#open secret

[snipdoodle]

can i tell you a secret... i enjoy drawing hot furry dudes...

[crownics]

— Part 1.

Summary: Interpreting Lennon/McCartney in the context of an open secret, based on concepts of social psychology, queer theory and marketing. [Written without any scientific intent.]

Word count: +15K

───────────────────────────────────────────

I.

“When it comes to human relationships in the entertainment scene, an open secret refers to a situation where a couple (or romantic/sexual involvement) is widely known or strongly suspected by insiders, the press or even the fans, but never officially confirmed by the people in question. In practice, these relational dynamics tend to break free from traditional social labels and operate in a gray zone where visibility and invisibility overlap, being recognized by some specific groups while remaining unacknowledged in the dominant culture.

As a rule, open secrets are rarely referenced in formal statements, press releases or marketing materials. This systematic silence, upheld by the couple and those in their inner circle, functions as a mechanism of control. Because these relationships are never publicly acknowledged, they occupy no sanctioned space within institutional narratives commonly created by communication channels and mainstream media. This absence of explicit acceptance can operate in two ways: at times it is an intentional and powerful cultural act, consciously maintained to regulate visibility and protect certain interests; at other times, it is less deliberate, emerging as the unexamined effect of social conventions and normative frameworks that dictate what may or may not be recognized. In both cases, the silence contributes to shaping how these relationships are perceived and experienced in the broader community. Consequently, they are excluded from public discourse and erased from collective memory, remaining in a scenario of marginalization and, as a result, subjected to a persistent lack of existential validation.

Especially in contexts where LGBTQ+ identities or non-normative relationships are stigmatized, the paradoxical contradiction of open secrets exemplifies what queer theorists describe as a glass closet. Unlike the traditional version, which implies total secrecy, the glass closet points to a more complicated reality. Rather than a space of absolute concealment, it functions as a stage where queerness is performed and experienced, but without formal recognition or cultural legitimacy. Behavioral practices that reinforce this mode of self-presentation are expressed in various ways. Some people can read them clearly, noticing cues and subtext, while others may genuinely fail to perceive or consciously choose to ignore them. This duality allows queer existence to persist within a culture that otherwise represses it, even only under certain conditions where survival depends on identity erasure and the constant risk of denial. Here, the focus is less on whether people know or don’t know, and more on the social rules of knowledge — how it circulates, who is allowed to acknowledge it, under what conditions it may be mentioned and when it must be denied.

Open secrets — not very different from a glass closet — are sustained by everyone’s participation in maintaining the ambiguity. No one fully confirms or denies them, which makes them continue under the radar, quietly structuring social dynamics and perceptions. More than simply as a form of repression, both can equally be conceived as a survival strategy in response to censorship: It makes space for queer intimacy while avoiding the dangers of direct exposure; breaks the binary between being completely ‘out’ and being completely ‘hidden’; and allows the couple to manifest their relationship in a publicly semi-open sphere, revealing themselves on their own terms without ever crossing the threshold of formal disclosure. Yet, this partial invisibility also provides a subtle demonstration of resistance, enabling the relationship to be authentically lived within intimate or subcultural settings, beyond the reach of mainstream narratives.

In short, an open secret is:

Known, but unspoken: Many people in the relevant circle (friends, colleagues, industry insiders and sometimes even fans) know the truth, but it’s never officially confirmed. The unspoken rule is to let the secret stay ‘secret’ in name only.

Maintained by silence & etiquette: Those ‘in the know’ choose not to talk about it publicly. This can be out of respect, fear of scandal, legal or contractual issues, or cultural norms.

Protected by institutions: Media outlets, studios or organizations may actively avoid publishing proof, either to protect reputations, preserve marketability or avoid lawsuits.

Hints and signals: The truth often clues through indirect signs, but never with full confirmation.

Mutual agreement: Even without formal discussion, there’s often a tacit agreement among insiders to ‘play along’ and keep the appearance intact.”

───────────────────────────────────────────

II.

“An open secret persists because a complex mix of personal, cultural, legal and economic forces work together to maintain its status as ‘unofficial’, even when it is widely known by many. These combinate factors act collectively to ensure that the relationship remains unconfirmed and unacknowledged, creating a delicate balance between  private knowledge with public silence and forming a barrier that lets it exist in plain sight without crossing into formal recognition. The result manifests as a paradoxical space where knowledge circulates silently — shared but unspoken, tolerated yet never legitimized.

Contributing to the maintenance of the open secret, this multifaceted phenomenon is closely related to:

Privacy concerns or emotional safety: Some artists simply want parts of their personal life to remain theirs alone, especially if publicity would invite judgment, harassment or intrusion. In Hollywood’s golden age, even straight relationships were sometimes hidden to maintain mystery and avoid public interference. Beyond this, choosing not to confirm a relationship can also be an act of self-protection.

Image management: Public figures are ‘branded’ by shaping their public image into a marketable persona — like a character type. A relationship (especially one outside norms) can clash with that brand and risk alienating audiences. Studios in the past were notorious for arranging or hiding relationships to protect a star’s marketability.

Contractual obligations: Some stars had clauses in their contracts controlling public appearances, relationship disclosures or morality clauses that could terminate employment if certain ‘scandals’ became public. This gave studios legal power to suppress information.

Social taboos: In earlier decades, queer relationships, interracial couples or partners with big age gaps often faced intense stigma. Even rumors could destroy careers, so silence was a survival strategy.

Cultural norms of the age: What’s ‘shocking’ changes over time. In one era, being divorced was controversial; in another, being openly queer was career-ending. People navigated their relationships according to the risks of their own period in history.

Strategic branding considerations: Sometimes secrecy is part of creating intrigue and mystery is used to fuel interest. The ‘are they or aren’t they?’ dynamic can fuel publicity without confirming anything. This works for romantic rumors as well as creative partnerships.

Control over reality: By avoiding explicit confirmation, people can choose which version of reality to live in. This gives a sense of autonomy, once you engage with the version that best serves your needs — whether it’s truth, half-truth or pretense.”

───────────────────────────────────────────

III.

“In marketing contexts, ‘testing the waters’ helps manage uncertainty, minimize potential fallout and adapt strategies based on real-time feedback, measuring the extent to which information can be disclosed. By carefully observing audience reactions, brands are able to gauge tolerance levels, identify emerging opportunities and adjust their positioning without committing to irreversible choices. This process creates a buffer against risk, allowing experimentation while preserving credibility, and transforms uncertainty into actionable insight. Ultimately, testing the waters operates as both a protective mechanism and a strategic tool, ensuring that innovation does not outpace acceptance, but instead stretches the limits in a calculated, sustainable way.

A similar logic applies to the management of open secrets, particularly in social or cultural environments where direct recognition could lead to exposure. In this scenario, the expression refers to the deliberate practice of sending out subtle signals or tentative messages to observe how the public or a particular audience reacts before making a full and explicit commitment or announcement. This approach allows individuals or groups to gauge the level of acceptance, resistance or interest without fully exposing themselves to risk or backlash. By doing so, they can determine whether a later, more direct acknowledgment or action would be safe, strategically advantageous or even welcomed. These subtle signals might take the form of carefully worded hints, indirect references or ambiguous statements that can be interpreted in multiple ways. This ambiguity provides plausible deniability if the reaction is negative while opening the door to further engagement if the response is positive.”

───────────────────────────────────────────

IV.

“When the couple themselves in an open secret deliberately communicate through coded language during interviews, this interaction typically functions as a carefully choreographed mutual performance — serving simultaneously as a private game and a calculated public strategy. These signals can vary widely in their subtlety, ranging from almost imperceptible hints to bold, theatrical gestures, yet they always maintain a crucial element of plausible deniability. This built-in ambiguity allows the couple to engage with the subject without ever making direct admissions, preserving their privacy while still acknowledging shared truths with those attentive enough to decode the messages. This communication model is made up of:

Layered messaging: Superficially, words and anecdotes that seem innocent or casual to most listeners, so it doesn’t raise suspicion (i.e., public layer). Beneath the surface, certain references, phrasing, stories, jokes or ways of saying things carry a special and hidden meaning that only people ‘in the know’ can understand (i.e., insider layer). This creates a ‘split audience’ effect — different groups take away different meanings.

Control of narrative: By choosing when and how to ‘slip’ hints, the couple can shape public perception without ever openly confirming anything. It lets them manage curiosity and speculation rather than be passive subjects of it.

Emotional & relational function: This kind of coded communication can be a bonding ritual — like an inside joke stretched across years. It can also be a way to claim a subtle public acknowledgment of the relationship in an environment where direct affirmation isn’t possible or safe.

Defensive plausible deniability: If pressed, they can insist the code ‘meant nothing’, which preserves privacy and avoids professional or social repercussions. The ‘gray zone’ is maintained — it’s never official, but it’s never entirely hidden either.

The open secret is sustained not only by the couple’s own signals but also by the participation of friends, colleagues and the media. In this setting, the press contributes to the layered communication through their own use of coded language when interacting with the couple. The style and purpose of these codes depend on the specific context of the interview. Journalists often adopt a nuanced or suggestive manner, enabling them to address sensitive subjects or hint at underlying realities without stating them outright. This shared linguistic dance creates a dynamic in which both parties convey meaning beyond the surface, preserving professionalism and discretion while engaging in a subtle exchange of information and knowledge. It raises the topic without prompting public confirmation or denial, keeping the interaction socially acceptable and avoiding direct confrontation. 

The questions framed by journalists tend to share certain traits:

Indirect phrasing: They address the topic without naming it directly, employing general, allusive or suggestive terms that hint at the subject while preserving deniability. This approach allows communication of meaning without committing to an explicit statement.

Euphemisms & soft language: Direct words are replaced with neutral, romantic or softened expressions, reducing social pressure or potential discomfort. By choosing language that is less confrontational, the speaker maintains subtlety while still signaling awareness.

Playful or joking tone: Humor serves as a protective shield. If the person being addressed refuses to respond, the statement can be dismissed as a joke, allowing the speaker to gauge reactions safely and maintain social cohesion.

Rumor-based framing: Statements are framed as circulating gossip or ‘what people are saying’, creating distance between the speaker and the claim. This strategy enables discussion of the topic while avoiding direct responsibility for the assertion, protects them from accusations of ‘spilling the secret’.

Metaphors or comparisons: Open secrets are transformed into analogies, turning sensitive or taboo subjects into interpretive scenarios. By using metaphorical language, the communicator provides insight while leaving room for multiple readings, preserving ambiguity and plausible deniability.”

───────────────────────────────────────────

V.

“In the context of an open secret, insinuations serve as a strategic ambiguity — allowing the press, industry insiders, and sometimes even the individuals themselves, to signal truth without ever ‘officially’ declaring it. They operate via subtle communication, enabling those ‘in the know’ to recognize the situation while preserving plausible deniability. This communicative posture relies on a blend of coded messaging, selective storytelling and careful framing.

When insinuations come from the couple themselves or people of their social circle, it adds a whole new layer of complexity and purpose to the open secret dynamic. Instead of just being external hints or speculation, these are deliberate smoke signals — often called ‘leaks’ or ‘breadcrumbs’ — that are strategically placed to influence public perception, while keeping the tension alive without full exposure. In essence, the use of insinuations is a deliberate dance across visibility and secrecy, leveraging the power of suggestion to capture the audience’s attention while carefully guarding the line between the private life and the public persona. This verbal resource relies on mechanisms such as:

Indirect language & strategic ambiguity: They may allude to their relationship through jokes, metaphors, euphemisms or double meanings, rather than explicit confirmation. Such comments are deliberately framed so they could be interpreted as innocent remarks or as coded confirmation — depending on the listener’s knowledge.

Narrative control & protect privacy: By hinting at the truth themselves, they steer the story on their terms, deciding what to reveal and what to keep private. Insinuations also maintain boundaries by never fully confirming, preserving some personal space.

Test the waters or create buzz: Subtle signals gauge public reaction without full commitment, letting them see if a public acknowledgment is safe or desirable later. Keeping the mystery alive can work as a deliberate marketing strategy because humans are naturally curious — when something is left unexplained or only hinted at, people want to know more.

Signal solidarity: To fans and insiders, hints are a way of showing connection and authenticity without words. Sometimes, insiders intentionally feed information to the press in a way that keeps it unofficial. These leaks are a marketing tool — the open secret can keep public interest alive without the risks of a public confirmation.

Psychological tension as stimulation: Oddly, the not saying can make life more interesting. The unspoken creates intrigue, subtle drama and a sense of playing in a coded social game. Some even enjoy the cat-and-mouse of pretending not to know.”

───────────────────────────────────────────

VI.

# Euphemism: is a softened, indirect or playful way of describing the real situation so it can be acknowledged without being openly admitted. In an open secret it works like a social magic trick, hiding the truth in plain sight and allowing people to communicate sensitive realities safely, smoothly and with shared understanding. Euphemisms serve as signs that let people “talk about it without talking about it”, avoiding direct confession. For example, if everyone knows two co-workers are romantically involved but it’s unofficial, instead of saying “they’re dating”, someone might say “they’re very close” or “they spend a lot of time together”. To the uninformed, it sounds casual. To those “in the know”, it’s a wink.

# Minimization: sometimes called mitigation or softening, is closely related to euphemism and often operates in conjunction with it in the context of open secrets. It’s the process of using language or behavior to reduce the impact, harshness or seriousness of the matter when it’s discussed. This makes it feel more acceptable, less threatening or scandalous — usually by choosing softer words or phrases and framing the situation in a positive or neutral light, while downplaying negative aspects or introducing humor and understatement. This “soft filter” tones down negativity and makes it easier to discuss or hint at the subject, without a full confrontation.

# Euphemism and minimization: are two complementary sides of the same coin. Together, they create a strategy that allows people to acknowledge sensitive truths indirectly while preserving social harmony and protecting everyone’s face. Euphemisms offer coded, indirect language that conceals the matter in plain sight with masquerade wording, turning potentially awkward or controversial realities into expressions that sound casual, neutral or even charming to an uninformed listener. Minimization softens how that wording is delivered, ensuring that even if the underlying meaning is guessed, it arrives wrapped in politeness, warmth or humor, reducing its emotional weight. This framing aims to ease discomfort, prevent conflict and make delicate realities safer to address within social groups, allowing communication to flow without confrontation and helping everyone preserve dignity, privacy and respect.

# Generalization: is the act of extending something in a particular situation to apply more widely. When a couple is in the spotlight but keeps their relationship officially unconfirmed, they often rely on generalizations as a softening tool — avoiding direct confirmation and creating socially acceptable ambiguity that allows them to navigate public curiosity. These strategic linguistic choices preserve the gray zone, where everyone senses that something is happening but no official statement is required, keeping the mystery alive and fueling speculation while still maintaining plausible deniability. They shift the focus of questions or responses and redirect the narrative toward safer topics, using careful phrasing to subtly guide the tone of the conversation. When journalists or fans press for details, generalizations help ease external pressure and act as an emotional shield, protecting the couple from having to issue a direct and unequivocal denial. This approach minimizes unnecessary exposure, reduces the risk of damaging misunderstandings and allows the couple to conduct the situation on their own terms, deciding themselves when — or if — the truth will ever be made public.

# Metaphor and comparison: they represent some of the most elegant and nuanced forms of “code” that can be employed in interviews or other media contexts, allowing only those aware of the situation to truly understand the underlying message. These linguistic tools enable the couple to speak publicly and openly, while carefully avoiding any explicit or “official” admission of the truth. Such mechanisms hold particular power within the framework of open secrets because they operate on a dual-track level of communication: on the first track, the general public hears a romantic or flattering comment that appears straightforward; on the second track, the private audience perceives a subtle confession. Beyond this, metaphors and comparisons help create a shared, coded language that the couple can revisit and reuse across multiple interviews, or even over many years, effectively transforming these phrases into a quiet but distinctive trademark. Their strategy functions through hiding in plain sight, where a metaphor sounds like normal artistic or personal expression but carries a second, private meaning for those “in the know” allowing deniability — since, if questioned, the speaker can claim it’s “just an image” or “just poetry” — and helping them feel emotionally safe, because talking indirectly about love or intimacy makes it harder for outsiders to weaponize the information.

───────────────────────────────────────────

1. Floating in a gray zone: Not officially “out” but not exactly “hidden” either

Visit Original Link

“PARKINSON: Was it always a spiky relationship? I mean, you say you loved him and that love comes through in the book. Did he love you? PAUL: Yeah, I think he did actually. We’ll check, excuse me for a moment… ‘John, come on baby, did ya…? Yes!’ — No, I think he did, yeah. It wasn’t actually a spiky relationship at all. It was very warm, very close and very loving, I think, of all The Beatles. We used to say — I think we were amongst the first men to come out openly, ‘cause remember, you know, it was quite strange in those days and it was a long time ago. Homosexuality was still sort of largely illegal. We used to say I love him on interviews and interviewers would get slightly taken aback, you know, a man saying he loves him. But I think, quite generally, I think we really did and I still do.”

— Paul McCartney, interview w/ Michael Parkinson for Parkinson’s Sunday Supplement [21:53] on BBC Radio 2. (October 12, 1997) 

On John Lennon’s birthday, Sir Paul McCartney takes bride No. 3

On John Lennon's birthday, Sir Paul McCartney takes bride No. 3

Sir Paul McCartney is expected to wed his American fiancee Nancy Shevell on Sunday, at the same venue where he married his first wife Linda

“Sir Paul McCartney is expected to wed his American fiancee Nancy Shevell on Sunday, at the same venue where he married his first wife Linda 42 years ago. The date the couple have chosen — Oct 9 — is particularly poignant because it would have been John Lennon’s 71st birthday.”

Sir Paul McCartney remembers pal John Lennon at wedding reception

Sir Paul Mccartney remembers pal John Lennon at wedding reception

Sir Paul Mccartney raised a toast to his friend and former bandmate John Lennon during his wedding reception and also dedicated a speech to

“Washington: Sir Paul McCartney raised a toast to his friend and former bandmate John Lennon during his wedding reception and also dedicated a speech to the star. The singer married American heiress Nancy Shevell on Lennon’s 71st birthday. Shevell’s cousin, newswoman Barbara Walters, mentioned in her chat show that there was a toast that McCartney made to John. ‘There was a party later on in the tent at Paul’s house, (it’s a) beautiful backyard. There was a toast that Paul made to John Lennon, his 71st birthday it was, and Paul’s son James made a toast and Nancy’s son (did too)’.”

“Then also we were like married, so you got the bitterness. It’s not a woman scorned this time, it’s two men scorned — probably even worse. And I had to make way for Yoko. My relationship with John could not have remained as it was and Yoko feel secure.”

— Paul McCartney, interview w/ Duncan Fallowell for Chicago Tribune: “Paul McCartney today? A content and wealthy daddy”. (October 14, 1984)

“I’d like to thank Elton and the boys for having me on tonight. We tried to think of a number to finish off with so I can get out of here and be sick, and we thought we’d do a number of an old, estranged fiancé of mine, called Paul. This is one I never sang, it’s an old Beatle number, and we just about know it.” 

— John Lennon introducing “I Saw Her Standing There” at Madison Square Garden in New York City, at Elton John’s concert. (November 28, 1974) 

───────────────────────────────────────────

2. Collective confidentiality: A tacit agreement of silence

“Q. Have you ever fucked a guy? A. Not yet, I thought I’d save it til I was 40, life begins at 40 you know, tho I never noticed it. Q. It is trendy to be bisexual and you’re usually ‘keeping up with the Jones’, haven’t you ever... there was talk about you and PAUL... A. Oh, I thought it was about me and Brian Epstein... anyway I’m saving all the juice for my own version of THE REAL FAB FOUR BEATLES STORY etc... etc…”

— John Lennon, “Interview with by/on John Lennon and/or Dr. Winston O’Boogie” for Interview Magazine. (November, 1974)

“I have some juicy stuff I could tell about John. But I wouldn’t. Not when Yoko’s alive, or Cynthia. John would. He would grab, go for the action, say the first thing in his head. We admired him for that. It was honesty; but it could hurt. And it wasn’t really all that honest. He knew he could hurt.”

— Paul McCartney, private phone conversation w/ Hunter Davies. (May 3, 1981)

“I knew in my heart that John and Stu had a sexual relationship. [...] I’ve wondered many times over the years if that’s what some of the antagonism between Stuart and Paul might have been about, whether Paul suspected something. None of us directly connected to the Beatles have publicly acknowledged that John had less than conventional sexual attachments. We all thought that to ignore such things would go down better with the world, forgetting that to deny these parts of John — and John had been open to others about himself — would be to deny another level of complexity to John’s personality.”

— Pauline Sutcliffe, Stuart Sutcliffe’s sister. (“The Beatles’ Shadow: Stuart Sutcliffe & His Lonely Hearts Club”, 2001)

“‘The Love You Make’ was first published in 1983, having been written by Steven Gaines and Peter Brown, who was the personal assistant to the band’s manager Brian Epstein and stepped in to oversee the band’s affairs when Epstein died. But the band were left ‘furious’ by the revelations made in the book, with Gaines recalling: ‘Paul and Linda [McCartney] tore the book apart and burned it in the fireplace, page by page. There was an omertà, a code of silence around the Beatles, and they didn’t think anyone would come forward to tell the truth.’”

— Jacob Stolworthy for Independent: “Beatles book reveals John Lennon encounter that made Mick Jagger ‘very uncomfortable’”. (April 6, 2024) 

“Q: You’re planning on another book to focus more on Beatle material. What will that book have that ‘Body Count’ doesn’t? A: My publisher in 1972 asked virtually no questions about John & Yoko. He ignored all the information I would have gladly shared [...]. Nevertheless, he may have done me a favor, because I didn't have the skills I have now, and I was still quite worried about breaking the unwritten, unspoken vow of silence, in case it would upset Paul! The Beatles ‘inside world’ was and is sort of like a Cosa Nostra. I’m the only woman who talked.”

— Francie Schwartz, interview for Abbeyrd’s Beatles Page: “An interview with Francie Schwartz | The author of ‘Body Count’ talks about life with John, Yoko, Ringo, George and Paul”. (1999?)

* Cosa Nostra is the name commonly used to refer to the Sicilian Mafia. Literally meaning “our thing” in Italian, it designates a criminal organization originating in Sicily that operates according to a strict code of secrecy, loyalty and family ties.  Omertà is the code of honor followed by those organizations. At its core, it is a vow of silence that leads mafiosi to protect other members of the group, preventing them from cooperating with the authorities. A Sicilian proverb sums up well how omertà is respected and strictly followed: “He who speaks little will live a hundred years.”

───────────────────────────────────────────

3. Communication as strategic ambiguity: A deliberate dance between visibility and secrecy

“REPORTER:  How do you like not having any privacy? PAUL: We do have some, you know. JOHN: We just had some. We just had some before, didn’t we, Paul? You tell them.”

— The Beatles, Press Conference & Silent B-Roll [2:37] in San Francisco Airport. (August 18, 1964)

“We were away. The boys had relaxed. As we walked off to do the next scene, I heard them joshing each other, like schoolboys on the way to class. ‘Are those jeans tight, Paul?’ That was John.  ‘What do you mean tight?’ ‘I can see your suspender belt through ‘em and your stockings. You’ve got ladders in them.’”

— Victor Spinetti, “Up Front…: His Strictly Confidential Autobiography”. (2006)

“PLAYBOY: Do you stick pretty much together off-stage? JOHN: Well, yes and no. Groups like this are normally not friends, you know. They’re just four people out there thrown together to make an act. There may be two of them who sort of go off and are friends, you know, but… GEORGE: Just what do you mean by that? JOHN: Strictly platonic, of course. But we’re all rather good friends, as it happens.”

— The Beatles, interview w/ Jean Shepherd for Playboy: “A candid conversation with England’s mop-topped millionaire minstrels”. (February, 1965)

“JOHN: Well I read more about myself than you probably do, and I’ll tell you there was [newspaper articles about his separation from Yoko]. I see them all, because I’ve got a clipping service and I get all the newspapers, and you can bet your life somebody’s going to send you the clippings… Q: Yeah, your friends… JOHN: Yes, all your best friends let you know what’s going on. I was trying to put it ‘round that I was gay, you know — I thought that would throw them off... dancing at all the gay clubs in Los Angeles, flirting with the boys... but it never got off the ground. Q: I think I’ve only heard that lately about Paul. JOHN: Oh, I’ve had him, he’s no good. [We laugh]”

— John Lennon, interview w/ Lisa Robinson for Hit Parader: “A conversation with John Lennon”. (December, 1975)

“The next night Elliot took us out with a friend of his, Sal Mineo, and we all went to a gay cabaret/discotheque. John was oblivious to the gay ambience. He was curious about everyone’s sexuality and liked to gossip about who was sleeping with whom, whether they were gay or straight. John made no judgments about homosexuality but was really curious about who was and who wasn’t gay.  He knew that his appearance at a gay club might start rumors about his own sexuality, and it made him laugh. He told me that there had been rumors about him and his first manager, Brian Epstein, and that he usually didn’t deny them. He liked the fact that people could be titillated by having suspicions about his masculinity. Then I was the one who was laughing. ‘How could anyone believe a man who likes women as much as you do is gay?’, I told him.” 

— May Pang, “Loving John: The Untold Story” (1983)

“JOHN: Well, that’s rubbish, you know. Because nobody controls me. I’m uncontrollable. The only one that can control me is me, and that’s just barely possible. But that’s what life is about. And that’s the lesson I’m learning. Because nobody ever said anything about Paul having a spell over me, when I was with him for a long time. Or me having a spell over Paul. They didn’t think that was abnormal, two guys together.  YOKO: They might have. [laughs] JOHN: Or four guys together. In those days? Why didn’t anybody ever say, ‘How come those guys don’t split up? I mean, what’s going on backstage? I mean, what is that Paul and John business? Why — you know, how can they be together so long?’. YOKO: [laughs] Yes.  JOHN: We spent more time together than John and Yoko, in the early days, the four of us sleeping in the same room, practically in the same bed, in the same truck... living together night and day, doing everything together. Nobody said a damn thing about being under the spell.”

— John Lennon, interview w/ David Sheff for Playboy. (September, 1980)

“I don’t actually know the truth of the John rumor. [Almost laughing] I mean, all I can ever say about that is that I slept with John, a lot. Just ‘cause you had to sleep and, you know, you didn’t have — you know, more than one bed. And to my knowledge, John was never gay.”

— Paul McCartney, “The Brian Epstein Story” [0:59]. (1998)

“Sum up John Lennon in one sentence… A wild and woolly genius who it was my pleasure to [work with, walk with, talk with and] occasionally sleep with.”

— Paul McCartney for Q Magazine: “John Lennon’s 70th Birthday Issue”. (November, 2010)

“Q: If John Lennon could come back for a day, how would you spend it with him? [Mark Wilson, Deeside, Flintshire] A: In bed.”

— Paul McCartney, answering fan questions for Q magazine: “Cash For Questions”. (January, 1998)

“Q: What was John Lennon’s special quality?  A: Balls! Mind you, in putting it in one word, ‘balls’ is a helluva quote, but it’s incomplete. There was balls. But there was smart. The real truth is that it was balls with smart.”

— Paul McCartney, interview w/ Duncan Fallowell for The Magazine: “You get on with Yoko? ‘Medium’, says Paul”. (January 20, 1985)

“Opposites attract. I could calm him down, and he could fire me up. We could see things in each other that the other needed to be complete.” 

— Paul McCartney, “The Lyrics: 56 to the Present”. (2021)

“I was the polar opposite to John. If there was a cliff to be jumped off, John would jump! He would just dive into things, and I would sometimes have to rescue him [...]. But then it was very exciting to be around someone with such a different personality. That was part of the fun and attraction.”

— Paul McCartney, “You Gave Me The Answer: What has been your biggest professional risk?”. (March 3, 2023)

—  THE PICTURE OF TWO BEETLES COPULATING IN THE BACK COVER OF RAM. (1971)

“Q: Do the copulating beetles on the sleeve of RAM stand for F**k The Beatles? [Luc Van de Wiele, Wemmel, Belgium] A: It happened to be a picture Linda had taken. We couldn’t resist it just because of the way it looked. She’d caught these two beetles f*king, and then the significance hit us. We saw that pun, yeah, thought why not?”

— Paul McCartney, answering fan questions for Q magazine: “Cash For Questions”. (January, 1998)

“‘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 was the kind of thing we’d see in each other, the kind of thing in which we were matched up. We were in sync.”

— Paul McCartney, “The Lyrics: 56 to the Present”. (2021)

“In a marriage, or a love affair — when the seven-year-itch or the twelve-year or whatever these things that you have to go through — there comes a point where the marriage collapses because they can’t face that reality, and they go seeking what they thought they should be having, still, somewhere else. I get a new girl, it’ll all be like that again; I get a new boy... But for all marriages, all couples, it’ll all be the same again. But what you lose is what you put into that... relationship. [...] The early stuff — the Hard Day’s Night period, I call it — … what I’m equating it to is the sexual equivalent of the beginning of a relationship, of people in love. And the Sgt. Pepper-Abbey Road period was the period of maturity in the relationship. And maybe had we gone on together, maybe something more interesting would have come out of it. It would not have been the same. It would have been a different thing. But maybe it wouldn’t either. Maybe it was a marriage that had to end. Some marriages don’t get through that phase. It’s hard to speculate about what would have been.”

— John Lennon, interview w/ David Sheff for Playboy. (September, 1980)

“And yet... a different kind of thing comes in. It’s like a love affair. When you first meet, you can have the hots twenty-four hours a day for each other. But after fifteen or twenty years, a different kind of sexual and intellectual relationship develops, right? It’s still love, but it’s different. So there’s that kind of difference in creativity too. As in a love affair, two creative people can destroy themselves trying to recapture that youthful spirit, at twenty-one or twenty-four, of creating without even being aware of how it’s happening. One takes to drugs, to drinks, to knock oneself out… [...] Well, [the period between 1966 and 1970] it was fertile in the way a relationship between a man and a woman becomes more fertile after eight or ten years. The depth of the Beatles’ songwriting, or of John and Paul’s contribution to the Beatles, in the late Sixties was more pronounced; it had a more mature, more intellectual — whatever you want to call it — approach. We were different. We were older. We knew each other on all kinds of levels that we didn’t when we were teenagers. The early stuff — the ‘Hard Day’s Night’ period, I call it — was the sexual equivalent of the beginning hysteria of a relationship. And the ‘Sgt. Pepper-Abbey Road’ period was the mature part of the relationship. And maybe, had we gone on together, maybe something interesting would have come of it. It wouldn’t have been the same. But maybe it was a marriage that had to end. Some marriages don’t get through that phase. It’s hard to speculate about what would have been.”

— John Lennon, interview w/ David Sheff for Playboy. (September, 1980)

“I’ve compared to a marriage a million times and I hope it’s... understable. For people that aren’t married. Or any relationship. 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.”

— John Lennon, 1976. (“Understanding Lennon/McCartney: The Last Dance” [1:18:52])

“Q: If you got — I don’t know what the right phrase is... ‘back together’ now, what would be the nature of it? JOHN: Well, it’s like saying, if you were back in your mother’s womb... I don’t fucking know. What can I answer? It will never happen, so there’s no use contemplating it. Even if I became friends with Paul again, I’d never write with him again. There’s no point. I write with Yoko because she’s in the same room with me. YOKO: And we’re living together. JOHN: So it’s natural. I was living with Paul then, so I wrote with him. It’s whoever you’re living with. He writes with Linda. He’s living with her. It’s just natural.”

— John Lennon, interview w/ Peter McCabe and Robert Schonfeld at the St. Regis Hotel. (September, 1971)

“In 1958, the notion of ‘Lennon and McCartney’ came from Rodgers and Hammerstein, Lerner and Loewe and the other songwriting duos of renown, but by September 1962 it was much more Goffin and King, the young New York husband-and-wife team whose songs, all post-1960, John and Paul revered like no others. [...] Their influence on the music of Lennon and McCartney — especially the songs of the next couple of years — would be pronounced. John could not have made the connection or aspiration any clearer when he said (in 1971), ‘When Paul and I first got together, we wanted to be the British Goffin and King.’”

— “The Beatles: All These Years: Tune In [Vol. 1]” by Mark Lewisohn. (2013) 

“I always had this dream of meeting an artist woman that I would fall in love with, and all that, even from art school. [...] I just realized that [Yoko] knew everything I knew, and more, probably, and it was coming out of a woman’s head. It just sort of bowled me over, you know? And it was like finding gold or something. To find somebody that you can go and get pissed with, and have exactly the same relationship as any mate in Liverpool you’d ever had, but also you could go to bed with him, and — it could stroke your head when you felt tired, or sick, or depressed. It could also be Mother. And obviously, that’s what the male-female — you know, you could take those roles with each other.”

— John Lennon, interview w/ Peter McCabe and Robert Schonfeld at the St. Regis Hotel. (September, 1971)

“The only thing ever lacking in working with another artist and they were usually male — whether it was Stuart Sutcliffe (my art school friend) or Paul McCartney (my musical friend) — is that the relationship only goes as far as the front door and after that you are alone in bed. It’s a plus not a minus. The plus is that your best friend can also hold you.”

— John Lennon, “The Other Side of Lennon” by Sandra Shevey. (1990)

“It’s a plus, it’s not a minus. The plus is that your best friend, also, can hold you without… I mean, I’m not a homosexual, or we could have had a homosexual relationship and maybe that would have satisfied it, with working with other male artists. An artist — it’s much better to be working with another artist of the same energy, and that’s why there’s always been Beatles or Marx Brothers or men, together. Because it’s alright for them to work together or whatever it is. It’s the same except that we sleep together, you know? I mean, not counting love and all the things on the side, just as a working relationship with her, it has all the benefits of working with another male artist and all the joint inspiration, and then we can hold hands too, right?”

— John Lennon, interview w/ Sandra Shevey in New York City. (Mid-June?, 1972)

“I’ve only selected to work with — for more than a one night stand, say with an odd thing with [David] Bowie, or an odd thing with Elton [John], or anybody who was hanging around — two people. Paul McCartney, and Yoko Ono. Okay? I brought Paul into the original group, The Quarrymen, he brought George in, and George brought Ringo in. I had a say in whether they did join or not, but the only initial move I ever made was bringing Paul McCartney into the group. The second person of that much interest to me as an artist, and somebody who I could work with, was Yoko Ono.”

— John Lennon, interview w/ Jonathan Cott for Rolling Stone. (December 5, 1980) 

“I was saying to somebody the other day, ‘There’s only two artists I’ve ever worked with for more than a one night stand, as it were. That’s Paul McCartney, and Yoko Ono.’ And I think that’s a pretty damned good choice! [...] Now George came through Paul, and Ringo came through George, although of course I had a say in where they came from. But the only — the person I actually picked as my partner, who I’d recognised had talent, and I could get on with, was Paul.”

— John Lennon, interview w/ Dave Sholin for RKO Radio. (December 8, 1980)

“Q: Let’s talk about the Beatles’ breakup, and the falling out between you and Paul. A lot of people think it had to do with the women in your lives. Is that why the Beatles split up? JOHN: Not really. The split was over who would manage us — Allen Klein or the Eastmans — and nothing else really, although the split had been coming from Pepper onward.” “Q: When did you first meet Linda? JOHN: The first time I saw her was after that press conference to announce Apple in America. We were just going back to the airport and she was in the car with us. I didn’t think she was particularly attractive, I wondered what he was bothering having her in the car for. A bit too tweedy, you know. But she sat in the car and took photographs and that was it. And the next minute she’s married him. Q: Was it the suddenness of Linda’s arrival on the scene that disrupted things? JOHN: Well, Paul had met her before [the Apple press conference], you see. I mean, there were quite a few women he’d obviously had that I never knew about. God knows when he was doing it, but he must have been doing it. Q: So, John. You and Paul were probably the greatest songwriting team in a generation. And you had this huge falling out. Were there always huge differences between you and Paul, or was there a time when you had a lot in common? JOHN: Well, we all want our mummies — I don’t think there’s any of us that don’t — and he lost his mother, so did I. That doesn’t make womanizers of us, but we all want our mummies because I don’t think any of us got enough of them. Anyway, that’s neither here nor there — but Paul always wanted the home life, you see. He liked it with daddy and the brother… and obviously missed his mother. And his dad was the whole thing. [...] So it was always the family thing, you see. If Jane [Asher] was to have a career, then that's not going to be a cozy family, is it? All the other girls were just groupies mainly. And with Linda not only did he have a ready-made family, but she knows what he wants, obviously, and has given it to him. The complete family life. He’s in Scotland. He told me he doesn’t like English cities anymore. So that’s how it is. Q: So you think with Linda he’s found what he wanted? JOHN: I guess so. I guess so. I just don’t understand… I never knew what he wanted in a woman because I never knew what I wanted. I knew I wanted something intelligent or something arty, whatever it was. But you don’t really know what you want until you find it. So anyway, I was very surprised with Linda. I wouldn’t have been surprised if he’d married Jane Asher, because it had been going on for a long time and they went through a whole ordinary love scene. But with Linda it was just like, boom! She was in and that was the end of it.”

— John Lennon, interview w/ Peter McCabe and Robert Schonfeld at the St. Regis Hotel. (September, 1971)

‘“When we sang together’, John went on, ‘Paul and I would share the same microphone. I’d be close enough to kiss him. Back then, I didn’t wear me specs onstage — Brian Epstein said they made me look old. So we’d be playing these concerts, in front of thousands of people, but the only thing I could see was Paul’s face. He was always there next to me — I could always feel his presence. It’s what I remember most about those concerts’. ‘Paul and I had our differences early on, mostly creative ones, but we always got over them. Then I met Yoko and we fell in love. When I invited her to the recording studio during the Let It Be sessions, none of them took it well. This was a men’s club, and no women were allowed in the recording room. But Paul seemed the most bothered about Yoko, and part of me felt it was because he was jealous. Because up till then, he had all me attention, all me love when we were recording. And now there was another. Now there was Yoko.’”

— Elliot Mintz, “We All Shine On: John, Yoko, and Me”. (2024)

“Meeting Paul was just like two people meeting. Not falling in love or anything. Just us.”

— John Lennon, “The Beatles” by Hunter Davies. (1968)

“In a late wee-hour-of-the-morning talk, [John] once told me: ‘I’m just like everybody else, Harry, I fell for Paul’s looks. George knew more chords, so he was in. And Ringo, he's just Ringo.’”

— Harry Nilsson, “The Ballad of John and Yoko: Harry Remembers”. (Rolling Stone Magazine, 1984)

“I understood what happened when he met Yoko. He had to clear the decks of his old emotions. He went through all his old affairs, confessed them all. Me and Linda did that when we first met. You prove how much you love someone by confessing all that old stuff. John’s method was to slag me off.”

— Paul McCartney, private phone conversation w/ Hunter Davies. (May 3, 1981)

“It simply became very difficult for me to write [with John] with Yoko sitting there. If I had to think of a line I started getting very nervous. [...] I’m not blaming her. I’m blaming me. You can’t blame John for falling in love with Yoko any more than you can blame me for falling in love with Linda. We tried writing together a few more times, but I think we both decided it would be easier to work separately.  I told John on the phone the other day that at the beginning of last year I was annoyed with him. I was jealous because of Yoko, and afraid about the break-up of a great musical partnership. It’s taken me a year to realise that they were in love. Just like Linda and me. [...] Last year John said he wanted a divorce. All right, so do I. I want to give him that divorce. I hate this trial separation because it’s just not working. Personally, I don’t think John could do the Beatles thing now. I don’t think it would be good for him. John’s in love with Yoko, and he’s no longer in love with the other three of us.”

— Paul McCartney, interview w/ Ray Connolly for Evening Standard: “Paul on ‘Why the Beatles broke up’”. (April 21, 1970)

“SALEWICZ: Well, I always found it interesting the fact that he got — I mean, it seemed too much like coincidence to me, the fact that he got married a week or month after you. You know what I mean? PAUL: Yeah. I think we spurred each other into marriage. I mean, you know. They were very strong together, which left me out of the picture. So I got together with Linda and then we got strong with our own kind of thing. And I used to listen to a lot of what they said. I remember him saying to me, ‘You’ve got to work at marriage’, which is something I still remember as a bit of advice. I still remember that. And then yeah, I think they were a little bit peeved that we got married first. Probably. In a little way, you know, just minor jealousies. And so they got married [...]. SALEWICZ: —and then one of them finds a girl and then the other — or maybe the other one does, or whatever. There’s like a lot of — you know, the friendship often breaks up. There’s quite a lot of bitterness and acrimony that goes down, and it seemed like one of them.”

— Paul McCartney, interview w/ Chris Salewicz. (September, 1986)

“INTERVIEWER: But your relationship with John, in every way, as a Beatles — as a band, you were very, very close. I mean, that must have been very painful in that respect, not only the Beatles breaking up, but I mean that particular relationship breaking up. PAUL: Mm. It was, yeah. Um, in our songwriting, I had signs that the group was gonna break up, because… I mean, I think really what it was, really all that happened was that John fell in love. With Yoko. And so, with such a powerful alliance like that, it was difficult for him to still be seeing me. It was as if I was another girlfriend, almost. Our relationship was a strong relationship. And if he was to start a new relationship, he had to put this other one away. And I understood that. I mean, I couldn’t stand in the way of someone who’d fallen in love. You can’t say, ‘Who’s this?’ — You can’t really do that. If I was a girl, maybe I could go out and… But you know I mean in this case I just sort of said, right — I mean, I didn’t say anything, but I could see that was the way it was going to go, and that Yoko would be very sort of powerful for him. So we all had to get out the way. I don’t blame her. You know, you can’t blame her for being the object of his love.”

— Paul McCartney, interview for German TV show Exclusiv. (April 3rd?, 1985)

“COSTAS: You were an ex-Beatle by the time you were twenty-nine, so this extraordinary rush of world-wide fame, and extraordinary experiences had happened to you and John Lennon as very young men. And ever since that time, people — some with knowledge, some without knowledge — have speculated on the nature of that collaboration, the nature of that relationship. What sense are you about to make of it now? PAUL: Well, you know, I think in life it’s not that easy to... analyze your relationships with people. Not just John, I think with anyone, it’s not that easy. And as you say, when there’s— when fame’s in there, as one of the factors, it can get even more complicated.”

— Paul McCartney interview w/ Bob Costas. (October 24, 1991)

“Well, I’m sure Brian was in love with John, I’m sure that’s absolutely right. I mean, everyone was in love with John; John was lovable, John was a very lovable guy.”

— Paul McCartney, interview w/ Danny Fields: “Linda McCartney: A Portrait”. (2001) 

“The theory is that when John went off to Spain on holiday with Brian, that’s what it was about — John trying to get his position clear as leader of the group. Also, I’m sure Brian was in love with John. We were all in love with John, but Brian was gay so that added an edge.”

— Paul McCartney, “The Beatles Anthology”. (2002)

“I think, largely looking back on it, I think it was mainly John [who] needed a new direction [...]. And you can’t blame him. Because he was that kind of guy, [the kind who] really wanted to live life and do stuff, you know. There was just no holding back with John. And it was what we’d all admired him for. So you couldn’t really say, ‘Oh, we don’t want you to do that, John. You should just stay with us.’ We felt so wimpy, you know. So it had to happen like that.”

— Paul McCartney, interview w/ DJ Roger Scott for Capitol Radio. (November, 1983)

“MCKAY: But other groups of the same period have survived and gone on, perhaps with some changes — The Who, The Rolling Stones… PAUL: Yeah. True. But we broke up. Although I think it was a natural thing, I don’t think we could’ve. Think the thing was we were eighteen, kids, growing up, and we did sort of our ten years in the army thing, and then we had to go our separate ways. We had to look at life, instead of just this group. We had to find women, for one, uh, which we all sort of did. And then we had to give time to that new life, you know, because with the Beatles it prohibited any other thing. You just had to go with the group and there wasn’t any time for anything else.”

— Paul McCartney, interview w/ BBC reporter Mike McKay for the 20th anniversary of “Love Me Do”. (October[?], 1982)

“Q: When the rift started [between you and John], it was more like a divorce, like a love/hate relationship, coming apart. Is that true? PAUL: Yes. It sounds weird when you use that analogy because then it takes on another meaning. But yes, it’s true. What I mean is that there was that kind of deep feeling and deep heat [laughs]. Then we started arguing about the business and we just started to drift apart, as you say, like a kind of divorce. [...] So it started to split apart. We got very estranged because John went to live in New York with Yoko and they were very much their own couple and there weren’t many people that could get into that thing. [...] It wasn’t too easy for all of us, because he was sort of leaving us and going off on a new life and, whether you like it or not, we felt that each one us had been each other’s crutches for a long time.”

— Paul McCartney, interview w/ Ray Bonici for Music Express. (May, 1982)

“He came to live in New York, he kind of threw over all his English contacts and everything. And, you know, can’t blame him! That’s what he wants to do in his life. So we had to kind of… fade into the background to allow [John and Yoko] to have their relationship. What were we going to do, ringin’ him up — ‘Hey, John!’ Y’know, ‘Hey, come and see me. Leave Yoko!’. I mean, that was obviously never gonna happen.”  

— Paul McCartney, interview w/ Bob Costas. (October 24, 1991)

“There’s no hard feelings or anything, but you just don’t hang around with your ex-wife. We’ve completely finished. ‘Cos, you know, I’m just not that keen on John after all he’s done.”

— Paul McCartney interviewed by student journalist Ian McNulty for the Hull University Torch, May 1972. [From The McCartney Legacy, Vol. 1: 1969 – 1973 by Allan Kozinn and Adrian Sinclair (2022)]

“The end of the Beatles, he says, was like getting a divorce. ‘You just don’t want to know about your ex-wife or ex-husband. After all the bitchiness, you feel the desire for a complete break.’”

— Paul McCartney, interview w/ Richard Williams for The Times: “The Times Profile – Paul McCartney”. (January 4, 1982)

“[‘Dear Friend’] was written for John, to John. It was like a letter. With the business pressures of the Beatles breaking up it’s like a marriage. One minute you’re in love, the next minute you hate each other’s guts.”

— Paul McCartney, “The Paul McCartney Encyclopedia” by Bill Harry. (2002)

“It’s just like divorce. It’s that you were so close and so in love that if anyone decides to start talking dirty — great, then Pandora’s box is open. That’s what happened with us.”

— Paul McCartney, interview w/ Anthony DeCurtis for Rolling Stone: The Paul McCartney interview. (November 5, 1987)

* According to author Mark Lewisohn: “Paul sometimes says ‘we’ in interviews when he means ‘I’”. (Footnote in “The Beatles: All These Years: Tune In [Vol. 1]”, 2013) According to author Ian Leslie: “Paul [...] could see that Epstein was besotted by Lennon. He understood what that felt like. As he put it later, ‘I’m sure Brian was in love with John. We were all in love with John.’ (John & Paul: A Love Story In Songs, 2025)

“That’s my first attempt at a ballad. Proper. That was the precursor to ‘In My Life’. [‘If I Fell’] it’s… semi-autobiographical, but not that conscious, you know. It’s really about — it’s not about Cyn, my first wife. […] So that shows that I wrote sentimental love ballads — silly love songs, as you call them — way back when.”

— John Lennon, interview w/ David Sheff for Playboy. (September, 1980)

“But I always heard [‘Hey Jude’] as a song to me. If you think about it... Yoko’s just come into the picture. He’s saying, ‘Hey, Jude — hey, John.’ I know I’m sounding like one of those fans who reads things into it, but you can hear it as a song to me. The words ‘go out and get her’ — subconsciously he was saying, ‘Go ahead, leave me’. On a conscious level, he didn’t want me to go ahead. The angel in him was saying, ‘Bless you.’ The devil in him didn’t like it at all because he didn’t want to lose his partner.”  “At that time I was still in my love cloud with Yoko. I thought, ‘Well, I’ll just say something nice to Paul, that it’s all right and you did a good job over these years holding us together’. He was trying to organize the group and all that, so I wanted to say something to him. I thought, ‘Well, he can have it, I’ve got Yoko. And thank you, you can have the credit’. The line [‘the Walrus was Paul’ of ‘Glass Onion’] was put in partly because I was feeling guilty because I was with Yoko and I was leaving Paul. It’s a very perverse way of saying to Paul, ‘Here, have this crumb, this illusion, this stroke — because I’m leaving.’”

— John Lennon, interview w/ David Sheff for Playboy. (September, 1980)

“I’m not aiming, I am not aiming at 16 year olds. If they can dig it, please dig it. But when I was singing and writing [‘(Just Like) Starting Over’] and working with her, I was visualizing all the people of my age group from the 60s. Being in their 30s and 40s now, just like me, and having wives and children, and having gone through everything together. I am singing to them! I hope the young kids like it as well, but I’m really talking to the people that grew up with me and saying: ‘Here I am now, how are you? How’s your relationship going? Did you get through it all? Wasn’t the 70s a drag?’ You know, ‘Here we are, let’s try and make the 80s good’, you know, ‘because it’s still up to us to make what we can of it. It’s not out of our control’.”

— John Lennon, interview w/ Dave Sholin for RKO Radio [2:00]. (December 8, 1980)

“I was a very possessive and jealous guy, and the lyrics explain that pretty clearly. Not just jealous towards Yoko, but towards everything, male and female — incredibly possessive.”

— John Lennon, interview w/ David Wigg for BBC radio show Scene And Heard [0:02:06]. (February 6, 1970)

“It was a weird time. [...] In the end, I think John had some tough breaks. He used to say, ‘Everyone is on the McCartney bandwagon.’ He wrote ‘I’m Just A Jealous Guy’ and he said that the song was about me. So I think it was just some kind of jealousy.”

— Paul McCartney, Interview w/ Diane de Dubovay for Playgirl Magazine. (February, 1985) 

“I think [John] was very hurt. There were people turning him against me. It was his way of defending himself. He was quite pissed off about the ‘McCartney bandwagon’ as he once called it, y’know? He was a jealous guy. […] And I think we would all have continued the Beatles, but Yoko came along, John fell wildly in love with her, he needed a big, big change in his life and he got it!”

— Paul McCartney interview w/ Bob Costas. (October 24, 1991)

“If I’m writing a song and I’m stuck, I might then go, ‘OK, what would we have done?’ But it’s not like, ‘Johnny, help me baby.’ You know, it’s not quite like that. ‘Yes, Paul, put that word in.’ You know, it’s actually come out a little bit like that, so I’m playing that down now. You know, it always informs you.” 

— Paul McCartney, interview for CBS News’s Sunday Morning: “Now he’s 64”. (September 17, 2005)

“Q: There is a very beautiful song called ‘The End Of The End’, the way you talk about your whole ending, and the lyric goes: ‘It’s a start of a journey to a much better place.’ You mean, better than England? PAUL: It’s basically a start of a journey to France. Or Spain through France. Yeah, that’s what it is. It’s a much better place, Paris.”

— Paul McCartney, interview w/ Antoine de Caunes for Canal Plus [6:52]. (October 22, 2007)

“... but the main thing [about ‘Early Days’] is it’s a memory song. It’s me remembering walking down the street, dressed in black, with the guitars across our back. I can picture the exact street. It was a place called Menlove Avenue. [Pauses] Someone’s going to read significance into that: Paul and John on Menlove Avenue. Come onnnnnnn. That’s what it’s like with the Beatles. Everything was fucking significant, you know? Which is okay, but when you were a part of the reality, it just wasn’t like that. It was much more normal.”

— Paul McCartney, interview w/ Simon Vozick-Levinson for The Rolling Stone: “The Long and Winding Q&A”. (July 17, 2014)

“Just because I was involved with Jane at the time doesn’t mean this song [‘I Will’] is addressed to, or about, Jane. [...] It’s a declaration of love, yes, but not always to someone specific. Unless it’s to a person out there who’s listening to the song. And they have to be ready for it. It’s almost definitely not going to be a person who’s said, ‘There he goes again, writing another of those silly love songs.’ So, this is me in my troubadour mode.” “‘I Want to Hold Your Hand’ is not about Jane, but it was certainly written when I was with her. To tell you the truth, I think we were writing more to a general audience. I may have been drawing on my experience with a person I was in love with at the time — and sometimes it was very specific — but mostly we were writing to the world.”

— Paul McCartney, “The Lyrics: 56 to the Present”. (2021)

“BIAL: There’s a lot of speculation about John’s inspiration for the lyrics of ‘Now and Then’. But when you sing ‘If I make it through, it’s all because of you’, who are you thinking of? PAUL: [...] I’m thinking of the group. I’m thinking of four men, boys, who made the record. I don’t know if John was making the song for Yoko, which is possible. Or if he was making it for us. And that it’s the speculation that you are talking about. Some people — a lot of good people… Peter Jackson thinks this was John speaking to me directly — and you know what? It’s very nice for me to think. So I’ll have that. Thank you John!”

— Paul McCartney, interview w/ Brazilian journalist Pedro Bial for talk show Conversa com Bial [26:35]. (December 2, 2023)

───────────────────────────────────────────

4. Suspicious public interactions (beyond all the ones we already know)

— JOHN FLIRTING WITH PAUL AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY HE HAD.

“I could even hear what they were saying off-mike. ‘Oh Paul, you’re so cute tonight.’ ‘Sod off, Lennon.’”

— Joan Baez on accompanying The Beatles to their concert in Red Rocks Amphitheatre, Denver. (August 26, 1964) |  Mojo Magazine: The Beatles Red Issue 1962-1966.

Visit Original Link

“I remember we were going down to the studio [...] and there was a great crowd pressing against the car. John was sitting in the back and he said, ‘Push Paul out first. He’s the prettiest.’”

— Victor Spinetti in the documentary “You Can’t Do That! The Making of A Hard Day’s Night” [35:53]. (1995)

Visit Original Link

“REPORTER: Hey. Hey, go a bit down. PAUL: Oh, yes. Go a bit down. REPORTER: Go a bit down. Yeah. JOHN [in the background]: Go down on me.”

— Press conference with The Beatles in Hamburg, Germany. (June 26, 1966)

— JOHN SINGING “IF I FELL” TO PAUL (WHILE KNEEL IN FRONT OF HIM).

— JOHN AND PAUL POSING LIKE A COUPLE IN DAVID BAILEY’S 1965 PHOTOSHOOT.

“There was no set dressing, few props, and little sense of artifice. Instead, just people, invited to pose however they wished, emanating charisma.” 

— Alastair Sooke for The Thelegraph: “Bailey’s Stardust, National Portrait Gallery, review”. (February 4, 2014)

— JOHN AND PAUL OPENLY CALLING EACH OTHER BY AFFECTIONATE NICKNAMES.

Visit Original Link

“JOHN: I’m playing, baby! Don’t stop me now. PAUL: Oh, no… JOHN: I’m not looking at you, am I? PAUL: You were! I know! JOHN: Well… I can laugh. PAUL: I know I can’t stop laughing when you’ve got tears(?) in your eyes. JOHN: Well, I’m laughing over here. PAUL: I know, but I can see —(?) and everything.

— The Beatles, Studio Outtake of “I’ll Follow The Sun”. (1964)

PAUL: What’s the matter, John love? Blue meanies?

— All Together Now | Special Edition Film Master. (1968)

PAUL: Are you listening, babe?

— Introduction of “Here Today” in tribute to John at the first show of the “Good Evening Europe” tour in Hamburg. (December 2, 2009)

Visit Original Link

PAUL: Well, happy birthday John. We miss you, baby. I miss you.

— Massage for the “Imagine: John Lennon 75th Birthday Concert”. (2015)

— JOHN POSING IN WHAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE PAUL’S “FAMILY” PHOTOSHOOT WITH JANE (?).

* Paul framed the photo they took together and hung it on the wall of his personal Apple office.

— JOHN AND PAUL NATURALLY ACTING LIKE A COUPLE (SOMETIMES EVEN IN FRONT OF JOURNALISTS).

“‘Uh, I need another drink, baby’, says John.  Paul goes to the phone. ‘Hello? Yeah, send us six single Scotches — No, make it doubles, yeah, doubles.’”

— Michael Braun, “Love Me Do!: The Beatles’ Progress”. (1996)

* Michael Braun was an American journalist who spent time with the Beatles during their 1963 tour of the UK and also accompanied them on part of their early travels, gaining a behind-the-scenes look at their lives before they exploded internationally with Beatlemania.

“At the Sheraton, Malcolm Searle was given privileged access for his daily 3AK bulletins. Reporting from the kitchenette of the penthouse suite, he chatted to Paul, John and George, as Paul cooked steak and spuds for his and John’s dinner. The conversation turned playfully camp when Searle called Paul ‘a regular little housewife’ and described the gingham apron he was wearing. ‘Does he cook for you very much?’ John (indignantly): ‘Don’t say it like that, it sounds funny.’”

— “When We Was Fab: Inside the Beatles Australian Tour 1964” by Andy Neill and Greg Armstrong. (2024)

* Malcolm Searle was an Australian radio and TV host active in the mid-20th century. He conducted an interview with John Lennon at Melbourne’s Southern Cross Hotel in June 1964, and provided on-site radio reports from the suite where the Beatles were staying.

───────────────────────────────────────────

5. Private acknowledgment and widespread awareness

“The sad thing is that John and Paul both had problems and they loved each other and, boy, could they have helped each other! If they had only communicated! It frustrates me to no end, because I was just some chick from New York when I walked into all of that. God, if I’d known what I know now… All I could do was sit there watching them play these games.”

— Linda McCartney, interview w/ Joan Goodman for Playboy: “Paul and Linda McCartney’s Whole Story”. (December, 1984) 

“They weren’t opposites, they were so alike. The sad thing is John isn’t with us anymore and who knows what would have happened. You know, it’s the press. You read about history and you know it’s not really what happened… that’s why I’m glad I got pictures of them smiling together and I got to show people that, you know, they loved each other… they were friends, way before I met Paul, they were friends and carried on being friends, and it was deeper than any of us will ever know.”

— Linda McCartney [3:23]. (198–?)

“After the initial embarrassment, now Paul is being very nice to me. He’s nice on the level, straight sense. [...] And like, I can see that he’s just now suddenly changing his attitude, like he’s being — he’s treating me with respect. Not because it’s me — but because I belong to John. I hope that’s what it is, because that would be nice. [...] I’m sure that if he had been a woman or something, he would have been a great threat — because there’s something definitely very strong between John and Paul. And probably among those three people of George and Ringo and Paul, Paul is the only one that I can sort of feel the vibration [from]. Like, sort of sense it, you know, that something is among that.”

— Yoko Ono while The Beatles are recording and mixing ‘Revolution 1’ at EMI Studios. (June 4, 1968)

“To sum it up, Paul is a good songwriter and also he was John’s partner before I became John’s partner. And as John put it: ‘The first I picked Paul as a partner and next Yoko. First Paul McCartney and next Yoko Ono’, something, I think, he said.” 

— Yoko Ono. (November, 1985 [1:24])

“I think that it’s like [John] was married to Paul, and now he was married to me... So it was a situation that he didn’t feel like he wanted to go back, really. John had a lot of respect for Paul, and of course, love.”

— Yoko Ono, interview for BBC Radio 6. (1990)

“I’m sure that in the case of Paul there’s that feeling that I’m the woman who took away his partner — it’s like a divorce.”

— Yoko Ono [around the year 2000], “You Never Give Me Your Money: The Battle for the Soul of The Beatles” by Peter Doggett. (2009)

“Indeed, John’s wounded anger was more that of an ex-spouse than ex-colleague, reinforcing a suspicion already in Yoko’s mind that his feelings for Paul had been far more intense than the world at large ever guessed. From chance remarks he had made, she gathered there had even been a moment when — on the principle that bohemians should try everything — he had contemplated an affair with Paul, but had been deterred by Paul’s immovable heterosexuality. Nor, apparently, was Yoko the only one to have picked up on this. Around Apple, in her hearing, Paul would sometimes be called John’s Princess. She had also once heard a rehearsal tape with John’s voice calling out ‘Paul… Paul…’ in a strangely subservient, pleading way. ‘I knew there was something going on there’, she remembers. ‘From his point of view, not from Paul’s. And he was so angry at Paul, I couldn’t help wondering what it was really about.’”

— “John Lennon: The Life” by Philip Norman. (2008)

“The disruption really came with the women anyway. Where you have very close personal relationships between two men, and one of them goes off and gets a girl, and the other one goes off and gets another girl, and the two women don’t particularly like each other… then there’s a divergence. I don’t think Paul minded Yoko — Yoko’s fine, nothing wrong with Yoko — except that she was always there. [...] I think that was the beginning of it. And almost in self-defense, Paul got Linda.” 

— George Martin, interview w/ Chris Hodenfield for The Rolling Stone: “George Martin Recalls the Boys in the Band”. (July 15, 1976) 

“I wasn’t involved in the arguments, I was just hurt by it. I mean, I was a bystander. And I knew darn well that if I got involved, on either side... It was like a marital breakup. You know, if a husband and wife are fighting it up and someone tries to interfere, then both the husband and wife gang up on the other guy interfering: ‘Get out of our business!’.” 

— George Martin, Lost Lennon Tapes | Episode #155: The Disintegration Of Lennon & McCartney. (July 1st, 1991)

"I think they were all feeling a little paranoid. When you have a rift between people — if you go to a party and the husband and wife have been having a row — there’s a tension, an atmosphere. And you wonder whether you are making things worse by being there. I think that was kind of the situation we found with Ringo. He was probably feeling a little bit odd because of the mental strangeness with John and Yoko and Paul…” 

— George Martin, The Beatles Anthology. (2002)

“When I first auditioned them I said, ‘Who’s going to be the leader, is it John or Paul?’ Such an odd couple really, because they were different and yet very similar, both had big egos, both very good songwriters, but they needed each other like mad.”

— George Martin, interview w/ Jim Irvin for The Mojo Magazine: “Sir George Martin: The Mojo Interview”. (March 2007)

“More important to Paul than his relationship with Jane, was his partnership with John Lennon, whom he’d met shortly after his mother died of breast cancer when he was 14. [...] And when John’s mother was also to die in a road accident just over a year later, the friendship had intensified with a shared sense of loss. And so it was to remain as adulthood and fame arrived, and the girls came and went. And, in John’s case, a wife as well.” “Exactly a year after their first encounter, Paul met Linda again when he contacted her while he and John were on business in New York. [...] A few weeks later Paul called and invited Linda to join him at another business meeting in Los Angeles. [...] Slowly but surely, they were coming together, just as certainly as John and Paul were breaking apart.  John had fallen in love with Yoko Ono, and, increasingly fuelled by hard drugs, seemed bent on destroying what Paul saw as their creation. Losing interest in the Beatles, John had less time for Paul. The two could no longer write or record freely together without Yoko offering advice. Her presence put Paul off and John didn’t care. Paul was finding himself abandoned. Outwardly super-confident, inwardly he was growing increasingly insecure. There were girls all around him, of course. He couldn’t get rid of some of them, but he needed someone special at his side. He sent for Linda. [...]” “[...] Paul had always played on stage with his best friend. He couldn’t play with John Lennon anymore, so he turned his new best friend, Linda, into a keyboard musician in his new group, Wings.” 

— Ray Connolly, “The Ray Connolly Beatles Archive”. (2016)

“It’s like a marriage, you know. These two broke up. Paul took a long time to get over it. And probably John too, although he was too macho to show it. They had a marriage before Yoko arrived, you know. Although they both had girlfriends, a lot of girlfriends, and all that stuff.”

— Ray Connolly, interview for One Sweet Dream Podcast: “New Lens Series | Beatles go-to journalist Ray Connolly on his time with Lennon, Ono and McCartney” [00:26:00]. (March 24, 2021)

“One week and one day after Paul married Linda, I received a phone call from John. He and Yoko were at the Hôtel Plaza Athénée in Paris and wanted to get married, immediately. People believe that John’s desire to get married so soon after Paul’s marriage was a knee-jerk reaction. Perhaps it was psychologically about breaking up with Paul. [...]” “In the inner circle of Liverpudlians, we thought of Cynthia as family, and Yoko’s ascension as First Lady of the Lennons was jarring. John’s pal Magic Alex asks in his transcripts, ‘Why her? [...]’. The reason, many people believed, was that more than a trophy wife, a model or an actress, John needed a chum. His love affair with Paul McCartney was ending.”

— Peter Brown, “All You Need Is Love: The Beatles in Their Own Words”. (2024)

“I didn’t realise how sensitive the other Beatles were to John’s opinion. Paul worried about what John would say [in the event Lennon died before being interviewed] and was still longing for his friendship. [...] Those interviews were done before John’s death and Paul’s heart was broken, even then. It wasn’t just the break-up of the Beatles. It was more personal than that.”

— Steven Gaines, interview w/ Will Hodgkinson for The Times: “Why the Beatles split up — in their own words”. (April 6, 2024)

“[Yoko] was a very strong influence on John, and may well have been telling him that he could do best on his own, but I still think that on the back of John’s mind would be this sort of fascination with wanting to get back with the first girlfriend, if you’d like [laughs], and it was to get back with Paul that he had so much history with.”

— Tony Barrow, “The Beatles’ Biggest Secrets”. (2004/2007)

* Others quotes [but with no source]: TONY BARROW: They loved each other more than most couples do, and when they split it was more wrenching than most divorces.

“My impression is that Paul and John kind of knew that they were growing apart. And Let It Be was almost like a marriage that’s failing, and they wanna go on their date nights again.”

— Giles Martin, interview for 60 Minutes. (2021)

“John and Paul can shoot looks at each other and exchange thoughts. John, full of Da Vinci-esque chutzpah and Lewis Carroll whimsy and Joycean logic, projects authority, sovereignty. Can you dig that Paul is his princess?”

— Francie Schwartz for Rolling Stone Magazine #46: “Memories of an Apple Girl”. (November 15, 1969)

“Paul wasn’t happy. But the big things that were driving him mad were beyond me. He kept on working and writing, but when John came over, all he could talk about was how much he loved Yoko. That disturbed Paul. In spite of John’s obvious happiness, Paul stifled his jealousy with not-very-cute bursts of racist crap.”

— Francie Schwartz, “Body Count”. (1972)

* Danny Fields, who was Linda’s friend for 30 years until her death, said in the biography that he wrote: “Francie Schwartz has memories of Yoko that are kinder than most other people’s. But her account of the Big Rupture between Paul and John is probably quite accurate. The same story was told many times by John himself. Francie wrote a version of it in ‘Body Count’, and she told it to me.”

“I think once Paul and John’s differences came to the surface, the vibe really changed. Once that division had happened, they were finally able to articulate their hostility towards each other. Are we looking at a divorce, here? Are Mom and Dad going to be breaking up? And what’s gonna happen to us?”

— Richard Di Lello, Apple Records press assistant | “Z is for Zapple”: BBC Radio documentary narrated by Barry Miles. (June 18, 2004)

“‘John was in love and happy’, she said. ‘Paul wasn’t happy at all.’ His own relationship was crumbling... For Paul [...], the breakup with Jane was yet another blow at time when he had both to deal with John and Yoko and try to (at least as he saw it) to keep the group going the wake of Brian’s death. ‘He was desperate to settle down’, said Maggie McGivern. ‘He was terribly lost — he needed that foothold of security.’” 

— “Meet the Beatles: A Cultural History of the Band That Shook Youth, Gender, and the World” by Steven D. Stark. (2013)

“That’s  very hard to delve into. They were great friends, and had great mutual respect, but they were also quite different from one another. I don’t know. Human relationships are tough to analyze. It’s like trying to talk about someone else’s marriage.” 

— Peter Asher, interview w/ Russell Hall for The Gibson: “Peter Asher Talks ‘60s, Beatles and Apple’”. (November 19, 2010)

“He and the world had just lost someone very dear to them. I had lost my Uncle John [...]; Julian and Sean had lost a father; Cynthia, her knight in shining armour; Yoko, a fellow artist, contemporary and house husband… and Paul? Well, call me crazy, but he lost the wife. I’m certainly not implying anything of a carnal nature here, but to almost all intents and purposes (as John would have put it), what they had was a marriage. Mark David Chapman’s selfish quest for his Warhol-esque fifteen minutes of fame was the fatal wound to an injured relationship that had lasted almost 23 years. This unconventional partnership, much like a paradigmatic marriage, had endured its sundry situations… [like] it’s honeymoon period [and] the tender temptations of Jane, Cynthia, Yoko, Linda, May Pang and others.” “Then on the 9th February, 1964, [...] The Beatles had conquered America. For the next two and a half years, John and Paul, (together with George and Ringo), would travel, eat, rehearse, write, play, record and ‘sleep’ (again, not literally) together.”

— Ruth McCartney,  “The Chemistry of Lennon and McCartney: An Essay”. (2002)

“Q: How did you view the troubles the Beatles have been going through these last few years? SMITH: I don’t know all this business between John and Paul is about and I don’t dare ask John. [...] I’m sure they’ll get back together soon. This is just a phase they’re passing through.” “Q: What do you think changed John so much from his early days as a carefree kid? SMITH: She’s responsible for all this, Yoko. She changed him, and I’m sure she and Linda are behind the split between John and Paul.”

— Interview w/ Aunt Mimi Smith. (Bournemouth, 1970) 

“Remember, [John] was twenty-one when he married Cynthia; he was twenty-eight when he married Yoko. Now, at the cusp of thirty-three, for the first time in his adult life, he didn’t have a wife (or, for that matter, three other partners) who made up his extended family. He was a free man.”

— Elliot Mintz, “We All Shine On: John, Yoko, and Me”. (2024)

“Lennon had attitude, and, taking his lead from Lennon, McCartney could be similar. At times, they reminded me of those well-to-do Chicago lads Leopold and Loeb, who killed someone because they felt superior to him. Lennon and McCartney were ‘superior human beings’.”

— Bob Wooler, “Best of Fellas: The Story of Bob Wooler | Liverpool’s First D.J., The Man Who Introduced ‘The Beatles’” by Spencer Leigh. (2002)

* Leopold and Loeb were two wealthy University of Chicago students who, in 1924, kidnapped and murdered 14-year-old Bobby Franks in what they called the “perfect crime”. There is strong historical evidence that Leopold and Loeb had a romantic and sexual relationship. 

“PAULINE: What do you think [The Beatles] did to one another? What do you think Paul and John’s current feud is still about? Q: Probably money. Whatever feud exists between Paul and Yoko maybe centers around billing… who gets top billing. Instead of Lennon-McCartney; McCartney-Lennon. PAULINE: Well, they’ve got enough money, don’t you think? I suppose enough is never enough for some people.”

— Pauline Sutcliffe, interview w/ Gary James for Classic Bands.

“The trial and acquittal bonded Mick and Keith — but it created a very odd dynamic. For Keith it was just an alliance within a group, but for Mick it was a lot more than that. It has all the irrationality and passion of a love affair. Lennon and McCartney had a similar bond between them. Not as strong, of course, but both groups had these duennas, these strange bisexual — almost witchy — figures as managers. Brian Epstein and Andrew Oldham.”

— Marianne Faithfull, “Faithfull: An Autobiography”. (1994)

“As the meeting was drawing to a weary close, John, not this day with Yoko, who hadn’t seemed particularly connected with what was going on, said he wanted to play us a tape he and Yoko had made. He got up and put the cassette into the tape machine and stood beside it as we listened. The soft murmuring voices did not at first signal their purpose. It was a man and a woman but hard to hear, the microphone having been at a distance. I wondered if the lack of clarity was the point. Were we even meant to understand what was going on, was it a kind of artwork where we would not be able to put the voices into a context, and was context important? I felt perhaps this was something John and Yoko were examining. But then, after a few minutes, it became clear. John and Yoko were making love, with endearments, giggles, heavy breathing, both real and satirical, and the occasional more direct sounds of pleasure reaching for climax, all recorded by the faraway microphone. But there was something innocent about it too, as though they were engaged in a sweet serious game. John clicked the off button and turned again to look toward the table, his eyebrows quizzical above his round glasses, seemingly genuinely curious about what reaction his little tape would elicit. However often they’d shared small rooms in Hamburg, whatever they knew of each other’s love and sex lives, this tape seemed to have stopped the other three cold. Perhaps it touched a reserve of residual Northern reticence. After a palpable silence, Paul said, ‘Well, that’s an interesting one.’ The others muttered something and the meeting was over. It occurred to me as I was walking down the stairs that what we’d heard could have been an expression of 1960s freedom and openness but was it more likely that it was as if a gauntlet had been thrown down? ‘You need to understand that this is where she and I are now. I don’t want to hold your hand anymore’.”

— Michael Lindsay-Hogg, “Luck and Circumstance: A Coming of Age in Hollywood, New York, and Points Beyond”. (2011)

“The Beatles were having severe problems then, with Yoko Ono apparently having driven a wedge between Paul McCartney and the most important person in his life, John Lennon.” “It was clear to Paul by this point that Yoko had become by far the most important person in John Lennon’s life; even were she to somehow vaporize, John would not come running back to Paul after that unfortunate disappearance.” “The wedding [of Paul and Linda] was front-page news all over the world [...] and, like an answering move in a chess game, John and Yoko were married in Gibraltar eight days later.”

— Danny Fields, “Linda McCartney: The Biography”. (2001)

“It was a divorce. It was, no doubt, both classic and inevitable — unless they had all refused to grow up into their adult lives. It was certainly hardest for Paul. He and John were emotional partners in a powerful, creative and loving way.”

— Paul Saltzman, “The Beatles in India”. (2005/2018?)

“I didn’t realise how sensitive the other Beatles were to John’s opinion. Paul worried about what John would say and was still longing for his friendship. [...] Those interviews were done before John’s death and Paul’s heart was broken, even then. It wasn’t just the break-up of the Beatles. It was more personal than that.” 

— Steven Gaines, interview w/ Will Hodgkinson for The Times: “Why the Beatles split up — in their own words the sunday times”. (April 6, 2024)

+ BONUS: RINGO COMMENTING THAT PAUL HAD A FRAGILE MASCULINITY.

“PAUL: George... I’ve got to see him. INTERVIEWER: How you did? PAUL: A short time before he died. [...] We sat and just stroking hands like this. And this is the guy, you know. I known since I was a little kid. We don’t stroke hands with guys like that, you know. It was just beautiful. RINGO: Not unless you’re secure. [Both look at each other and laugh at the same time.]”

— Interview with Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, Yoko Ono, Olivia Harrison and Guy Laliberté: First Anniversary of Cirque du Soleil’s The Beatles LOVE Show | Larry King Live (CNN) [7:34]. (June 26, 2007)

* Pattie Boyd and Elton John have also made “strange” comments about John and Paul.

───────────────────────────────────────────

6. What are they planning to do (and why)?

— PAUL ADMITTING THAT HE WATCHES FAN-EDITED YOUTUBE VIDEOS OF HIMSELF AND JOHN. (2017)

PAUL: I’ve seen a couple of YouTube videos that fans made that just reminded me of how good friends we were.

— JOHN’S INSTAGRAM ACCOUNT MAKING A SEQUENCE OF POSTS WITH THE LYRICS OF “IN MY LIFE” ON PAU’S 80TH BIRTHDAY. (June 17, 2022)

— SEAN LENNON CONFIRMING THAT HE IS AWARE OF EVERYTHING WE DISCUSSED ON TUMBLR. (June 2, 2024) 

FAN: You should look through the McLennon tab on Tumblr and report back to us if you care this much. SEAN: I’ve seen everything. Trust me.

— MIKE McCARTNEY REACTING TO THE SUNDAY TIMES MAGAZINE COVER FEATURING PREVIOUSLY UNPUBLISHED EXCERPTS FROM “JOHN & PAUL: A LOVE STORY IN SONGS”. (March 16, 2025)

MIKE: My fab pic on the cover of The Sunday Times Magazine 2day. I hope u like it. ❤️

───────────────────────────────────────────

— Personal comments.

(1) The concepts of open secrets and the glass closet are historically and culturally specific. They emerge from entertainment industries, media practices and heteronormative social systems, particularly in Western societies during the 20th and 21st centuries. Norms of public acknowledgment, visibility and legitimacy vary across time, geography and social contexts. What counts as an open secret or glass closet in Hollywood or pop culture may look different in other countries, cultures or historical periods. 

In this case, we’re talking about the sixties. And we know that homosexuality was criminalized and stigmatized in Great Britain, so open secrets served both as protection and as a survival mechanism for the LGBTQ+ community. For many, the glass closet became the only viable way to exist, as it allowed a public — even if circumscribed — expression of their sexual identities. It was almost an absolute necessity, not merely a strategy, to navigate the system without being completely erased. At that time, this whole setting made sense for John and Paul’s reality. It seems that, from what I could gather, the main problem was always that this information reached the fans in general.

(2) The Beatles’ style marketing communication — especially in their prime years — was unusually layered and self-aware, with sarcastic jokes and puns. They didn’t just answer interview questions: they treated press conferences, TV spots and fan interactions as performances in their own right. If you stop to think, it maps surprisingly well onto open secret communication, because both rely on double layers of meaning and audience segmentation.

Beyond this, all of them also had a playful — and sometimes mischievous — relationship with the public, often blurring the line between truth and deliberate misdirection. Two famous examples are the song “I Am the Walrus” and the “Paul is Dead” conspiracy theory. In both cases, The Beatles demonstrated their talent for myth-making. Whether through lyrical chaos or mysterious visual symbols, they cultivated an aura of enigma that kept the press chasing stories and the fans searching for secrets — turning this act of deliberately redirecting our attention away from the intended target into an art form.

Haven’t you ever wondered why they only released the previously unpublished sketches of “Now and Then”, with the line “I’m still in love with you”, in 2023? They voluntarily kept it hidden for decades — and our first glimpse only came through John’s header on his official X/Twitter account, in a very implicit and scattered way. It looks like that they have control over everything and intentionally play with our minds, because they knew we would notice the “signs”. 

(3) As we can see, the majority  — and Paul’s itself, on many occasions — follow a similar behavioral pattern, maintaining ambiguous communication. However, this doesn’t mean everything is rehearsed, scripted or planned. Sometimes these processes can happen unconsciously, while people are in autopilot mode or even acting spontaneously. An open secret is established through a combination of mechanisms that gradually “teach” everyone involved how to handle it — often without a single explicit conversation. It’s less about a formal agreement and more about a shared set of cues, incentives and unspoken rules that solidify over time. Eventually, this behavior stops feeling like a conscious choice and becomes “just how things are”, like any natural phenomenon in our daily lives. All that was presented is yet another reason why we shouldn’t consider Yoko’s quote that Paul rejected John as an absolute truth. Like the others (e.g., Ruth McCartney and Marianne Faithfull), she also maintains an ambiguous narrative pattern of insinuation accompanied by minimization. 

(4) Did you see how John and Paul act like a married couple in Michael Braun’s presence, with Paul automatically knowing “baby” refers to him and obeying John’s commands? This is one of my favorite moments of them. It’s so casual and domestic. I have an impression that, in certain situations, they simply were what they were, and saw no need to formalize it to anyone around them. After the Beatles broke up, and John was murdered, everything between them kind of became public. It shocks me that in 2025 many fans continue to turn a blind eye to it.

(5) If you pay attention, you’ll notice that John and Paul — as well as the other people close to them, like Yoko and Sean — practically use the same communication strategies when speaking about their sexualities. The lyrics of songs that they wrote for each other in the 70s also can be read as a form of open communication, but coded so that only they (or those who “know” the truth) can understand it.

(6) Something interesting I accidentally realized is that, when you gather all the material about John’s affair with Brian, you’ll see that it was also an open secret because of the way both — and the Beatles’ social circle in general — acted around the subject.

ㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤ PART 2 →

[choupistickfaitdesbetises]

It’s so obvious that Tim and Armie live together that I’m really shocked that anyone questions this. It’s an open secret in Hollywood. Everyone knows this.

Hi Anon

“It's an open secret in Hollywood. Everyone knows this.”

It had been a long time since I last read those words... Those exact sentences.

I missed it more than you will ever know.

You know where to find me if you ever wish to discuss this... I promise the utmost discretion.

Thank you anon

[sgiandubh]

Hello, I must have missed it, therefore I would kindly ask for an update. Which professionals have recently implied to know more about SC's relationship? Could link to the comments, maybe? Thanks in advance and happy holidays to you and yours.

Dear Professionals Anon,

I will link to my own experience with Spanish press. This is not recent, in fact it was one of my first posts ever: https://sgiandubh.tumblr.com/post/720664629429354496/that-night-in-madrid - posted June 20, 2023.

Those were my early blogging days on this platform and I was quite reluctant to give away any personal details about myself, so I kept half of the story for myself, at the time. Something perfectly useless, that being said, because the pouncing and pressuring had already begun in DMs (and not from the other side, might I add). The frequency and insistence prompted me to quickly play my hand as openly as I could, to no avail. You cannot win with some people, no matter what your tactical choices might be. It is what it is.

Anyways, back to the Cristina Castaño episode, I have to immediately mention that my (now) ex was - and still is... - a journalist for one of the biggest, most prestigious Spanish daily newspapers. He is the one who told me that SC were an open secret for the Spanish press, with people giggling about 'that Scottish actor and his Irish woman' for days after the gala. I did not press for more details and now I regret it: but again, the Madrid gala happened as I was just beginning to fall through the SC Rabbit Hole. I had asked very casually, being sure that was a #silly question, only to be told something that made me second guess many things I was beginning to put together. And oh, well, I might have also found that perfectly ridiculous, too, to be honest.

My ex also told me Cristina Castaño, who hails from the same province as him, was not exactly the frivolous type, when it came to double entendre jokes, like that particular one. It made sense to me, having more than a fair grasp of that very peculiar Northern mentality.

For the other professional recently (Easter) confirming the same thing - not press, but a very well connected person, in his country (Ireland) and elsewhere -, I am afraid I will have to kill you immediately after telling you, Anon.

This being believe what you want territory, I do not expect you to endorse my experience with ease, nor even give me any credit for it. Because so many people lied, in here, it's very hard to adhere to this kind of tidbits and I completely understand this. Rest assured my position is not based on these circumstantial elements. They are a nice bonus, but not much more than that, in my humble opinion.

[brere-bush]

Day 7 prompt: Open Secret Or: Those two idiots seriously believe it's not obvious to the world that they're in love

Visual reference: this gifset

[justforbooks]

Tinker, tailor, soldier, mum

Stella Rimington was a bored 32-year-old housewife when she was first approached by MI5 in Delhi to do some light secretarial work. Here, in the first exclusive extracts from the book the establishment tried to stop, she describes how over the next 25 years she smashed her way through every barrier in the security service, becoming the first female intelligence officer to run agents in the field, and eventually the first female director-general of MI5. Meanwhile, her marriage crumbled - leaving her the single mother of two young girls

One day in the summer of 1967, as I was walking through the British high commission compound in Delhi, someone tapped me on the shoulder. It was one of the first secretaries in the high commission, and although I knew he did something secret, I didn't know exactly what, as one was not encouraged to enquire about these things. He was a baronet who lived a comfortable life in one of the more spacious high commission houses and was best known for his excellent Sunday curry lunches, and for driving around in a snazzy old Jaguar. The baronet asked me whether, if I had a little spare time on my hands, I might consider helping him out at the office.

I went in the next day and he told me that he was the MI5 representative in India. Would I be interested in working for him on a temporary basis? I wrote home: "They have offered me a job working in the secret part of the high commission for £5 a week, which I think I will take. It will help to keep me out of gonk-making." (Gonks were the Teletubbies of the 60s and I was at that time on the committee of the toy fair, which meant endless sewing afternoons making stuffed toys.)

My baronet does not seem to have taken it much more seriously. He wrote back to head office: "She and her husband frequently take a picnic lunch by the high commission swimming pool," as though that were a prime consideration in giving me the job, and added, "I consider she would be entirely suitable for the work even though she is only a two-finger typist." I later learned that references had been taken up and that my headmistress, obviously somewhat dubious about these prospective employers, had written: "She is the kind of girl who does not shirk unpleasant jobs. She is reliable and discreet, or at least as reliable and discreet as most young ladies of her age."

My job did not turn out to be particularly exciting, but when my husband finished his posting and we came home to England in February 1969, I thought I would see whether there was any chance of joining MI5 as a permanent employee. I contacted my baronet friend, who put me in touch with the recruiters.

It soon became clear that a strict sex-discrimination policy was in place in MI5. It did not matter that I had a degree, that I had already worked for several years in the public service, at a higher grade than it was offering, or that I was 34 years old. The policy was that men were recruited as what were called "officers" and women had their own career structure, a second-class career, as "assistant officers". They did all sorts of support work, but not the sharp-end intelligence gathering operations. What the recruiters were offering me, in June 1969, was a post as "junior assistant officer".

Later that month I started work in MI5's headquarters at Leconfield House in Curzon Street, London. When I arrived, wearing a striped Indian silk suit with a miniskirt, and a little hat sitting on top of long hair done up in a bun, I had very little idea about the organisation I was seeking to join. Had I known a bit more about its early history, perhaps I would not have been quite so surprised by what seemed its old-fashioned and eccentric aspects. Even in 1969, the ethos had not changed very much from the days when a small group of military officers, all male of course and all close colleagues working in great secrecy, pitted their wits against the enemy.

The men were largely from a similar background. It seemed that they all lived in Guildford and spent their spare time gardening. Many had fought in the war. I remember one, who had been a Dambuster and had flown the most dramatic and dangerous sorties when he was very young. He regularly withdrew into his office and locked the door after lunch. I used to jump up and down in the corridor to look over the smoked glass in the partition, to see what he was doing, and he was invariably sound asleep. No one thought it appropriate to comment. Another gentleman, who was supposed to be running agents against the Russian intelligence residency in London, favoured rather loud tweed suits and a monocle. He would arrive in the office at about 10 and at about 11 would go out for what was termed "breakfast". He would return at noon, smelling strongly of whisky, to get ready to go out to "meet an agent" for lunch. If he returned at all it would be at about 4pm, for a quiet snooze before getting ready to go home. Eventually, he collapsed in the lift returning from one of these sorties and was not seen again.

In those days, as a newcomer, you were not sure what you were allowed or expected to know and you were not encouraged to seek information. I was always quite inquisitive and I wanted to know what was going on, but I soon realised that people regarded you with suspicion if you asked too many questions. Indeed, you were hardly sure whether you were even meant to know the name of the director-general, and since you certainly never saw him or received any communication signed by him, you might just as well not have known. There was a joke going around that you would know which was the director-general because he was the one who always wore his dark glasses indoors so that he would not be recognised.

I was put to work in a long, narrow room with about 10 other people, mostly women. This was the section where all new joiners were put for a few months to be trained, and it was presided over by a couple of training officers, two well-bred ladies "of a certain age", from the twin-set-and-pearls brigade. On my first day I was intrigued when, at noon, they opened their desk drawers and produced exquisite cut glasses and bottles of some superior sherry, and partook of a rather elegant pre-lunch drink.

In that summer of 1969, I was learning the first principles of intelligence work and I must say I found it pretty dull. The job of the section was to identify as many members of the Communist party of Great Britain as we could and, having identified them, to open files on them.

One very good source of information which was readily available, however, was the Morning Star, the newspaper of the Communist party of Great Britain. I am sure that the vast standing order for Leconfield House kept that newspaper on its feet when it might otherwise have gone under. We and the Soviet embassy were, I believe, its main large-scale supporters.

Trainees were given responsibility for the rural branches of the party. I got Sussex, where there were very few party members and many of those were fairly ancient. After I had found out what I was supposed to be doing, I whiled away the time reading Dornford Yates novels under the desk.

In April 1970, I learned that I was pregnant. Considering that I had wanted a baby for such a long time, the pregnancy came, as seems so often to happen, at the most inopportune moment. In February that year, my husband John and I had taken the plunge and bought a house in Islington. It was a charming little Georgian terrace house, but we could only just afford the mortgage on both our salaries.

Being a working mother had never been my intention, and I was extremely uneasy about it. Certainly this situation had not arisen before in MI5. It was made clear to me that if I wanted to come back, even at my then grade, I would have to come back full time and I would be expected to return after three months. When I left to go on maternity leave, my boss wrote on my annual confidential report: "She is a most acceptable, warm-hearted and engaging colleague," but then added, "even though she is an upholder of women's rights."

At that stage, I was not strongly committed to MI5, nor was I earning large sums of money. I went back to work in April 1971 solely because I felt I had no option. My memories of those early years of Sophie's life are primarily of hard work and exhaustion, and of relations between John and myself going into severe decline.

At work I soon started to feel disgruntled about my second-class status. The last straw for me came one day when a nice young man arrived in my section to share my office. He had just come down from university, with a BA in something or other, and he was about 23. He had been recruited as an officer. I waited until it was time for my annual interview with my personnel officer and I took the opportunity to ask what prevented me from being an officer. The poor man was completely taken aback. He was an ex-army officer with a moustache, and a pipe clamped firmly between his lips, given to wearing very hairy tweed suits and khaki braces. I do not think it had ever occurred to him that a woman might want to become an officer in MI5. But word of my remarkable demands filtered out, and in 1973 I was at last promoted to an officer.

By the late 70s, now with two children at home, I was focused on trying to break through the glass ceiling, which involved persuading the men in charge to let me try my hand at agent-running, despite the fact that no woman in MI5 had ever done that work. The first response I got was a delaying tactic. They sent me on the newly created agent-running course.

The first thing students on the course had to do was go to a given pub, strike up a conversation with anyone there and try to find out all about his private life. I say "his" because when I got to my designated pub, somewhere near Victoria, there were no women in the bar. You obviously had to be prepared to give a fictional cover story about yourself in case the person was inquisitive. What you were not told was that, while you were doing this, someone from the course would arrive and recognise you, address you by your real name and do his best to blow your cover story. For a female, of course, faced with a bar full of males, this was particularly difficult. The man I accosted was just beginning to show a worrying degree of interest when my so-called friend strode in. I treated him as a saviour rather than a nuisance, which was not quite what was intended. (When I did eventually become an agent-runner, I always took care to find suitable surroundings where I would not stand out.)

I stayed in the agent-running section until the spring of 1983; for my last two years there I was the deputy head of the section. During that time we mounted a number of operations against Soviet bloc intelligence officers in the UK. We adopted all sorts of covers, designed to achieve the objective of getting alongside and cultivating the chosen target, until the moment came to drop the cover and make the pitch. In the course of "living my cover" I had to spend nights in a flat I had rented under a cover name and on other occasions in a hotel. It was a rather odd feeling to know that only a few miles away the girls were going to bed in our house, while I, as somebody totally different from their mother, was sleeping in a flat they had never seen.

On one occasion the two parts of my life came together in a way that was unprofessional but unavoidable. There was a sudden transport strike. One of the girls was at a school on the other side of London, to which she travelled by tube. The only way she could get home that day was to be picked up. But John was away and the au pair had to collect my other daughter from the opposite side of London. Inevitably, as always seemed to happen in those days, I had a meeting arranged with a contact.

The flat I was using to meet this particular person was, by lucky chance, very near the school. So I told my daughter how to get there by walking from the school, gave her the key and a cover story to use in case anyone should ask what she was doing, and told her to let herself in and wait. When I arrived I made her some supper and shut her in the bedroom to do her homework while I had my meeting. We both spent the night there and I walked with her to school in the morning. She was 11 at the time.

On another occasion I was due to meet an agent who was considering defecting. I had agreed to meet him in a safe house in the Barbican, but just before I set off, the phone rang. It was the nanny, to say that my younger daughter, Harriet, had gone into convulsions; she had rung for an ambulance to take them to St Bartholomew's hospital. Would I meet them there? This was a real dilemma. If I did not turn up at the safe house, my contact would be left standing in the street, exposed and vulnerable. In the end I managed to do both by going via the safe house to St Bartholomew's. I had to borrow money from the would-be defector, though, to pay for all the taxis involved in this complicated bit of manoeuvring, as I had not had time to go to the bank that morning. Whether or not the apparent scarcity of funds available to British intelligence influenced his decision, I don't know. But he did eventually decide not to make the jump across.

My frequent absences on operations, the stressful nature of the work and all the things we were trying to do to the large house we had by then moved to, did nothing to bring John and me closer together. When we were together we were both tired and cross, and seemed to be continuously arguing. I still have a tragic little note written by one of the girls from those days and left on the stairs for me to find when I came home late one evening. It reads: "Mum. pleas dont argew with dad." I decided that the best solution for us would be to separate and in December 1984 I moved out to a smaller house with the girls.

Two years later, I was promoted to director of counterespionage, a position known in those days as "K". Nearly 80 years on, I had become the modern manifestation of the founder of MI5. Though my promotion was seen as a breakthrough for women - I was the first to have reached this level - I heard tell of mutterings about it in the men's toilets. By then the girls were 12 and 16. Even though they did not know in any detail what I did for a living, they knew it was something secret for the government. There had been a series of strange events that they'd had to get used to. One evening several years before, the phone had rung and I had answered it. After I had put the phone down, one of them said: "What was that?" "Oh nothing," I said absent-mindedly, "it was just about someone who thinks he's been stabbed by a poisoned umbrella."

"Has he?"

"I don't think so."

"Oh," she said, and went back to whatever she was doing.

That, of course, was the first notification by the police of the incident when Georgi Markov was poisoned by the Bulgarian secret service on Waterloo Bridge.

There were innumerable telephone calls at odd times of the day and night, which often resulted in my leaving home unexpectedly. There were occasions when the news reported the expulsion of certain Russian officials for "unacceptable activities", when I seemed extremely interested and unusually cheerful. And later, while the Provisional IRA was bombing London, I seemed always to have an anxious expression and an obsessive interest in the news on the radio.

My promotion to deputy director-general in 1990 was the first time I seriously wondered if I might end up as director-general. It still seemed to me that the other deputy was much more likely to be given the job. He was responsible for the operational and investigative work, had served in Moscow and had run the surveillance section. My job, in charge of the support side - finances, personnel recruiting, accommodation and all the general underpinning - was dull in comparison.

It is tempting to think that it was because I was female that I was given the "soft" subjects, but I don't believe that was the reason. The fact that I was a woman had almost ceased to be relevant to the progress of my career by this time. As far as colleagues in the service or in Whitehall went, I did not think it was an issue (although some of the police still found it difficult to treat a senior woman like a normal human being, and felt the need to treat all engagements with me and senior female colleagues as trials of strength they had to win).

Shortly before Christmas 1990, I was asked to stay behind after a meeting and the director-general said: "Congratulations. You are to be the next director-general." I was also told, almost by the way, that the appointment and my name were to be announced publicly, and that the announcement would be in the next few days. It did not take a moment's thought to realise that there was likely to be a sensation. It was the first time the appointment of a director-general of MI5 had ever been formally announced. What's more, I was the first woman to hold the post, and that alone was bound to cause a stir.

When I had recovered from the shock, I said: "I'm not sure this is a very good idea." I rang the permanent secretary at the Home Office to tell him so. But he seemed to think I was making a lot of fuss about nothing, and anyway, he said, "The prime minister has agreed."

I decided that Harriet and I would go away from home on the day of the announcement and stay away for a couple of days to let the furore die down, as I rather naively thought. Sophie, my elder daughter, was away at university. So we parked the dog with the security staff at the office and went to stay in a hotel. We watched the news that evening. They had no photograph, nobody knew anything about me and they didn't know who to ask for a comment. In the end my estranged husband John, who as director-general of the health and safety executive occasionally appeared on TV when there was a disaster of some kind, agreed to comment. He told an astonished nation that they were lucky to have someone like me to look after them.

Unfortunately, I had not managed to contact Sophie, and she later told me that she was sitting in her digs that evening with the TV on when she suddenly realised that they were talking about her mother. "I thought you must have done something wrong, because I knew you were not supposed to talk about your work," she said.

After a couple of days, we got fed up with cowering in a hotel. It was too uncomfortable and we were worried about the dog, so we packed up and went home. That was the beginning of one of the most uncomfortable periods of my life. The press inevitably found out where we lived. We had been in the same Islington street for nearly 10 years, though the neighbours had no idea what I did for a living. Photographers camped outside the house, determined to be the first to get a photo. In the absence of anything better, a blurry picture that the New Statesman had taken of me years before, for an "exposé" of senior MI5 personnel, got lots of outings (the coat I was wearing in that now famous picture had long since gone to a charity shop). But before long, several desperately unflattering pictures appeared of me unloading my shopping from the boot of the car on a Saturday morning, wearing tatty old jeans and a Barbour. That taught me what all women in public life have to learn fast: that you'd better look as good as you can, whatever you are doing, in case there is a telephoto lens about. (When I see Cherie Blair, slimmed down by remorseless exercise, stoically wearing her designer clothes on holiday, I know how she's feeling.) Then a picture of our house appeared prominently in the Independent. My security advisers wanted me to go quickly while they assessed the situation, so we - Harriet, dog and I - moved into a flat at the top of some offices in Grosvenor Street. It was the most uncomfortable and unsuitable place. To take the dog for a walk, you had to descend several floors in a lift and walk through miles of corridors, past the guards to the street. We felt as though we were in prison. In the daytime, the dog had to come into my office, where the security guards looked after him.

As it turned out, the whole of my time as director-general was plagued by our unsettled living arrangements, because even when it was agreed where we should live, it was a place that needed a lot of work to make it habitable. Harriet and I camped there surrounded by builders for more than a year. Our first Christmas dinner there, nearly two years after I took up the job, was held in a room furnished with garden chairs and lit only by candles in bottles.

The principle behind making my name public was one I approved of, but the way it was handled was a disaster - not a PR disaster, but a personal disaster for the girls and for me.

🔴 This is an edited extract from Open Secret by Stella Rimington. The book is published by Hutchinson

Daily inspiration. Discover more photos at Just for Books…?

[jalebi-weds-bluetooth]

ArShi TS: Open Secret [2/3]

Word Count: ~2000 words

Prompt by @ruminationsofaraven​

What if all the secrets are revealed during the Holi segment? Can you write about the dynamic shift in the characters and how this would affect the Raizada parivaar in this phase of their lives.

Read part 1

Shyam had intended to color Khushi all along. If only Arnav hadn’t come in between… but for how long? What if the next time Arnav wasn’t around? Then? 

The thought sobered Payal up more than the lemon pickles. Them hiding Shyam’s true colors was a mistake. That man had no intention of changing, his disgust on Khushi being married was evident and so was his desperation to get to Khushi one way or the other.

Oh what had they done! For Payal’s marriage they had all put Khushi’s safety at stake. What if Khushi wasn’t married into the family, what if he had blackmailed Khushi to ensure the safety of Payal’s marriage? 

Khushi’s marriage, more of an elopement, was a blessing in disguise because Payal’s marriage to Akash had just been the leverage Shyam could have used against the Guptas. Especially Khushi.

No, Akash had to know the truth. 

Payal composed herself and head to her bedroom to find a stony faced Akash, a devastated Nani and an enraged Manohar. 

What was going on? 

– – – – – – – – – – –

“What is going on!” Manohar yelled, quieting Manorama with his rare rage as the rest of the family flinched in the living room. Shyam sweated profusely, Khushi blinked in confusion and Arnav was just sobering up. 

“Mama ji-” Shyam began but Manohar stopped him in his place with a look. 

What the hell… 

Anjali sat next to Khushi, holding her hand tightly. Khushi’s attention was diverted to the quivering pregnant woman. 

“Bitwa, please calm down. Anjali bitiya-” Nani began, trying to reign in her son’s temper. Anjali was expecting and she was of faint heart. God forbid if she followed her mother’s footsteps then Devyani would have no will to live at all. 

“How long has this been going on?” Akash asked Shyam, his anger barely in check. When Shyam feigned innocence, Akash rolled his eyes and took Khushi’s phone from Mama ji. 

“Di, I’m really sorry. But you should read the texts that your husband sends out to your sister in law.” Arnav stood up, realizing Akash had figured out what he had. He grabbed the phone from Akash’s hands, stopping him from handing it over to Anjali.

Anjali wouldn’t be able to bear the truth. 

“Akash, leave it.” Arnav warned. Akash froze, Arnav knew. 

“Bhai… how can I leave it? The whole house has a right to know, especially Di-” Shyam paled at the conflict between the cousins. Shit. They knew. But how much? And what perspective? 

If Akash thought what Arnav thought, then Khushi and Payal would be kicked out from the house and everything would work in his favor. 

But Anjali looked strangely calm. Perhaps she wouldn’t believe her cousins. Shyam formulated a plan, he would beg for forgiveness and talk about the way Khushi came onto him. That’s how the Gupta sisters are. Payal grabbed Akash at the first chance and when Khushi couldn’t get Arnav, she and her family latched onto the very married Shyam. 

This would make perfect sense. 

And Garima would never speak to the family - he knew it by her fear of Payal’s broken wedding! 

Anjali stood up and grabbed the phone from her brothers, reading aloud the text message from Shyam. 

“Dear Khushi ji, it’s time to bury the hatchet at this wonderful festival, isn’t it? I miss you, and I still love you. Trust me, Rani Saheba means nothing to me. Yours, Shyam” Anjali’s voice shook. Khushi panicked, disgusted at the text message. She should’ve never given the man another chance. Rather, she should have buried him alive the minute she had got to know the truth. 

He wouldn’t stop. He never would. It was her biggest mistake to have kept it quiet for the sake of Payal’s marriage. But speaking of Payal, where was she? 

Arnav yanked Khushi by the arms, his eyes bloodshot in rage. 

“How dare you-”

“Chote!” Anjali pulled Khushi away from Arnav’s grip - which left bruises on Khushi’s arms, as always. 

“Di?” Arnav asked in disbelief. 

“This is a lie…” She pointed to the text, “or half of the truth. We don’t know everything. I’m sure there’s a misunderstanding.” Anjali begged her brother. 

Oh Anjali and her false hopes.

“Exactly Rani Saheba, this is not what you think it is.” Shyam, finally, opened his mouth. The whole family glared at him except Anjali. Phew, that meant his lottery ticket still believed in him. 

“No Di, I know her. She’s a disgusting gold digger woman with no character-” Khushi stared at Arnav in disbelief. That is what he thought about her? Is that why he married her? But what about their heartbeats? How was he able to give her so much happiness and so much pain at once? The ground slipped beyond her feet as vicious, vile words spilled out of Arnav’s mouth. 

“Bhai-”, “Bitwa-” Akash and Manohar tried to stop Arnav but in fail. 

“ENOUGH!” Payal screamed, her family in tow. 

This was worse than she had imagined. Akash, Manohar and Devyani gave her a chance to tell the truth and she rushed home to bring back Garima and Madhumati to corroborate their version of events. But all they walked into was Khushi’s character assassination. 

How did this happen? It was Shyam who sinned, correct? 

“You’re happy hiding the truth na Amma?” Payal accused Garima, tears pricking her eyes. Madhumati on the hand just stormed off into the living room, her blood pressure rising through the roof. 

Shyam remained quiet, the situation was incredibly volatile and he needed to assess everyone’s tonality before he could give a fitting reply to save his place. But his demeanor slipped looking at Madhumati raging like a bull towards him. 

She paused, switching glares between him and Arnav. Interesting, who would she hit first? By the looks of it… Arnav was the target. 

Instead she grabbed Khushi’s wrist and pulled her away. 

“What are you doing?” Devyani asked. 

“Well this house does not respect my niece, so I’m taking her away from here.” Madhumati announced, pulling a frozen Khushi along.

“Respectwa? Hello hi bye bye, since when have we started respecting these kind of women?” Manorama sneered. 

“Enough!” Payal snapped, tearfully she looked at Akash, “Akash, when I thought you, Papa ji and Dadi ji gave me a chance to bring my family along I thought you were giving the truth a chance. But I see you’ve all already laid judgment - especially jethji.” Arnav frowned. 

“There is no other truth, Payal,” Arnav warned her, holding his sister tight. 

“How do you know that Arnav?” Arnav stiffened as Anjali’s soft, yet firm voice broke through the tension. 

“How do you know everything?” Anjali whispered.

“Exactly saale sahab-” Shyam agreed, “No one’s talking to you Shyam ji,” Anjali said, freezing Shyam. What did that mean? Did Anjali know the truth? How? 

“All you have is Shyam ji telling he loves Khushi, what do you know about what she feels?” Anjali questioned. Arnav balked at his sister’s calm questioning. Where was the anger? Where was the rage? This was her life!

“I’ve not seen anyone ask Khushi what the truth is.” Anjali left Arnav and held Khushi. Madhumati let her go, stunned that out of all people to show rationality it was Anjali. 

“What is the truth Khushi ji, tell me? You’ve already tried telling me once, haina?” Khushi finally broke out of her thoughts, staring at Anjali in confusion. 

Anjali smiled amidst her tears, holding Khushi’s cheeks gingerly, “It’s ok, this time I wouldn’t pretend to fear for my husband’s life.” The whole house fell quiet as Khushi broke into sobs, hugging the other woman tightly. 

– – – – – – – – – –

Anjali had laughed at everyone when they learned Khushi’s fiance was Shyam too. But the laughter quickly faded when she saw the ring on Khushi’s hand to be exceedingly similar to Shyam’s taste and the engagement ring he had selected for Anjali. 

Or when Motilal met Anjali again, laughing how Shyam was buying two rings for Anjali - he must be making up for a crime! 

Anjali’s suspicions solidified when the day she formally introduced Shyam and Khushi, Khushi’s engagement broke and she had come over the next day, tearfully trying to tell her the truth.

She thought all was well with Shyam paying attention to her, Arnav and Khushi’s growing attraction to each other, and Shyam’s joy over her safety when she returned from the accident. 

But one look at Holi and she knew her husband hadn’t stopped chasing Khushi, in fact he had only grown bolder, more dangerous. 

– – – – – – 

The house was quiet as Khushi was done with her version of events - from Lucknow to Delhi. 

“She’s lying!” Shyam cried, but this time Madhumati held his wrist in a menacing grip to let this man escape. 

“Lying? We have the whole of Lakshminagar to confirm your dalliance in our house!” Payal seethed. Garima closed her eyes, the errors of her judgment clear.  

“Hello hi bye bye, actions so down yet voice so louds?” Manorama scoffed at Shyam. Unbelievable! Any emotion, any tears, anything she felt for her beloved damaad disappeared in an instant. Manohar consoled the distraught Devyani but Manorama sought strength from Anjali’s strength. 

If her darling niece didn’t break down from the truth - she would not either. She slipped away from the crowd, calling her police contacts to file an FIR for everything Shyam had done. Attempted bigamy to stalking, siphoning funds off Anjali’s account to continuous harassment of Khushi.

Someone over here had to be practical.

“If you had only asked me,” Khushi asked Arnav, distraught that he hadn’t even liked her enough to ask. Not even asked. He had simply believed the worst of her in the blink of an eye. 

And even if he had believed the truth, did he think he had no right to yell at her? To demand her side of the story? To demand justifications for what all they felt? 

“So everyone knew some part of the truth anyways?” Akash laughed bitterly, settling on the sofa. Arnav could not respond, his heart soaring at the thought that Khushi was innocent but his mind calculating the damage of his actions. 

“And nobody, nobody told me.” Akash sighed. Payal reached out to him, attempting to hold his hand but he shrugged it off.

“You know Payal, I understand Bhai not telling me because if I heard only his version of events I might have not been able to marry you. I get it that he tried to preserve our family as much as he could. I understand Di not telling me because she herself was not sure if what she suspected was true or not. But you? Your family? You all literally did not tell me the truth just so you could marry me?” Akash was hurt, that despite all of his mother’s warnings that the Guptas would like to secure this marriage - a part of her was right. 

“Nahi Bitwa, Payal already had a broken marriage-” Garima began but Akash raised his hand, unable to hear anything else. 

“I know she had, and to be honest I’d understand if you had hidden that from me. But a truth concerning my sister’s wellbeing? I mean don’t tell me you all actually thought Di would be happy with Shyam-” Akash questioned the Guptas, their shame faces telling everything. 

Shyam, meanwhile, had nothing apart from silence to offer. The family spoke as if he didn’t exist, and pretended to not see when the police picked him up and carried him off to jail. This was the heights?! His yells to Anjali, curses to the Raizadas and threats to the Guptas only helped the police further to lock him up. Manorama only bid him a happy bye bye from the doorway. 

“I’m sorry Di,” Khushi whispered, tears streaming down her cheeks. Anjali had not left Khushi’s side at all. She had played complicit to Khushi’s harassment. 

“It’s ok, you’re young. People make mistakes,” Anjali paused and looked at a stricken Arnav, “don’t they?” 

Arnav swayed on his feet, collapsing by Anjali and unable to meet Khushi’s eyes. 

What had he done? 

“You are right Akash. My family acted purely out of selfishness for my marriage to happen. As such I have violated the sanctity of truth of our marriage.” Payal whispered, wiping her tears away. 

“Hence, the only way to repair this, is for me to walk out of your life.”

A/N: Finally I've updated this! Last part left! Let me know how you think this would transpire???