Do you remember Heather Mills?

[LucilleBluth]

I have been watching the Beatles documentary and got to thinking about her.

She was in the papers constantly in the 2000s, I remember her being painted as an absolute con artist witch. I googled a few articles about her from the time of the divorce. They are brutal in the misogynistic tone, she’s labelled as a slag, a goer, ex prostitute, you name it.

I don’t think papers write about women in such hash terms anymore. Maybe she was a bit of a twat, whoever married Saint Paul would have suffered at that time I think.

I suppose by AIBU is are the press less misogynistic.

Here’s the interview with Gloria Chapman. She arranged his round the world trip, so I bet she was linked to the Church of Satan/Kenneth Anger:

legacy.cmalliance.org/alife/my-husband-shot-john-lennon/

In fact, thinking about it, it’s obvious. She was working as a ‘travel agent’ (how convenient) and volunteering at the hospital where he had been sectioned (no doubt looking for a likely candidate).

She wrote his travel itinerary and sent him off in a westerly direction.

Dear God, they weren’t even subtle about it.

Her parents gave him the money for the Norman Rockwell and Salvador Dali, you say?

Gave her the money more like.

I'm not religious, is it a religious thing to believe things like astrology, tarot etc as Satanic? As she mentions those, but l wouldn't think of those things as satanic. She's hardly Allister Crowley!

Look, @LoveMySituation, you’re looking at this all wrong. The Church of Satan is a front for organised crime. You don’t actually think they believe in all that crap, do you? They recruit vulnerable people, using other vulnerable people.

I think this discussion is going in a very strange direction. It's not my thread, but I don't think turning it into a conspiracy theory about Satanism would be appreciated by the op(or anyone else)

You’re right, this has nothing to do with Heather Mills. It has nothing to do with Satanism either, but you keep insisting it does.

I don't think she is/was very nice and I think Paul was a fool to marry her.

I don't think Paul is a bad person / husband as he's been married three times and his other wives didn't seem to have an issue with him!

I don't like Stella though.

EY, it's you that has repeatedly mentioned satanism, I'm not interested in things like that.
Heel, Paul and Linda had a huge row the night before their wedding. It was almost called off. Also Linda recorded tapes of interviews with a friend. Paul prevented them coming out by buying them. There are supposed to be things on them that Heather wanted to use to back up her case in the divorce

[quote julieca]@TomPinch I and others have talked about their child Beatrice. Beatrice lived with Heather. Yes it was a tight divorce settlement and related to 0.25% of McCartneys wealth. He could have been generous to his daughter and it would have had zero impact on his own standard of living.[/quote]
@Juliaca

I think you and I are the only ones left discussing Heather Mills!

Whatever may have happened subsequently, it's clear that when the court ordered the settlement, custody was joint. So there is no obvious reason why McCartney should have been required to pay anything in respect of his daughter with Mills. In any respect, what he gives to her is surely a matter between him and her and no one else.

As for Mills herself, why should she have any claim on the wealth McCartney had before the marriage? Seriously, just why? Mills didn't earn it. She enjoyed some of the benefits of it while she was married, but that doesn't make it hers, either legally or morally.

As I have said, custody was joint, but Beatrice lived with Heather. It is usual when a child is living with one parent full time, that the other parent pays maintenance and a divorce settlement.
I think some of you would have been happy if Beatrice had been raised in a council flat, as long as Heather didn't get any money from Paul.

You're missing the point. Because custody was joint there was no basis that I can see for the court to order McCartney to pay Mills anything at all for the upkeep of Beatrice. If Beatrice subsequently lived with Mills anyway, the ordinary course would be for Mills to seek child support or some private arrangement at that time, not before.

As for spousal maintenance, from the judgment I take it that's it's payable if a) one spouse sacrificed their career for the other or b) one spouse will suffer an abrupt drop in living standards.

Mills failed on a) and got millions under b) (which is ironic because it means Mills would have got less if he'd lavished less on her).

But what you're arguing for is c) lifetime meal ticket. I'm not suggesting that Mills was a gold digger, bit it is where your argument leads and it infantilises people in her position.

@TomPinch yes there was joint custody. That simply means a sharing of parental responsibility, it does not dictate where the child lives. Beatrice was always going to live with Heather. Heather got what she did on the basis that Beatrice was going to be living with her. So yes a tight settlement. I would not have treated my own child that way.

@julieca

How much can you spend on one kid over the course of 18 years? And if 24 million isn’t enough, how much is?

Also, how much money SHOULD you spend on one kid over the course of 18 years?

What you view as ‘tight’, other people might view as responsible.

A house to live in, holidays, etc. I wouldn't expect her to live in a terraced house in Coventry.

She got 24 million pounds, not 24 thousand pounds or 24 million rupees. Plus, she got at least one house into the bargain, plus Beatrice got to go on plenty of holidays with her dad.

I’m sure you could buy 100 terraced houses in Coventry with 24 million. What a strange strange argument.

Beatrice needs to be able to go on decent holidays with her mum as well.
Heather got 0.25% of Paul's wealth. It was nothing. And no a house was not included in the settlement.

Would 24 million not buy her a few decent holidays then, @julieca.

Sorry, but I just find your comments ridiculous.

i see the thread's back on topic (sort of ) but I thought HM gave loads of the settlement away anyway?

@EYProvider not the kind of holidays Paul goes on. He doesn't just fly on Easyjet to Ibiza you know.
But plenty on here thinks it is fine for a dad to live a more luxurious life than his own child.
In my world you put kids first.

The house Paul lives in was bought for £16.5 million.
But I guess Heather could have just bought a terraced house for her and her child?

What sort of holidays does PM go on that cost more than 24 million pounds?

@julieca

The house Paul lives in was bought for £16.5 million. But I guess Heather could have just bought a terraced house for her and her child?

What's wrong with a terraced house? One in London could cost a small fortune-millions even. Also Beatrice is no longer a child. Who knows what the financial arrangements between them and PM is now?

She could have bought this terraced house and had money left over.

www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/102983105#/?channel=RES_BUY