Kudos to Sir Paul McCartney for Skipping the Prenup

I don't like the concept of prenuptial agreements.

To me, drawing one up is like planning the divorce before the wedding takes place. That being said, however, I've been known to stray from my beliefs considering the circumstance. For example, when Britney announced she'd marry Kevin with no prenup I though that was beyond foolish--some wise attorney did eventually to talk her into it.

This logic may be a bit skewed, but I tend advocate against prenups for first marriages--believing you should embrace the innocence of the act and go for it full throttle--but for every marriage after that, the caution is understood and prenups are acceptable. (The Brit/K-Fed marriage was her second, if you'll recall).

That is, except, when Paul McCartney is concerned. When he married Heather Mills in 2002--the second marriage for both of them--with millions in his back pocket and no dotted lines in sight, he received ridicule from the press and praise from me. I thought it was sweet. It was courageous. It was a great tribute--to his first wife.

Paul McCartney knows how to make a marriage work. He and Lady Linda were partners in crime for nearly 30 years. They married in early 1969, and she was his constant muse. Paul wrote the songs "Lovely Linda" and "Maybe I'm Amazed" for her. She was a member of his second band, Wings. They wrote songs and toured together. They raised four children--including fashion designer Stella McCartney and photographer Mary McCartney--on a farm in Scotland, as they preferred a quiet family life. From where Paul stands, not only do marriages work but they work remarkably well. They produce amazing second-act careers and successful children. I once heard it said that the creative duo didn't spend more than eleven days apart during their entire marriage. Tragically, he lost Linda to cancer in 1998.

When Paul decided to marry again, he approached it the same way--with no hesitation. He remarried with the same confidence and gusto any young groom would proudly possess. It's easy to say, "He should have been more careful because he's bigger now," but he married Linda in the midst of the Beatles break-up. He was probably bigger then, at least in the way of screaming fans. Any passerby could have called Linda a gold digger just as easily as we tag Heather with the title. Regardless, Paul knows the ins and outs and ups and downs of marriage--celebrity marriage nonetheless. He had every right to think he could make it work just as well on the second go round. Unfortunately, his second wife wasn't nearly as classy as the first and he literally paid the price.

Jackie Kennedy Onassis once said, "The first time you marry for love, the second for money, and the third for companionship." That maxim seems to ring true here.

The bad news is Heather Mills received $48.6 million in the settlement. The good news is she didn't receive the $250 million she asked for, which the judge called "unreasonable, indeed exorbitant," and Paul continues to be worth at least $700 million. The best news is history won't remember Heather--she'll get a mention--but it's Linda McCartney who will stand the test of time. She'll be beside Paul in all the rock-legend coffee-table books, and she'll receive the credit she deserves for being 50% of one of the most successful celebrity marriages ever seen. If Paul does decide to marry once more, let's hope he fulfills the prophecy and finds a worthy companion.

Follow Samara O'Shea on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SamaraOShea

Comments

[NotThatKilpatrick]

Check your facts. Linda Eastman was in no way connected to Eastman Kodak. Although, as a photographer she must have gone through enough film.

[cjennie1]

HuffPost's Pick

I love Paul McCartney and had so hoped for him the love he richly deserved after losing Linda. I think there was a sense of feeling bad for Heather Mills because of the loss of her leg: I remember feeling that sympathy myself. I cry for him that he more than likely will not have the daily closeness with Beatrice that he had with his other children. I suspect he neither wants nor needs my sympathy, but it is with him nonetheless.

As for British pre-nups not being upheld: PLEASE, they often aren't upheld in this country either when it comes to the very rich. Pre-nups, post-nups, wills are broken every day in courts around this country. I hate to see the cynical "marry for money" the second time. I would hope that no matter what our age, when we find that love (no many how many times around) that we are as naive and sweet and sensitive as we were when we were 18.

[Guitarsandmore]

Love is blind, its true. I didn't see any of my wife's faults when I married her. All I could see was a beautiful woman who loved me for who I was. I am sure Paul was so filled with joy at the time of his marriage he wasn't thinking about anything else other than love.

[Chrisanne]

Are you talking about Linda or Heather? Because if it's the latter, the judge's ruling includes testimony from Paul that his relationship with Heather was very volatile right from the beginning, and that he wasn't sure it would stand the test of time. He also wrote her a letter prior to their wedding setting out certain mutually-agreed upon provisions should the marriage fail. So he obviously wasn't nearly as "blind" and "filled with joy" as you seem to think.

The same charming personality that caused Heather to pour a pitcher of water over Paul's attorney also caused her to throw a $40,000 engagement ring out of a window six years earlier. The handwriting was always on the wall, and I think he saw it. He just chose to ignore it.

[GeologyRocks]

Paul’s was a unique case because his first marriage was a long and happy one, so it is understandable that he would jump into his second optimistically. For many of us however, including both men and women whose first foray into marriage was like traversing through an endless chasm of pain and despair, the question would not be whether to have a prenup or not, but why venture into that dark and festering chasm again at all?

To the untrained eye, the path into marriage’s demonic realm leads one to believe that marriage is like a pastoral paradise, where the woman/man of your dreams will forever be by your side in times of trouble or need. To the trained eye, however, the pastoral paradise has a “keep off the grass” sign, and that person of your dreams is not so dreamy after all.

[cindyward]

Sorry, Ms. O'Shea, I gotta agree with McCartney's children on this one. Heather Mills has proven herself to be a golddigger beyond all shadow of a doubt. They saw the truth while their besotted father did not.

At the time, I thought everyone was being too hard on Mills - most posters here on HuffPo probably don't remember when Paul married Linda, but I do, and a LOT of people thought she was a golddigger too. But the previous poster who commented on the McCartneys' poor days are absolutely correct. If it hadn't been for Linda's money and Linda's being able to collect royalties for helping write Wings' hits (for which she was sued and won), the McCartneys would have had almost nothing to live on while the Beatles' fate AND money was tied up in litigation.

I think if McCartney had had a pre-nup - whether or not it would have been "legal" under British law - Mills would have split with him before their marriage, which would have been the best thing for everyone. Now there's this lovely, innocent, 4-year-old girl involved whom Mills will probably destroy, if only to get back at McCartney. Sad :-( ... Cindy

[OtayPanky]

Samara O'Shea: Any passerby could have called Linda a gold digger just as easily as we tag Heather with the title.

===

Ummm...no.

Linda's last name was Eastman, as in Eastman-Kodak.

And as another poster pointed out, he was not the billionnaire he is today.

As for billionnaire Paul being "brave" and "sweet" for not having a pre-nup with golddigger Heather, the words "naive" and "stupid" are much more on point.

And if he marries again, no doubt he'll be wiser and smarter.

[LetterLover]

Linda did come from money but was not related to the Eastman Kodak family:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Eastman#Early_years_and_photography

[Chrisanne]

In my opinion, a pre-nup would have been hugely helpful to him, because it would have conclusively demonstrated his intent to protect his financial assets--something which he had not only the right, but also, for the sake of his family, the responsibility to do.

Paul wasn't a billionaire when he married Linda. In fact, soon after their marriage, all of his financial assets got tied up in the Beatles dissolution, and their family lived a very spartan existence on whatever money Linda had brought into the marriage. How long would a greedy, high-living woman like Heather Mills have put up with that situation?

Heather is no Linda, never was. Gold-diggers like her have done irreparable damage to the institution of marriage, and I fear that without the availability of pre-nuptial agreements wealthy men will simply refuse to marry. And who could blame them? So please take off the rose-colored glasses and be realistic.

Did you read the judge's ruling? All 58 pages? I strongly suspect that Paul wouldn't choose to skip a pre-nup if he had it to do all over again.

[pajja]

Kudos??? I do not think prenups are recognized under English (UK) laws.

[LetterLover]

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. As it turns out, we're both right. Prenups in the UK are not legally binding, however, they are considered by the court. In a 2006 article in THE GUARDIAN (link below) you can have a prenup written and offer it in court if and when divorce proceedings take place. Prenups are recommend for the very rich, which would include Paul McCartney, but it’s ultimately up to the judge as to whether or not it’ll be upheld.

A bit from the article:

“Andrew Breakwell, partner at Mills & Reeve, cites the case of K vs K in 2003, in which a pre-nup was largely upheld. "For over 30 years there have been cases where pre-nuptial agreements have been of some influence in a judgment." But he adds that if there has been any trickery in the agreement, then that agreement is worthless. Judges also pay less attention to them the longer the marriage has lasted and will strike them out if they believe they are unfair.”

According to this, a prenup may have helped in Sir Paul’s circumstance because he was only married for a short time. In any case, he didn’t motion to have one written, and so I stand by my kudos.

Link to the full article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2006/jun/03/divorce.moneysupplement

Samara