Paul's parents, Mary & Jim
-
LadyLeslie wrote:
Nancy R wrote:
LadyLeslie wrote:
Kestrel wrote:
LadyLeslie wrote:
If it wasn't for her, and Paul's father of course, lol, we wouldn't have all the great Beatle and solo career music that we know and love! I can't imagine a world without their music, so I'm glad that Jim and Mary met and married, and had the great musician that we continue to appreciate.
Conversely, if Paul's mother hadn't have died then we wouldn't have all the great Beatle and solo career music that we know and love! Its pure fantasy of course but the following would present Paul with the ultimate dilemma. If Paul could go back in time with the knowledge and medicine to save his mother, would he do it in the knowledge that everything that came afterwards wouldn't have happened the way it did? So its highly unlikely he would have joined the Quarrymen, formed the Beatles, became a millionaire,met Linda, had Mary, Stella and James etc etc....
Hmmm.... I think if he went back in time and was able to save his mother, he'd still have knowledge of what he'd experienced in this current life's timeline... and bring it with him.... he'd make sure he was at the right place at the right time to meet John Lennon, to be at the Bag 0 Nails club to meet Linda at the precise moment... etc. Don't think any of that would have changed... only thing that would be different is that he probably wouldn't go to the Pride of Britain awards where he met Heather Mills... because with the same medicine he used to save his mother, he'd give the same medicine to Linda, where she'd be saved too, so he wouldn't have to meet anyone else... but problem with this scenario is that there would be no Beatrice, and if he remembered her from this timeline, he would miss his daughter.... so how can we make sure she's born while he's still married to Linda? lol (((Beatrice))) I wouldn't want him to cheat on Linda with Heather so Beatrice can be born... hmmm....
Another thing that would be different would be that if Paul could go back in time and keep John Lennon from being killed, there would be additional Lennon music, and possibly more Beatles music... especially if all 4 Beatles were on the Anthology... Paul could even prevent Brian Epstein from taking too many pills the night he died, so that might have prevented the Beatles from even breaking up in the first place...
Yikes, I got carried away here... but there's so many endless possibilities
What you're forgetting is that only the current Paul would have all that knowledge. If he went back in time and was somehow able to heal his mother, he would then leave and go back to 2021. Young Paul would not lose his mother in 1956. He would probably still take up guitar and meet John, but it's doubtful Mary would have let him quit his job and later run off to Germany with the band. Unless he had defied his mother, or convinced her to let him do these things, there would not be The Beatles (famous worldwide) If he was able to do that, everything else would play out the same.
Why would he need to leave and go back to 2021? He has to stay there to help Young Paul meet John, and Linda... and to tell Young Paul "go to Germany anyway!" It defeats the purpose of him making the time travel if he can't help his mother and Linda or help Young Paul make the right connections
That isn't the way it works! If time travel were a real thing the two Pauls could not meet or interact. He would have to (somehow) save his mother and leave. Maybe he could leave a letter to himself telling his younger self to quit his job, go with John to the lunchtime show at the Cavern and go to Germany regardless of what his mother said. Plus, you think 2021 Paul would just want to leave his life today (his wife, kids, grandkids, etc.) and go live in the past? He also would never live long enough to save John or Linda anyway! He probably wouldn't live long enough to save Brian either.
-
Nancy R wrote:
LadyLeslie wrote:
Nancy R wrote:
LadyLeslie wrote:
Kestrel wrote:
LadyLeslie wrote:
If it wasn't for her, and Paul's father of course, lol, we wouldn't have all the great Beatle and solo career music that we know and love! I can't imagine a world without their music, so I'm glad that Jim and Mary met and married, and had the great musician that we continue to appreciate.
Conversely, if Paul's mother hadn't have died then we wouldn't have all the great Beatle and solo career music that we know and love! Its pure fantasy of course but the following would present Paul with the ultimate dilemma. If Paul could go back in time with the knowledge and medicine to save his mother, would he do it in the knowledge that everything that came afterwards wouldn't have happened the way it did? So its highly unlikely he would have joined the Quarrymen, formed the Beatles, became a millionaire,met Linda, had Mary, Stella and James etc etc....
Hmmm.... I think if he went back in time and was able to save his mother, he'd still have knowledge of what he'd experienced in this current life's timeline... and bring it with him.... he'd make sure he was at the right place at the right time to meet John Lennon, to be at the Bag 0 Nails club to meet Linda at the precise moment... etc. Don't think any of that would have changed... only thing that would be different is that he probably wouldn't go to the Pride of Britain awards where he met Heather Mills... because with the same medicine he used to save his mother, he'd give the same medicine to Linda, where she'd be saved too, so he wouldn't have to meet anyone else... but problem with this scenario is that there would be no Beatrice, and if he remembered her from this timeline, he would miss his daughter.... so how can we make sure she's born while he's still married to Linda? lol (((Beatrice))) I wouldn't want him to cheat on Linda with Heather so Beatrice can be born... hmmm....
Another thing that would be different would be that if Paul could go back in time and keep John Lennon from being killed, there would be additional Lennon music, and possibly more Beatles music... especially if all 4 Beatles were on the Anthology... Paul could even prevent Brian Epstein from taking too many pills the night he died, so that might have prevented the Beatles from even breaking up in the first place...
Yikes, I got carried away here... but there's so many endless possibilities
What you're forgetting is that only the current Paul would have all that knowledge. If he went back in time and was somehow able to heal his mother, he would then leave and go back to 2021. Young Paul would not lose his mother in 1956. He would probably still take up guitar and meet John, but it's doubtful Mary would have let him quit his job and later run off to Germany with the band. Unless he had defied his mother, or convinced her to let him do these things, there would not be The Beatles (famous worldwide) If he was able to do that, everything else would play out the same.
Why would he need to leave and go back to 2021? He has to stay there to help Young Paul meet John, and Linda... and to tell Young Paul "go to Germany anyway!" It defeats the purpose of him making the time travel if he can't help his mother and Linda or help Young Paul make the right connections
That isn't the way it works! If time travel were a real thing the two Pauls could not meet or interact. He would have to (somehow) save his mother and leave. Maybe he could leave a letter to himself telling his younger self to quit his job, go with John to the lunchtime show at the Cavern and go to Germany regardless of what his mother said. Plus, you think 2021 Paul would just want to leave his life today (his wife, kids, grandkids, etc.) and go live in the past? He also would never live long enough to save John or Linda anyway! He probably wouldn't live long enough to save Brian either.
And it's also possible that if Current Paul ("Caul" ) were to assist Young Paul ("Yaul" ) that would mean that Caul would cease to exist, because he altered his own destiny.. He better stay in 2021 after all!
Also have to take into consideration that if Yaul saw Caul, and Caul tried to warn him or tell him what to do, he probably would be afraid of him and probably not listen to what he has to say... But they can't interact anyway so a letter would work better.
-
Great replies LadyLeslie & Nancy. There's a paradox here but I'm still trying to work it out !!
-
The paradox is that if you were to go back and alter ANYTHING, so many future events would be changed that you and probably other people might cease to exist. But if you ceased to exist, how could you go back in time in the first place??
Also, people who were supposed to die (in accidents let's say) might live and alter the course of history. This is why, as much as I'd like to go back to Dec. 8, 1980 and save John, time travel just isn't a good idea.
-
Nancy R wrote:
The paradox is that if you were to go back and alter ANYTHING, so many future events would be changed that you and probably other people might cease to exist. But if you ceased to exist, how could you go back in time in the first place??
Also, people who were supposed to die (in accidents let's say) might live and alter the course of history. This is why, as much as I'd like to go back to Dec. 8, 1980 and save John, time travel just isn't a good idea.
Exactly. In fact, time travel is such a bad idea that nature and physics won't allow it to happen which is why it remains in the world of science fiction. Who started this daft conversation anyway? Oop's
-
Kestrel wrote:
Nancy R wrote:
The paradox is that if you were to go back and alter ANYTHING, so many future events would be changed that you and probably other people might cease to exist. But if you ceased to exist, how could you go back in time in the first place??
Also, people who were supposed to die (in accidents let's say) might live and alter the course of history. This is why, as much as I'd like to go back to Dec. 8, 1980 and save John, time travel just isn't a good idea.
Exactly. In fact, time travel is such a bad idea that nature and physics won't allow it to happen which is why it remains in the world of science fiction. Who started this daft conversation anyway? Oop's
I love time travel stories though. One of my favorite movies is Somewhere In Time with Christopher Reeve and Jane Seymour.
-
Nancy R wrote:
I love time travel stories though. One of my favorite movies is Somewhere In Time with Christopher Reeve and Jane Seymour.
Me too although I can't remember if I've seen Somewhere In Time.I think I have but a long time ago. I love these films with time-loops themes like Triangle. We should start a time-travel thread?
-
Think of all the Beatles songs written... Just sayin’ It’s quite a different story !
-
Kestrel wrote:
Nancy R wrote:
I love time travel stories though. One of my favorite movies is Somewhere In Time with Christopher Reeve and Jane Seymour.
Me too although I can't remember if I've seen Somewhere In Time.I think I have but a long time ago. I love these films with time-loops themes like Triangle. We should start a time-travel thread?
Yes! I have other favorites we could discuss.
ETA: I started a thread in Talk More Talk.
-
Circa 1935, Mary Mohin
-
And who looks just like his dad, except he has more hair? (funny, but Jim was only about 61 in this photo, but it's taken until Paul is almost 80 to look like him!)
-
I always thought Jim McCartney was a fascinating character...and I wish there was more reading material about their relationship - there isn't enough about it in any biography that I've seen...I admire the way he gave his life and soul to his sons, devastated as he was after losing his wife. Some might take that for granted, but I just think of Freddie Lennon and Richard Starkey senior, who just took off when they didn't like the state of things...I know Jim could be tough when he had to - and I'm sure it was necessary, with the two little bandits...
There's just one thing I'm not sure about! You see...we all know that when the Beatles came back from their first Hamburg trip Jim insisted that Paul should get a proper job and everything...Paul is quoted in the anthology book saying "he virtually chucked me out of the house - get a job or don't come back"!
I mean...he was absolutely right in his demand that Paul should get a job! The band's future didn't seem very promising and, of course - no one in their wildest dreams could have imagined the success the Beatles would become later. But to "chuck" him out and tell him "not to come back" otherwise...I don't know, kind of goes too far to my taste...what do you think he meant by that? -
@lovepaul I don’t think Jim literally “chucked him out.” He just told him to get out there and get a “real job.” (which he did, temporarily!)
-
@njr I don't know... that's what Paul said. Like I said...I wish I knew of a book that would tell more about their relationship. In fact...I could never understand why they never featured Jim as a character in any of the Beatles movies. They could have done that in Backbeat - as long as they featured Louise Harrison...and I wish someone would think of making a movie that would focus on Paul for a change...I'm just thinking of Gary Bakewell - he did a terrific job as Paul twice, he'd now be perfect for the role of Jim! And just about the right age by now, I think... he's not gonna stay that age forever, you know...
-
@lovepaul Even if Jim did say “don’t come back until you have a job” it probably didn’t take long for Paul to find one. I doubt Paul had to sleep on the street or anything. He could have crashed on Ivan’s or George’s couch.
-
@ladyleslie I'm betting he was wearing KNITTED swimming trunks with the crotch area almost round his ankles lol!!
-
@njr yeah, well... it's still not a proper thing for a father to say, is it? I mean...even if he only meant it as a figure of speech...what if Paul had left the house in anger, hadn't watched where he was going and (god forbid!) got ran over or something (look what happened to Julia Lennon!)...how would Jim have felt then?
I just think you should be careful in what you say to people you care about - even when you're absolutely right! You never know if it's not gonna be the last thing they hear from you... -
@wandy said in Paul's parents, Mary & Jim :
@ladyleslie I'm betting he was wearing KNITTED swimming trunks with the crotch area almost round his ankles lol!!
I thought I had that pic, but can’t find it right now. Mike looked like he was wearing too large swim trunks and that’s what it looked like Mary was trying to put on Paul.
Found it!
-
Baby Paul with his parents. Paul posted pic on Twitter along with photo of Ringo and birthday wishes on July 7th (that was Paul’s dad’s birthday as well in 1902)
-
Here’s a “new” one! (circa 1947)