Bruce....married or divorced?

[southbay]

The way fans are at times obsessed with the BB's offspring is what creeps me out much more than wondering if the actual Beach Boy is currently married or not.

I don't care who's married or not, but I am interested in the offspring, particularly Carnie & Wendy and Matt and Mike's son and daughter. I don't follow on the internet what any of them are doing, nor am I obsessed with them. I don't track closely what Carl's or Dennis's sons are doing in bands or restaurants or whatever, but I enjoyed watching them ALL sing onstage in L.A. near the end of the C50. When the subject of Wilson/Phillips comes up or they release a new CD, I'm all ears.

With that said, anybody here think Wendy Wilson is the bee's knees?  What a cutie.  

With that said, anybody here think Wendy Wilson is the bee's knees?  What a cutie.  

Yep , very much 250%  

Wendy...

[adamghost]

I never thought I would want any involvement in this thread, but might I suggest one thing - while I only knew Harriet Johnston superficially, on more than one occasion I saw her go out of her way to be kind and generous to other people.  She was always thoughtful and gracious.  Even if Bruce is a public figure, she deserves her privacy.  I will add that I know nothing more about their marital status than what's apparently been published for some time.  I'm certain that if either of them wishes to comment further on the situation, they will.

I understand that people can ask such a question, but honestly, the only time I can imagine it being appropriate to demand an answer of a public figure is something similar to one lawmaker who was trying to dictate morality in Congress - who a person can marry, etc. - and was caught playing footsie in an airport bathroom with another man.  He had some 'splaining to do, given his voting record, since he had an impact on us as citizens.  I think it's safe to say that neither Bruce nor Harriet is in that position.

Like.

[J.G. Dev]

Funny subject matter this one… agree with just about every post made so far! Bruce is a public figure and I guess things like this to with the territory, but everyone's entitled to their privacy (unless you're one if those celeb-types who make their living from washing your laundry in public, which Brice certainly isn't). Bruce's private life has always been a private private life and if he chooses to keep it that way then that should be his right.

My own interest would be aroused if he'd released a raft of songs based on love life experiences. But he hasn't. When it has no impact on the music, then wanting to know strikes me as a tad stalker-ish. I feel like a rubbernecker even adding to this thread.

Respect his privacy, and especially Harriet's as she's not to my knowledge ever been a publicity seeking celeb-wife.

Bruce's next solo album title; "Goin' Private"

[SMiLE Brian]

 

[Howie Edelson]

Debbie, come on.

It was an innocent question, that is still a question (and amazingly after all these years, a frequently asked question) because it has been refused to be answered.

That BBB poster wasn't asking anything intrusive, either about the reasons why, or a settlement, or living arrangements, etc.
It is in NO WAY an invasion of anyone's privacy. This is a guy who talks IN-DEPTH about his family (e.g. their names, their ages, their schools, their work, and living and vacation locations CONSISTENTLY. Bruce does all of that.)

So, the only time it's appropriate for someone to ask if someone (who has obviously been PUBLICLY split from their spouse for nearly a decade) if they are indeed split from their spouse is "when trying to dictate morality in Congress"?

You don't really believe that do you?
(In real life you believe that?)

If that was the case -- and if you truly believed that -- than ANY of the details pertaining to your relationship with Brian in the 1970's would be off limits and you wouldn't proudly be using your real name to connect you to said relationship. (Because, well, we're not Congress.)

Bruce Johnston calling Obama an "ass hole" in public -- on film -- is seemingly acceptable, but revealing his marital status is grossly off limits, and benignly asking that in a forum where he talks in detail about his family life and members is crossing every line of good taste?

Got it.

MOVING ON: What was Denny's favorite car?!

[Nicko1234]

Debbie, come on.

It was an innocent question, that is still a question (and amazingly after all these years, a frequently asked question) because it has been refused to be answered.

That BBB poster wasn't asking anything intrusive, either about the reasons why, or a settlement, or living arrangements, etc.
It is in NO WAY an invasion of anyone's privacy. This is a guy who talks IN-DEPTH about his family (e.g. their names, their ages, their schools, their work, and living and vacation locations CONSISTENTLY. Bruce does all of that.)

So, the only time it's appropriate for someone to ask if someone (who has obviously been PUBLICLY split from their spouse for nearly a decade) if they are indeed split from their spouse is "when trying to dictate morality in Congress"?

You don't really believe that do you?
(In real life you believe that?)

If that was the case -- and if you truly believed that -- than ANY of the details pertaining to your relationship with Brian in the 1970's would be off limits and you wouldn't proudly be using your real name to connect you to said relationship. (Because, well, we're not Congress.)

Bruce Johnston calling Obama an "ass hole" in public -- on film -- is seemingly acceptable, but revealing his marital status is grossly off limits, and benignly asking that in a forum where he talks in detail about his family life and members is crossing every line of good taste?

Got it.

MOVING ON: What was Denny's favorite car?!

Did everybody consider that to be acceptable? Seems like there was an awful lot of negativity towards Bruce for that then and still continues to be to this day.

[Howie Edelson]

Not enough for a public apology, meaning -- it was accepted.

[Autotune]

Bruce is completely entitled to not answering or not wanting to talk about a certain topic. Being public about the issues he wants to be public about, does not mean he has to be public about everything he gets asked about. Not that fans aren't entitled to ask.

I don't get the analogy with Debbie's relationship to Brian. Those two decided to make it public. Unlike Bruce.

[Mikie]

Debbie, come on.

It was an innocent question, that is still a question (and amazingly after all these years, a frequently asked question) because it has been refused to be answered.

That BBB poster wasn't asking anything intrusive, either about the reasons why, or a settlement, or living arrangements, etc.
It is in NO WAY an invasion of anyone's privacy. This is a guy who talks IN-DEPTH about his family (e.g. their names, their ages, their schools, their work, and living and vacation locations CONSISTENTLY. Bruce does all of that.)

So, the only time it's appropriate for someone to ask if someone (who has obviously been PUBLICLY split from their spouse for nearly a decade) if they are indeed split from their spouse is "when trying to dictate morality in Congress"?

You don't really believe that do you?
(In real life you believe that?)

If that was the case -- and if you truly believed that -- than ANY of the details pertaining to your relationship with Brian in the 1970's would be off limits and you wouldn't proudly be using your real name to connect you to said relationship. (Because, well, we're not Congress.)

Bruce Johnston calling Obama an "ass hole" in public -- on film -- is seemingly acceptable, but revealing his marital status is grossly off limits, and benignly asking that in a forum where he talks in detail about his family life and members is crossing every line of good taste?

Got it.

Exactly again.  To the word. 

[Mikie]

I don't get the analogy with Debbie's relationship to Brian. Those two decided to make it public.

Really? Please forgive me for being naive, but where? (Aside of the Gaines book).

[Nicko1234]

Not enough for a public apology, meaning -- it was accepted.

 

[donald]

Sometimes celebrities and just regular folk keep their private lives private so as not to incurr disapproval from the fans or others.   sometimes better that way.  Som people can be damning andjudgmental.

[CenturyDeprived]

I think Bruce fully has the absolute right to keep part(s) of his private life private, despite him wanting to make other parts more well-known. I don't think that in and of itself should be judged in the slightest. That said, I don't think it's particularly reasonable for him to think (if he does actually think) that it's invasive for fans to simply ponder/inquire about his marital status. The BBs aren't small potatoes; this is a band that was contemporaries with The Beatles after all.  But IMO nobody should scoff in the slightest if he doesn't want to talk about it.

[bgas]

Sometimes celebrities and just regular folk keep their private lives private so as not to incurr disapproval from the fans or others.   sometimes better that way.  Some people can be damning and judgmental.

Thankfully there's no-one on this board that is damning or judgmental

[Debbie Keil-Leavitt]

Debbie, come on.

It was an innocent question, that is still a question (and amazingly after all these years, a frequently asked question) because it has been refused to be answered.

That BBB poster wasn't asking anything intrusive, either about the reasons why, or a settlement, or living arrangements, etc.
It is in NO WAY an invasion of anyone's privacy. This is a guy who talks IN-DEPTH about his family (e.g. their names, their ages, their schools, their work, and living and vacation locations CONSISTENTLY. Bruce does all of that.)

So, the only time it's appropriate for someone to ask if someone (who has obviously been PUBLICLY split from their spouse for nearly a decade) if they are indeed split from their spouse is "when trying to dictate morality in Congress"?

You don't really believe that do you?
(In real life you believe that?)

If that was the case -- and if you truly believed that -- than ANY of the details pertaining to your relationship with Brian in the 1970's would be off limits and you wouldn't proudly be using your real name to connect you to said relationship. (Because, well, we're not Congress.)

Bruce Johnston calling Obama an "ass hole" in public -- on film -- is seemingly acceptable, but revealing his marital status is grossly off limits, and benignly asking that in a forum where he talks in detail about his family life and members is crossing every line of good taste?

Got it.

MOVING ON: What was Denny's favorite car?!

Howie - Re-read my post.  I made it clear - I thought - that anyone is free to ask a question, and I certainly didn't chastise the poster for asking.  My point was that people also have a right to refuse to respond about their private lives.    

I post under my real name because that's what I always do and it's honest.  Since when does that make me "proudly" connecting myself to anything?   I am not selling books or anything else here, nor do I plan to.  I speak up when I happen to know something and wish to correct the record here and to defend people whom I like and care about.  If that somehow offends your sense of fairness, that's a shame, but I plan to continue to do so if I see fit.  I think I have the right to do that under my real name without becoming suspect of "proudly connecting myself" to anything.

Please don't connect me with Bruce's comment about our President either.  Anyone who knows me is quite clear that I don't share that opinion.

[Autotune]

I don't get the analogy with Debbie's relationship to Brian. Those two decided to make it public.

Really? Please forgive me for being naive, but where? (Aside of the Gaines book).

1. The Wilson-Gold tome.

2. This very forum.

[Mikie]

I don't get the analogy with Debbie's relationship to Brian. Those two decided to make it public.

Really? Please forgive me for being naive, but where? (Aside of the Gaines book).

1. The Wilson-Gold tome.

2. This very forum.

I wrote off Wilson/Gold many years ago. So that leaves this board for the unfiltered factual information. I'll do a little searcharoonie right now...... 

[stack-o-tracks]

Bruce....alive or undead?




I've got this theory that Bruce is actually undead. Not a "zombie" necessarily, but something similar. Which means that according to US law, he is unable to be legally married.

I was thinking about starting a new thread about the subject, but I think this one will do just fine for continued discussion.


I'd appreciate others' opinions on the subject.

[Tab Lloyd]

Bruce....alive or undead?




I've got this theory that Bruce is actually undead. Not a "zombie" necessarily, but something similar. Which means that according to US law, he is unable to be legally married.

I was thinking about starting a new thread about the subject, but I think this one will do just fine for continued discussion.


I'd appreciate others' opinions on the subject.




Well, he's certainly not a Dead-Head!

[Debbie Keil-Leavitt]

Bruce is completely entitled to not answering or not wanting to talk about a certain topic. Being public about the issues he wants to be public about, does not mean he has to be public about everything he gets asked about. Not that fans aren't entitled to ask.

I don't get the analogy with Debbie's relationship to Brian. Those two decided to make it public. Unlike Bruce.

I would like to correct the idea that Brian and I "chose to make" anything "public."  I was photographed with him once and the sad excuse for a reporter with that photographer chose to make up a number of things about me and my relationship with Brian.  If you read the article carefully there are no quotes from me, just nasty comments from him about both Brian and me, based on nothing but his usual "personal interpretations".  He had done the same "dark side" attack (his personal style, apparently) on a number of my friends and Brian's family in a previous article.  He even published the wrong name for Marilyn's mother.  My only comments to him were "hello" when I was introduced and "goodbye" when he left.  It was Brian's interview.  He didn't even get my name right in that article, with his usual accuracy level.  I was informed about the Gaines book and was told I would be in it whether I spoke to him or not.  My attorney advised me that a judge would likely consider me a public figure due to my association with Brian, so I couldn't stop it.  Gaines's book wasn't fabricated like those sham articles, but I certainly didn't seek to be in it.  Another biographer honored my request not to be included in his book.  I was also made aware of an offer for a rather large sum of money to do a "tell all" interview for a tabloid about all the Beach Boys, which I refused.  That isn't my idea of choosing to make anything public. 

I was already "out there" at that point and now choose to speak up when people are misrepresented.

My next great "public appearance" was on this Board when some fool accused Brian of being involved with me when I was underage.  I was informed of this and posted my reply that this didn't take place, since Brian was being accused of something essentially illegal.  Harriet never sought publicity and neither have I.  I do plan to continue to speak up here when I care too...particularly if people are being attacked, or something is misrepresented.  I'm not exactly thrilled being portrayed as someone trying to "get something" out of my friendship with Brian by posting here, as Mr. Edelson seemed to imply, by the simple use of my own name.  What I seem to get out of posting here are the usual nasty attacks from certain people.  Yet, I get so sick of the posts by people who think they know something and clearly don't, that I do then speak up.

[Mikie]

Thanks for that post, Debbie. 

So I take it that the Gaines book is truthful and pretty much covers all the bases concerning your relationship with Brian? Or at least all that we (the public) will read about? Is there anything that you might add or clarify about the subject in the future? Just curious. Thanks again for stating your position above. 

[Debbie Keil-Leavitt]

Thanks for that post, Debbie. 

So I take it that the Gaines book is truthful and pretty much covers all the bases concerning your relationship with Brian? Or at least all that we (the public) will read about? Is there anything that you might add or clarify about the subject in the future? Just curious. Thanks again for stating your position above. 

I think Gaines was mostly quoting Marilyn as I remember it, which is fine.  I haven't read it in decades and that period is long over.  I don't think any book can capture the essence of people or their relationships, so the author just does his best to tell the story and a lot has happened since then.  It's best to listen to the music if you really want to "get" Brian.  The heart of the man is that amazing and complex, so his relationships are as well. 

As far as covering all the bases of a friendship that has spanned several decades, or any friendship for that matter, I don't think that's possible.  I have no plans to write anything about it, other than the fact that I'm extremely grateful that he's in a safe place with a wife, family, friends and a band who love and support him and that he's still making great music.  To put it simply, what I wanted for him has come true, so it was all worth it.  That sums it up for me, although I will speak up if misleading things are stated here or elsewhere.  Wouldn't you?

[filledeplage]

 It's best to listen to the music if you really want to "get" Brian.  The heart of the man is that amazing and complex, so his relationships are as well. 

Perceptive and true.  It is the music and not foolish speculation. 

[mikeddonn]

Keep posting Debbie! I'm sure most of us here would agree with what you said.  I think Ray and Ed are also guys who could have sold their stories years ago but chose not to.  The sign of true friendship.  I also like how the three of you are pretty honest with your posts, kind of like having a chat over a beer, rather than some of the sensationalist journalism out there.  It's always good to get the inside track from people who were actually there/here and are respected. Cheers.

[HeyJude]

It's best to listen to the music if you really want to "get" Brian.  The heart of the man is that amazing and complex, so his relationships are as well.

Perceptive and true.  It is the music and not foolish speculation.  

For crying out loud, there is something other than the extremes of "foolish speculation" or simply sharing polls about our favorite songs. Neither of these two aspects of this board are particular interesting, to me anyway. Discussion and analysis are interesting. That sometimes involves speculation (though not "foolish"; and I'm not sure what "foolish speculation" has to do with *asking* the martial status of a band member. If anything, the act of someone asking means they're trying to *avoid* speculating).  But implicit in certain types of discussion is that it involves speculation.

There's an awful lot of argumentum ad passiones around here lately. Someone doesn't like something being discussed, and immediately boils it down to how precious and amazing the Beach Boys' music and members are, while implying anyone discussing anything other than that is doing otherwise.

An occasional reminder that we should step back and appreciate the music rather than speculate on their jockstap sizes is welcome I suppose. But I would say that on this board, while the debates can get intense and silly, it actually hasn't too often veered into actual *personal life* details about the band members. I've found that quite refreshing actually. That Stebbins posted the pertinent details about Bruce a number of years ago, and nobody much cared then or now is also refreshing. As Howie alluded to, the irony is that VERY few care about Bruce's personal life. I used to fall asleep when I tried reading his posts in the past about being neighbors with Oprah, about how his kids were attending Hogwarts University or whatever.

I will also mention that there are folks who have criticized even the act of asking Bruce's martial status who, in the past, have posted lists detailing each of Mike's marriages and each spouse's name. This Bruce thing just seems like a bunch of manufactured outrage to me.