Now, though, the press is pursuing her as never before, as indeed it has no-one since it chased Princess Di to her death in a Parisian tunnel. Why? Because to legions of Beatles fans last week rsquo;s leaks defy credulity.
Could Paul McCartney, the soppiest of the Fab Four, really have stabbed his wife with a wine glass? Did the man who wrote Can rsquo;t Buy Me Love demand that the mother of his child stop breastfeeding her because ldquo;they are my breasts rdquo;? Is he capable of ldquo;making rdquo; his wife crawl up the steps of a plane not wide enough to take a wheel chair?
Would he have forbidden her to have a vital operation because it interfered with his holiday plans? The purpose of the clotted mass of allegations has been, according to friends, to discredit him, to pressure him into handing over a huge slice of his 825 million fortune, to make him pay for ending their relationship. Hence the furore engulfing Lady Heather.
Whatever the motivation for the leak of documents which ought to have remained confidential in perpetuity, there is no doubt of its effect. Amicable the McCartneys rsquo; divorce is not. Even the bitter break-up between Lennon and McCartney never plumbed depths like these.
It was Piers Morgan, then editor of the Daily Mirror, who introduced Paul McCartney to Heather Mills at a charity event in 1999. It was the first public engagement he had attended after the death of his wife Linda from cancer. Up until this summer, Morgan was singularly proud of his role as matchmaker.
No longer. Last week he admitted: ldquo;I am filled with guilt and sorrow that, as a lifelong Beatles fan, I am at least partly responsible for the hell Paul McCartney is going through at the hands of this vengeful, shameless, ghastly woman ndash; Paul, it may be a bit late now, but I rsquo;m sorry. rdquo; We can only imagine the solace this brings the former Beatle.
Morgan rsquo;s attitude to Mills is commonplace, which is extraordinary given her medical history. Since she had her leg amputated after being struck by a police motorcycle in 1993, she rsquo;s been a controversial figure. In her autobiography A Single Step she claimed to have been molested, beaten and abducted.
Throughout her marriage to McCartney there were claims of acrimony between her and his children from his marriage to Linda. The couple had a daughter in 2003, Beatrice, which seemed to calm the tabloid rumours, but not for long. Even while pregnant, she was forced to deny being a ldquo;gold-digger rdquo;.
Last week her ex-husband Alfie Karmel emerged to declare that McCartney, like him, had ldquo;been Heathered ...
if you had an argument with her she would run away. When you caught her out lying she would run away. rdquo; But the events of recent days have dramatically raised the stakes in the public relations war between the couple.
This much is known: at the start of last week 13 pages of legal papers, which ought to have been seen only by the judge who will oversee their divorce, were faxed ndash; in error, we are asked to believe ndash; to the Daily Mail. Efforts to trace a mystery fax number and the source of the leak have been in vain. They contain a litany of alleged humiliations, abuses and arguments.
In response, McCartney issued a strong denial. It was he who filed for divorce, and the papers are her cross-petition. In England, one partner must take the blame for the collapse of a marriage, and Mills has appointed London lawyers Mishcon de Reya, best known for representing Princess Diana in her divorce from Prince Charles, to defend her as the alleged ldquo;guilty rdquo; party.
For many couples, who takes the blame is a technicality, since it has no bearing on any financial settlement. But the tone of Mills rsquo;s allegations is astonishing for anyone who reveres Paul McCartney. The most damning claims concern four alleged incidents of physical abuse, dating back to 2002: first, that he pushed her over a table; then, in 2003, that he pushed a pregnant Mills into the bath; that he tried to choke her later that year after smoking cannabis; and lastly that in April this year he cut her arm with a broken wine glass while he was drunk and she was recovering from an operation on her leg.
This incident seems particularly detailed in the papers: after cutting her McCartney is alleged to have manhandled her into a wheel chair and wheeled her outside, ldquo;screaming at her to apologise for winding him up. rdquo; Mills says she still bears the scar from the incident. BUT other claims are just as bizarre and disturbing.
She claims McCartney often told her during her pregnancy that he did not want her to breastfeed, and that she stopped breastfeeding Beatrice after six weeks because of his ldquo;interference. rdquo; Once, he allegedly said: ldquo;They are my breasts. rdquo; On another occasion he is supposed to have said: ldquo;I don rsquo;t want a mouthful of breast milk.
rdquo; He also allegedly refused to let Mills get out of bed before he was ready to get up in the morning, and wouldn rsquo;t let her have a bedpan in their room (so that she could avoid having to crawl to the bathroom) because it would be like being in ldquo;an old woman rsquo;s home rdquo;. There are also incidents where Mills claims her disability made it difficult to get their daughter in and out of bed without help and McCartney was too drunk to help her. The strength of her allegations has, it has been reported, stunned McCartney, who denies them vigorously.
Because of the rarity of such sensitive legal documents being leaked, if it was a mistake it was a colossal one; if their leakage was intentional, someone has an agenda. It has been suggested that the leak was designed to put pressure on McCartney to make a large out-of-court settlement before a judge makes a decision. If that rsquo;s the case, it rsquo;s a considerable gamble.
Despite her refusal to be considered disabled, many of the complaints relate to Mills rsquo;s physical barriers and McCartney rsquo;s attitude to them. If any other woman had made these claims there would be an outpouring of sympathy and understanding. Not so for Mills.
Yesterday rsquo;s papers hinted that someone from McCartney rsquo;s side of the row could have guessed what the public reaction would be and intentionally rel eased them. there were also rep orts from friends of Mills claiming ldquo;she either wants to sue or fire everyone ..
. Heather literally feels that she has not got a friend in the world. rdquo; ldquo;It is odd that a section of the press have taken against her so completely from the start, a section that doesn rsquo;t like ambitious, determined women rdquo; said Danny Rogers, editor of PR Week, the industry bible for public relations.
ldquo;There are incredibly powerful PR machines at work on both sides of this divorce ndash; he rsquo;s on the defensive, Mills rsquo;s team seems to be on the offensive. There rsquo;s a proactive attempt being made to manage the media coverage, which is just vast. ldquo;Even if they had a boring divorce with nothing salacious being claimed there would still be a sensation about it, and these claims make everything completely huge.
They are too well known for it to be quiet. rdquo; Their fame together and now apart is, according to family law experts, set to have a significant effect on English divorce law. The leaked document comes at a time when the Department of Constitutional Affairs is coming to the end of a consultation on bringing more openness to the family courts in England, where matters such as child custody and separations are decided.
There has also been a long-running desire to introduce a no-fault system, as already exists in Scotland, so that one half of a couple would not be left to carry the can of a failed marriage. Andrew Goldsmith is the chairman of Resolution, a group representing over 5000 English solicitors who want to make divorce a less acrimonious experience with the introduction of a no-fault clause. ldquo;Cases like this highlight the major problem in England of not having a no-fault divorce, rdquo; he said.
ldquo;The finances of a marriage are not examined in terms of conduct, so it is inconsistent that conduct counts so much towards who is at fault for a divorce. ldquo;The McCartney-Mills divorce really amplifies our case to introduce a no-fault clause, precisely because it is so bitter between them. rdquo; The elephant in the room ndash; Paul McCartney rsquo;s millions ndash; cannot be touched by these allegations: previous cases heard in the House of Lords have disconnected financial claims from behaviour during a marriage, unless one side or the other can prove financial irresponsibility such as gambling, stealing or lying about money.
The couple can choose to reach a financial settlement out of court, which may save a considerable amount in legal bills. Goldsmith says the sensational media coverage of the divorce may affect the government rsquo;s decision about opening up family courts to the media. ldquo;If the media are allowed to write about divorces as they are detailed in court, the children of separating couples will see all about it in the future: every allegation made against each party will be printed, and I think it would be damaging for children to see that or be able to go and look for it in years to come.
The publicity around this case opens up a lot of questions about openness in court . rdquo; Goldsmith is also concerned that the way the famous couple have been treated by the press has ldquo;polarised rdquo; them. ldquo;It seems incredibly damaging.
It is bound to affect co-parenting in the future. It sets children in the middle of this up badly for life, and affects them forever. rdquo; Vanessa Lloyd Platt, a leading English family lawyer, said the current claim and counter-claim could last for months and is ldquo;a complete waste of time and money rdquo;.
ldquo;The fault basis of the divorce has no impact on the financial settlement, none at all, rdquo; she said. ldquo;But Paul gets in there first and Heather hits the roof, reportedly making these allegations in her cross-petition. On the technical side he can file a reply refuting what she rsquo;s allegedly claimed ndash; this can go on and on.
But in order for the judge to decide who is at fault witnesses can be called, evidence can be called for. That is very difficult when the claims are about a married couple in a room and what was said or done between them. And if she has made these allegations she will have to substantiate them.
rdquo; To that end, the Daily Mail reported yesterday, through a ldquo;friend rdquo; of Mills, that she has ldquo;taped evidence rdquo; of their disagreements. If there is any truth in it, that kind of evidence may be heard by a judge. ldquo;These are categorically bad allegations and they fly in the face of advice given to couples who are separating.
For years we have been calling for a no-fault system to avoid this kind of nastiness, and what do we have? He-said, she-said all over the papers, some of it very nasty and vicious, it should never have been made public. I was totally surprised by the ferocity of these appalling allegations.
ldquo;The judge may well order an investigation into the leak, as may the Law Society. It is time now for [Mills and McCartney] to be reined in, told to stop the leaks in no uncertain terms. rdquo; Lloyd Platt, like Goldsmith, is concerned about the McCartneys rsquo; daughter Beatrice.
ldquo;The allegations about the fault of a divorce can affect to whom custody is granted, and there is a child at the middle of this who one day is going to be able to read all about the nasty things said between her parents as they divorced because it has been leaked. It is very very sad, and it should never have happened.
News RSS