Friday, June 17, 2011

My wife reads "People" so you don't have to: Engaged again?

So I was not reading a stack of "People" magazines my wife had left out, as I often do, when I saw the May 23 issue--you know, the one spotlighting Pippa Middleton, the royal sister-in-law who supposedly stole the show at the Bill/Kate wedding. Got to hand it to the media for not only obsessing over the main event nuptials, but also launching a new star to obsess over.

But what caught my eye was not Pippa, but the photo inset and text at the lower right-hand corner of the cover: "Paul McCartney Engaged!"

Now, I had heard about this story but had tried to forget about it, and seeing it right there in living color on a magazine my wife reads but I don't, well, that just puts it right in my face.

I think all faithful Beatlemaniacs who see that headline have the same reaction: Please, please, please, let him be engaged...in a spirited series of recording sessions with some other talented musicians. Let him be engaged in a good book. Hell, let him even be engaged in a Twitter feud with Noel Gallagher (is Noel the jerk, or is it Liam? I can never keep that one straight. And is he on Twitter? Because think of the havoc he would have caused were he tweeting back in the nineties).

Just don't let him be engaged to be married again.

Sure, it's cynical to think Paul and Nancy Shevell, his new bride-to-be won't make it, or to doubt that they really are head over heels in love with each other. And I'm not attempting to make the case that women can't be trusted or anything silly like that. But after the last marriage went sour, it just seems a little soon for Sir Paul to get back into matrimony. 2020 would seem too soon, actually.

With a lump in my throat, I looked inside at the article. I saw a picture of the ring (it's huge) and read tidbits like Paul and Nancy are a great match because they're both reserved and avoid seeking attention (sure; in fact, I think Macca is calling his current World Tour the Not Seeking Attention Tour), but I didn't see the one vital bit of information that would make the story useful.

"People" really missed it on this one, gang: Not one word about a pre-nup.

No comments: