IN A PIECE about the engagement of Nancy Shevell and Paul McCartney – or make that, Sir Paul McCartney since the former Beatle is among the numerous rock musicians, actors and fashion designers dubbed knights by Queen Elizabeth  –  The New York Times states that any children of the couple will not inherit a title.

Ms. Shevell is 51 and the Knight is 68.  They are both retreads: she is on her second marriage and he is on his third. Is it rude to state the obvious? Children are unlikely. Interestingly, the ages of the two are completely omitted from the newspaper’s reporting on the engagement. The daily chronicle of the Boomer generation avoids the inconvenient facts of advancing age.

                                               — Comments —

Lawrence Auster writes:

It seems to me that you are being unfair on this. McCartney is a widower, who on the rebound from his first wife’s death had a calamitous second marriage, and now, some years later, is marrying again. No one is claiming that this is a first marriage, from which children would be expected, or a substitute for a first marriage. McCartney had three children with his first wife (plus adopting his first wife’s child from a previous marriage) and one child with his second wife. Shevell had one child with her first husband. So it’s not as though these two have not married and produced children. Also, lots of middle-aged and older people today—widows / widowers / divorced—live together with a new partner without getting married at all, so I don’t understand why you are being negative about the McCartney/Shevell marriage.

Laura writes:

I made no comment on the marriage itself except to state the facts.

I was referring to the point in the Times that their children wouldn’t have titles. I assumed the reporter was talking about children they would have together. But, as you point out, they already have children from other marriages and the reporter was arguably referring to them. So it was unfair to take the reporter to task for that point.

Mr. Auster writes:

Well, your words left a distinct impression of negativity about the marriage and about them:

They are both retreads: she is on her second marriage and he is on his third. Is it rude to state the obvious? Children are unlikely.

First, calling them retreads sounds hostile. 

Second, to suggest that stating the obvious truth, that children are unlikely (or rather impossible), will be seen as rude, is to create the impression that there is something objectionable about their getting married when children are unlikely

Laura writes:

I think it is fair to refer to a divorced person as a “retread.” It’s wrong to gush about the marriage of people who have been divorced unless it involves those who have been divorced involuntarily.

 Mr. Auster writes:

I see your point.

Please follow and like us: