TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Breaking Mews › Paul McCartney marries again
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Paul McCartney marries again

post #1 of 17
10/9/11 at 5:35pm
Thread Starter 
An American woman from up New York way. Her father owns (and she helps run) New England Motor Freight, the maroon trucks that say "NEMF" on them. I've pulled loads for them out of their main terminal; maybe I met her, long ago?
Reply
post #2 of 17
10/9/11 at 7:30pm
I wonder how much this one will cost him in a couple years.
Reply
post #3 of 17
10/13/11 at 11:50am
I'm happy for him.
Reply
post #4 of 17
10/13/11 at 12:14pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite View Post
I wonder how much this one will cost him in a couple years.
She is plenty wealthy in her own right, and there was a prenuptial agreement that neither the marriage nor any subsequent separation would affect Paul's finances.
Reply
post #5 of 17
10/13/11 at 3:54pm
If the government is going to get involved in marriage, IMO prenups should be a contractual requirement as nasty divorce suits clog up the legal system and benefit no one but the lawyers.

Never understood the need to get married though, at least if you're both over 50 like they are and so aren't starting a family where unity for the sake of the kids might trump personal happiness. Why not just be together, and if at some point you don't feel like being together, then don't. Statistically, 67% of second marriages end in divorce anyway in the US at least so its not like the ring really means anything other than complication. Oh well, if it makes em happy, more power to em.
Reply
post #6 of 17
10/17/11 at 9:15am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
She is plenty wealthy in her own right, and there was a prenuptial agreement that neither the marriage nor any subsequent separation would affect Paul's finances.
Oh yes, and we all know how cut in stone pre-nups are and how they hold up.
Reply
post #7 of 17
10/17/11 at 10:30am
I'm sure he knows the risks. So he's a romantic type. Good for him!
Reply
post #8 of 17
10/17/11 at 5:34pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post
Never understood the need to get married though, at least if you're both over 50 like they are and so aren't starting a family where unity for the sake of the kids might trump personal happiness. Why not just be together, and if at some point you don't feel like being together, then don't. Statistically, 67% of second marriages end in divorce anyway in the US at least so its not like the ring really means anything other than complication. Oh well, if it makes em happy, more power to em.
Maybe he recognizes that celebrities are role models, and the model of non-marriage is a disastrous one for society in general, and women and children most specifically. I applaud him for not taking the easy way out.
Reply
post #9 of 17
10/17/11 at 11:43pm
Not to drag this too far off topic, but what is wrong with Paul and Nancy just being together without getting formally married? If they love each other, or are at least "comfortable", then they really don't need a legal contract to force them to stay together as they would just be together because they want to be. And I would think that everyone would agree that if Paul and Nancy no longer had any feelings for one another, and in fact made each other miserable at some point, that it would be better for both of them to go their separate ways since no children are involved... you only live once after all. So marriage would only seem to make a difference in keeping them together if they didn't want to be together, but its not particularly binding considering how commonplace divorce is, meaning that it just complicates the breakup and results in legal battles which are a nightmare when vast fortunes are involved.
Reply
post #10 of 17
10/18/11 at 5:17am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post
Not to drag this too far off topic, but what is wrong with Paul and Nancy just being together without getting formally married? If they love each other, or are at least "comfortable", then they really don't need a legal contract to force them to stay together as they would just be together because they want to be. And I would think that everyone would agree that if Paul and Nancy no longer had any feelings for one another, and in fact made each other miserable at some point, that it would be better for both of them to go their separate ways since no children are involved... you only live once after all. So marriage would only seem to make a difference in keeping them together if they didn't want to be together, but its not particularly binding considering how commonplace divorce is, meaning that it just complicates the breakup and results in legal battles which are a nightmare when vast fortunes are involved.
My marriage doesn't force me to be with my husband. We lived together for several years before we were married. We were very happy, but unfulfilled. Being married to each other is a sacred bond to us. To me, it's also something God wants, which is important to me. Every time I say "my husband" it reminds me of that bond. Complete trust, even in the face of all the divorces in the world. The importance of my marriage outweighs any financial risks we may be taking. I know I'm not describing it well - sorry. Maybe Paul & Nancy feel something like I do though.
Reply
post #11 of 17
10/23/11 at 8:58am
Thread Starter 
Marriage was invented to protect women and children. Women who eschew its benefits show a lack of appreciation for that protection, and our society is suffering for it.

I know, that's not the popular view. Call me an old fogey, but answer this: What's the difference between being married, and not being married?

The answer: When you're not married, you always have it in the back of your mind that you can leave at any time without consequences.

If I have to explain the disastrous effects that has on personal relationships, then the battle is already lost.

Just in passing, pre-nups don't stand up well in Texas, which has very strict laws protecting the rights of wives. In a divorce, a judge often rules that the pre-nup was an effort by one party to deprive the other party of rights bestowed by the state on all married parties.
Reply
post #12 of 17
10/23/11 at 9:30am
Marriage was really a business transaction up until the Victorian era. And still is in many parts of the world where there are arranged marriages.

Marriage bestows numerous rights. A spouse has rights to determine medical care and access over the parents and any other family members. In the Schiavo case, the husband was the one to decide on her fate. The parents did not have a say. If your domestic partner falls ill, it is possible for the family to deny you access to that person.

More benefits from employers, insurers, public assistance are covered for spouses than a domestic partner. Inheritance of assets are not taxed if going to a spouse.

More rights to division of assets in a divorce rather than a break up.

Much of the discussion for gay marriage is around these rights. That is why many prefer marriage over civil unions. Marital rights and benefits are mentioned in millions of laws. Civil unions don't cover them all.
Reply
post #13 of 17
10/23/11 at 10:03am
Sorry if I sound like an old foggy, but marriage is a sacrament in my view.

My understanding is that the two people knew each other for over 10 years before this marriage. I'm sure they know the risks. I'm guessing the prenup is to protect or calm any fears of Paul's children regarding their inheritance. And the reports say his children were all for this marriage, though not the last one.

There is a lot to be said for having a partner who is committed to you for the long haul, no matter what comes. And a lot of people still take their marriage vows very seriously. As one ages and is faced with end of life issues, a partner one is not married to has no rights, no legal voice even.

I wish them much joy with each other.

Robin
Reply
post #14 of 17
10/24/11 at 5:03am
I'm happy for him. He found someone closer to his own age and who has money of her own. So hopefully she isn't into this marriage with dollar signs like the last bimbo he married.

I wish them well.
Reply
post #15 of 17
10/24/11 at 5:42am
Thread Starter 
There are millions of girls "of a certain age" around the world who are jealous of this woman, who got to marry "the cute one."

It is said Paul never spent one night away from Linda in all the years they were married. He apparently takes marriage pretty seriously.
Reply
post #16 of 17
10/24/11 at 6:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post

It is said Paul never spent one night away from Linda in all the years they were married. He apparently takes marriage pretty seriously.
I often wondered if having this type of relationship for half of his life and that Heather Mills resembled Linda to a great degree in looks might have clouded his judgement with that second marriage.
Reply
post #17 of 17
10/25/11 at 5:54pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by katachtig View Post
Marriage was really a business transaction up until the Victorian era. And still is in many parts of the world where there are arranged marriages.
Only in the upper classes. In the lower classes, it has always been about stability in society, being sure children were produced, fed, raised, trained, educated, and launched.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Breaking Mews
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Breaking Mews › Paul McCartney marries again