This entry was posted
on Friday, February 1st, 2013 at 7:41 pm and is filed under Beatle Photos.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
I’m confused, Datey and i had a quick word about it, i initially thought it was Mary and 1969, then someone pointed out that the bub looked like James, and Mary was born with a mop of black hair, Paul’s hair looks a little longer here than Aug/Sept 69 i thought, and his hair looked similar in 77 when James was born. I dunno, to me Paul looks 69-ish, but ..
Hmmm … this is a tough one. I’m looking at photos of newborn James and it looks somewhat like him in the first photo but the second shot I would say Paul is holding Mary.
I’m fishing for ‘clues’ just like Tammy. Although married, I noticed that in these photos Paul is not wearing his wedding band similar to the LIFE magazine photos taken for the November 1969 issue. Does it mean anything? Perhaps not, it’s just an observation.
I’ll be interested to read what others have to say and to see if this puzzle can be solved.
Regards to all!
I personally think it is james. Color of the hair and it looks like he’s wearing a blue onesie. Kid of more appropriate clothes for a baby boy. Just my two cents.
Can’t be Mary – baby’s hair and Paul’s all wrong for ’69.
Must be James – hair is reddish, and Paul’s hair looks like 1977ish.
The second picture doesn’t look like other James baby pics, but then again, I didn’t see tons of them after he was born.
So my vote is James.
Sure is a cute set of pictures!
I say it’s Mary. When James was a baby, he was blonde blonde blonde. No dark hair on that boy’s head. Mary was dark haired right from the beginning. Plus I’ve seen Mary in that blue onesie before- looks very familiar.
The baby is Mary. I know the person who originally posted these on Tumblr and they tagged them as the baby being Mary, and also I can’t see it being James or Stella. Mary has blue eyes and the brown hair, I don’t think James or Stella ever had brown hair as a baby really. Plus Paul’s hair looks like how it was for the Abbey Road cover shoot and the last photos at Tittenhurst Park. That’s what I’m going with
While I agree that the baby’s face looks like the McCartney album cover…
Dad’s doesn’t look anything like it.
I don’t see how those two ‘looks’ could both be during Mary’s infancy. If the album-cover-Paul shaved and put on these clothes, His hair still doesn’t match. Since cameras really can lie, it still could be the 60′s. But, Paul’s face was a lot more pudgy in 1969 than it looks here. Also, this haircut looks really ‘shag’ which was still a couple of years away in 1969.
When I first saw these pictures, I instantly thought mid 70′s. How long do babies look the same? If that really is Mary, then this must be very soon after the McCartney cover was taken…which is very hard to believe. Did the family leave the farm and head back to Cavendish for something formal? That is a major transformation in appearance.
Holding a spanner ready to be thrown into the works… Is it at all possible he’s holding a friends baby? Granted it does look a bit Maryish and my first glance at the pics I thought 1969 but very young babies can all look a bit similar and who wouldn’t want their baby photographed being held by Paul? Did Mike have a baby in 1969? Another McCartney clan baby would have those looks possibly. When was Ruth born?
I’ll still hold that spanner
I checked Mike’s book, and Benna was born in Dec. 68, too early for this pic, and Abbi in Dec ’73, with Theran in between. It could be Abbi, I guess?
It could be Stella since the hair is reddish, altho I think she had a rounder face, but I don’t see how it could be Mary, with Paul’s hair heading toward mullettville.
You know, i’m swinging back towards James, the top pic looks like James, the second more mary .. but Pau’s hair is just too shaggy for August 69, look at the long bangs in the second pic. I’ve never been so stupped to really nail a photo before.
The problem with these photos are Paul’s sideburns. He had them very thick ones too but very skinny ones in 1977/78. These look very thick. Am I on the right track? I was looking at photos from 1977 he there were skinny ones.
@Susan, Yes, and if you look at that picture of Paul, Linda and Newborn Mary(Linda is feeding her a bottle) Look at the white shirt Paul is wearing and look at how thick his sideburns are in that photo and then look at some snaps during the 77/78 period. They are much thinner, his sideburns. This is why I think it might be Mary but my mind says it’s James.
There’s always something about infant Jame’s appearance that leads me to wonder if he was truly was as healthy as the press and his parents reported. This baby has that look, and I’ve never seen a baby picture of Mary or Stella that’s given me that vibe. I could easily be wrong too. Regardless of who it is, it’s a cute pic.
This is Mary. It’s very clearly 1969 Paul – the hair, the bangs, the sideburns and the clothes. It’s the same blue pants that he wears on the cover of Abbey Road (and several other times in 1969 pictures on this site) that I’ve never personally seen him wear afterwards. His face doesn’t look nearly 35 which he was when James was born (no real lines around his eyes or slightly droopy jowls). So…yes, Mary.
Is that really James? Somehow I thought it was Mary. Whoever the baby is, that is one hot daddy. Gorgeous.
I thought they were photos of Paul holding Mary.
Any thoughts?!
I’m confused, Datey and i had a quick word about it, i initially thought it was Mary and 1969, then someone pointed out that the bub looked like James, and Mary was born with a mop of black hair, Paul’s hair looks a little longer here than Aug/Sept 69 i thought, and his hair looked similar in 77 when James was born. I dunno, to me Paul looks 69-ish, but ..
Hmmm … this is a tough one. I’m looking at photos of newborn James and it looks somewhat like him in the first photo but the second shot I would say Paul is holding Mary.
I’m fishing for ‘clues’ just like Tammy. Although married, I noticed that in these photos Paul is not wearing his wedding band similar to the LIFE magazine photos taken for the November 1969 issue. Does it mean anything? Perhaps not, it’s just an observation.
I’ll be interested to read what others have to say and to see if this puzzle can be solved.
Regards to all!
How do we know the baby isn’t Stella?
I personally think it is james. Color of the hair and it looks like he’s wearing a blue onesie. Kid of more appropriate clothes for a baby boy. Just my two cents.
That looks like the 70′s Paul…not 60′s
I think it is James; I agree with Nick on the blue onesie. Plus, Mary had really dark hair when she was a baby.
“That looks like the 70′s Paul…not 60′s” hahahahaha, agree with Kwai
Can’t be Mary – baby’s hair and Paul’s all wrong for ’69.
Must be James – hair is reddish, and Paul’s hair looks like 1977ish.
The second picture doesn’t look like other James baby pics, but then again, I didn’t see tons of them after he was born.
So my vote is James.
Sure is a cute set of pictures!
It’s Mary. Paul has the hair cut of one of the last Beatles Meeting with Allen Klein
I say it’s Mary. When James was a baby, he was blonde blonde blonde. No dark hair on that boy’s head. Mary was dark haired right from the beginning. Plus I’ve seen Mary in that blue onesie before- looks very familiar.
The baby is Mary. I know the person who originally posted these on Tumblr and they tagged them as the baby being Mary, and also I can’t see it being James or Stella. Mary has blue eyes and the brown hair, I don’t think James or Stella ever had brown hair as a baby really. Plus Paul’s hair looks like how it was for the Abbey Road cover shoot and the last photos at Tittenhurst Park. That’s what I’m going with
Maybe its Stella then.
There is a picture of Paul holding one year old James and he’s not wearing his wedding band.
I am sticking with James!
Okay! Now looking at Paul’s sideburns and white shirt, I think it has to be Mary.
While I agree that the baby’s face looks like the McCartney album cover…
Dad’s doesn’t look anything like it.
I don’t see how those two ‘looks’ could both be during Mary’s infancy. If the album-cover-Paul shaved and put on these clothes, His hair still doesn’t match. Since cameras really can lie, it still could be the 60′s. But, Paul’s face was a lot more pudgy in 1969 than it looks here. Also, this haircut looks really ‘shag’ which was still a couple of years away in 1969.
When I first saw these pictures, I instantly thought mid 70′s. How long do babies look the same? If that really is Mary, then this must be very soon after the McCartney cover was taken…which is very hard to believe. Did the family leave the farm and head back to Cavendish for something formal? That is a major transformation in appearance.
Another vote for James. Didn’t baby Mary have a rounder face?
Holding a spanner ready to be thrown into the works… Is it at all possible he’s holding a friends baby? Granted it does look a bit Maryish and my first glance at the pics I thought 1969 but very young babies can all look a bit similar and who wouldn’t want their baby photographed being held by Paul? Did Mike have a baby in 1969? Another McCartney clan baby would have those looks possibly. When was Ruth born?
I’ll still hold that spanner
Just to be contrarian: I think it’s Stella! In 1971.
i really don’t think it’s mary. maybe stella.
I checked Mike’s book, and Benna was born in Dec. 68, too early for this pic, and Abbi in Dec ’73, with Theran in between. It could be Abbi, I guess?
It could be Stella since the hair is reddish, altho I think she had a rounder face, but I don’t see how it could be Mary, with Paul’s hair heading toward mullettville.
You know, i’m swinging back towards James, the top pic looks like James, the second more mary .. but Pau’s hair is just too shaggy for August 69, look at the long bangs in the second pic. I’ve never been so stupped to really nail a photo before.
Is this not the Paul of “London Town” and “Mull of Kintyre”?
The problem with these photos are Paul’s sideburns. He had them very thick ones too but very skinny ones in 1977/78. These look very thick. Am I on the right track? I was looking at photos from 1977 he there were skinny ones.
I mean he had thicker sideburns in 1969 and thinner ones in 1977.
In my opinion, the baby is Stella or James.
Paul’s Hairstyle tells me it’s James plus he had his beard when Mary was born.
No, cleanshaven for Mary’s birth – there are pics of him in the hospital with Linda and Mary.
It’s late 70′s Paul, definitely. And some babies can be born with dark hair and turn to be blonde later. So I think it’s James.
@Susan, Yes, and if you look at that picture of Paul, Linda and Newborn Mary(Linda is feeding her a bottle) Look at the white shirt Paul is wearing and look at how thick his sideburns are in that photo and then look at some snaps during the 77/78 period. They are much thinner, his sideburns. This is why I think it might be Mary but my mind says it’s James.
I agree with you all!
There’s always something about infant Jame’s appearance that leads me to wonder if he was truly was as healthy as the press and his parents reported. This baby has that look, and I’ve never seen a baby picture of Mary or Stella that’s given me that vibe. I could easily be wrong too. Regardless of who it is, it’s a cute pic.
This is Mary. It’s very clearly 1969 Paul – the hair, the bangs, the sideburns and the clothes. It’s the same blue pants that he wears on the cover of Abbey Road (and several other times in 1969 pictures on this site) that I’ve never personally seen him wear afterwards. His face doesn’t look nearly 35 which he was when James was born (no real lines around his eyes or slightly droopy jowls). So…yes, Mary.
Or Stella.
Not Stella, Paul already had a mullet (and no bangs) when Stella was born.