Log In
Register
6.47am
17 January 2016
Offline
Dark Overlord said
Very simple actually, Paul engaged to Jane on Christmas 1967 and were going to get married but Jane caught Paul in bed with Francie Schwatrz in 1968 which broke up their relationship.
Exactly. He was a cheater.
“She wasn't doing a thing that I could see, except standing there leaning on the balcony railing, holding the universe together.” - J.D. Salinger
11.39am
5 June 2017
Offline Was their relationship played for the media, though? I personally never believed this (all we have to do is look at the songs Paul wrote about her) but there are quite a few people who do. I just think 5 years is a long time to be with someone just because it helps your image or career. Jane seems far too sensible to do that, especially since being known as a “Beatle girl” I’m sure did not help boost her image as Jane Asher, the actress.
The following people thank Rachel for this post:
Beatlebug1.59pm
Reviewers
29 November 2012
Offline 
I forget where I read it, but someone very credible who was close to the Beatles inner circle had said that the spark was out of their relationship long before the engagement in December 1967. Inertia plays a big part in why many relationships last well past their sell-by date, and especially if you can still mostly get along with the other person, it can go on quite a bit longer past when either party really wants/needs it to. Pretty sure Paul and Jane had reached that point by the end of 1966. Throw in Paul’s womanizing and Jane’s refusal to do drugs with him and the Francie Schwarz dalliance can almost be seen as Paul doing something on purpose just to make the final break. Remember, it wasn’t more than a month or two after when he finally got the guts to call Linda, kicked Francie out, and started a relationship with the true love of his life.
The following people thank DrBeatle for this post:
Beatlebug, Ahhh Girl, Rachel"I know you, you know me; one thing I can tell you is you got to be free!"
Please Visit My Website, The Rock and Roll Chemist
Twitter: @rocknrollchem
Facebook: rnrchemist
9.52pm
5 June 2017
Offline DrBeatle said
I forget where I read it, but someone very credible who was close to the Beatles inner circle had said that the spark was out of their relationship long before the engagement in December 1967. Inertia plays a big part in why many relationships last well past their sell-by date, and especially if you can still mostly get along with the other person, it can go on quite a bit longer past when either party really wants/needs it to. Pretty sure Paul and Jane had reached that point by the end of 1966. Throw in Paul’s womanizing and Jane’s refusal to do drugs with him and the Francie Schwarz dalliance can almost be seen as Paul doing something on purpose just to make the final break. Remember, it wasn’t more than a month or two after when he finally got the guts to call Linda, kicked Francie out, and started a relationship with the true love of his life.
You’re right! Especially @ bold, I read somewhere… can’t remember where, that Paul used his relationship with Francie to break it off with Jane. I love Paul, my favorite Beatle and musician (if the profile pic didn’t say that already), but I never understood why he couldn’t just break it off without getting another girl involved.
12.09am
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline Though Francie says that that’s far too simplistic a narrative in this interview; pointing out that it didn’t happen exactly as portrayed (Jane didn’t burst in on them, she knocked on the bedroom door), and that it happened after Jane had publicly announced the engagement was off.
I would post the exact quote but there is a request on the site not to reproduce any of it elsewhere, so afraid for her exact words you’ll need to read the interview.
That said, her main argument, paraphrasing, is that the media often looks for simple explanations to complicated situations. She says that Paul and Jane were about to break up when she first met him, and that they (P&J) went up to Scotland to try and work things out. They couldn’t, and on arrival back in London, Jane announced the break-up, and things between her and Paul moved to the next stage.
If her timeline is correct, and she is the only primary source to give a detailed account of those events, it throws a different light on how things unfolded.
The following people thank Ron Nasty for this post:
Beatlebug, Rachel"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
12.32pm
5 June 2017
Offline Ron Nasty said
Though Francie says that that’s far too simplistic a narrative in this interview; pointing out that it didn’t happen exactly as portrayed (Jane didn’t burst in on them, she knocked on the bedroom door), and that it happened after Jane had publicly announced the engagement was off.I would post the exact quote but there is a request on the site not to reproduce any of it elsewhere, so afraid for her exact words you’ll need to read the interview.
That said, her main argument, paraphrasing, is that the media often looks for simple explanations to complicated situations. She says that Paul and Jane were about to break up when she first met him, and that they (P&J) went up to Scotland to try and work things out. They couldn’t, and on arrival back in London, Jane announced the break-up, and things between her and Paul moved to the next stage.
If her timeline is correct, and she is the only primary source to give a detailed account of those events, it throws a different light on how things unfolded.
Thanks for that, @Ron Nasty! Never read that interview by Francie before, definitely provides a whole new perspective to the Paul/Jane/Francie drama. Good to know that Paul at least tried to work things out with Jane, and he didn’t use Francie to end the relationship.
6.51am
14 November 2017
Offline Ron Nasty said
With the usual groupies I would agree, @georgiewood. However, Paul also had affairs with actresses like Jill Haworth and Peggy Lipton (the future Mrs Quincy Jones). They were not groupies, but rather young women who thought their flings might lead somewhere.However big The Beatles were, there were always those prepared to turn them down. Ronnie Spector’s turning down of John is a prime example. Being able to admit you were attached, but not necessarily too attached, was am advantage in certain situations.
@Ron Nasty: I didn’t know that about Paul and Quincy Jones’s wife.
This article came out in the British press this week,Quincy telling us that he still has a lot of lovers (22!) around the world:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..iends.html
Quincy’s daughter Kidada,who is pictured with her dad and sister in the article,dated the late rapper Tupac Shakur,who was yet another guy who couldn’t keep his dick in his pants lol. ‘Pac famously had flings with Madonna and Janet Jackson back in the day (Jackson appeared in a film alongside Tupac called Poetic Justice, and they apparently became close both on and off screen).
Maybe Quincy’s cheating ways rubbed off on those around him! 
Still writing the words to the sermon that no one will hear......
5.06am
21 March 2018
Offline 
I wouldn’t believe anything Francie Schwartz says by a long shot. She comes across as a bit of a know all imo. How would she know if Paul and Jane were on the verge of breaking up unless she thought she was a fly on the wall. That Paul deliberately set himself up to be caught out by Jane seems silly and illogical. He was pretty much heartbroken over the breakup according to Cynthia Lennon; this was corroborated by Alistair Taylor and others. I would say these people were far more reliable witnesses than Francie and co. The only thing Jane Asher has ever said about her relationship with Paul McCartney was that everything written about them has been based on half truths.
Jane knew of Paul’s working class background when they first met. Both of them were attractive, charismatic and talented in their own right; they captured the popular imagination in a way that Paul and Linda never really could. Jane Asher was (and still is) a natural performer. Linda was not a performer in any sense – if this was her vocation she would have established herself long before she met Paul. She was a photographer, a behind the scenes person, yet Paul made their marriage highly visible by wanting her in his band. It was a good marriage for sure, but in my opinion true love is loving someone for who they are, not for what you want them to be.
I doubt that Jane is impressed by Paul’s fantastic wealth or his massive fame. I think she deserves a lot more respect. When she was with Paul she received just as many nasty comments from fans as Linda did, probably more so. All of the Beatles’ women did so I never knew why Linda and Yoko Ono thought they were so hard done by.
The following people thank Saltie for this post:
Father McKenzie, Beatlebug, star1262, Lisa0011.27am
25 August 2012
Offline So basically Paul was as much of a control freak in his relationships as he ultimately became in the studio… 
I suppose we’ll never know the full story, given that Jane has refused to ever discuss her time with Paul in any interview.
The following people thank Duke_of_Kirkcaldy for this post:
star12627.57am
Moderators
Members
Reviewers
20 August 2013
Online Duke_of_Kirkcaldy said
So basically Paul was as much of a control freak in his relationships as he ultimately became in the studio…(Snip)
I feel like the words to Here, There And Everywhere show how Paul wanted to be in contol of Jane.
To lead a better life
I need my love to be hereHere
Someone is speaking, but she doesn’t know he’s there
I want her everywhere
And if she’s beside me I know I need never careBut to love her is to need her everywhere
I think Jane needed her space.
I wish I could see this song as a sweet love song, but I just can’t. It seems demanding and smothering.
As someone mentioned elsewhere, Paul gives Nancy her space. They aren’t connected at the hip or head.
Can buy Joe love! Amazon | iTunes
Check here for "how do I do this" guide to the forum. 
(2017) 
(2018)
3.17am
14 November 2017
Offline Ahhh Girl said
Duke_of_Kirkcaldy said
So basically Paul was as much of a control freak in his relationships as he ultimately became in the studio…(Snip)
I feel like the words to Here, There And Everywhere show how Paul wanted to be in contol of Jane.
To lead a better life
I need my love to be hereHere
Someone is speaking, but she doesn’t know he’s there
I want her everywhere
And if she’s beside me I know I need never careBut to love her is to need her everywhere
I think Jane needed her space.
I wish I could see this song as a sweet love song, but I just can’t. It seems demanding and smothering.
As someone mentioned elsewhere, Paul gives Nancy her space. They aren’t connected at the hip or head.
I agree with you @Ahhh Girl. Smothering is the right word. Mind you,if Jane was my girlfriend,I’d probably want to be around her all the time too,she was a looker. But seriously,Paul was a young lad then,and he’s grown up and matured emotionally now. Being clingy like that will just end up driving a woman away. It’s happened to mates of mine,who’ve lost partners because they’re constantly checking their phone, wanting to know who they’ve been with etc. It’s not healthy. Every relationship is built on trust. If you don’t have that at least,your relationship probably won’t last too long. Damn,I sound like Jeremy Kyle hahaha
The following people thank Father McKenzie for this post:
Ahhh Girl, Beatlebug, SgtPeppersBulldogStill writing the words to the sermon that no one will hear......
8.54am
Moderators
Members
Reviewers
20 August 2013
Online 
I keep thinking that the proper title for this thread should be “Why didn’t Jane ever marry Paul?”. 
The following people thank Ahhh Girl for this post:
Beatlebug, Beatlebug, Father McKenzie, SgtPeppersBulldog, SaltieCan buy Joe love! Amazon | iTunes
Check here for "how do I do this" guide to the forum. (2017) (2018)
4.26pm
25 December 2017
Offline Here’s my opinion. If he married Jane, We might not have gotten Wings
"Dinner with Delores Must be some kind of sin
Like a Brontosaurus She was packin' it in" -Prince
8.04pm
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline @Ahhh Girl said
I keep thinking that the proper title for this thread should be “Why didn’t Jane ever marry Paul?”.
But the answer would probably be because Paul couldn’t keep his pants zipped, and then we’re on “Why couldn’t Paul keep his pants zipped when he had Jane?”
The following people thank Ron Nasty for this post:
Beatlebug, SgtPeppersBulldog"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
6.01am
18 September 2016
Offline Ron Nasty said
[… Paul couldn’t keep his pants zipped, and then we’re on “Why couldn’t Paul keep his pants zipped when he had Jane?” ]
A question you could ask about all of them I suppose, especially George with Maureen. At least Paul had the excuse that Jane wasn’t there for a lot of the time, even when she was, I think the relationship seemed too well behaved and tame to keep him from straying.
Paul Newman is quoted as replying when asked about all the temptations on offer, why go out for hamburger when you have steak at home. Not sure many stars live by that maxim.
The following people thank penny lane for this post:
Father McKenzie, Beatlebug
“I know, Jerry, that you are as human as the rest of us, if not more so."
9.12am
13 April 2018
Offline I’ve felt that as Paul’s time with Jane coincided with a tumultuous period in Beatles history and it was probably quite hard to think of settling down in total. When he and Linda re-connected in 1968 he was probably feeling more like the Beatles cohesiveness was starting to radically ebb, a new phase would soon begin, and maybe that made him more amenable to the idea of settling down and having some personal security. Others have mentioned that Linda was more attuned to the kind of partner Paul was seeking. That doesn’t make Linda less confident or Jane better and more confident, just the way people align to each other in certain marriages.
The following people thank SunKing for this post:
Beatlebug, her_magesty9.38am
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline That argument only works so far, @SunKing. It has to be remembered that Paul and Jane got engaged on Christmas Day 1967, and Jane announced their split on 20 July 1968. Less than a year later (12 March 1969) Paul and Linda were married. It was a few months in which both Paul and John turned their backs on long-term relationships, and both found new partners in women they had known for a while and quickly married.
The following people thank Ron Nasty for this post:
SunKing, Beatlebug"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
11.56am
13 April 2018
Offline You make a good point @Ron Nasty and I defer to your more knowledgeable opinion which you’ve laid out well. It does seem odd that the relationship with Asher accelerated toward the end with an engagement. There are many ways to speculate – that faced with the feeling they were drifting they instead tried one large gesture to keep going, thinking marriage may resolve it, or perhaps they felt their years together deemed they get engaged. Maybe Paul even pulled out a proposal to make amends after a previous infidelity.
The John/Yoko situation always seemed more understandable to me because the marriage to Cynthia was driven to some extent by the pregnancy, and Yoko was so unique as to be tantalizing to John in way that probably made Cynthia appear conventional by unfair comparison, and John’s looking for the next big thing is well known. But the Paul/Jane/Linda doesn’t seem to have such a stark difference. And it’s unclear even to this day how much of this was Paul’s decision and how much was Jane’s.
11.26am
25 August 2012
Offline Penny Lane said
Ron Nasty said
[… Paul couldn’t keep his pants zipped, and then we’re on “Why couldn’t Paul keep his pants zipped when he had Jane?” ]A question you could ask about all of them I suppose, especially George with Maureen. At least Paul had the excuse that Jane wasn’t there for a lot of the time, even when she was, I think the relationship seemed too well behaved and tame to keep him from straying.
Paul Newman is quoted as replying when asked about all the temptations on offer, why go out for hamburger when you have steak at home. Not sure many stars live by that maxim.
I find it interesting that John’s, Paul’s, and Ringo’s first children were each born less than 9 months after their marriage to the child’s mother. Meanwhile, George’s only child was born before he married Olivia. Good thing they weren’t alive 200+ years ago. 
It continues to baffle me how preoccupied with sex so many people are. It’s as if they forget that procreation is (and always will be) its primary function. 
The following people thank Duke_of_Kirkcaldy for this post:
Beatlebug, BeatleSnut2.56pm
Moderators
15 February 2015
Offline 
Duke_of_Kirkcaldy said
It continues to baffle me how preoccupied with sex so many people are.
As an asexual, this sentence is the most relatable thing I’ve read all day. 
The following people thank Beatlebug for this post:
The Hole Got Fixed, Father McKenzie, BeatleSnut([{BRACKETS!}])
New to Forumpool? You can introduce yourself here.
If you love The Beatles Bible, and you have adblock, don't forget to white-list this site! 
1 Guest(s)