Comments on: McCartneys Separating

By: mother of All

mother of All — Wed, 31 May 2006 07:08:22 +0000

The awful think about it, we’re just short of Sir Paul’s birthday. Apparently, she will not still need him or feed hm when he’s 64.

By: Kim Siever

Kim Siever — Wed, 31 May 2006 03:16:28 +0000

Not really. But I would be surprised if their seal killing fanaticism contributed to their separation.

By: ltbugaf

ltbugaf — Wed, 31 May 2006 02:30:04 +0000

I’m just dying to know if this post was brought about in some bizarre, indirect way, by my allusions to the killing of seals in the “Canadian Music Creators Coalition” thread.

By: Mary Siever

Mary Siever — Tue, 23 May 2006 22:58:12 +0000

Maybe so. I didn’t pay too much attention really. There is a big age difference too, so maybe that has something to do with it too? I don’t know. Either way, it looks like they just weren’t ready.

By: rick

rick — Tue, 23 May 2006 16:27:48 +0000

Didn’t it seem like she really latched on to the (new to her) celebrity a bit too much?

Maybe this was just my perception, but Paul has always been kind-of low key in his off-stage life (excluding his causes, PETA etc.) while she really seemed to relish being seen.

By: Mary Siever

Mary Siever — Tue, 23 May 2006 16:23:49 +0000

Maybe not monetarily, but perhaps emotionally. I am sure they will both be involved parents. But it is still so hard on children of divorce and though yes, they can thrive and do well, it’s never the ideal situation.

I don’t know why their marriage didn’t work out, Paul McCartney’s first marriage was 29 years and would have been longer if his wife lived. All I can speculate is that he didn’t want to be alone, and though I am sure he loved/loves his second wife, they just had different desires in a marriage. Very sad.

By: rick

rick — Tue, 23 May 2006 15:23:00 +0000

My bad Mary. =(

The long and short of it being, do you think this child will be lacking in any way, shape or form with child support from someone as wealthy as Mr. McCartney?

By: Mary Siever

Mary Siever — Tue, 23 May 2006 15:10:54 +0000

Actually, yes there is a child. They have a daughter. 2 years old I believe.

By: rick

rick — Tue, 23 May 2006 15:03:03 +0000

Okay, how can any of those apply when it’s really for richer or for richer?

When you have the means, it serves as a lubricant in nearly every other social situation including marriage.

If two people are unhappy, life is too short to have to live with someone you can’t stand.

Anyway, what is the upside to staying married when you don’t want to be? It’s not like there are kids in the equation. They’re both adults and have decided it’s just not working out.

By: Sally

Sally — Sat, 20 May 2006 23:51:20 +0000

gee they only worked on their marriage for FOUR years?? No wonder so many people divorce… at the first sign of difficulties they bail! Have marraige vows changed in the last 25 years? Whatever happened to for better for worse? For richer for poorer? For sickness and in health? I guess those things no longer apply.. now it’s “till something or someone better” comes along.