A Frogs Chorus

It looks like the sordid divorce of Sir Paul McCartney and his wife Heather is finally drawing to a close. It has marked the nadir of my opinion of a once great musician and songwriter, an opinion that has steadily degenerated through twenty-five years of dreadful decisions taken by the man (some important and usavoury; others less-so).

Let me take you back to an event that shortly preceded the divorce, when Heather McCartney was reported as being unhappy with Sir Pauls' continued use of marijuana. It was what I refer to as a 'Chinese Bang' of a story; a brief yet fairly amusing run in the tabloids that seemed to paint the picture of an ageing sixties pop-idol being nagged into old-age by a young demanding wife. I did not care about the story one way or the other, but was surprised at how little play the tabloids gave to it, seeing as how the drug-use seemed a little at odds with Sir Pauls' wholesome veggie image.

After a few months, things got a little nastier for Heather, as revelations emerged in the press of her shady, vile (and frankly exciting) past. Pictures of her in soft-porn poses were released to the newspapers, with assurances of further more hardcore images to follow. We were informed that Heather had been a prostitute in her younger days, hired out to rich 'Arabians' (sic) (because let us not forget, there is nothing more certain to get Daily Mail readers more upset than foreign men having sex with British women) without any proof of these events bearing more than the slightest resemblance to fact. Her reputation was in tatters. It began to look like the weed-nagging was a bad idea.

Remember that she was still ostensibly happily married to Sir Paul at this juncture. He even came out in the papers in support of her, despite rumours that his own daughter from a previous marriage, Stella, carried a dislike for his current wife. Shortly after these revelations, however, the marriage was all but over and the ugly divorce commenced in the full public glare.

But how did all this really come about? Is Sir Paul really as virtuous and gallant as he has appeared in the British press? Well, I would draw your attention to a few events, some from the dim and distant past and others from the near-future to explain how I think this man (and our news industry) operates.


When the Beatles officially split in 1970, the world looked for reasons for the break-up. Indeed, the rabid fans of the group were looking for someone to blame. Little by little, with no outright fact or quote from the Beatles themselves, it begun to be reported in the British press that Lennon's wife, Yoko Ono was the person that had disrupted the balance of the band. Later (and indeed right up to the present day), it became an accepted fact that this was the case. John Lennon later revealed in an interview with Rolling Stone magazine (and in subsequent interviews) that the real reasons for the split were the increasing isolation between McCartney and himself, a disillusion with the musical direction of the band and a desire to 'start playing Rock 'n' Roll' and draw himself away from McCartney's insistence on elevating the cache of Rock music to that of opera. All pretty boring stuff. He also made reference to feeling betrayed by McCartney after he felt that he had used the music and broader press to discredit him and his wife. Whilst it was obvious that he still had affection for McCartney, he painted a picture of a man obsessed by popular success and global image. Tellingly, Lennon continued to perform with the other two Beatles, Harrison and Starr and went on to perform with other contemporary musicians, such as the Rolling Stones and Dylan, all of whom it must be said have no such love for McCartney. Sir Paul announced the dissolution of the Beatles (reportedly without telling his band-mates) a month before the release of his solo-album, a move that further upset Lennon and seemed to confirm his misgivings about McCartney.

Because of Lennon's reluctance to enter into a public argument with McCartney, however, Ono's role in the split has become part of our culture. Britain does seem rather ready to 'blame the woman' when it comes to things like this. Did Paul have anything to do with these rumours? To my mind, a fabulously rich man with an eye toward his public image is capable of anything, and to smear the reputation of a scapegoat in the press does not even approach the limit of such a man.

In later years, Sir Paul honoured the death of his former writing partner by legally changing the order in which his name appears in the writing credits on Beatles songs, a move that many have condemned as petty. But this slightest of changes to the historical order (one which was surely only ever laid alphabetically) not only puts McCartney first in the minds of future generations, but also guarantees him increased revenue due to the fact that Lennon is deceased. It will further benefit him when negotiations conclude as to the digital rights of the Beatles catalogue.

So, petty and greedy then.

It is rather alarming that history seems to be repeating itself with Heather. I obviously do not know the woman personally. She does seem rather incapable of keeping control under what are admittedly rather pressured cirumstances, but enormous amounts of attention have been centred around her in this whole thing, while Sir Paul (the father of her child, let's not forget) is getting away scot-free.

I am a fond reader of conspiracy theories. I don't believe them all, but I find them fascinating and usually as factual as the agenda-driven official lines spun by our lapdog press. One such theory is that Paul McCartney was actually killed in a road accident in 1966, only to be replaced with a lookalike (named William Campbell) by a terrified record and management company, to prevent a colossal loss of revenue. This would, on the surface, appear to be a preposterous tale.

But then there is the Frog's Chorus...........