Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[tkitna]

Please, do you know a single divorced father who sees his children more often than at weekends? Less often - yes, but - more often? Certainly this separation and practice of not seeing one`s children is terrible but it is common.

Yeah, its called the freakin law. I'm sure he got visitation rights for once a week and he took it. If he didnt, my god, we might see what kind of father John really was to Julian. You dont have to bother asking me or anybody else about it, Julian has written or said plenty about how it really was, and it wasnt a bed of roses as we all know.

Does Paul and Nancy Shevell take Beatrice to stay with them over the weekend?

I have no idea. Do you? Why did you even bring this up? Paul has never been publicly ridiculed for being a sh*tty father. as a matter of fact, John has even asked Paul how he got along with julian so well as he didnt know how to do it.

There may be two reasons why John did it to Cynthia, I mean let her see him with Yoko.

She did when John was laying her bed with her. I'm sure Cynthia and Julian was pleased as punch about that.

One - he couldn`t tell the whole thing to Cynthia himself, couldn`t bring himself to do it and this incident meant an instant end to the relationship.

Sorry, my only response is to be a man and not some demon that traumitized his only son at the time.

Second - he was indifferent to Cynthia, or she got on his nerves, or he even hated her.

This may be, but let me ask you something,,,being a woman, would you have enjoyed or respected the manner in which he procedded with the breakup?

Do you think that people have to stay together till the end in any case?

No, but dont you think the situation could have been handled a whole lot better? This is a man about peace and love after all.

[tkitna]

Sorry, you have failed here. Do you believe he didn`t have the right to sing about the working class? Oh, MG! You are censors! You are telling what people should sing about? And how people should feel and what people should feel? Then let`s ban piles of songs for the reason you insist on.
This person has the right to sing about that and that person doesn`t have the right to sing about this... We are watching them closely, no escape from us...

He has every right to sing about whatever he wants to, but does that change the fact that he might be singing out of context? Hell, I could sing about being the president of the United States, but I've never been the president. Thats easy enough, isnt it?

[tkitna]

True. Lennon never said he was working class. I AM WORKING CLASS - never.
He said - A working class hero is something to be... If you want to be a hero just follow me.

But how does he know this when its clear he's never lived in that situation?

[maywitch]

A working class hero is something to be.
A working class hero is something to be.
If you want to be a hero well just follow me,
If you want to be a hero well just follow me.

So yeah, I'd say he IS saying he is working class.

If you want to be a hero well just follow me, after singing about how being a working class hero is something to be.  Ergo, he is saying he is working class.

Does Paul and Nancy Shevell take Beatrice to stay with them over the weekend?

I don't know about all the time, but we know they have gone on vacation with her and we know that Paul arranges his work schedule around Beatrice's school schedule.  We know he often takes her to school in the mornings when he has her.  Clearly he is very involved in her life and makes the extra effort to be involved.

[nyfan(41)]

So yeah, I'd say he IS saying he is working class.
If you want to be a hero well just follow me, after singing about how being a working class hero is something to be.  Ergo, he is saying he is working class.

see, i read the lyrics and thought the title phrase meant 'a hero to working class people'...not 'a hero who is working class'
anyway, i went ahead and looked at some photos of the mendips house - john's room, the yard---- it did look kind of upper class - well.... middle class ?
i tried to picture a young john lennon growing up there . . in his aunt's nice house because his mom's a screw-up and his dad's not around . . . . .
i'm just not getting 'rich kid' from this . . i mean . . it's his aunt's house not his or his parents. they didn't legally adopt him . . that's almost like living in a fancy orphanage or something. you really have nothing - you have less than if you lived in a crappy house with your blood parents
also, what about his upbringing up to the age of 6?
this website shows the houses john lennon lived in
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/carousel/pob40.html

i'm gonna be offline for a while . . but i fully expect this thread to be 12 pages when i return 

[Sondra]

You people are being so picky about this. The guy grew up around it, his parents were working class, his friends were working class, he related to it. So what? Once upon a time it wasn't considered cool to be working class. I mean, who really cares about this stuff anymore? It's just another label. If he wrote a song that inspired or touched people, then why question what his motives were. It's art.

[Bobber]

It was about John's sincerity.

[Kevin]

You people are being so picky about this. The guy grew up around it, his parents were working class, his friends were working class, he related to it. So what? Once upon a time it wasn't considered cool to be working class. I mean, who really cares about this stuff anymore? It's just another label. If he wrote a song that inspired or touched people, then why question what his motives were. It's art.

Because we like talking about Beatle stuff? 
If we didn't express opinions or make assumptions things would be a tad dull around here.

[Mairi]

You people are being so picky about this. The guy grew up around it, his parents were working class, his friends were working class, he related to it. So what? Once upon a time it wasn't considered cool to be working class.

Once upon a time. It isn't considered cool anymore.

[maywitch]

i'm just not getting 'rich kid' from this . . i mean . . it's his aunt's house not his or his parents.

I never said he was rich(though I guess the relative who gave him 100 pounds was rather well off but that isn't him), I said he was clearly brought up in a better financial situation than the other Beatles.  He was - maybe he wished he was working class but if anything I'd say the romanticization of it shows that he probably actually wasn't.  It's the whole romanticization of a situation outside of what you actually experienced because somehow it looks better. 

But, you know, there was a reason that Paul's family were "social climbers"(though I really hardly see wanting the kids to get a good education and wanting to have a house with an indoor toilet as a bad thing:) - because it is really really hard to barely make enough money to keep the kids fed and in decent cloths, to always have to worry that you are only one "bad break" away from possibly barely being able to feed your family.  That sort of think affects some people more than others, I have a feeling Paul's mother grew up in somewhat more desperate straights than his dad and that is why she was the one especially determined to make a better life for her kids. 

Also NO kids(especially at that time) had money possessions of their own to any large degree, that's part of being a kid so no I wouldn't say it was like a "rich orphanage". It would have been no different if he'd lived with his parents, it would have been his parents stuff, not his, except for stuff that was given to him or that he bought when he had money, just like it was with Aunt Mimi.   He had an aunt who was very strict and not supportive of his interests but who did love him, he had other relatives around who also loved him.  Now, in no way does that take the place of his parents, there is no way that situation is NOT incredibly painful BUT he wasn't totally unloved and it was a heck of a lot better than an orphanage.

[Jane]

The conversation about relatives giving 100 pounds to John and his being middle class because of that is very strange. Relatives have nothing to do with you. If you take relatives into account then I am a millionaire. You know I sometimes live in my relatives` large villa... BUT I am not the upper class, and have never considered myself to be. I am only saying it cause your way of thinking is VERY strange.
Another thing - are his half-sisters middle class? They had middle class relatives, such as Mimi, they lived in Harrie`s house, which was rather nice and in wonderful surroundings. They went to Scotland to their middle class relatives. SO - Julia and Jackie were middle class. What NONSENSE! Oh, they had a very rich brother, so they became upper-class.

[Bobber]

^Jane, that's not what maywitch is suggesting. Sorry to drop into this discussion by the way.

[Jane]

^Jane, that's not what maywitch is suggesting. Sorry to drop into this discussion by the way.

Sorry too! I haven`t read the post properly. I just remembered reading his other post about John`s relatives giving John 100 pounds. And that is why I wrote about that. relatives have nothing to do with you, and even Mimi had nothing to do with John, his background remains working class. Like BORN to a working class family.
Even if you consider that not enough, I believe he still has all the right to write about the whole thing.

[Bobber]

It's not about having the right or not, but whether and how sincere he was about it. I think.

[Jane]

Also NO kids(especially at that time) had money possessions of their own to any large degree, that's part of being a kid so no I wouldn't say it was like a "rich orphanage". It would have been no different if he'd lived with his parents, it would have been his parents stuff, not his, except for stuff that was given to him or that he bought when he had money, just like it was with Aunt Mimi.   He had an aunt who was very strict and not supportive of his interests but who did love him, he had other relatives around who also loved him.  Now, in no way does that take the place of his parents, there is no way that situation is NOT incredibly painful BUT he wasn't totally unloved and it was a heck of a lot better than an orphanage.

Ok, this is all speculation. You don`t know what John felt. But his sisters know better. I believe them, I believe Julia: "Now I can see that there was far more to what John was doing than pure exhibitionism (or hypocricy as you say). The grief and loss he had suffered as a child had been transformed into a desperate craving for love and attention... But of course that didn`t do the trick, it didn`t make the ghosts of the past - his father`s loss, Mummy`s loss, Mimi`s coldness - go away. Perhaps every child who has been abandoned by their parents, struggles with the feeling unlovable. I did, Jackie did, and John did." John wasn`t totally unloved, he was simply unloved, he didn`t feel love, he didn`t have it

[Jane]

Yeah, its called the freakin law. I'm sure he got visitation rights for once a week and he took it. If he didnt, my god, we might see what kind of father John really was to Julian. You dont have to bother asking me or anybody else about it, Julian has written or said plenty about how it really was, and it wasnt a bed of roses as we all know.

You haven`t answered my question, Tkitna. Do you know such fathers? I don`t know even a single father who sees his children that often, once a week, at weekends. The reason why I mentioned Paul is that Paul surely doesn`t see Beatrice even once a week, Ok, they`ve taken Beatrice on holiday, and what? just once. It is not like living together. Besides, so did John, they took Julian too.
I absolutely do not blame Paul. It is the fate of all divorced parents and their children. I am all against it certainly.

[Bobber]

John wasn`t totally unloved, he was simply unloved, he didn`t feel love, he didn`t have it

Ok, this is all speculation.

I don't think John's stepsisters really had an insight on John's life and feelings. They didn't meet more than a handful times I think. Just because Julia and Jackie felt that way, doesn't mean John felt the same.

[Jane]

Ok, this is all speculation.

I don't think John's stepsisters really had an insight on John's life and feelings. They didn't meet more than a handful times I think. Just because Julia and Jackie felt that way, doesn't mean John felt the same.

Funny, Bobber, you post a reply and I at the same time. And you know what? My reply is always lost clashing with yours! You are stronger, I can`t compete with you. So I am doomed... 

[Jane]

It's not about having the right or not, but whether and how sincere he was about it. I think.

But it is your judgement or other people`s judgement. Nobody can know. You can`t know his feelings. And what if John wrote it all sincerely, why can`t you imagine such a situation? He was sincere about it all!

[Jane]

Ok, this is all speculation.

I don't think John's stepsisters really had an insight on John's life and feelings. They didn't meet more than a handful times I think. Just because Julia and Jackie felt that way, doesn't mean John felt the same.

Sorry, I can`t agree with you! You believe what outsiders say, different people, who even haven`t met John, but you don`t believe his sisters? This is strange! Besides, they did meet more than a handful times, especially when they grew up, before John got married. They saw him at their place, with mummy, they played with him, talked to him, they knew Cynthia quite well. Please, read the book! It is quite good. Surely they had an insight.
In fact, it is all very interesting, and I don`t mind other people`s comments, like Kevin said the more opinions the better.