Along with my general sense that Paul McCartney of the last 47 or so years doesn't look like himself, his children also don't resemble him as much as one might expect. (Paul comparisons is a matter I will go into a bit in a future post, but I feel there are sooo many resources for information on the face and feature matching projects, I mostly will leave it to those who have already worked so hard on it),
We will likely never have the opportunity to actually examine Paul McCartney's DNA to determine if it's really him these day; so our second best option is to examine the effects of his genetics in phenotypic representation among his offspring. I can't help but look at James McCartney, specifically and thinking, "did Linda hook up with a Scottish milkman one afternoon???".
A couple quick points about genetics and parentage:
1. It is evolutionarily beneficial for a baby to resemble their father strongly shortly after birth. This helps the father recognize the baby as his legitimate offspring and increases the likelihood of the father providing for the child's resources and safety until it matures to mating age. As the child grows older, he or she will likely start incorporating more of the mother's features, and blending the two into a distinct genetic phenotype blend, making them look unique, but with a hint of features from both parents.
2. Some features blend or just create a mixture of the two in some manner, but a few features can be specific genetic markers- eye color and hair color and/or texture. You may have learned about the punnett square in high school, using eye and hair color. For those who need a brush up:
With a bit of genealogical information, we can predict the likelihood of someones offspring's genetic/phenotype make-up.
Hair color works pretty much the same as eye color. The dominant browns and blacks overpower the recessive reds and blonds when they are together. Sometimes hair color will result in a little "blend" like red highlights, or a lighter version of brown.
Why am I talking about this boring stuff on my Blog??!!!!
Ok, we'll move on. First I'll show a little photo collage of Paul McCartney's childrens' family tree (except Beatrice- I couldn't find her grandparents pictures).
So, for at least Paul and Linda's 3 children, their Punnett square is most likely BB/bb, so their children only have a 0% chance of being blond, or blue eyed; unless Paul has Bb genes, which bumps it up to a 50% probability. For Heather we can guess the (bb) without really seeing her parents, too, so Beatrice likely got the same square, and the same 0-50% (mean = 25%) chance.
At any rate, his children (with the possible exception of Mary, who I'd argue resembles her Grandmother mostly) bear very little visible resemblance to him, as he looked when a younger man, nor his brother (older or younger), for that matter. If I had to pick them out of a line-up for family traits, I'd never assume James, Stella or Beatrice were his children. Their mothers'- YES, certainly, they all resemble their mother, so we know they weren't adopted, ha ha.
Just for fun, I'm adding in a picture of Paul's reputed illegitimate children to the family photo. Thanks to Dr. Tomoculous for the added research! :) You can find more links about them in the comments section. <Link to his story>
I'm not trying to prove anything here....just pointing it out.
What about the other Beatle families? How much resemblance is there between their kids and themselves?
Excellent excellent blog. Of all the children of Beatle people, I've always had a struggle with the McCartney kids, regardless of PID or anything. Stella I have the most difficult time with, I find it hard to find McCartney or Eastman in her face. Touches of I suppose, but in a crowd of people I would not say she was a child of McCartney. Not even Mary. I don't see much there either. James, I suppose, at times, but looks like "No.2". Not at all like No.1. Or 15. Whatever. And Beatrice, depending on the picture she can bear a resemblance. With Dhani Harrison there is no doubt. Absolute George Mini-Me. Julian especially when he was in his teenage/young adult years. He's definitely Cynthia/John - you can see both of them in his face. Ringo's children, again, no mistaking. His daughter Lee more resembles her mother Maureen. Especially when she was younger.
ReplyDeleteYou should check out Paul's ILLEGITIMATE children, or the ones claimed were his, because many of their births fall before the "infamous" period of discrepancy.
Start Here:
http://sentstarr.tripod.com/beatgirls/anita.html
Thank you for that link! I've incorporated it :)
DeleteWow. Philip C. Looks *just* like Mike MGear. Uncanny.
DeleteIf you take a look at this other claim of illegitimacy, you may not notice a resemblance to James paul. But a resemblance to Michael McCartney.
ReplyDeletehttp://2.bp.blogspot.com/_LXqBXJEfW0A/Smq0jemUkxI/AAAAAAAASV8/p_pwHCJAQx4/s400/Bettina+Hubers.jpg
And this one
ReplyDeletehttp://soforti.net/pictures/j/f/huebers/010.JPG
Michael (Brother)/Mary (Mother) McCartney resemblance that I can see.
And looking at the McCartney kids, and these claims of illegitimacy, would it be going out on a limb to say that the McCartney gene pool is not the stronger one? As in, Mike McCartney looks much like his mother. Paul looks more like his father. Looking at the children though, the legit ones bear more resemblance to Linda if anything, and the blonde trait. His son James is probably the closest in resemblance (but again, which Paul we're talking about is the problem) --- and when you look at the illegitimate cases, they share quite a few traits to Michael McCartney, who looked much like his mother. Do you think it's safe to say in this theory that Mary McCartney's gene pool was much more dominant than Jim McCartney's?
ReplyDeleteAlso check Michelle La(Le) Vallier, another illegitimate claim
ReplyDeletehttp://www.unimediaimages.com/photo_details.asp?id=93684
The second picture of Bettina you linked to finally made me see the family resemblence- but more closely to Mike McGear because of the face shape, which Paul was developing, but Mike's is so pronounced. Michelle has his teeth. I think I'll make up another grid later to put in here.
DeleteI agree, James does look a lot like his father, as his father looks today, but sooo far removed from the original Paul. It's my estimation that the new Paul has Blond or reddish hair, but with one B gene from his parents- but really, Mary McCartney's looks could have come down through Linda from her mother. It makes me think looking at Phil Ackrill is a good idea, perhaps.
Yes, Mary (Mother Mary) has the curly dark hair like Bettina and wide spade face like Mike, Young Paul, Phil and Michelle. I wish I had a younger picture of Father McCartney.
The regional liklihood of both of his parents having strongly BB or Bb Genes is exceptionally high, considering their location and the gene pool in that area. You get back into the blond hair and blue eyes just as you get a bit more north- but especially as you get towards Scotland.
Thanks for the help on this research! <3
I saw Stella--from about 5 feet--before her father's April 02 show at Madison Square Garden in NY. She's his kid---a ringer for him, with her Mom's hair.
ReplyDeleteHi!
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment :)
I actually also just recently met James in the past week, myself, up close, and he also looked very much like a young Paul in the eyes, and the way he would look up occasionally while playing. So, it's interesting to see you've made a similar note about Stella.
My theories have changed quite a bit since I began this blog- I no longer think Paul died in '66 and was neatly replaced. I now think there was more than one of him from the early '60's, at least. So, while that theory conflicts with the basis for this study ^, I do still think there is something amiss with Paul/s.
I seem to come across the darnedest things on these rabbit hole adventures. :)
ReplyDeleteJust a quick thought- daughter Mary looks so much like new mother Nancy it is uncanny. Just a strange piece to add to this puzzle- probably coincidence, but I in a crowd, I would bet Nancy and Mary were related before I guessed Mary and Paul were. :)
Have a beautiful day!
Jim McCartney was not the biological father of Paul. So the calculations change entirely when you replace Jim McCartney with Paul's real Dad.
ReplyDeleteGreat article; thank you for sharing your research. You should do a comparison with another Child of Paul McCartney claimant ... Stephen Dickinson born 1967. He looks remarkably like Paul's Mother.
ReplyDeleteJust google his name, for several different blogs pots etc.
I disagree. I think James looks just like Paul, but blonde (not like Dhani or Julian or Zak though). I think Mary looks like Paul (check out her photos of her as a child) and so does Beatrice (blonde Paul). Stella not so much.
ReplyDeleteSo sad to see this site abandoned as it was. Paul is still dead, or at least out of the picture since 1966. My research has slowed since first delving into this earlier this year(2020), but there is still so much to try to piece together. Like, was it Paul or Billy who originally bought the Scotland farm, and how long had either of them known Yoko before she and John met ? And all of the references to shoes since 1964 ? I'll keep at it, because I don't know how I can stop at this point. Comments are welcome ! - Sally B
ReplyDelete