|
|
Post by petra on Aug 23, 2003 0:55:12 GMT
check this out. I ran across this looking at seattle times history archives, found it by mistake almost. makes me wonder if they were married in the states and then once back home that is why all the jane and faul photos and then maybe they decided not to release the information that they were married.... just a thought, no way to substantiate it I suppose unless someone was willing to look up records in the next two cities listed on the tour past seattle. I could go look in the seattle records if need be. www.historylink.org/_output.CFM?file_ID=3985any thoughts or speculations about this? |
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Aug 23, 2003 0:58:38 GMT
My answer is YES! (Please read it, Chris)  |
|
|
|
Post by petra on Aug 23, 2003 1:02:12 GMT
if this turned out to be true, then they would have been married less than a month.
|
|
|
|
Post by pennylane on Aug 23, 2003 1:11:32 GMT
pretty tragic when you think about it. losing the love of your life after such a short time together...  it would explain why they had to keep up the charade of being a couple just in case the news of the wedding got out....  |
|
|
|
Post by PaulBearer on Aug 23, 2003 3:24:36 GMT
It sound like it was just another rumour fueled by the media but...if it was true, then Paul most certainly would not have had an affair with Maggie McGivern!
|
|
|
|
Post by petra on Aug 23, 2003 4:38:21 GMT
I don't think a man known for his playboy ways would change after marriage... that's why it's pretty important to know what kind of man you are marrying before you marry him.
with all due respect to Paul, he may be dead but that doesn't mean he was perfect in life.
and yeah, it could have been just media hype. But it does make me wonder. I also wonder about them not breaking up till 1968, was that the right date?
|
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Aug 23, 2003 10:01:29 GMT
Good Morning, Good Morning (Lennon/McCartney)
Nothing to do to save his life call his wife in
Nothing to say but what a day how's your boy been...
|
|
|
|
Post by Forum Manager on Aug 23, 2003 18:50:29 GMT
ah, that makes sense now!
|
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Aug 24, 2003 1:41:02 GMT
Do you want to know a secret? Quite all the lyrics written by The Beatles after 11th September 1966 are about P&B-R-D. (Paul & Brian really died) Check it out! |
|
|
|
Post by PaulBearer on Aug 24, 2003 6:57:06 GMT
Crabalocker fishwife?
From the corpse finding song. Was Jane a bit of a nagger? Hmmmm....But, more importantly, is it possible that Jane was actually the witness? If she was married to Paul, it would make sense that she was with him when the kidnapping occurred.
However, 60IF contradicts all of this, including the marriage: "His fiancèe was made aware of the true facts of the case and a annuity was given in recognition to her."
Sounds like she wasn't there and wasn't married to Paul unless there was some confusion in the translation.
|
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Aug 24, 2003 12:29:44 GMT
Since James Paul and Jane marriage was keep in secret she "officially" remained "her fiancèe"...forever |
|
|
|
Post by Imgonnaopenmymind on Aug 24, 2003 23:46:22 GMT
Well, Paul and Jane had been going steady since 1963, so they weren't together for a short time. If the supposed marriage is what you mean, then yes, it would have been less than a month; if, of course, the P&B-R-D rumor is true.
And yes, they broke up in 1968 when Jane publicly announced it on the TV show "Dee Time." However, they were together for a bit longer, as evidence seems to show, before they actually split up around the time Paul started going out with Linda in public. If the marriage theory is to be believed, then they might have "divorced" beforehand.
P.S. This has given me the idea for a fictional piece showing Jane's feelings about this, based on 60IF. Please see it on the Off-Topic boards soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by victor on Aug 25, 2003 0:33:33 GMT
GOOD MORNING GOOD MORNING is, to my knowledge, the only OTHER beatles song to feature a reference to five o'clock.
and needless to say, it's on the same album as the other "five o'clock" reference.
"somebody needs to know the time, glad that i'm here"
i'd like to know what you think lennon was trying to say there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Forum Manager on Aug 25, 2003 21:13:13 GMT
maybe jane was the girl who escaped and told them. if john called her the crabalocker fishwife, then i guess he was also calling her the pornographic priestess.
|
|
|
|
Post by PaulBearer on Aug 26, 2003 2:16:25 GMT
maybe jane was the girl who escaped and told them. if john called her the crabalocker fishwife, then i guess he was also calling her the pornographic priestess. No, there were two girls in the car. But the second one, the pornographic priestess, was not really a girl ("boy, you've been a naughty girl") and was with the kidnappers; probably stopped Paul and Brian from running away initially - held them back just long enough to be captured. Called "priestess" because Brian was a religious sacrifice... |
|
|
|
Post by Forum Manager on Aug 27, 2003 16:31:22 GMT
but how are we sure about that? how are you sure it was really a man? how are u sure she was with the kidnpappers? and if she was, then y would she call the police, and tell the rest of the beatles what happened?
|
|
|
|
Post by Imgonnaopenmymind on Aug 27, 2003 18:12:07 GMT
Because, like the cop who tipped off John and Yoko that they'd be busted, she played the game both ways.
|
|
|
|
Post by byrdsmaniac on Aug 28, 2003 22:45:07 GMT
GOOD MORNING GOOD MORNING is, to my knowledge, the only OTHER beatles song to feature a reference to five o'clock. and needless to say, it's on the same album as the other "five o'clock" reference. "somebody needs to know the time, glad that i'm here" i'd like to know what you think lennon was trying to say there. OMG! "Somebody (the listener)needs to know the time (of the accident); glad that I'm here (both alive and able to tell them. He's infering he could have been in the car but for the grace of God)." Also, I think that "pornographic priestess" is that woman who was involved with the Rolling Stones. Can't think of her name. (Not Marianne Faithful.) |
|
|
|
Post by PaulBearer on Aug 29, 2003 6:20:09 GMT
Just to clarify: There were two girls in the car - one the witness who ran away and went to the police (who may've been Jane or Maggie or someone else) and the other a traitor (actually a man) who was with the KKK
Since this "pornographic priestess" was actually a transvestite, or at least dressed like one - possible Brian's "date"? This would make sense as Brian was the target for a religious sacrifice. Hence also the name "priestess". So her job was to let herself be "picked up" by Brian and then stay with him. And she/he would've been involved in the religious ritual (as a priestess/priest).
|
|
|
|
Post by byrdsmaniac on Aug 29, 2003 13:10:26 GMT
Pornographic priestess Anita Pallenburg in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by byrdsmaniac on Aug 29, 2003 20:29:02 GMT
Just to clarify: There were two girls in the car - one the witness who ran away and went to the police (who may've been Jane or Maggie or someone else) and the other a traitor (actually a man) who was with the KKK Since this "pornographic priestess" was actually a transvestite, or at least dressed like one - possible Brian's "date"? This would make sense as Brian was the target for a religious sacrifice. Hence also the name "priestess". So her job was to let herself be "picked up" by Brian and then stay with him. And she/he would've been involved in the religious ritual (as a priestess/priest). Obladee, Polythene Pam , I am the Walrus, Get Back all have references to gender mixing. |
|
|
|
Post by Forum Manager on Sept 2, 2003 18:46:00 GMT
i thought that one woman escaped and the other didnt.
see, the other girl was also captured. what happened to her? unless she was the betrayer? yeah that makes sense. the girl who escaped called the police. the one that was "captured" was the "pornographic priestess" who betrayed them. ok, that makes sense now.
|
|
