Log In
Register
8.35pm
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Online
Paul wants to give the audiences what they want to hear and that overcomes everything else.
Tho hasn’t he dropped it from the set-list?
"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
12.16am
27 March 2015
Offline
He has, mmm. For this tour, at least.
Another factor may be that Paul thought about orchestrating TLAWR himself, originally. Whether he disliked the Spectorised version out of principle – someone not of his choosing messed with his creation – or because he genuinely cringed at Spector’s version remains the question. I’d guess it’s a little of both. Either way, it is what the fans came to know as the official version and he tries to stay true to the recorded versions as much as possible during his concerts, so yeah. Also, time tends to mollify people. Perhaps it has grown on him. 
Formerly Known As JPM-Fangirl --
2016
'Out There' - 07-06-2015 - Ziggo Dome Amsterdam -- 'One On One' - 12-06-2016 - Pinkpop Festival Landgraaf
8.17pm
22 January 2016
Offline Is Ruth McCartney Paul’s half sister? How does she get along with Paul and Mike?
10.11pm
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline
Ruth McCartney is Paul’s stepsister, @SayaOtonashi. There is no biological relationship. Daughter of Angela Williams, she was born in 1960, four years before Jim met Angela and married her.
The relationship between Ruth and Paul is dreadful, with Paul believing it’s a disgrace she trades under his family name. She is not, after all, a true McCartney, and even his brother didn’t do business under the family name.
How Mike gets on with her is unknown.
However, following Jim’s death, it is known there was a major bust-up over inheritance with Angie grabbing many personal items, mostly belonging to Paul and Mike’s mother, Mary, and claiming they now belonged to her but she would return them for a financial consideration.
Angie and Ruth McCartney? Truly the wrong kind of people.
The following people thank Ron Nasty for this post:
AppleScruffJunior, Beatlebug, WeepingAtlasCedars, Mademoiselle Kitty >^..^<"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
4.20am
Members
18 March 2013
Offline ^ Didn’t Angie put Paul’s birth cert up for auction?
Real classy lady :/
The following people thank AppleScruffJunior for this post:
William Shears Campbell, Little Piggy Dragonguy, Beatlebug, WeepingAtlasCedars, Mademoiselle Kitty >^..^<
INTROVERTS UNITE! Separately....in your own homes!
***
Make Love, Not Wardrobes!
***
"Stop throwing jelly beans at me"- George Harrison
5.09pm
5 November 2011
Offline Ron Nasty said
Ruth McCartney is Paul’s stepsister, @SayaOtonashi. There is no biological relationship. Daughter of Angela Williams, she was born in 1960, four years before Jim met Angela and married her.The relationship between Ruth and Paul is dreadful, with Paul believing it’s a disgrace she trades under his family name. She is not, after all, a true McCartney, and even his brother didn’t do business under the family name.
How Mike gets on with her is unknown.
However, following Jim’s death, it is known there was a major bust-up over inheritance with Angie grabbing many personal items, mostly belonging to Paul and Mike’s mother, Mary, and claiming they now belonged to her but she would return them for a financial consideration.
Angie and Ruth McCartney? Truly the wrong kind of people.
How can you say she is not a true McCartney? Would you also say that Heather isn’t a true McCartney? For all you know, Paul’s father might have raised Ruth with the same love he raised Paul and Mike with, like Paul did with Heather and his other children.
All living things must abide by the laws of the shape they inhabit
5.40pm
5 November 2011
Offline I also think it’s noteworthy that Ruth was only a sixteen year old child when Jim died, so she had no control over what her mom did to Paul and Mike (and she still wouldn’t have if she had been older). Calling Ruth a “wrong kind of person” for something her mother did when she was a child does not make sense.
All living things must abide by the laws of the shape they inhabit
6.01pm
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline By going on what is known about the situation, @Little Piggy Dragonguy.
Just because you find yourself with a name through marriage, it doesn’t make you a part of the family, nor give an excuse to make money off of the fact you have that name.
Ruth never has had a biological relationship with the McCartney clan, whereas Heather can claim a biological link through her siblings, and all relationships between her mother and her and members of the McCartney clan broke down quickly following Jim’s passing.
A “true McCartney” when entering the family through marriage needs accepting by the family. There are stories of Paul taking Linda to meet the extended family, and welcoming her into the family.
There are no such stories about Angie and Ruth. What there are, instead, are stories of Angie looking to make money off Paul when his father was barely cold.
Ruth paid no part in that, but she did in the interviews and stories sold to the press in the ’80s and onwards that were bought on the basis of her name, and the hope they might let something slip…
The following people thank Ron Nasty for this post:
Mademoiselle Kitty >^..^<"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
6.32pm
5 November 2011
Offline Ron Nasty said
By going on what is known about the situation, @Little Piggy Dragonguy.Just because you find yourself with a name through marriage, it doesn’t make you a part of the family, nor give an excuse to make money off of the fact you have that name.
Ruth never has had a biological relationship with the McCartney clan, whereas Heather can claim a biological link through her siblings, and all relationships between her mother and her and members of the McCartney clan broke down quickly following Jim’s passing.
Jim McCartney adopted Ruth. When somebody adopts a child, the result is that the child is now part of the family. It does not matter that she is not biologically his, just like it doesn’t matter that Heather is not biologically Paul’s. If Linda and Paul had only had Heather, she would not have been less of a part of the family.
I guarantee you that her and the other members of the McCartney clan breaking down was due to what her mother did and had very little with her, so that is irrelevant.
A “true McCartney” when entering the family through marriage needs accepting by the family. There are stories of Paul taking Linda to meet the extended family, and welcoming her into the family.
There are no such stories about Angie and Ruth. What there are, instead, are stories of Angie looking to make money off Paul when his father was barely cold.
Maybe there are no such stories about Angie and Ruth because Jim is not the superstar Paul McCartney that everybody wants to hear stories about. That does not mean that did not happen.
A true member of a family does not need to be accepted by the whole family. For somebody to reject a four year old child into their family is repulsive. There is absolutely no reason for that, even if her mother was just looking for money. That has nothing to do with the four year old. Also, what I have heard is that Paul and Mike were upset their dad got married and had a new family (very common), so maybe Paul was just bitter and taking things out on a baby.
Do you know how Jim felt about Ruth? Because if he saw her as his own (which he obviously did considering he adopted her), then she is a “true McCartney”.
Ruth paid no part in that, but she did in the interviews and stories sold to the press in the ’80s and onwards that were bought on the basis of her name, and the hope they might let something slip…
I don’t know anything about the interviews, but if her name is Ruth McCartney then I don’t see any problem with her using her own name… ?????????
Not trying to be contentious here, just trying to get you see another point of view. She may be a “wrong kind of person”, but it might just be for things you don’t know about, because from what I’ve heard, I don’t think there’s enough evidence to support that. xx
All living things must abide by the laws of the shape they inhabit
7.00pm
1 November 2013
Offline 
Adopted children are equal to biological children. Their parents are no less their parents just because of a lack of biological connection.
The following people thank Starr Shine? for this post:
Little Piggy Dragonguy
7.01pm
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline I would like to see on what basis you are suggesting she was/is considered part of the McCartney clan by the McCartney clan.
My whole comment has little to do her. As you say, she was too young when the lines were drawn to play a knowing role in the events.
But, in interviews, the main topic has usually been how badly she and her mother were treated by the McCartneys, and how she had had no contact for decades with any member of the family because of that mistreatment, and that she had a new single coming out…
Now, if you ask me, interviews such as that are done to get personal publicity and make money by slurring people who you admit you have little to no-relationship to, but whose name you’re using to open the door…
"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
7.11pm
5 November 2011
Offline She is part of the McCartney clan on the basis that she is Jim McCartney’s child. The whole family does not have to accept her for her to be a McCartney, and your assumption that they did not accept her disgusts me considering that they were rejecting a small child.
I can agree, however, that the interviews sound pretty lame, though I have never seen/read one.
All living things must abide by the laws of the shape they inhabit
7.12pm
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline Ron Nasty said
My whole comment has little to do her. As you say, she was too young when the lines were drawn to play a knowing role in the events.
Oooops! I meant to follow that point!
My point is to do with the McCartney family, if she is not accepted as being a member of the family, however much she protests, whatever legal claim she can claim to have to be considered part of the family, the family say no… It is the social relationship between individuals that allows you to claim to being a true part of that group, and she has none.
"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
7.21pm
5 November 2011
Offline Well yeah, I can agree with that. If the living members of the McCartney family have rejected her, then she is not a part of their family, but she is still Jim’s child and she is still a McCartney.
All living things must abide by the laws of the shape they inhabit
7.22pm
23 July 2016
Offline Starr Shine? said
Adopted children are equal to biological children. Their parents are no less their parents just because of a lack of biological connection.
I’d have to disagree there depending on the circumstance. If you had the adopted child since birth or shortly after (you could say within the 1st year or so of the child’s life), then you have a legitimate argument, but otherwise, he’s not your child. It’s like the argument with stepchildren.
Maybe you should try posting more.
7.38pm
1 November 2013
Offline It is if you adopt. You can adopt a child at 12 and they will still be your child. Adoption is making someone your child.
The following people thank Starr Shine? for this post:
Beatlebug7.40pm
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline And, to give a fuller example of how they use Paul without his consent, this is labelling from one of the many Angie/Ruth McCartney businesses. From my understanding both are involved in this particular endeavour that trades solely on the quality on the product and in no way trades off connections to a famous bass player…
Nothing that hints at Paul or his career in that packaging in any way…
The following people thank Ron Nasty for this post:
Beatlebug, Mademoiselle Kitty >^..^<"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
7.45pm
23 July 2016
Offline Understood Starr Shine?, but if you were adopted at 12, you’d clearly be old enough to remember your birth parents, so it would make more sense to consider them your parents than your adopted parents.
Maybe you should try posting more.
7.54pm
1 November 2013
Offline Not always, some kids are in foster care for years before being adopted. Some lived in single parent house holds and their patent married someone else who adopted the kid as their own.
8.28pm
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline My argument on how much Ruth can claim to be a true McCartney is based on her role within that group however.
It is easy to say there is paperwork in place that makes you this or that in relation to a family or group.
Let me give an even closer example of what I meant by “true McCartney” by offering a more personal view.
To the best of my knowledge, my mother still lives, I have two sisters, one younger and one older, and a younger half-brother who is autistic.
I have had two brief conversations and a letter with one of those this millennium. No communication with any other blood relation since 2000. Little in the ten years before that. Disowned by the majority of my immediate family for an interview I gave the BBC in 1988.
Now I can claim to be a member of that family, but through decisions I’ve made – some right, others wrong – that family has decided I have no place in it.
Doesn’t matter how much I jump up and down, pointing fingers at my head to try and get someone from my family to take pity, I’m still eating Chrimble dinner on my todd.
I would have liked to have been part of that family, I made efforts, but fault was always found…
I am closely related to that family by blood, DNA, whatever, but – much to my disappointment and regrets, and despite the efforts I made to avoid – I am not a part of that family in any way.
Adopted and step children often find themselves in worse positions if things get difficult or circumstances change.
I’m talking about people and not paperwork, and people aren’t always as welcoming and accepting as the paperwork suggests they should be.
The following people thank Ron Nasty for this post:
Beatlebug, HMBeatlesfan, WeepingAtlasCedars"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
1 Guest(s)