WHEN YOU"RE IN h.e.l.l, KEEP GOING When it seemed things could hardly get worse for Sir Paul and Lady McCartney, it emerged that their new Cabin and its pavilion had been constructed on the Suss.e.x estate without planning permission. When this surprising oversight was noticed, and Paul applied for retrospective permission, Rother District Council turned him down. Paul now faced the prospect of having to demolish the home he had built for his new family, or launch a planning battle to retain the buildings. Unlikely though it was that he would win such a contest, he chose the latter course of action, employing experts to prepare a case that relied partly on their client"s need for "privacy and security", arguing that it was important that his residence "is isolated and completely screened from public view and intervention. The Estate Lodge [Cabin] and a.s.sociated Pavilion satisfy these requirements completely."
While this retrospective application proceeded, Paul and Heather campaigned in Canada against the annual seal cull, which they added to a list of causes that included being pro-veggie, anti-poverty and anti-landmines. These predictably safe and worthy issues gave Heather endless reason to expound on television and in print to the degree that she and Paul started to appear more than a little tiresome, the ant.i.thesis of the tradition of the rich undertaking their good works discreetly. And there was now a whiff of bulls.h.i.t about the McCartneys. While they appeared together as a united, loving couple, posing with a cuddly seal pup in Canada in March 2006, they were on the brink of separation. Just before the final break-up, Heather tried again again to extract cash from MPL to clear what she now claimed were four loans on the Thames Reach property, totalling 450,000 ($688,500). On 1 March 2006, the accountant Paul Winn informed Heather that he would not pay her the money "without proof that the loans exist ..." Heather could not provide such proof because there was no mortgage. to extract cash from MPL to clear what she now claimed were four loans on the Thames Reach property, totalling 450,000 ($688,500). On 1 March 2006, the accountant Paul Winn informed Heather that he would not pay her the money "without proof that the loans exist ..." Heather could not provide such proof because there was no mortgage.
Seven weeks after Paul Winn knocked back this latest request for money, Paul asked Heather to accompany him on a trip, according to the leaked divorce papers. She had recently had "revision surgery" on her left leg. The papers alleged that Paul failed to make adequate provision for his wife in the circ.u.mstances. She was apparently obliged to "crawl on her hands and knees up the aeroplane steps". Three days later, on Tuesday 25 April 2006, the couple reportedly had a particularly bad domestic row which ended with Sir Paul allegedly pouring the remainder of a bottle of red wine over Heather. He then "threw what remained in his wine gla.s.s at the Respondent", as the story went in legal papers. "The Pet.i.tioner [Sir Paul] then reached to grab [Heather"s] wine gla.s.s and broke the bowl of the gla.s.s from the stem. He then lunged at the Respondent with the broken, sharp stem of the wine gla.s.s, which cut and pierced the Respondent"s arm just below the elbow, and it began to bleed profusely. He proceeded to manhandle the Respondent, flung her into her wheelchair and wheeled it outside, screaming at her to apologise for "winding him up"."
The following evening, despite Heather asking Paul to stay with her in the Cabin because she felt unable to cope with Beatrice alone, Sir Paul allegedly stalked off into the woods. She telephoned him, according to the leaked divorce papers, begging him to come back. " [Sir Paul] mocked her pleas, mimicking the voice of a nagging spouse, and refused to return." When McCartney did return from his walk, he seemed the worse for drink.
[Heather] pulled him, staggering, towards the ground-floor bathroom, undressed him, ran the bath and helped him into it. She then phoned the Pet.i.tioner"s psychiatrist for advice and he told her not to attempt to move him (she might otherwise "do herself an injury"), to get a duvet and two pillows, to empty the bath of water, cover him, and leave him there. The Respondent thereupon dragged herself upstairs, on her hands and knees ... and brought back down the duvet and pillows. She found that [Paul] had vomited on himself. She rinsed him off, and (worried that he might choke if he vomited again in the night, unattended), she got him out of the bath, dried him, and dragged him upstairs to bed ...
The sun rose on Thursday 27 April, the last full day of Paul and Heather"s life together. Believing Paul would be too hung over to help, according to the leaked divorce papers, Heather called a babysitter to get Beatrice ready for nursery, then drove to the school. When Heather returned to the Cabin, Paul was up, trying to make a joke of what had happened the night before. That evening Sir Paul drank "very little (a half bottle of wine)" and went to bed. The allegations continue: The following day, Friday 28 April 2006, the Pet.i.tioner went to London, but said he would be back in time to help the Respondent put Beatrice to bed. He did not arrive back at her bedtime, even though he knew the Respondent could not cope on her own ... At 10:00 p.m. [Sir Paul] returned home staggering drunk and slurring his words, demanding his dinner. The Respondent stated that it was on the stove but that she would not be cooking for him again, as he had no respect for her. The Pet.i.tioner called her "a nag" and went to bed. That evening the Respondent realised the marriage had irretrievably broken down and left, crawling on her hands and knees whilst dragging her wheelchair, crutches and basic personal possessions to the car.
They separated the following day, after less than four years of married life.
The McCartneys announced their separation a month later, blaming the media largely: "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 the constant intrusion into our private lives ..." Heather sold her Thames Reach property and bought a barn conversion not far from the Peasmarsh estate, accompanied almost constantly by her sister Fiona and a male personal trainer. Sir Paul sought solace with his grown-up children, spending time with Stella and her husband at their country house in Worcestershire. Stelly was now a wealthy and famous woman in her own right, head of the eponymous Stella McCartney fashion house, with boutique stores in London and abroad.
Now it was clear that Sir Paul"s ill-starred marriage had failed, the popular British press, for whom Sir Paul had always been a pet, began to publish the harshest and most sensational stories about his estranged wife. LADY MACCA HARD CORE p.o.r.n SHAME screamed the front page of the Sun Sun on 5 June 2006. Its journalists had laid their hands on a German s.e.x manual from 1988, on 5 June 2006. Its journalists had laid their hands on a German s.e.x manual from 1988, Die Freuden der Liebe Die Freuden der Liebe ( (The Joys of Love), in which Heather was pictured nude and semi-nude, simulating s.e.x acts with an equally bare male model. The picture set, shot in London around the time of Heather"s supposed stint as a cosmetics model in France, was presented as a s.e.x manual, but a manual without any words, leading the Sun Sun to describe the images as pure p.o.r.nography, thereby labelling Heather a "former p.o.r.n star". Heather"s lawyers disputed the picture set was p.o.r.nography, describing the book as "a lover"s guide", which became a moot point when even more explicit pictures of Heather emerged, including cla.s.sic top-shelf images of the model with her legs splayed apart. to describe the images as pure p.o.r.nography, thereby labelling Heather a "former p.o.r.n star". Heather"s lawyers disputed the picture set was p.o.r.nography, describing the book as "a lover"s guide", which became a moot point when even more explicit pictures of Heather emerged, including cla.s.sic top-shelf images of the model with her legs splayed apart.
The News of the World News of the World then published HEATHER THE 5K HOOKER, alleging that during the time Heather had supposedly been a legitimate model in Paris she had actually been working in London and elsewhere as a wh.o.r.e. Unlike the nudey pictures, there was no empirical evidence Heather had taken part in group s.e.x with Arabs for 5,000 ($7,650), as the then published HEATHER THE 5K HOOKER, alleging that during the time Heather had supposedly been a legitimate model in Paris she had actually been working in London and elsewhere as a wh.o.r.e. Unlike the nudey pictures, there was no empirical evidence Heather had taken part in group s.e.x with Arabs for 5,000 ($7,650), as the News of the World News of the World alleged. It was all down to the word of denizens of this shadowy world. Heather threatened to sue, but no action came to trial. Sir Paul"s friends said he was oblivious to Heather"s past, if indeed the hooker story was true, but even if she had been a prost.i.tute, would he really have been so shocked? Paul had knocked about with working girls in Hamburg. alleged. It was all down to the word of denizens of this shadowy world. Heather threatened to sue, but no action came to trial. Sir Paul"s friends said he was oblivious to Heather"s past, if indeed the hooker story was true, but even if she had been a prost.i.tute, would he really have been so shocked? Paul had knocked about with working girls in Hamburg.
Such was the sorry state of Paul"s affairs as he reached 64. A lifetime ago, "When I"m Sixty-Four" had been one the first tunes McCartney composed at Forthlin Road, putting lyrics to the song in his twenties when the Beatles recorded Sgt. Pepper"s Lonely Hearts Club Band Sgt. Pepper"s Lonely Hearts Club Band. Precociously, he had projected himself decades into the future, envisaging life as a grey-haired old man sitting by the fire with his wife. If they scrimped and saved, perhaps they could afford a summer holiday in the Isle of Wight, cheered by visits from their grandkids Vera, Chuck and Dave. Now he"d reached this fabled age, the reality was rather different. Paul"s hair might indeed be grey, but he"d dyed out the traces; the wife he expected to live with into old age was gone, so was his second wife, and theirs had not been a life of sitting by the fire. As to scrimping and saving, Sir Paul had so much money, and so many a.s.sets, he didn"t have a clear idea how much he was worth. With a divorce settlement looming, he had to hire the accountants Ernst & Young to find out how rich he actually was.
Paul did have three grandchildren, though: Arthur, Elliot and Miller. The first two were Mary"s boys, aged seven and three respectively, the third was Stelly"s 16-month-old son. In the weeks leading up to Granddad"s landmark birthday, Mary and Stella marshalled everybody at Abbey Road Studios to record a family rendition of "When I"m Sixty-Four" as a surprise gift. Sir Paul was out of the country when they made the recording. He was in Las Vegas, where Cirque du Soleil was holding a dress rehearsal for Love Love, a new Beatles-themed show that necessitated a coming together between Paul and Yoko, who hadn"t been on the best of terms in recent years. They seemed OK now. When Paul returned home from Vegas, the family, including little Bea, greeted him in Suss.e.x with a rousing chorus of "When I"m Sixty-Four" and gave him their special recording.
A month later, Paul filed for divorce from Heather on the grounds of her unreasonable behaviour. Heather replied that he he had been the unreasonable one, and she would contest the action. Paul had the locks changed at 7 Cavendish Avenue and the press were on hand to photograph the moment when Heather tried in vain to open the front gate, eventually sending a man over the top to open it from within, whereupon Paul"s staff called the police. All good fun. On 11 August, Paul"s lawyers offered the other side a quickie divorce based on "cross-decrees" (his complaint and her reply), without getting into a long debate about who was in the wrong. Heather"s lawyers rejected this, with a draft "Answer and Cross-Pet.i.tion" - that is, Heather"s allegations about Paul"s behaviour during their marriage. The damaging doc.u.ment was couched in "very strong terms indeed", in the words of the divorce judge, and was leaked to the press. Before that leak, however, came another important stage in the proceedings: Ernst & Young reported on what Sir Paul was worth. had been the unreasonable one, and she would contest the action. Paul had the locks changed at 7 Cavendish Avenue and the press were on hand to photograph the moment when Heather tried in vain to open the front gate, eventually sending a man over the top to open it from within, whereupon Paul"s staff called the police. All good fun. On 11 August, Paul"s lawyers offered the other side a quickie divorce based on "cross-decrees" (his complaint and her reply), without getting into a long debate about who was in the wrong. Heather"s lawyers rejected this, with a draft "Answer and Cross-Pet.i.tion" - that is, Heather"s allegations about Paul"s behaviour during their marriage. The damaging doc.u.ment was couched in "very strong terms indeed", in the words of the divorce judge, and was leaked to the press. Before that leak, however, came another important stage in the proceedings: Ernst & Young reported on what Sir Paul was worth.
Speculation about how rich Paul McCartney was had been a journalistic parlour game for years. By common agreement, Sir Paul was the wealthiest Beatle, possibly the richest rock star in the world. Most recently, the Sunday Times Sunday Times had estimated his wealth at 825 million, easily making him a dollar billionaire. The true size of Sir Paul"s wealth was less than this figure (which erroneously gave Paul the direct benefit of Linda"s estate). He was still an exceedingly wealthy man, though, the owner of "vast - I repeat vast - wealth" as the divorce judge remarked breathlessly. Sir Paul"s net wealth added up to approximately 387 million ($592m), concluded the accountants, making him the richest rock star in Britain and one of the wealthiest entertainers in the world. There is little doubt the figure is accurate (as much as such audits can be with fluctuating share prices, property values and currency exchanges). Ernst & Young had access to all Sir Paul"s financial records, including his extensive publishing interests and shares in Apple Corps and other companies through which Beatles money still flowed. had estimated his wealth at 825 million, easily making him a dollar billionaire. The true size of Sir Paul"s wealth was less than this figure (which erroneously gave Paul the direct benefit of Linda"s estate). He was still an exceedingly wealthy man, though, the owner of "vast - I repeat vast - wealth" as the divorce judge remarked breathlessly. Sir Paul"s net wealth added up to approximately 387 million ($592m), concluded the accountants, making him the richest rock star in Britain and one of the wealthiest entertainers in the world. There is little doubt the figure is accurate (as much as such audits can be with fluctuating share prices, property values and currency exchanges). Ernst & Young had access to all Sir Paul"s financial records, including his extensive publishing interests and shares in Apple Corps and other companies through which Beatles money still flowed.
In detail, Sir Paul"s business a.s.sets came to approximately 241 million ($ 369m). In addition he owned property worth 33.9 million ($ 51.8m), investments of 34.3 million ($ 52.4m), and another 15.1 million ($23.1m) in various bank accounts (interestingly, he kept 6,000 [$ 9,180] in ready cash, to pay the milkman perhaps). Valuables, including original artwork by de Kooning, Magritte, Matisse, Pica.s.so and Renoir, were worth another 32.2 million ($49.26m), with 36 million ($55m) tucked away in pension funds. In a statement, Paul said that most of this wealth had been acc.u.mulated prior to his marriage, though he had added 39 million to his fortune during the marriage (or $ 59.6m). In that time he had been generous to not only his wife, but also her family, lending Fiona Mills 421,000 ($ 644,130) to buy a house, and buying another Mills relative a 193,000 property ($295,290). All these figures were as yet confidential, as the details of divorces usually remain. This was to be a highly unusual divorce, however, both in its bitterness and in how much information emerged into the public domain.
The first watershed of information came a month after the Ernst & Young report was delivered confidentially to the interested parties when, at lunchtime on 17 October 2006, a fax machine at the Press a.s.sociation emitted 9 of 13 pages of Heather"s "Answer and Cross-Pet.i.tion". As we have seen, Heather is identified in the doc.u.ment as "the Respondent", replying to a case brought by "the Pet.i.tioner" (Paul). Included were all the allegations we have already read of cruelty and mistreatment, starting with the night in 2002 when Sir Paul allegedly got drunk and pushed Heather over a coffee table, to the events of April 2006. In addition, the doc.u.ment alleged: "The Pet.i.tioner has been physically violent towards the Respondent." He had behaved in a "vindictive, punitive manner" to his wife and, "In breach of his promises to the Respondent made when she agreed to marry him, the Pet.i.tioner continued to use illegal drugs, and to consume alcohol to excess, throughout the marriage ..." This fax was a windfall for the press, many newspapers printing the doc.u.ment verbatim, with reporters wondering who had been so kind as to send them the gift. It had been faxed anonymously. The fax was traced to a newsagent"s shop in London"s Drury Lane, the proprietor of which said a woman sent it. Heather Mills denied she was behind the leak, and began defamation proceedings against the Daily Mail Daily Mail and the and the Sun Sun when these papers gave their readers that impression. In their defence, the publishers a.s.serted Heather when these papers gave their readers that impression. In their defence, the publishers a.s.serted Heather had had been behind the leak, in order to damage Sir Paul"s reputation, and furthermore the allegations were lies. Again Heather"s action for defamation never came to trial. been behind the leak, in order to damage Sir Paul"s reputation, and furthermore the allegations were lies. Again Heather"s action for defamation never came to trial.
Sir Paul"s lawyers verified the papers were genuine, by issuing a statement saying the star would like to respond, but the appropriate place to do so was in the divorce court. "Our client will be defending these allegations rigorously and appropriately." Behind the scenes, lawyers prepared a counter-claim against Heather in which they not only accused her of leaking the doc.u.ments, but also of leaking details of private phone calls between Paul and his daughter Stella which had got into the press, while further alleging that during the marriage Sir Paul had been subject to "verbal abuse, extreme jealousy, false accusations of violence, and that throughout the marriage the wife had shown a consistent inability to tell the truth".
It was the allegation that Paul had got drunk and pushed Heather around, ultimately stabbing her with a broken gla.s.s, that was most astonishing. Could Paul truly be such a termagant husband? Paul enjoyed a drink, with some evidence that he drank immoderately on occasion. The reader will recall Linda pushing Paul"s whisky gla.s.s away when the McCartneys visited their Kintyre neighbours in 1996. Others tell similar stories. "I saw when he got drunk and I saw when [Linda] would sort of clear the house because he was on the verge of getting drunk," says Danny Fields. There had been stand-up rows with girlfriends, Francie Schwartz implying in her memoirs that Paul was sometimes a little rough back in the Sixties. Yet friends were outraged by suggestions Paul was an abusive drunk. Eric Stewart, who had written to warn Paul about Heather before they married - and received no reply - now wrote offering himself as a character witness in the divorce. Eric explains why he wrote to Paul: She"s saying he"s a drunk, he"s abusive. He"s not. Not in that way. He might be abusive verbally with people - he won"t suffer fools - but he"s not abusive physically to anybody. I said, "I will speak for you in court and I will say what I knew about her setting you up." And I did get a reply that time and he said, "Thanks for all that. if I need you I"ll let you know."
It was a bleak time. On 21 October 2006, Paul"s old friend Brian Brolly, who"d helped him set up MPL, died of a heart attack. A week later, Beatrice McCartney"s third birthday degenerated into an ugly scene when press came to an open-air play centre where Paul and Heather had taken the child as a treat, resulting in a fracas with photographers.
Unable to stop the flood of ugly stories, Sir Paul adopted a policy of dignified silence, pressing on with his work as Heather became ever more excitable and vociferous. Her popularity plummeted accordingly, reaching its nadir when she became the b.u.t.t of a TV presenter"s joke. Presenting an awards show in London, Jonathan Ross described Heather as such a "f.u.c.king liar [I] wouldn"t be surprised if we found out she"s actually got two legs".
BEHOLD MY (BROKEN) HEART.
Nine years since the President of Magdalen College invited Sir Paul to write a modest choral work for the new college auditorium - and two years since the try-outs in Oxford - Sir Paul premiered the final version of Ecce Cor Meum Ecce Cor Meum at the Royal Albert Hall. Commissioned during Linda"s last months, the music had been in the works so long that Paul had been widowed, remarried and separated in the meantime. at the Royal Albert Hall. Commissioned during Linda"s last months, the music had been in the works so long that Paul had been widowed, remarried and separated in the meantime.
Arranged in four movements, with a melancholy orchestral interlude written in the immediate aftermath of Linda"s death, Ecce Cor Meum Ecce Cor Meum was in many ways a typical example of McCartney music: there were lovely tunes, beautifully played and orchestrated, yet the result was uneven, bland in places, overwrought at the end, while the libretto struck the critic from the was in many ways a typical example of McCartney music: there were lovely tunes, beautifully played and orchestrated, yet the result was uneven, bland in places, overwrought at the end, while the libretto struck the critic from the Independent Independent as "sententious". A bit of a mess really, reflecting the fact that as "sententious". A bit of a mess really, reflecting the fact that Ecce Ecce, like his other cla.s.sical works, was the result of hired hands trying to express what they thought Paul wanted to hear. Yet the crowd at the Albert Hall - many of whom were Beatles fans who just wanted to see Sir Paul close up - gave the work an enthusiastic reception, and urged him to his feet at the end to say a few words, which he did with his usual confidence and grace, acknowledging the support of friends and family in the audience.
There was in fact further personal discord behind the scenes. Although the extended McCartney family was close, Paul"s wealth had long created dissent in the clan. As we have seen, Paul had been very generous over the years with his family, helping relatives buy homes, lending money and in some instances putting "relies" on the McCartney Pension so they didn"t need to work. Still some weren"t satisfied. When one relative was reminded by Paul"s accountant around the time of Ecce Cor Meum Ecce Cor Meum that a loan Paul had made, to help the relative buy their home, had not been repaid, the relation apparently retorted: "f.u.c.k him, he"s got enough money and I don"t need to f.u.c.kin" pay him back." that a loan Paul had made, to help the relative buy their home, had not been repaid, the relation apparently retorted: "f.u.c.k him, he"s got enough money and I don"t need to f.u.c.kin" pay him back."
Several relatives were invited to the premiere of Ecce Cor Meum Ecce Cor Meum, Paul"s Uncle Mike and his Aunt Bett Robbins being among those who accepted tickets, with Paul"s PA Holly Dearden booking the now-elderly couple into a first-cla.s.s London hotel, where a butler greeted them with vintage champagne. As they enjoyed Paul"s hospitality, the Robbins discovered that not all the "relies" were so pleased with their arrangements. Word had got about that Aunt Joan had been chauffeur-driven all the way from the Wirral to the show, in light of the fact she was in her 80s, leading to younger family members asking MPL to lay on door-to-door cars for them, too. "They wanted not only [a] free hotel, they wanted free cars from Liverpool and back again - because Joan Mac had a car," says Mike, who was told by Holly Dearden that one relation slammed the phone down on her when informed a car wasn"t available, telling the PA angrily: "I don"t want to talk to the monkey, I want to talk to the organ grinder." As a result, some of Paul"s nearest and dearest were not at Ecce Cor Meum Ecce Cor Meum.
All of a sudden it wasn"t as much fun being Paul McCartney. That winter Sir Paul abandoned his planning battle to keep the Cabin, agreeing to tear the wooden house down. There was slim consolation in the fact the council said he could keep the pavilion. A routine medical examination also revealed that Paul had a "minor heart irregularity". It turned out to be nothing much to worry about, thankfully, unlike the news from Heather"s lawyers, three days before Christmas, that she wanted 50 million ($76.5m) as her divorce settlement. Just what you wanted to hear before the holidays. In the new year, Paul counter-offered with a more reasonable 16.5 million ($25.2m), which together with a.s.sets Heather had accrued during their marriage meant she would walk away with about 20 million ($30.6m). She turned this offer down as insufficient. Paul also filed an affidavit that revealed how much he had wanted their marriage to work. "I believed it was for life," he said, sadly.
29.
THE EVER-PRESENT PAST.
WHEN LOVE GOES WRONG.
Heather Mills didn"t believe Sir Paul was only worth 387 million ($ 592m). He"d told his wife he was twice as rich, as her barrister informed the judge during a preliminary divorce hearing. Mr Justice Sir Hugh Bennett, a near contemporary of Sir Paul"s, having been born in 1943, and a fellow knight of the realm, asked for updated estimates of the star"s a.s.sets as a result, but the difference didn"t prove significant.
Heather claimed to be short of cash so, while the divorce was thrashed out, Sir Paul agreed to pay his wife an interim sum of 5.5 million ($ 8.4m), which would give her enough to live on and buy a house. She chose a large, secluded property at Robertsbridge, 13 miles from Peasmarsh. This way they could both have access to Bea, and take turns ferrying her to a local preparatory school. Unlike Paul"s older children, Bea would be educated privately.
As his second marriage drew to an expensive conclusion, Sir Paul severed another important connection. He had signed with EMI as a young Beatle, and released all his subsequent UK records with the company, but the star now decided the old firm wasn"t up to the challenge of marketing his new alb.u.m, Memory Almost Full Memory Almost Full. Like most major record labels, EMI was suffering in the age of digital downloads, with several of its biggest acts voicing dissatisfaction with their sales figures, on top of which the company had recently been taken over by a private equity firm. Paul began talking to Hear Music, a new company co-founded by the Starbucks chain, whose executives impressed Sir Paul partly by promising that, if he signed with them, Memory Almost Full Memory Almost Full would be on sale not only in the company"s coffee shops in the West but in 400 Starbucks in China, one of the few territories he hadn"t yet conquered. would be on sale not only in the company"s coffee shops in the West but in 400 Starbucks in China, one of the few territories he hadn"t yet conquered.
With the exception of the lovesick Driving Rain Driving Rain, Paul"s rock alb.u.ms had been getting more interesting lately, and Memory Almost Full Memory Almost Full turned out to be a particularly good listen, opening with the party pop of "Dance Tonight" then plunging into more introspective territory. After young love, soured love has inspired more good songs than any other human experience. Bob and Sara Dylan"s problems in the 1970s led to Dylan making his supreme alb.u.m turned out to be a particularly good listen, opening with the party pop of "Dance Tonight" then plunging into more introspective territory. After young love, soured love has inspired more good songs than any other human experience. Bob and Sara Dylan"s problems in the 1970s led to Dylan making his supreme alb.u.m Blood on the Tracks Blood on the Tracks, for example. While Memory Almost Full Memory Almost Full wasn"t that strong, it followed in the same tradition. Paul expresses bitter-sweet thanks to a lover whom one presumes is Heather in "Grat.i.tude", acknowledging that she"d done him wrong, but he couldn"t hate her for it. Meanwhile "You Tell Me" found Paul exploring memories of Linda, the focus of the song given away by the reference to a red cardinal, a bird native to the Arizona desert. Other songs looked back to the Beatles, Paul"s "ever-present past". Once, he"d tried to ignore his history. Now he dealt with it squarely. The lovely "That Was Me" presents a musical slide show of his early life, from scout camp to sweating cobwebs on stage at the Cavern as the Beatles worked their way up and out of Liverpool and onto TV. "That was me!" Paul yelped, as if surprised to realise the glossy young man on the wasn"t that strong, it followed in the same tradition. Paul expresses bitter-sweet thanks to a lover whom one presumes is Heather in "Grat.i.tude", acknowledging that she"d done him wrong, but he couldn"t hate her for it. Meanwhile "You Tell Me" found Paul exploring memories of Linda, the focus of the song given away by the reference to a red cardinal, a bird native to the Arizona desert. Other songs looked back to the Beatles, Paul"s "ever-present past". Once, he"d tried to ignore his history. Now he dealt with it squarely. The lovely "That Was Me" presents a musical slide show of his early life, from scout camp to sweating cobwebs on stage at the Cavern as the Beatles worked their way up and out of Liverpool and onto TV. "That was me!" Paul yelped, as if surprised to realise the glossy young man on the Ed Sullivan Show Ed Sullivan Show was the s.e.xagenarian singing now. was the s.e.xagenarian singing now.
There are no better lyrics on Memory Almost Full Memory Almost Full than in "The End of the End" in which the star faces down death itself. Composed at Cavendish Avenue on Dad"s old NEMS piano, the lyric is original, poetic and true in way that had eluded Paul for much of his career, with simple and pleasing rhymes that remain in the mind, the second verse of the song being especially elegant: than in "The End of the End" in which the star faces down death itself. Composed at Cavendish Avenue on Dad"s old NEMS piano, the lyric is original, poetic and true in way that had eluded Paul for much of his career, with simple and pleasing rhymes that remain in the mind, the second verse of the song being especially elegant: On the day that I die I"d like jokes to be told, And stories of old to be rolled out like carpets that children have played on, And laid on while listening to stories of old.
Yet Paul wasn"t ready to stop. That autumn he was seen with a new girlfriend, a dark, pencil-thin American named Nancy Shevell. Almost a quarter of a century Paul"s junior, Nancy was the daughter of a New Jersey trucking magnate, Myron "Mike" Shevell, who"d led a colourful life. A fraud investigation caused Shevell"s companies to go bankrupt in the 1970s, after which he took over New England Motor Freight (NEMF), a small firm located in Elizabeth, New Jersey, Sopranos Sopranos territory, building the company up into a huge concern with a $400 million turnover (261m), facing accusations of racketeering in the process. territory, building the company up into a huge concern with a $400 million turnover (261m), facing accusations of racketeering in the process.
Nancy Shevell was involved in this family firm. She joined NEMF in 1983 after graduating from Arizona State, the same university Linda attended. The following year, Nancy married law student Bruce Blakeman, who became prominent in the political life of New Jersey. In 1988, when Nancy Shevell was a Vice President of NEMF, the US government sued the trucking firm, with other defendants, for colluding with the Mafia. The chief defendant in the case was the head of the Genovese crime family, Vincent "Chin" Gigante, whom Mike Shevell allegedly conspired with in hiring labour. In bringing the court action, the government sought, in part, to stop Nancy"s father "endeavoring to obtain the a.s.sistance of organised crime figures regarding any labor relations matters". Shevell entered a "Consent Decree" by which he agreed to restore union members "who had been deprived of work as a result of the sweetheart arrangement" and promised not to get involved in labour negotiations again. NEMF kept on trucking.
Apart from helping run the family firm, Nancy and her husband raised a son named Arlen, maintaining homes in New York and the Hamptons, where they first became friendly with Paul and Linda. The Blakemans were still married, though separated, when Nancy began seeing Sir Paul in October 2007. In many ways, Nancy was a similar woman to Linda: she was American, Jewish, the moneyed daughter of a tough, self-made man. She had also suffered a bout with breast cancer and, again like Linda, was a denizen of New York and Long Island. Nancy"s Manhattan apartment was a 10-minute walk from the building where Linda used to live on the Upper East Side. In romancing Nancy, Paul was retracing his past.
The couple were first photographed together on a beach in the Hamptons in the autumn of 2007. When he got home to London, Paul went to see Nitin Sawhney, who"d developed a successful career since they first worked together. Sawhney had invited his superstar friend to contribute to his new alb.u.m, London Undersound London Undersound. The musicians had talked about Paul doing a song about his experiences with the paparazzi during his relationship with Heather Mills, but Paul was more exercised now about the photographers who had caught him with Nancy. "He came in feeling quite pa.s.sionate and saying, "I"m amazed they managed to take a picture of me. I didn"t think they were around. I really didn"t expect that,"" recalls Sawhney. "In one way he was quite admiring of it. He kind of laughed it off. But you could see it wasn"t something he felt that comfortable with either." These sentiments went into "My Soul", in which Paul spoke and sang about photographers stealing the soul. Sawhney chose not to improve Paul"s vocal digitally, allowing the star to sound his age. "Some people have said Oh he sounds a bit old! Oh he sounds a bit old! I think, well, good. He"s not a young bloke." I think, well, good. He"s not a young bloke."
Paul"s reaction to the paparazzi was mild compared to that of his estranged wife, who allowed herself to be endlessly wound up by the media. On the morning of 31 October, Heather invited herself onto the morning television show GMTV GMTV to rant about the British press, going "right over the top" in the words of the divorce judge. Heather began by replying to the most damaging stories that had been published about her in recent months, her alleged past as a p.o.r.n model and prost.i.tute, stating that she had never made a secret of being a "glamour model". As a teenager she aspired to be a celebrity topless model, like Maria Whittaker. "That was the thing to be in the Eighties." She had written about topless modelling in her memoirs. "Paul knew about my glamour-modelling. " Because of the photo-shoot she"d done for to rant about the British press, going "right over the top" in the words of the divorce judge. Heather began by replying to the most damaging stories that had been published about her in recent months, her alleged past as a p.o.r.n model and prost.i.tute, stating that she had never made a secret of being a "glamour model". As a teenager she aspired to be a celebrity topless model, like Maria Whittaker. "That was the thing to be in the Eighties." She had written about topless modelling in her memoirs. "Paul knew about my glamour-modelling. " Because of the photo-shoot she"d done for Die Freuden Der Liebe Die Freuden Der Liebe, the press now portrayed her, in her words, as a "hard core p.o.r.n queen". Her face expressed incredulity, as if she"d never seen the pictures of herself with her legs open.
Becoming increasingly worked up, she reminded television viewers of the very worst the papers had written: "They"ve called me a wh.o.r.e, a gold-digger, a fantasist, a liar, the most unbelievably hurtful things, and I"ve stayed quiet for my daughter, but we"ve had death threats. I"ve been close to suicide. So upset about this," she said, apparently overcome with emotion, though it looked like she was pretending to cry. "I"ve had worse press than a paedophile, or a murderer," she wailed, "and I"ve done nothing but charity for 20 years."
Heather compared the way photographers treated her to the experience of the late Princess of Wales. "What did the paparazzi do to Diana? They chased her and they killed her," she stated, in an extravagant and inaccurate a.n.a.logy.66 Heather then referred to her recent appearance on the American TV show, Heather then referred to her recent appearance on the American TV show, Dancing with the Stars Dancing with the Stars. "The only respite I got [from the media] was going to America and I did Dancing with the Stars Dancing with the Stars, because our charity was so damaged and we needed the money. I was the only person on the show that gave the money to the charity ..." (The impression was that she had given all all the money to charity. When the divorce judge came to study the paperwork he found Heather had been paid $ 200,000 [then worth about 110,000] from which she donated 50,000 to the vegetarian group Viva! - which, by the by, wasn"t a registered charity at the time.) the money to charity. When the divorce judge came to study the paperwork he found Heather had been paid $ 200,000 [then worth about 110,000] from which she donated 50,000 to the vegetarian group Viva! - which, by the by, wasn"t a registered charity at the time.) Turning to her divorce case, Heather hinted darkly that she was the victim of a conspiracy. "There is so much fear from a certain party of the truth coming out that lots of things have been put out and done," she said mysteriously, repeating that she"d had death threats. "That means my daughter"s life is at risk, because she"s with me all the time." Despite the millions Paul had given her, Heather claimed she had to borrow money to hire bodyguards. "A certain part of the tabloid media created such a hate campaign against me, they put my life and my daughter"s life at risk. And that"s why I considered killing myself," she said, welling up again, "because I thought if I"m dead, she"s safe, and she can be with her father, and that is the truth. That"s the truth."
Heather was ridiculed for this TV appearance, which apart from being a hysterical display seemingly contravened a legal agreement that she wouldn"t talk about the case in public. As a result, Heather"s relationship with her legal advisors broke down and she began representing herself in the case. Her outburst was also in marked contrast to the dignified silence maintained by Sir Paul. A hint of what he was feeling came when he said, in reply to a question about the divorce: "As Winston Churchill once said, "If you"re going through h.e.l.l, keep going!"" But he said no more.
INTO THE LAND OF MAKE-BELIEVE.
The gothic towers of the Royal Courts of Justice were cloaked in London fog as Sir Paul McCartney was driven down the Strand on Monday 11 February 2008, day one of a week of hearings during which his divorce would be settled. Seeing the press photographers erecting their ladders outside the main entrance of the High Court, which looks like a cross between a medieval church and an English public school as imagined by J.K. Rowling, Sir Paul ordered his driver to take him round the back way. He was familiar with the building. It is where he came in 1971 to sue his fellow Beatles.
Heather was already inside, a sharp-faced blonde in a pink blouse, black skirt and black boots, her false leg clumping on the flagstones as she strode down the corridor to Court 34. Having parted company with her lawyers, the famous charity worker was representing herself with the help of three "McKenzie friends", a system whereby litigants in person are able to have people in court to advise them. In Heather"s case these were her sister Fiona, a solicitor advocate named David Rosen, and an American attorney Michael Shilub. In contrast, Sir Paul was represented by two of the most expensive and formidable lawyers in the land, Nicholas Mostyn QC and solicitor Fiona Shackleton.
A surprisingly slight figure in person, Sir Paul entered the corridor with a bouncy step, wearing a pinstripe suit, white shirt and tie, a scarf round his neck, non-leather shoes on his feet with thick, moulded soles. At 65, the grey was showing again at the roots of his tinted hair, which had been arranged to disguise where he was thinning, while his sagging jowls carried a trace of winter tan. He was nevertheless still handsome and affable. He wished the ladies and gentlemen of the press a friendly "good morning", holding the door open for Ms Shackleton as they made their way into the ornate, wood-panelled courtroom, from which the press were excluded.
Inside Court 34, Heather asked Justice Bennett for a 125 million settlement ($191.2m). She said this vast sum would enable her to support herself and Bea in the style they had become accustomed to, allowing her to buy a new London home (in the 10 million [$15 m] price range), a $4.5 million ( 3m) New York apartment and an office in Brighton, giving her a total of seven residences, all of which had to be staffed, naturally. The balance of the divorce payment would be invested to generate an income of 3.25 million a year ($4.97m), on which she expected to be able to get by.
Paul"s barristers argued in reply that Heather should leave the marriage with total a.s.sets of no more than 15 million ($22.9m), on top of which Sir Paul would pay for Beatrice"s nanny, education and security. Heather addressed the judge personally, relating details of Paul"s alleged a.s.sault on her with a wine gla.s.s in April 2006, also claiming her husband had colluded with the press in a hate campaign against her. The arguments went on all week. On Friday, a Beatles fan managed to approach Sir Paul in the corridor outside the courtroom with a copy of the White Alb.u.m White Alb.u.m for signature. Paul refused. When the fan told Heather, she remarked mischievously: "That"s a pity. You are the sort of person who made him what he is today." for signature. Paul refused. When the fan told Heather, she remarked mischievously: "That"s a pity. You are the sort of person who made him what he is today."
When the couple failed to agree a settlement within the week, Justice Bennett retired to formulate his own judgment. As Sir Paul waited, he consoled Nancy Shevell, whose unmarried 50-year-old brother Jon, a fellow executive with the family trucking firm, had been found dead of an overdose at the Beverly Hills Hotel.
Justice Bennett emailed his draft judgment to Paul and Heather, who were called back to the High Court on Monday 17 March 2008 for the conclusion of their case. Paul was in a good mood when he came to court that morning, burbling to himself - "bup-bup-bup!" - as he mounted the steps to Court 34. A more subdued Heather followed, dressed for the big day in a curious harlequin trouser suit of many colours.
Behind the "No Admittance" sign, Justice Bennett read his 58-page judgment aloud to the McCartneys. The headline result was that Sir Paul should pay Lady McCartney a lump sum of 16.5 million ($25.2m), meaning that, with the wealth she had acquired during their marriage, the charity worker would walk away with cash and a.s.sets worth 24.3 million ($37.1m), which was 100 million less than she"d asked for, and roughly what Paul had offered her two years ago. In addition, Paul would pay approximately 35,000 a year ($ 53,000) for Beatrice"s nanny and education. As much as anybody who has to go to court to end their marriage can be said to be victorious, Paul was.
With Sir Paul"s agreement, and in order to quash press speculation about a case that had already generated acres of newsprint, with many wild allegations, the judge intended to do something very unusual. He wanted to publish his judgment in full on the court website, so the press and public could read the true facts of the matter. Normally, the terms of a divorce remain confidential. Although Heather had been pre-warned about this, the fact that intimate details of her case were about to become common knowledge took her aback. She asked for personal details about her and Beatrice to be redacted. Some were, but she still wasn"t happy, and in the dramatic final moments of the case the angry charity worker tipped a jug of water over Fiona Shackleton"s head.
Heather emerged into the public corridor to announce to the press that she would speak to them outside. "We"ve got to do this in front of the TV cameras!" she said, leading the pack away down the corridor towards the Strand.
Sir Paul emerged from the courtroom minutes later with Ms Shackleton, her hair plastered down on her head like a dog that"s been put under a garden hose. Asked what the outcome of the case was, Paul said: "You will see - it will all be revealed!" Indeed, the press were being given a printed summary of the judgment as his wife began her speech at the Strand gate of the High Court, surrounded by a large crowd of reporters, photographers and cameramen. In talking about the case, as she proceeded to do at length, Heather contravened a court order.
"First of all, I just want to say I"m so glad it"s over," she said over the sound of pa.s.sing traffic and the rustle of cameras, proclaiming herself happy with the 16.5 million settlement. It was as good as could be expected considering she wasn"t represented by a barrister (entirely her own fault). "Obviously the court do not want a litigant in person to do well ... so when they write the judgment up, they"re never going to try and make it look in my favour." She was angry that the full judgment was going to be made public, and would be appealing against this. "I wanted to keep the judgment private. Paul has just said he wants it public, that"s the only reason I"m talking. He"s always wanted it public because he wants to look like he"s this generous Sir Paul."
Away from the cameras, just inside the door of the Royal Courts of Justice, Heather"s sister Fiona told journalists that all the negative headlines about Heather in recent times had been orchestrated by Paul. "I can"t believe a man can be that low," she sniped, adding poisonously in case anybody had forgotten the history that had taken place in this very building: "He sued his three best friends, remember."
Heather"s appeal was unsuccessful, and the next day Justice Bennett"s judgment was published in full, giving the public unprecedented detail not only of the divorce but of Sir Paul"s personal life. The star had effectively sanctioned the court to tell the world what he was worth, where he lived and what security he had. The rationale, perhaps, was that the doc.u.ment showed him to be an honest man, while Justice Bennett came to highly critical conclusions about Heather Mills McCartney. His words made fascinating reading.
"The wife is a strong willed and determined personality. She has shown great fort.i.tude in the face of, and overcoming her disability," His Lordship wrote at the start of his judgment, adding that Heather was "a kindly person ... devoted to her charitable causes" and that she had conducted her own case with "steely, yet courteous determination". That was the best he could say about her.
The husband"s evidence was, in my judgment, balanced. He expressed himself moderately though at times with justifiable irritation, if not anger. He was consistent, accurate and honest. But I regret to have to say I cannot say the same about the wife"s evidence. Having watched and listened to her give evidence, having studied the doc.u.ments, and having given in her favour every allowance for the enormous strain she must have been under (and in conducting her own case) I am driven to the conclusion that much of her evidence, both written and oral, was not just inconsistent and inaccurate but also less than candid. Overall she was a less than impressive witness.
This was d.a.m.ning, and the subsequent details proved very revealing.
During the case, Heather argued that she was "wealthy and financially independent in her own right" before she met Paul, claiming to have been a millionairess since 1999. She earned approximately 200,000 a year ($306,000) as a model, and up to 25,000 an hour ($38,250) as a celebrity speaker. If Heather persuaded the judge she was already a woman of means she could expect a higher settlement. But the judge decided Heather"s claims of being rich in her own right were "wholly exaggerated" and lacking corroboration. "During the hearing she was asked repeatedly to produce bank statements ... No bank statements were ever produced." Her tax returns showed her annual earnings were in the more modest range of 11,500 to 112,000 ($17,595 - $171,360) prior to her marriage. Also, there was no paperwork to support her a.s.sertion that she gave the rest of her income to charity.
The judge referred to Paul"s marriage to Linda McCartney: Repeatedly in his evidence the husband described how even during his relationship with the wife [Heather] in 1999 to 2002 he was grieving for Linda. I have no doubt the husband found the wife very attractive. But equally I have no doubt that he was still very emotionally tied to Linda. It is not without significance that until the husband married the wife he wore the wedding ring given to him by Linda. Upon being married to the wife he removed it and it was replaced by a ring given to him by the wife. The wife for her part must have felt rather swept off her feet by a man as famous as the husband. I think this may well have warped her perception leading her to indulge in make-belief.
To that end, the judge rejected Heather"s claims that she and Paul had lived together as man and wife since March 2000, accepting Sir Paul was correct in saying they only started cohabiting on their wedding night in June 2002, when they also stopped using contraception.
As Paul had made clear, there was "considerable volatility in their relationship" leading up to the big day at Castle Leslie. "There were good times, there were bad times," noted the judge, "and the relationship always left in the husband"s mind a question whether he and the wife were going to be ultimately right for each other."
Justice Bennett described Heather"s claim that Paul had bought the house in Beverly Hills as a gift for her as "wishful thinking". She claimed to have pa.s.sed up business opportunities for his sake. "I would have made millions," Heather told the judge extravagantly during the case, saying her husband held her back. Yet tax returns showed Heather earned more during her marriage than before it and, far from hindering her career, Paul had arranged for her to interview Paul Newman on Larry King Live Larry King Live. Heather alleged that Paul frustrated her charitable activities, and failed to make good with his promised donations. On the contrary, the judge found that Paul introduced Heather to the animal welfare organisations she now a.s.sociated herself with, notably Viva!, while his sister-in-law Jody Eastman introduced Heather to the Adopt-A-Minefield organisation, to which Paul had given an astounding 3.4 million ($ 5.2m) during their marriage.
Heather had taken credit for "counselling" Paul after his bereavement and said she had helped him get on better with his children, particularly his adoptive daughter Heather (of whom almost nothing was seen these days). She also helped him write songs, encouraged him to tour, and helped with set design and stage-lighting. "I was his full-time wife, mother, lover, confidante, business partner and psychologist, " she had told the court. Paul agreed that Heather helped him over Linda"s death, but denied she encouraged him to get back on the road. "He firmly said that she contributed nothing to the tours," reported Justice Bennett.
Her presence on his tours came about because she loved the husband, enjoyed being there and because she thoroughly enjoyed the media and public attention. I am prepared to accept that her presence was emotionally supportive to him but to suggest that in some way she was his "business partner" is, I am sorry to have to say, make-belief.
Her claim to have been Paul"s psychologist was "typical of her make-belief".
Sir Paul was an immensely rich man before he met Heather and the judge noted that he"d grown richer during the marriage, through touring rather than record sales. He quoted Sir Paul on the records he had made during the marriage - including Driving Rain Driving Rain, Standing Stone Standing Stone and and Chaos and Creation in the Backyard Chaos and Creation in the Backyard - saying that though they had been critically acclaimed, the work "has not yet been profitable". The judge saw no evidence to corroborate Heather"s claim that her husband was twice as rich as he said he was. As to Heather"s own a.s.sets, they were princ.i.p.ally due to her husband"s generosity. Justice Bennett listed the numerous gifts and loans Sir Paul had given his wife, and addressed the repeated requests Heather had made to MPL for 450,000 ($ 688,500) to clear a nonexistent mortgage on her Thames Reach apartment. "Mr Mostyn put to her that that was a fraudulent attempt to extract money from the husband," the judge noted. - saying that though they had been critically acclaimed, the work "has not yet been profitable". The judge saw no evidence to corroborate Heather"s claim that her husband was twice as rich as he said he was. As to Heather"s own a.s.sets, they were princ.i.p.ally due to her husband"s generosity. Justice Bennett listed the numerous gifts and loans Sir Paul had given his wife, and addressed the repeated requests Heather had made to MPL for 450,000 ($ 688,500) to clear a nonexistent mortgage on her Thames Reach apartment. "Mr Mostyn put to her that that was a fraudulent attempt to extract money from the husband," the judge noted.
In my judgment it is unnecessary to go so far as to characterise what the wife attempted as fraudulent. However, it is not an episode that does her any credit whatsoever. Either she knew or must have known that there were no loans on Thames Reach, yet she tried to suggest that there were and thereby obtain monies by underhand means. Her attempts when cross-examined to suggest that she may have got in a muddle and confused this property with others, to my mind, had a hollow ring. In the light of the husband"s generosity towards her, as I have set out, I find the wife"s behaviour distinctly distasteful ... it damages her overall credibility.
Heather now possessed cash and property totalling 7.8 million ($11.9m), mostly thanks to Paul. She was spending at a rapid rate, though, having blown 3.7 million ($5.6m) during a recent 15-month period - including 184,463 ($282,228) on private planes and helicopters - and she apparently expected to continue living the high life. By her calculation, she would spend 499,000 a year on holidays ($763,470); 125,000 on clothes ($191,250); 30,000 a year ($45,900) on equestrian activities (even though she did not ride, as the judge noted); and 39,000 a year ($59,670) on wine (even though she hardly drank). Bennett was scathing: "Although she strongly denied it her case boils down to the syndrome of "me, too"."
Heather was greatly concerned about her personal security, telling the court she"d received death threats, and claiming Sir Paul was behind stories about her leaked to the press, which compromised her security. As a result, she claimed to have spent 349,862 ($ 535,288) on security men, and expected to spend 542,000 a year ($829,260) to provide her and Bea with round-the-clock protection in future. Despite being asked repeatedly by the judge, she failed to produce "one single invoice or receipt" to substantiate these expenses, while Heather"s fortress mentality contrasted to what Paul told the court about his own security.
Aside from when he was on tour, Sir Paul said he"d never felt the need for full-time security people, not until Heather insisted on it. He acquiesced to her request, but had reverted to his freewheeling ways since their separation. He had no full-time bodyguards in Suss.e.x, relying on estate workers to keep their eyes open for intruders. "The only person with me on a permanent basis is my PA, John Hammel." John did not stay with him at night, however, and he and Linda had brought up their kids largely without protection.
It is not healthy for a child to have security 24/7. It sets them apart from their peers and makes them an object of curiosity and, at times, ridicule. Such children live in gilded cages. I do not want this for Beatrice. I am rarely photographed with Beatrice. She needs as normal an upbringing as possible, and surrounding her with round-the-clock security is not the way to achieve this.
Paul added that Heather"s att.i.tude to the press was contradictory: she courted attention, yet complained about what the papers published. The judge noted that Heather had been "her own worst enemy" at times.
Heather had attempted to bring allegations about Paul"s conduct into the divorce case; that is, the lurid allegations leaked to the press in October 2006. "The conduct complained of by the wife can be summarised as follows," recapped the judge.
Prior to their separation at the end of April 2006 the husband treated the wife abusively and/or violently culminating in the unhappy events of 25 April 2006 ... He abused alcohol and drugs. He was possessive and jealous. He failed to protect the wife from the attention of the media. He was insensitive to her disability. Furthermore, it is alleged that post-separation the husband manipulated and colluded with the press against the wife and has failed to enforce confidentiality by his friends and a.s.sociates. The wife blames the husband for the leaking to the media of her Answer and Cross-Pet.i.tion which alleges in strong terms unreasonable behaviour by the husband against her. The husband has failed to provide her with a sufficient degree of security from the media and generally he has behaved badly.
In reply, Sir Paul"s QC told the court about Heather"s conduct after after the separation. "First, it is said on 25 June 2006 the wife illegally bugged the husband"s telephone, in particular a call between him and his daughter Stella in which Stella made very unflattering comments about the wife," the judge summarised. "It is further said the wife subsequently leaked the intercepted material to the press so as to discredit him." (This had seemingly led to a the separation. "First, it is said on 25 June 2006 the wife illegally bugged the husband"s telephone, in particular a call between him and his daughter Stella in which Stella made very unflattering comments about the wife," the judge summarised. "It is further said the wife subsequently leaked the intercepted material to the press so as to discredit him." (This had seemingly led to a Sunday Mirror Sunday Mirror story, "The Maccagate Tapes"). story, "The Maccagate Tapes").
Second, on 17 October 2006 the wife, or someone acting on her behalf, leaked to the media some or all of the contents of her Answer and Cross-Pet.i.tion which contained untrue and distorted allegations against the husband in order to discredit him. Third, the wife has failed to abide by court orders re[garding] confidentiality. On 31 October 2007 and 1 November 2007 the wife gave several interviews to UK and US television stations in which she made many false statements about the husband and these proceedings in order to discredit him. Individually and collectively these actions, it is said, represent a deliberate attempt by the wife to ruin the husband"s reputation.
Somebody leaked Heather"s Answer and Cross-Pet.i.tion to the press.
Both the wife and the husband accuse each other of doing it. The wife says that the husband did it in order to capitalise on his good press and to blacken the wife"s name for making such unfounded allegations. The husband says the wife did it in order to blacken his reputation.
The judge chose not to decide who was lying.
In his closing comments, Justice Bennett said that if an applicant came before him with an excessive claim, which they failed to back up with logical arguments, then they had themselves to blame if they failed to get what they wanted. "This case is a paradigm example of an applicant failing to put a rational and logical case and thus failing to a.s.sist the court in its quasi-inquisitorial role to reach a fair result." He ordered that neither Paul nor Heather disclose further details to the media. Even Heather learned to be bound by this order and, unable to say anything of substance about her husband, and with plenty of money to spend, she faded into the semi-obscurity from whence she had come, occasionally popping up on TV, and employing a succession of public relations consultants, who found themselves hard-pressed to improve her image. One spent much of his time trying to turn Heather"s Wikipedia entry to her favour.
BACK TO THE BEGINNING.
Many of Paul"s a.s.sociates had died prematurely, several worn down by the rigours of the rock "n" roll lifestyle. Brian, John, Linda and George had all pa.s.sed away before their time, along with a host of supporting players in the epic story of Paul"s life. Now Neil Aspinall, the backroom boy who had as much claim as anyone to being the "fifth Beatle", was dying of cancer in New York. Paul went to see him, as he had George, thanked Nell, as the boys always called their friend fondly, for all he had done for the band, discreetly paid his medical bills, and mourned his pa.s.sing when he died in March 2008 at the age of 66.
Neither Paul nor Ringo attended Neil"s funeral in his adoptive home town of Twickenham, just outside London. "We went to Neil"s house for the reception afterwards and Yoko said to me, "Where is Paul and Ringo?" And I said, "I don"t know. You should know better than I do where they are"," says Peter Brown, who attended the service along with Olivia Harrison, Sir George Martin and Mary and James McCartney.
Paul was represented through his children, but he and Ringo were not there. Now whether they thought it was more discreet for them not to go ... but it wasn"t as if there was going to be a million paparazzi or anything. So I don"t know what happened that day.
Sir Paul spent a good part of the spring on holiday with Nancy Shevell, his decree nisi decree nisi coming through in May, at the end of which he returned to Liverpool to help his home town celebrate its year as European Capital of Culture. In recent times Liverpool had been perceived not so much as a place to go to enrich one"s mind as a scruffy, declining seaport beset with social and economic problems. So the Capital of Culture accolade - a European Union initiative to boost investment in designated cities - was a welcome fillip to Merseyside. A huge amount of money was being invested in building works, including a new shopping arcade opposite the docks, part of which had some time since been restored and given World Heritage status, with the city hosting an impressive series of cultural events in 2008 ranging from art shows to symphony concerts. Art with a capital A was all very well, but for millions Liverpool was the Beatles, and the city"s year as Capital of Culture would ring hollow without a Beatle or two in attendance. They got both. coming through in May, at the e