Elton John’s Canadian husband David Furnish in tabloid sex tale

Editor’s Note: This blog is not bound by the injunction in England and Wales.

UPDATE: The UK Supreme Court has ruled to uphold the injunction.

UPDATE: On April 18, Court of Appeal judges ruled that the injunction in England and Wales will be lifted on Wednesday, April 20, pending an appeal by Elton John and David Furnish.

Pop Goes The News — Do Elton John and his Canadian husband David Furnish have an open relationship — or has Furnish been cheating on the music icon?

The front page of the April 18 edition of the National Enquirer, now on newsstands, declares: “Elton John Betrayed by Cheating Husband!”

But, only three paragraphs into its three-page article, the tabloid reports that lawyers for Elton John said Furnish did not have an affair because the singer knew about the relationship.

The Enquirer‘s sister publication, Star, published a nearly identical story in its April 18 edition.

Elton was able to block publication of the exposé in Britain, where there are stricter privacy laws. (The court-ordered injunction does not apply outside England and Wales but reps for Elton and Furnish are going to great lengths to threaten media outlets — including Pop Goes The News.)

MORE: Elton John, David Furnish hope to keep sex tale off Web

The Enquirer and Star report U.K. businessman Daniel Laurence claims he had three encounters with Furnish, including one that involved “risky sex.”


According to Laurence, on at least two occasions Furnish demanded — and had — unprotected sex with him. (Elton John’s lawyers denied Furnish had unprotected sex with Laurence, the Enquirer reports.)

The unprotected sex allegation is particularly damaging because Furnish helps run his husband’s eponymous AIDS Foundation.

Laurence also alleges that Furnish joined he and husband Pieter Van den Bergh for a threesome.

Elton, 69, and Toronto-born Furnish, 53, have been together for 23 years and were married in December 2014. The couple has two sons, Zachary, 5, and Elijah, 3, from a surrogate.

MORE: Elton John debuts made-in-Quebec video

According to the Enquirer, Furnish and Laurence began exchanging messages online in 2008 and hooked up in March 2009 at the Mayfair Hotel in London.

Furnish “wanted me to penetrate him and was very demanding and specific about this,” Laurence said in an affidavit obtained by the tabloid. “We did have unprotected sex.”

The two men continued to communicate online — and saw each other again at an event in Palm Springs — but did not have sex again until April 2010. Laurence alleges the tryst took place in the London home Furnish shares with Elton John.

The Enquirer published a Facebook chat it claims is between Furnish and Laurence. In it, Furnish asks Laurence about having a threesome.

“I am getting hard thinking about it,” Furnish allegedly wrote.

“I have to be sooooooo careful.”

The threesome, which allegedly took place at the home of Laurence and Van den Bergh in December 2011, involved wrestling in a pool of olive oil.

Laurence also alleged that Furnish was “into being tied up and dominated.”

MORE: Robert Herjavec has a kinky side, ex-girlfriend claims

Laurence, who claims to have been introduced to Elton John at a party, took a job at Furnish’s production company Rocket Pictures. Laurence resigned in late 2014 after three years.

The Enquirer article comes only days after news that Elton John is facing a sexual harassment lawsuit from a former bodyguard. Jeffrey Wenninger alleges the singer groped him and encouraged him to show his penis.

Elton’s lawyer Orin Snyder has described the claims of “a disgruntled former security officer seeking to extract an undeserved payment” as “patently untrue.”

The story also resulted in a controversial tweet from a group called Fathers4Justice.

Furnish was born and raised in Toronto and graduated from the University of Western Ontario.

He was a co-producer of the 2011 made-in-Toronto animated film Gnomeo & Juliet and the Toronto-shot 2006 comedy It’s a Boy Girl Thing.

Furnish was also an executive producer of the CTV series Spectacle: Elvis Costello with… and the stage show Billy Elliott: The Musical.

Late last year, Furnish shared a photo of the couple’s sons during a visit to his parents in Canada.

Laurence, 41, and Van den Bergh, 31, are registered as directors of Eduflix Ltd. and Snapfits Ltd., two companies based in Birmingham, England.

MORE: Quebec teen appears nude with author Edmund White

The British media is not pleased with the publication ban.

“Man who took part in celebrity threesome says cheat ‘is using children as protection,'” reads a headline in the Daily Mail. The newspaper declared: “Draconian privacy injunction means he cannot be named in British media.”

The Mail argued that Elton and his husband “have posted dozens of pictures of their children on social media and have given a number of magazine and television interviews about them and their joy at becoming parents.”

The Sun, which plans to challenge the ruling, posted an article with the headline: “Gag celeb splashed in paddling pool full of olive oil and it wasn’t extra virgin.”

“Despite the figure and their spouse being named in the US, a bizarre Court of Appeal ruling stops them being identified in this country,” The Sun reported.

“Speculation about the names is easily accessible on the internet and analysis for The Sun estimates ten million users have seen it.”

Many people have reacted on Twitter.



The British press has taken new interest in the marriage of Elton John and Furnish in the last year.

There have been reports that Furnish bought a luxury apartment in South London for personal trainer Danny Williams and the two have gone on vacations together.

Furnish is regularly photographed at parties and aboard yachts with a bevy of muscular male friends.

According to a report in the Sun last year, Furnish is “behaving like a control-freak, exercising an increasing influence over the music legend.”

Earlier this month, Furnish slammed the Daily Mail for an article claiming he insisted he should have an official title because his husband is a “Sir.”

On Instagram, Furnish called the article “a total misrepresentation” and said “at no point did I ever say that I personally wanted or deserved any title.”

This post has been updated since it was first published.

32 thoughts

  1. So typical. Since 1066 British serfs have been treated like dirt under the feet of the ruling class. Brits have no idea what freedom means.
    England is a ‘doff your cap’ country. Always bitterly jealous of the USA. Always carping about ‘Americans’. They are no more than trained monkeys placated with a National Health system backed up by the possibility of a life on the dole.

  2. Really? How is this news??
    I don’t give a fig who these people go with.
    Let he who is without sin cast the firtt stone.
    The ban has just told the world who they are
    Will sell more papers

  3. Brit here, took me all of 30 seconds to find out who the celeb was, I wouldn’t have normally cared about the story anyway but the mystery of it intrigued me, I think the injunction is going to massively backfire because now everyone wants to find out who it is, whereas if the story had run in the British press I don’t think people will have cared for too long. I don’t think Elton and David quite understand the internet and that you can’t control freedom of speech online.

  4. The gag order makes us all want to know who it is. Lol, I think people would have cared less if they didn’t try to hide it.

  5. You just knew it had to be someone rich if they were wrestling in olive oil, being the price it is. It would be lard in our house!

  6. Wasn’t interested until I realised that as I was living in England I wasn’t allowed to know what the rest of the world was. I agree with MW that this is going to massively backfire. Also I think that any sympathy they would of had is gone. They should of just let the story happen and kept a dignified silence.

  7. I agree wit Jabk, as an Englishman I do feel like I have no right to know what the ruling class do not want me to know, we’re forced to pay for the NHS but then get reprimanded if we turn up at a hospital with something that a nurse deems to me “minor”, we pay huge ammounts of tax so that single mothers and the idle can take it easy on benefits and what’s more, we are all being lied to by HM Government about the reality of the EU in order to secure a remain vote so that they can keep their large snouts in the trough. If the story had been published in the British press, it would’ve only been read by a small number of people, but, thanks to the big cover up, most Brit’s have found out online because of the mystery.

  8. I wouldn’t have cared about this story at all and likely wouldn’t have read it if I’d seen the headlines (“husband gets up to shenanigans!” – do tell). What bothers me is that everyone I know won’t even talk about it in private and that’s precisely the same as living in a fascist state. THAT’s what the judges need to start considering. No one said private lives were other people’s business but if it’s going to come down to we’re all watching our backs and have to be careful our nudge-nudge wink on Twitter is going to get us Carter-Rucked, then we’re in serious trouble. And yes, I’m a law student. This is not what the courts are for.

  9. Jabk you seem to know little about life in the UK. Also from what I have seen you know little about the US.

  10. Crazy that I have had to get the information from friends in Canada and that the British Press are gagged from reporting the story. Of course its gained more publicity than ever it would if had been published. Talk about protecting the children I think its more that the two children need protecting from their two dads – probably this not the first or last time such encounters have happened

  11. I’m a pensioner and thank the internet for allowing free speech, please keep the internet open to all so none of this nonsense happens again

  12. Really!!?? There is also a right to a private life – should we have a weekly news column on the neighbourhood sexual activities?! They have more money but this is not a justification for breaching their privacy. Freedom of speech should not come at any cost.

  13. I don’t care who shags who in olive oil (or lard…) but I love reading all the crazy bollocks that all you nut jobs out there spout on line – you are all cracker lackers! Vive liberté d’expression

  14. If they hadn’t made money spouting off about their domestic bliss, loving marriage and perfect family, they’d have the right to privacy, but they were happy to flaunt the image of perfect family life they wanted to present in the media, so don’t be surprised when the same press expose your lies about the very same topic. Money doesn’t buy you privacy, not courting the media does.

  15. It is the hypocrisy that many object to. The alleged demand for unprotected sex by Furnish does not sit well with his support for his husband’s AIDS foundation. And, how will his kids react to the inevitable comments at school about their ‘Daddy’s’ sexual preferences?

  16. They have had an open relationship for years, well know in their circles in the UK. The younger husband is known to ‘party’ Maybe they have an agreement, it doesn’t seem to bother Elton too much

  17. If it doesn’t bother Elton why are they using power and money to gag the press it’s because they are worried at the impact this will have on their business concerns and that local authorities could consider child protection enquires

  18. I think that this whole thing is hilariously funny. They are spending a fortune trying to keep their dirty secret and the whole world knows about it.

  19. jabk I’d rather be hit with an injunction than terrified by military vehicles and tactics patrolling the streets. We do have some free speech issues but I think the light is shinning on them on now.

    At the end of the day I’m glad the ruling class are scared of us getting information about them. But I’ll doff my cap and leave you with the satisfaction of knowing your ruling class don’t give a dam what you know.

  20. So today the injunction was denied in England subject to appeal, I really think to salvage any pride they should forget about appealing and let the papers run a story that everyone already knows now. The ironic thing is, if they’d just let the story run in the first place, everyone would’ve forgotten about it by now and moved on. They aren’t as important as they seem to think they are and I think they will lose alot of goodwill over this.

  21. I have to say my favourite comment in all this was by AnneO, thanks for giving me such a laugh. I think there’s going to be endless advertising opportunities for many olive oil companies. I wonder which brand was used and if PJYA/ MAS or whoever they are, will be seeking royalties from the manufacturers!

  22. I am sure many of their friends will be very disappointed, especially those who attended their civil partnership and subsequent marriage celebrations. They also had enormous support too over D&G comments. Now this. Their upcoming meeting with Putin will not have much credibilty now.

  23. Well if they appeal on Wednesday it will be one of the most expensive Bottles of Olive Oil in History – However apparently the Sun Newspaper have details of more encounters he had after the threesum but not sure what oil he used ion those occasions

  24. I wonder whether it was extra virgin olive oil they used? Seriously, I am not interested in their sex lives. I think the whole business is theirs alone.

  25. Do we really need to know more – there are plenty of nicer things to think or read about – and that’s my salad put to one side………

Comments are closed.