I can't stop laughing at this stupid bs
"Linda—if you don't care what I say—shut up!—let Paul write—or whatever."
(John wrote this)

PR's Tumblrdome
No title available

ellievsbear
Cosimo Galluzzi
Sade Olutola
sheepfilms

bliss lane
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her
RMH
art blog(derogatory)
Cosmic Funnies
The Bowery Presents
Doug Jones
let's talk about Bridgerton tea, my ask is open
Phantogram Three

@theartofmadeline
Noah Kahan

❣ Chile in a Photography ❣
Color Me Curious

Discoholic 🪩
seen from Bangladesh
seen from Portugal
seen from Argentina

seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United Kingdom

seen from Indonesia

seen from Bangladesh
seen from France
seen from Colombia
seen from Malaysia
seen from Ukraine

seen from Germany
seen from Philippines
seen from Iraq

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States

seen from United States
@angelicacuario
I can't stop laughing at this stupid bs
"Linda—if you don't care what I say—shut up!—let Paul write—or whatever."
(John wrote this)
When did their relationship start?
I was asked some time ago what I thought the timeline of John and Paul’s relationship was, and I said it was very complicated to pin down. There’s so much we don’t know, and their bond was always intense, even during and after 1968. Recently, though, I’ve been rethinking the beginning of it all, and I’ve started to wonder if their “relationship” may have begun much earlier than I first believed — maybe even in their teens in the late 1950s. This is because of something I was told (second-hand, but I really trust this person, for many reasons). Apparently, Mimi and Jim were having quite a bit of correspondence in the late 50s, worrying over how John and Paul were behaving — “like schoolboys in love.” Paul wasn’t paying attention in class, they were inseparable, and there was a concern that something “taboo” was happening. They tried to keep them apart, which only made them rebel. If this is true, then if we line that up with other bits we know from the period, it really fits.
For example, Colin Hanton recalled that Jim set a rule: John couldn’t be alone with Paul in the McCartney house unless Jim was home. Mimi often wouldn’t even let Paul inside her house. Bob Spitz — who has admitted that he was told secrets about the Beatles he chose not to include in his book — uses strikingly suggestive language about John and Paul in the late 50s/early 60s:
“School proved a nagging obstacle for John and Paul, the occasional stolen afternoons unsatisfying, hardly time enough to get something going before Jim arrived home from work. Weekends were reserved primarily for the band. It wasn't so much that they needed time to write as much as it was each other's company. Something special was growing between them, says Colin Hanton, something that went past friendship as we knew it.”
They sneaked into Paul’s house when Jim was away, and Mike McCartney remembered that they’d bribe him “a couple of bob to go to the pictures, so he wouldn’t interfere” with their songwriting sessions. Mike wasn’t really "annoying little kid" at the time — only two years younger than Paul — so why the need to send him away completely? Why couldn’t he just hang around outside the house? Why couldn't John and Paul just go to a room and lock the door? It suggests they wanted total privacy. Like John's sister Julia said:
“Paul and John would come to my father’s place, go upstairs and lock themselves in for hours and hours, listening to records and thumping about up there.”
Bob Wooler compared them in this period to Leopold and Loeb — two young men who thought themselves superior beings, but also famously gay lovers. The comparison is very telling.
There are other clues too. John and Paul regularly went to the movies together, just the two of them. Years later, while explaining his bond with Yoko, John told Paul it was like “holding hands in the back row of the pictures.” That’s a very specific memory, and it is more than plausible that this is something he and Paul actually did in those years — and perhaps John even used it intentionally to sting Paul.
If some kind of intimacy had already begun in this period, Paul’s jealousy of Stuart Sutcliffe makes even more sense. Paul admitted to a “deadly rivalry” with Stu over John’s attention. Dot Rhone said Paul “hated” Stu for being so close to John, and that Stu flaunted it on purpose. Stuart’s sister Pauline even suspected Paul’s hatred was fueled by the possibility that John and Stu were sexual, something she herself believed was true. Their Paris trip would also carry even more meaning if it was something they experienced while they had "something" going on already. It would explain why they both cherished it for life. The same trip that John could be referring to in (Just Like) Starting Over:
Why don't we take off alone? Take a trip somewhere far, far away We'll be together on our own again Like we used to in the early days
You also see hints in songs. In Here Today, Paul says: “What about the time we met? Well, I suppose that we were playing hard to get.” That always sounded intriguing, like the "playing hard to get" went on for a while before things became defined. During the Let It Be sessions, John cryptically said to Paul: “Like when we were in Mendips, like I said, ‘Do you like me?’ or whatever it is. I’ve always—uh, played that one.” Many have speculated on this odd exchange. It sounds like one of their coded conversations, (they had to at that moment, Yoko and others were there) possibly referencing a private moment at Mimi’s house when John directly asked Paul if he “liked him” that way.
This fits with Paul’s lyrics in However Absurd:
Something special between us. When we made love the game was over.
Maybe this “game” of playing hard to get ended when intimacy began.
Paul’s poem Rocking On also might tie in. It uses 1950s imagery, recalling shared youth and a line that says, “Reminisce about our childhood, what we did in deepest wildwood.” If this is about John (as most of the poem suggest), it could be an actual reference to them seeking out privacy in a secret place — because they couldn’t have it freely at home. Call Me Back Again (1975) tells of someone Paul used to call all the time as a boy, because their number “brought him joy.” Supposedly it’s about a former girlfriend, but which girlfriend from the 50s fits that description? What girlfriend from his youth could Paul be pleading to call him in the 70's? None come to mind. But if it was John, it makes sense why Paul cherished his calls so deeply. Even Fuh You (2018) could be a clue.The video shows a Liverpool boy named Jamie (Paul’s first name is James) in a relationship considered taboo at the time (he is white and the girl is black). Nearly every visual ties back to John, including the black-and-white color scheme and the local references (including the newsagent where Paul first spoke to John). The song Get Enough, could also be referencing their young romance, with lyrics about them walking by the docks, him seeing a person's face “now and then,” and remembering it "forever". It also talks about him and this person being full of hope anxd their "future burning bright". The imagery is loaded with Liverpool echoes: “the tugs rolling by together,” “the lights on the shore.” It’s the Mersey, the waterfront where Paul and John grew up side by side, watching ships and dreaming big.
All in all, maybe I’m reading too much into these details. But if what I heard is true, it aligns perfectly with so many clues. And could also tie in with what John once said:
“It was a LONG relationship. It started many, many years before the American public, or the English public for that matter, knew us. Paul and I were together since he was 15, I was 16.”
If they were together for that long, no wonder why their breakup was so intense and traumatizing. Paul always being reluctant about getting married and breaking down the night before his wedding, and John rushing to marry Yoko afterwards. "We spurred each other into marriage," as Paul once said.
Food for thought.
PAUL MCCARTNEY, 1964 looks like a cinnamon roll, could kill you
interview with Bob Bonis (tour manager for the US tours)
are there any photos with all the known lovers Brian had?
We don't have any (confirmed) photos of Brian with any of his partners himself, but we do have photos of them individually.
Joe Flannery was Brian's boyfriend in 1962 and was also a booking manager for the Beatles for a year.
According to Flannery, Brian had a one night stand with Little Richard in 1962 (Little Richard might have even alluded to it in conversation with Philip Norman).
Peter "Bette" Bourne was Brian's boyfriend in 1964 for two months; John apparently wasn't a huge fan of him.
Do we count John Lennon? We can count John Lennon. (In which case we obviously have many photos of Brian and John together; this is from shortly after Barcelona.)
And then there's Diz. This photo might be of him and Brian (as one of only three people to have seen a confirmed photo of Diz, albeit in old age, there is some resemblance in my opinion).
So there you go! Hope this helped!
This cunt I can’t
Penn Jillette mention Lennon-McCartney as "love affair" compilation
"Business partners, I mean, the most important thing about our partnership is it's not based on cuddly love and affection….. I mean, Lennon and McCartney had a love affair pretty clearly. Martin and Lewis had a love affair, Jagger and Richards had a love affair. And when that goes south, when all of a sudden love fades away, it becomes a huge explosion. I mean, Lennon and McCartney hated each other. And with working with Teller there was no real attraction. "(2010)
Penn and Teller are not like other famous duos, says Penn Jillette , the larger and more talkative of the two magicians. Lennon and McCartney, Martin and Lewis, Jagger and Richards—these relationships were rooted in love and affection, and “when all of a sudden love fades away it becomes a huge explosion.”(2010)
"I believe that the volatile groups Lennon and McCartney, Martin and Lewis, Gilbert and Sullivan… We don’t have teams nowadays, we have to go back in time, but um, Martin and Lewis, and specially Lennon and McCartney - those two groups..were love affairs, those were two people who fell in love; Lennon and McCartney were certainly in love. And then when things start to not go right, love is heartbreaking."(2011)
Though he(Penn) has called Teller his best friend, Penn has said that the two share few common interests, and that unlike famously volatile partnerships based in intense personal relationships—such as Jerry Lewis and Dean Martin, or John Lennon and Paul McCartney—they benefit professionally from giving each other “space” in their offstage lives. (2017)
"Most teams start out as love affairs. I mean, certainly Lennon-McCartney, certainly Martin and Lewis, and Teller and I never felt that. "(2017)
"That said; the longevity of our relationship comes from an absence of love. I believe that Martin & Lewis are the best example, but you also have Lennon & McCartney, Gilbert & Sullivan… these are teams that fell in love. Lennon & McCartney were- by every definition- madly, head over heels in love with each other. When that falls apart, it’s horrible, heart breaking… When these two men discovered they wanted to have girlfriends, marriages and a personal life? The rejection they felt was heartbreaking.
All that said, over 45 years Teller has become I best friend. When our parents died, when I was married, when I had children….. I mean the first person to hold my children after my wife and I, was Teller. The difference is that Lennon & McCartney wanted to be breathing each other’s air, they wanted to be close to each other, and feel that affection. As soon as they weren’t getting along, it was heartbreaking. "(2020)
The magician Penn Jillette once said that the secret of his 50 year professional relationship with partner Teller is that they were never friends.
Citing the example of The Beatles, he stated that John Lennon and Paul McCartney "fell in love and put that in front of the job", whereas he and Teller were business partners first and foremost.(2025)
"Well, you know, many of your teams fall in love. I mean, Lennon and McCartney were in love." (2025)
I asked Jillette why he said onstage that he rarely agreed with Teller when it's clearly not true, and he replied, "It's useful.” He brought up how bands get emotionally sloppy and break up over petty relationship issues. "I'm mad at Lennon and McCartney for falling in love and putting that in front of the job,” he said, changing the tone in his voice.(2026)
------------
Does anybody know Penn relationship with Paul? i know he analysis abt Now and Then when the single release.
"head over heels" "breathing each other air" "fall in love put that infront of job" the word he describe ITS INSANE.
"The magic eventually had to wear off. The glue had turned flaky. The honeymoon was over. The divorce lawyers had moved in. The Bonnie and Clyde* of rock ‘n roll had pulled their last job. Busted. Caught red-handed with lives, wives and children of their own. Finito." (Ruth McCartney)
*Bonnie and Clyde were two lovers who were partners in crime....
The Beatles @ Granada TV Studios, Manchester, 14th October 1964
From Mark Lewisohn's Tune In: "Was Woolton fete the first time John met Paul? A riddle in two paragraphs: In certain private company, Paul sometimes reveals that he hadn’t only seen John on buses before the Woolton fete, but they’d also exchanged a few words. Paul says he was working as a paperboy (on his bike, delivering the Echo to local houses in the evenings) when he once talked to John outside the newsagent’s shop. John never mentioned it, and Paul has chosen, consistently for decades, never to say it publicly. He was a paperboy after the McCartneys relocated to Forthlin Road in summer 1956, when he turned 14. Paul is shy about giving away the shop’s identity to anyone who’d print it, but one local family who knew him think it was “Abbas.”
From beatlesliverpoollocations.blogspot.com:
The unnamed family mentioned in Mark Lewisohn’s notes are the Hodgsons. In 1956 Charles (senior) and his wife Annie were living at 111 Stamfordham Drive, Allerton with their two sons, Reginald, 26 and Charles, 14. Peter Hodgson, Reginald's son, has told me how his Uncle Charlie got to know the 14 years old Paul McCartney when he was working as a paper boy. Peter Hodgson: In or around 2010 I told Mark [Lewisohn] that (Paul had worked at) the shops at the Cenotaph, right by my Dad’s [...] We now know that sometime in the past, Paul has revealed the actual first meeting between himself and John and where that meeting took place. I think someone close to Paul has let the cat out of the bag to Mark and (Lewisohn) has wanted to know the name and location of Abbas in 1956. At this time and in the subsequent years, the locals will still have referred to the shop as Abbas when mentioning it, hence it was still known as Abbas by my Dad and brother...many decades later. This is where the confusion started as to the shop’s location as Mark was relying on documentation only, whereas I was relying on first hand witnesses who actually lived literally yards away. I got it straight from Macca, face to face, he agreed and nodded when I mentioned Abbas so when I told Mark many years later he went searching and could only find an Abba in Aigburth. What’s interesting is that at some point Mark actually asked Paul the name of the newsagent’s he delivered for in Allerton. Paul refused to answer him. An unusual refusal for such a seemingly trivial question. [Peter was pleased with what my own research had uncovered, for personal family reasons as much as for the benefit of Beatle’s history. (He said to me): You finding W.W. Abba at 85 Woolton Road vindicated me to Mark, as it’s impossible for me, my Dad or Uncle Charlie to have been making it up].
(Scene from the Fuh You music video. The location of the newsagent, W.W. Abba at Woolton Road, is on the left, which is shown as Paul sings, "on the night that I met you...". The Liverpool local who found the newsagent did his research much earlier than the release of this video. He was shocked when he saw it.)
The thing that interests me most about this account is what is reveals about ML's working methods, which seems to prioritise documentary sources over oral accounts. This is a perfectly reasonable approach that most historians would take, as oral recollections can be confusing and distorted by normal memory failure, agendas etc. But this account does seem to display a certain lack of imagination on his part. It would make sense, in a scenario such as this, to retain both the oral and the documentary evidence, even if they contradict each other, and present them in the text, acknowledging the contradiction and letting the reader decide what seems most likely. That way, any further supporting evidence for either position that may arise will already have all the relevant information to build on. It may seem like a trivial point but he did many oral interviews with others and used it to inform his research, so it would've made sense to do the same here, even if it was just a quick conversation.
Mark Lewison also makes shit up and kitbashes quotes together to fabricate evidence: https://therealtamishow.com/2025/06/12/a-beatle-didnt-say-that-lewisohns-cooked-up-lab-created-quotes/
I'm not saying none of this is true but Marky Mark is a proven liar.
"Please Please Me was a John idea. John liked the double meaning of “please”. Yeah, “please” is, you know, pretty please. “Please have intercourse with me. So, pretty please, have intercourse with me, I beg you to have intercourse with me.” He liked that, and I liked that he liked that. This is the kind of thing in which we were matched up. We were in sync." -Paul (The Lyrics, 2021)
Bio Pics
"For those questioning whether the upcoming Beatles biopics will be accurate, they are officially endorsed. Apple Corps Ltd., Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, and the Lennon and Harrison families have all granted full life‑story rights and full music rights, something that has never happened before.
• Full life‑story rights
• Full likeness rights
• Full music rights
• Direct collaboration with Apple Corps executives
This is explicitly stated in Sony’s press release and repeated across multiple independent news sources. This is the first time in history that the Beatles have allowed this level of access for scripted films. When Apple Corps and the families grant life‑story rights, it means:
• The filmmakers can use real events, real conversations, and real personal histories without legal barriers.
• The estates can correct inaccuracies during production.
• The music catalog — normally extremely restricted — can be used in full context.
• Apple Corps executives (including Jeff Jones) are directly involved in oversight. sonypictures...
This level of cooperation is extremely rare. Historically, Beatles biopics were limited, unauthorized, or blocked entirely because Apple Corps refused to sign off...because Apple Corps and the families are involved:
• Major factual errors are unlikely.
• Music and archival context will be authentic.
• Character portrayals must align with what the estates approve.
• The production has access to private materials that unauthorized films never get."
"https://www.facebook.com/beatlesphotofantasies
Character portrayals must align with what the estates approve.
Okay, but when it comes to John and Paul, Paul is the only living person who know what went behind closed door between him and John. Sam Mendes has also said that there will be a sex scene between John and Paul. Not sure how serious he is, or whether he's talking about portraying an actual event or whether it would be a dream. So, they include McLennon because Jez Butterworth, Peter Straughan and Jack Thorne all think that a romantic/sexual relationship happened between John and Paul. Let's take wishful thinking and make it writ large. Paul tells them he and John in fact did have a relationship with each other. He wants that portrayed in the movie. The Lennon Estate says no. Or vice versa. Who gets what they want? Does this bode well for any sort of depiction of a romantic/sexual relationship between John and Paul?
*drumroll* Hello, hello! Introducing Fiona Fu’s latest comic (I think) in English! Please give a round of applause to lavenderflyingpig for translating the comic, and a round for uh, me (satonme) since I put all the text together haha! Thank you Fiona, for making this translation happen! <3
John writing ‘I love Elvis’ on a portrait of Paul.
John defacing a portrait of Paul.
video from the Cleveland press conference where Paul keeps saying “isn’t that John really something” :)))
Just saw two comments: "there is a new trend of complete randos (people who usually don't post about the beatles or even about 60s/70s music) making posts about mclennon and i don't think i like it" and "mclennon finally going mainstream with popular situationships i literally gasped so loudly and almost dropped my phone"
Why do you think there was this surge of mclennon content and interest? I'm kind of expecting a boom in fanarts and fanfictions and posts after the biopics, it wouldn't surprise me, but it does indeed surprise me that so many new people are jumping onto this train now.
Ps: since we're on the topic, do you have info about how mclennon was perceived in the '60? I know women created a whole shipping fandom for Kirk and Spock in those years, I get that it was illegal until 1967 but I also find it hard to believe there wasn't shipping content/speculation going around.
I think it is a combination of several things that have happened over the last decade. The Understanding Lennon & McCartney YouTube series was released in the mid-2010s and then reuploaded many times afterward, and it ended up getting a lot of views. Even skeptical people were surprised by how much they learned about John and Paul's relationship just from watching it. The creator didn't really have to argue for anything; they simply laid out real quotes and videos and let people draw their own conclusions. Then, around the late 2010s, you also had the OSD and AKOM podcasts, and of course, the Get Back documentary. I remember reading a lot of discussions about Get Back on the Beatles subreddit, and there were countless comments along the lines of, "I now know they were just friends, but not gonna lie, there were some scenes that made me think, 'Wait... were John and Paul ever...?'" I've also seen many people across social media share similar experiences, saying that friends or relatives who knew nothing about mclennon noticed the intensity between them while watching the documentary. That isn't really surprising because there are quite a few "WTF" moments in Get Back, especially during the conversations about India (not to mention the intense eye contant between them). Then you have Now and Then, with people involved in the project—like Giles Martin and Peter Jackson—describing it as a love letter from John to Paul, and even Paul himself saying that he prefers that interpretation. And, of course, Ian Leslie (who was heavily influenced by the OSD podcast)'s book became a bestseller and generated a lot of discussion in both the media and among celebrities. So it doesn't surprise me at all that mclennon has been attracting more curiosity from both Beatles fans and the general public after everything that has happened over the last decade.
Now, regarding your question about how McLennon was perceived in the 60s, the main things we have are insiders making suggestive comments, as well as people questioning John and Paul's sexuality. Yes, I do know about that magazine where fans listed the things they liked about each Beatle, and under Paul's section someone wrote, "his looks at John." But personally, I don't think that necessarily means they were "shipping" them or interpreting it romantically. I think they simply found it endearing and thought the way they looked at each other was cute. It's also important to remember that vast majority of young fans at the time were incredibly naive about homosexuality. Some people genuinely didn't even know what it was. Freda Kelly (who was the secretary of the Beatles Fan Club) is a good example. She said that when people were saying Brian Epstein was gay, she didn't even know what that meant until John explained it to her. On the other hand, many Apple Scruffs, such as Lizzie Bravo, noticed how intensely close John and Paul were, how in sync they seemed, and how often John went to Paul's house compared to the others. Yet Lizzie herself only saw them as friends and even expressed disgust when she heard people suggesting there was something romantic between them. Now, there is also an interesting anecdote shared by the user @mclennonwasreal. He said he had been in contact with a woman who had been an Apple Scruff, and she told him that she and her friends definitely noticed there was something unusual about John and Paul's relationship, but they didn't really understand what they were seeing at the time. It was such a taboo subject that they simply didn't discuss it until many years later, when they began looking back and wondering whether what John and Paul had really fit the definition of a purely platonic relationship.
As for Kirk and Spock, I do know people were shipping them in the 70s, but I think that's a little different because they were fictional characters. Shipping real people is a much more recent phenomenon and really became widespread after the 90s. And, as I mentioned, most young Beatles fans in the 60s were still very naïve about homosexuality. By the 70s, society had changed somewhat, but by then John and Paul were married to women, had kids, were living on different continents, and no longer performing together. If the Beatles had still existed as a band throughout the 70s and 80s, then yes, I think there probably would have been a greater chance of seeing fans speculating about them and scrutinizing their relationship more. But as far as the 60s go, what we mainly have are rumors, suggestive comments from people within their circle, and people working at Apple or in the studio coming up with nicknames that mocked their relationship (and apparently there were other nicknames besides "John's Princess," by the way). @packyourromanticmind mentioned knowing someone whose father worked part-time as a driver for the Beatles, and he said there were rumors among the staff and people in that circle about John and Paul being together. Then you have people like Yoko, Francie, and Maggie, all of whom noticed the intensity between them. Different insiders interpreted that intensity differently. Some—such as Peter Brown, Ruth McCartney, Marianne Faithfull, and Ray Connolly—made comments that at least suggest they believed John and Paul's relationship was much more emotionally loaded than an average "platonic" friendship, even if they didn't necessarily think they were lovers. Others, like Alistair Taylor, also spoke about how extraordinarily close they were, while still describing the Beatles as "rampantly heterosexual." So I think it's not surprising that there wasn't much fan speculation or fan-created content about John and Paul during the 60s. Most fans only saw them in televised interviews, concerts, films, and magazine photos. In those settings, they could certainly be playful and affectionate with each other, but probably not in a way that most people at the time would have interpreted as anything more than close friendship and playful banter. The people who really got to witness the relationship up close (family members, insiders, Apple staff, journalists who spent extended periods with them, and friends) were in a much better position to notice just how unusually intense that relationship actually was.
"Well, [The Beatles] get along remarkably well under the circumstances", observed the wife of an important member of their movie crew, "But Paul and John have a way of turning out the others when they're on. George and Ringo sometimes sort of wander away." (Phyllis Batelle, during the filming of the Help! movie)
"I found this out from my mother who was a 'go for' for a music director in the 60's. She worked behind the scenes for the 'Help!' music video. She has seen John and Paul backstage and always refers to their behaviour around each other as cute, and claims after spending a few minutes with them it was obvious they were deeply in love. She said that George and Ringo would always excuse themselves whenever John and Paul began chatting up each other.” (Datalounge comment)