EltonOnce upon a time, Reg posed as one of the lads. Unlike his contemporaries the Dame and the Wizard, Reg was not one for in-yer-face effeminacy. He had initially been a sensitive sort at the piano, riding the crest of the singer-songwriter wave at the turn of the decade that made him; then some fearless souls opened the dressing-up box and he could tentatively dip his toes in – once those burly bruisers from the Black Country showed it was possible to do so while maintaining one’s masculine credentials, of course. Rather than re-emerge as a fully-fledged drag act, however, Reg went for the pantomime football hooligan look and cranked up the guitars as he penned an ode to the delights of fighting on a Saturday night. Staying in was still easier to handle than coming out when a career could be killed. His pal Freddie followed suit.

They loved him Stateside; he was far bigger there than he ever was here, topping the Billboard Hot 100 on numerous occasions – occasions no doubt memorised and quoted verbatim by his pal Paul. Therefore, despite investing in his hometown team to keep his laddish end in, Reg finally felt it was safe to tiptoe out of the closet, though even then he hedged his bets and went for the half-and-half option as the Dame had long before him. The disappearance of the frills and elaborate goggles, followed by the focus on a hair transplant that was forever hidden beneath a hat, distracted attention from sexuality as the 80s approached and some wondered if it had been a convenient hitch on a passing bandwagon.

Marrying a lady seemed to confirm the bi bit had been a sign of the times for Reg when it had been chic to declare so. The barriers broken down in the 70s had been a step too far for some, however, and there was a vociferous backlash in the new decade. It’s easy to forget how hostile the mainstream media were to anything ‘poofy’: Boy George skirted around the bleedin’ obvious, stating he preferred a nice cuppa, whereas the other George did his utmost to come across as macho as possible. With the insidious incursion into the national consciousness of AIDS and then Clause 28, it was not the time for household names to be out and proud, with only a small handful of newcomers such as Little Jimmy Somerville braving the animosity. The death of Mr Mercury in 1991 was greeted in at least one Fleet Street tabloid with a ‘you got what you deserved after the lifestyle you led’.

As the 90s progressed, it no longer seemed to matter, however. Both Georges had finally kicked the closet door open, with the Michael one now aware the teenage girls who had viewed him as a dream date had moved on from gazing lovingly at his image on their bedroom walls. It was safe to come clean at last, and Reg no longer pretended he was anything other than a raging queen. By the turn of the Millennium, with the likes of Will Young being open from the start and his honesty not affecting his popularity one iota, Reg could afford to enter into a relationship that there was no need to hide anymore. When civil partnerships and then gay marriage were enshrined in law, Reg was at the head of the queue and had cemented his place as the Queen Mother of British pop culture.

Revelations in the US media this week that Reg’s missus had been playing away and then invited Reg for a three-way tie with the other party had provoked slavering relish in the dark heart of Murdochland, but a super-injunction has been taken out to prevent the British press from publishing the names of those involved, even though social media has made a mockery of the law by naming, if not necessarily shaming. The quaint shock-horror tactics of the press seem to perceive the story as being in the public interest, presumably just as Max Mosley’s S&M shindig was. They paid the price for publicising that, just as they were successfully sued for libel by Reg in the 80s for accusing him of attending an all-boy’s gang-bang.

Personally, I couldn’t give a toss. What has Reg’s private life got to do with anyone else? Just because he has paraded him and his spouse through the Hello and OK doctor’s surgery gallery, does that mean we are entitled to know every behind-closed-doors detail? Murdochland imagines we do. One cannot help but wonder, however, if this is another symptom of old mistrust resurfacing in a new guise, just as Harvey Proctor hinted the witch-hunt that unjustly returned him to the spotlight was a hangover from the bad old days. How long before ‘a victim comes forward’ whose accusations against Reg are viewed as ‘credible and true’?

© The Editor


  1. It’s simply a factor of the Faustian pact into which all modern ‘celebrities’ engage with the voracious media. If you’re happy to bank the cheque from ‘OK’ or ‘Hello’ for your family snaps, then you’ve got to take the hit when other limbs of that hungry beast get a tad more prurient. The wordly gains may be vast but the personal cost is too.
    I’m not in the least interested in what Reg and his ‘missus’ may or may not have done with whomever, but the media-beast knows what sells papers & clicks, and the ‘who has done what with which unto whom’ keeps the presses rolling and the sites clicking. If folk didn’t buy it, they wouldn’t print it – similarly if folk didn’t subscribe to Sky, Murdoch would be powerless, but they buy into the scheme and he plays along as the money keeps rolling in. We risk blaming the messenger when, in reality, it’s our own folk who drive this juggernaut of jeopardy.
    It is also quite futile to apply the old injunction approach: as was seen with Giggs and others, that’s an utterly impotent card in the web-connected world. The truth will out, so if you don’t want your dirty linen aired in public nowadays, better not to soil it in the first place, because it will ‘escape’ and there’s nothing you can do about it. Think positive: at least your stamp album will get lots of colourful examples from Panama whenever your favourite lawyers write to you.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Threesomes are so passee. It’s all about the “chill” and the “chemesx” and “sessions” although, of course, Reg is clean these days. He has to know these things if he still wants to think he is down wiv da yoof (if he ever was). So, a non-srory, puffed up by the injunction, methinks, cos any publicity is better than no publicity (plus there’s the new album out).

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Interesting … well, barely. Wos this the reason for the story the other day in a “famous” newspaper that Elton John’s missus/husband/partner/spouse/wotever, thought it most unfair that *she* could not have a title like wot the married wives of knights might have?

    No matter when the “other half” did claim he wanted a title (if the claim is true) he should have really known better than to open his big mouth. But I suppose that’s par for the course … as they say in the Masters …


  4. p.s. And by the way, I was totally led astray by the MSM torking about married couples in a relationship wot his Judge Lordship thought was normal for today. I honestly thought it was a him & her and I prowled all over the InterWeb wiv absolutely no results wotseoever. Since reading your story I can find the dirty blighters all over the place!

    How much to subscribe please, cos I want to be a reporter!

    Liked by 1 person

      1. At a guess…. his life is a little lacking? I mean, “I shagged Reg’s missus” would not be the story I told about my life to make it sound interesting – I’d be sweeping that one under a shagpile…

        Liked by 1 person

  5. David Cameron the C**T should resign now and the TORY FASCIST STATE ORCHESTRA should go too


    1. I’m struggling to find a linkage to the topic under discussion, so must assume that your arrival here was accidental. I’m sure we all wish you well with finding the sort of place you seek, whether that’s under a rock or some other dark recess. Good luck with your quest.


  6. I can honestly say I hadn’t heard even a whisper about this until the Winegum Redtop came through the letterbox! I’m not sure it matters much but it seems that the poor old cuckolded crooner was not involved in the ‘three-way’, at least according to the Telegraph tale linked-to above.

    I’m personally not interested in reading this type of ‘sexposure’ but I do wonder where one person’s rights begin & another’s end – if the story is true, the teller (seller?) must surely have the right to relate it if they wish to. But I really wish they wouldn’t.

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.