemed nervous about this first holiday with him.

"Then we made love and, as always, the sex was very good. In the morning she kissed me goodbye.

"She went straight from my warm bed to the airport."

It was the last time they made love, but duped Paul will be shocked to learn Heather's close friendship with Tim continued through their 2002 engagement in India and beyond.

It was Tim who edited the couple's private home video of their time in India which Heather gave to Paul at his 60th birthday in 2002.

Tim admits: "I guess I hung around because I really didn't think Heather and Paul would last. He was an old bloke and I knew what Heather was like. She was only in love with what Paul could do for her. She loved the idea of being Lady McCartney."

Tim first met Heather on a blind date set up by a mutual friend in August 1996. "It was love at first sight. I was bowled over," he says.

At the time, Heather was already engaged to tennis organiser Marcus Stapleton—but that didn't stop her getting what she wanted.

She took Tim back to the Regent's Park mews flat she shared with Marcus, who was away on business.

Tim says: "We lay on the bed and kissed and fondled. She wanted to have sex but I didn't think I'd be able to manage it because I was so nervous." The next day divorced Tim met up with Heather to walk her Wheaten terrier, Oliver in Hyde Park. He recalls: "She looked stunning. She was wearing those sexy lace-up boots she wore on the cover of her book Out On A Limb."

They made love for the first time a few weeks later—in Marcus Stapleton's flat. "Heather instigated it with a nice bit of **** *** then we went all the way," says Tim.

"There was never any awkwardness about her leg. She would take it off the same way she would a pair of slippers."

Their sex life continued throughout the next three years of their on-off relationship—even when they were seeing other partners. Tim reveals: "We discussed it and decided to keep our relationship a secret. I would stay in the background.

"It was all sex—I'd come home from work to find her waiting for me naked in bed. If ever I was too tired for it, Heather would get angry and kick me out of bed. She'd tell me, ‘If there isn't going to be any sex, you can sleep on the sofa'.

"She had a hoard of vibrators of all shapes and sizes for when she was home alone. Her favourite was a huge back massager that she plugged into the mains.

"My mates always used to joke that they knew when I was away on business because the lights in London dimmed!" :laugh:

In August 1997, Tim and Heather moved into a flat in Streatham together. But outside of the bedroom, life with Heather was far from bliss. Tim struggled to understand her furious temper.

He says: "The first time she exploded was when we were in South Africa on a holiday and I'd criticised Mel Gibson's role in the movie Ransom one night. Heather didn't agree and we had a blazing row. She packed her bags and flew home."

They split three times during their tempestuous secret relationship.

Tim—who now lives in Australia—says of this week's up-coming High Court divorce battle: "Heather will fight Paul tooth and nail to get what she wants.

"I know her better than most. She's going for the jugular and won't shy away from fighting dirty to win.

"Something that could have been the best thing that ever happened to her has now turned round and bit her on the arse big time.

"If she's got something on Paul, she won't hesitate to use it to her advantage. With a click of the fingers, she can switch from smiles to tears.

"I hope Paul and his legal team know what they're up against and are ready for her."

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/1001_mucca.shtml - link w/ photos

GAC
02-12-2008, 06:22 AM
I don't know if I find News Of The World a very reliable source. Isn't that England's version of the National Enquirer? But was this the same guy she was engaged to, yet when she found out that Paul was inquiring about her, she dumped this guy pronto?

I'm not sympathetic towards the woman at all; but seeing that England idolizes Paul so much, she had to know she was going to be gone after.

Paul's worth something like 1.6 billion. But according to English divorce law, if I understand it correctly, she is only entitled to a percentage of that money/profits made during their 4 year marriage.

There is one report that they have come to a secret divorce agreement....

http://www.sawfnews.com/Gossip/32458.aspx

Paul McCartney and Mills reach secret £32 million divorce settlement deal
Posted on Sunday, January 21, 2007 (EST)

London, Jan 21: Sir Paul McCartney and his estranged wife Heather Mills have reportedly reached an out-of-court divorce settlement that will see her get a 32 million pound cash and property chunk out of the former ‘Beatles’ singer’s fortune.

Among the properties that Mills will get to keep includes Macca’s luxury Georgian house in St John's Wood, north-west London worth 4 million pounds, as well as his home in Beverly Hills, Los Angeles that is now worth 6 million pounds.

However, not everyone in the McCartney family is happy with the deal, for Macca’s daughter Stella, 35, and Mary, 37, are furious that their father will now never be able to publicly denounce Mills’ claims that he was verbally and physically abusive during the couple’s four-year old marriage.

A source close to Macca's girls revealed that the two had been “baying” for Mills blood for all the unhappiness she had caused their father, and the allegations she had made.

"Stella and Mary are baying for blood. Their poor dad has been dragged through the mire by this woman, and all they wanted was to see his name cleared on the record, in public," the News of the World quoted the source, as saying.

"Stella used to joke about looking forward to the day when Heather didn't even have one leg to stand on in court. But now that day will never come," the source added.

Another source said that the reason Macca had agreed to the deal was because he wanted to have the divorce in “private”.

"This way Paul gets to have the divorce in private, which is all he ever wanted, and Heather avoids risking her case falling apart. She's delighted," the source said.

According to the settlement deal that has been thrashed out by Macca and Mills’ lawyers, the animal rights activist will earn at least a million pounds a year in interest from the cash sum alone.

GAC
02-17-2008, 05:08 AM
Well.... the battle continues

It seems that they had worked out a 120 mil agreement, with the details being....

McCartney is to pay a £20 million lump sum to Mills and continue to make annual payments of £2.5 million until their four-year-old daughter Beatrice turns 18.

Mills was also entitled to four security guards for 24-hour protection.

In return for the settlement, Mills had agreed not to talk about her marriage to McCartney.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/people/mccartney-agrees-to-120-million-divorce-settlement/2008/02/17/1203190629776.html

But now the latest news is that deal has somehow fallen through the cracks due to further Mills demands, and the bitter court battle will continue.....

http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5hTX27f7rro7To1SQI8s6oxM73v0g

A couple McCartney songs come to mind....

We Can Work It Out - obviously not.

Can't Buy Me Love

"Cause I don't care too much for money, money can't buy me love"


But it can obviously bring a lot of pain. ;)

WMR
02-17-2008, 05:16 AM
Any young man--or woman--who possesses ANY assets WHATSOEVER who gets married without a pre-nup is an idiot ...

...

For Paul McCartney to do so borders on criminal.

/end lawyerly rant

GAC
02-17-2008, 07:38 AM
Any young man--or woman--who possesses ANY assets WHATSOEVER who gets married without a pre-nup is an idiot ...

...

For Paul McCartney to do so borders on criminal.

/end lawyerly rant

But judges don't have to honor pre-nups.

WMR
02-17-2008, 07:42 AM
Huh?

GAC
02-17-2008, 07:52 AM
Huh?

Depending on various "mitigating" circumstances, judges can set aside or amend pre-nups.

And as of 2007, England does not enforce them.

Historically, judges in the United States frowned upon prenuptial agreements as corrupting what marriage was supposed to stand for, and often they would not recognize them. Nowadays they are recognized, although they may not always be enforced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenuptial_agreement

WMR
02-17-2008, 07:57 AM
LOL

You've been married too long to be saved, Greg. ;) ;) ;)

(AKA)

Yer DONE!!

WMR
02-17-2008, 07:57 AM
p.s. "emitigating" isn't a word. ;)

GAC
02-17-2008, 08:15 AM
p.s. "emitigating" isn't a word. ;)

Blame Google, and a spell check that consistently screws me over.

mitigating ;)

WMR
02-17-2008, 08:17 AM
LMAO, Greg you are the man, buddy.

No spell check needed for that. :)

GAC
02-17-2008, 09:07 PM
They just reported on the news that a settlement has been reached.

The gold digger gets $108 Mil.

The "hangup" in all this was not the money, but the gag order provision that the Macca team wanted which prevents Mills, who, after firing her lawyers and was representing herself, was strongly opposed to. Why? Probably because she saw a future source of revenue in tell-all book deals, interviews, etc. That is now prohibited. Neither can publically discuss the personal and intimate details of their marriage. Even though she is now financially secure, I bet that has her "chompin' at the bit" knowing she can't air dirty laundry and try to clear her "soiled" reputation. ;)

Her Dad has stated that she will leave England now that a settlement has been reached.

GAC
02-19-2008, 08:34 PM
UPDATE....

For some reason the deal fell through due to one of the parties, and is now headed before a judge. Speculation is that Mills does not like the "gag order" (on both parties) that prevents either of them from talking about intimate and personal details of the marriage. She feels that the she needs to be able to "clear the air".

Sounds to me like she not only wants the money; but also the option to write a "tell all" book on her marriage to Macca.

Chip R
03-17-2008, 11:22 AM
Hope Heather can live on $48.6M.

http://omg.yahoo.com/mccartney-mills-head-back-to-court/news/7518

minus5
03-17-2008, 12:14 PM
I love this part:

The judgment included 35,000 pounds ($70,000) a year for the couple's 4-year-old daughter, Beatrice. Mills said she was unhappy with that amount because it isn't enough for school tuition, private security, or first-class airfare.

"He likes her to fly five times a year on holiday," Mills said of McCartney. "It's 17,000 (pounds) for two people return (round-trip) first class, so that's obviously not meant to happen for her anymore. It's very sad."

WOW. So Paul pays Mills nearly $50M, also pays for Beatrice's nanny and education and Mills is complaining that she doesn't have enough for her to fly 1st class. Amazing how constricting that budget is going to be. She's a real "special lady".

RichRed
03-17-2008, 01:35 PM
Who's her financial advisor, Latrell Sprewell?

Highlifeman21
03-17-2008, 04:41 PM
Who's her financial advisor, Latrell Sprewell?

Mike Tyson.

GAC
03-17-2008, 08:08 PM
I think everything that has been assumed or stated about this woman has proven true.

I thought that from the very beginning when I read that she immediately dumped her fiance when she heard, from a friend, that Paul inquired about her status.

When someone decides to represent themselvs in court then they have a fool for a client. ;)

Whatever problems were going on within this relationship that caused this marriage to fail - I commended Paul for refusing to talk about that in public, or using the media to trash her. She took the other route, and it hurt, or re-enforced, whatever image the public had of her.

She wanted $250 mil? Why would she even think she deserved that after only 4 years of marriage, and that the vast majority of Paul's wealth was accumulated long before he ever knew her?

And she is really upset at this judgment because the lowness of it, monetarily, in her mind, makes her look like she was the "bad guy".

IMO, she was.

minus5
03-18-2008, 01:58 PM
Did you see the latest that after the proceedings Heather went over and dumped a glass of water on McCartney's attorney's head and then told reporters that Shackelton (McCartney's attorney) had been "baptised in court". What classy lady.

Chip R
03-18-2008, 02:02 PM
Did you see the latest that after the proceedings Heather went over and dumped a glass of water on McCartney's attorney's head and then told reporters that Shackelton (McCartney's attorney) had been "baptised in court". What classy lady.


Can you blame her? How's she going to live on $48M? ;)

GAC
03-18-2008, 07:50 PM
Can you blame her? How's she going to live on $48M? ;)

Now maybe the lawyer will get a portion of that $48 mil from the lawsuit. ;)

http://www.bostonherald.com/track/celebrity/view.bg?articleid=1081263&srvc=rss

In a devastating indictment of Mills, the judge called her financial claims "exorbitant" and said she had been "less than candid" in her testimony — perhaps only British restraint kept him from calling her an outright liar, for he certainly implied she twisted the truth when convenient.

By contrast, the judge praised McCartney for "consistent, accurate and honest" testimony in the ruling, made public after he rejected Mills’ attempt to block its release.

Calling Mills’ demand of $250 million from McCartney "exorbitant" in light of their four-year marriage, the judge said her claims may have been inflated because of her estranged husband’s stature.

"The wife, for her part, must have felt rather swept off her feet by a man as famous as the husband," he said. "I think this may well have warped her perception, leading her to indulge in make-believe. The objective facts do not support her case."

He said Mills, 40, had "unreasonably" expected that she would be able to live the deluxe McCartney lifestyle for the rest of her life even after she divorced the pop star.

"Although she strongly denied it, her case boils down to the syndrome of ’me too’ or ’if he has it, I want it too,’" he wrote in awarding Mills $48.6 million.

Mills maintained she needed $6.4 million a year for herself and her daughter, Beatrice, as well as multi-million dollar properties in London and New York, and money for an office in Brighton, on England’s south coast.

Instead, the judge said Mills could get by on $1.2 million a year and one property, worth $5 million, in London.

The former model also sought millions of dollars in lost income, asserting McCartney had forced her to turn down numerous lucrative business opportunities. But Bennett rejected the claim, saying the former Beatle used his considerable prestige to actively promote his wife’s career, not quash it.

Mills claimed, for example, that McCartney made her turn down a $2 million offer to model bras for Marks & Spencer, the British retail chain. But the judge said there was no evidence to support the claim, which McCartney denied.

redsfanmia
03-18-2008, 08:26 PM
She seems like a nice lady I wish the best for her in the future.

Ltlabner
03-19-2008, 06:48 AM
"I think this may well have warped her perception, leading her to indulge in make-believe.

:laugh:




Mills maintained she needed $6.4 million a year for herself and her daughter, Beatrice, as well as multi-million dollar properties in London and New York, and money for an office in Brighton, on Englandís south coast.

An office? I didn't realize she had taken a job as a professional. Maybe she's putting out her shingle as an insurance agent?

RFS62
03-19-2008, 08:03 AM
:laugh:

An office? I didn't realize she had taken a job as a professional. Maybe she's putting out her shingle as an insurance agent?



Might be for her website's home office.... moneygrubbingho.com

RBA
03-19-2008, 08:16 AM
Mills claimed, for example, that McCartney made her turn down a $2 million offer to model bras for Marks & Spencer, the British retail chain. But the judge said there was no evidence to support the claim, which McCartney denied.

Was the judge saying she's flat chested?:evil:

RFS62
03-19-2008, 08:19 AM
Mills claimed, for example, that McCartney made her turn down a $2 million offer to model bras for Marks & Spencer, the British retail chain. But the judge said there was no evidence to support the claim, which McCartney denied.

Yeah, I'm sure she'd be getting an offer like that if she weren't Mrs. McCartney.

GAC
03-19-2008, 08:05 PM
Might be for her website's home office.... moneygrubbingho.com

I just spit coffee all over my keyboard. :lol:

I guess since Heather can't publically slam Paul, she's going to employ her family members to do so. Her sister said.... "This guy sued his three best friends (the other Beatles). That should show you what kind of a lowlife he is."

:rolleyes:

If she knew anything, she'd have seen that the only reason that was done was because, from a legal standpoint, it was the only way to dissolve the Beatles.

minus5
03-19-2008, 11:02 PM
I just spit coffee all over my keyboard. :lol:

I guess since Heather can't publically slam Paul, she's going to employ her family members to do so. Her sister said.... "This guy sued his three best friends (the other Beatles). That should show you what kind of a lowlife he is."

:rolleyes:

If she knew anything, she'd have seen that the only reason that was done was because, from a legal standpoint, it was the only way to dissolve the Beatles.

Absolutely! While a lot of people think that John And Paul absolutely hated each other(at the end of the Beatles), they were even jamming together and hanging out at least in 1974 & 75.

Matt700wlw
03-19-2008, 11:07 PM
They got over their differences, like most adults do....most of what they were not getting along about were probably creative differences, musical direction, ideas...all that stuff, and a lot of that was probably drug fueled - I'm guessing of course...I love their music, but wasn't around back then.

Even Roger Waters and David Gilmour put aside their differences for one show :)

Chip R
04-11-2008, 02:23 PM
You stay classy, Heather Mills

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080411/ap_en_ot/people_heather_mills

minus5
04-11-2008, 02:38 PM
You stay classy, Heather Mills

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080411/ap_en_ot/people_heather_mills


The stuff she didn't want disclosed had VERY little to do with their daughter...what she didn't want to get out was the part about the judge saying that she was pretty much a gold digging liar.

Tony Cloninger
04-12-2008, 10:59 PM
Why would anyone hire this idiot....who cares if it's a pageant.....why not just hire any moron who became famous through you tube?