Elton John Wants His Son To Have An “Old-Fashioned Childhood”

Elton John Wants His Son To Have An "Old-Fashioned Childhood"

Sir Elton John and longtime partner David Furnish are determined to give their son Zachary an “old-fashioned childhood”. The couple, who welcomed their first child together via surrogate on Christmas Day 2010, hopes that despite their vast wealth, their son will be able to remain grounded.

“I so value my own childhood now, and the sense of wonder and personal discovery that I enjoyed, that we want to give Zachary – as much as we possibly can – the same thing,” explains the 63-year-old singer. “A solid old-fashioned childhood, if you like.”

I know it’ll be hard with my life, but we want him to have that same normality and for things in life to have real value. So we don’t intend to spoil him – we’re going to try to give him a fun, carefree time of innocence, freedom, love and stability.

Elton also expressed his concern for today’s children who don’t appreciate the things they have growing up in our entirely materialistic world: “I don’t know if kids get that sort of enjoyment out of things anymore. I don’t think you can do because your parents worked so hard when money was scarce to buy you a bicycle or your first record player.”

“I don’t want to become Britain’s crustiest old man but I don’t think you can possibly have the pleasure now of growing up like we did,” he continues. “ A trip to the cinema was a treat, a trip up to London was unbelievably exciting. A trip anywhere.”

Recently, the Candle in the Wind singer gushed about his smooth transition into fatherhood: “It’s been a breeze. It’s delightful, enchanting.”

Filed under: Elton John

Photo credit: Fame

17 Comments »»

Post a Comment

  1. Ariana

    If you want to do that, keep him away from television, video games and computers for as long as possible. Those are child destroyers. Instead of playing, children are sitting there getting fat and out of shape. They also have less face time with friends, preferring to socialize online…they can’t communicate as well in person. I’ve seen this in my own office and it’s not a good thing.

    Reply
    • Anonymous

      WELL SAID! This is exactly what I am doing with my two boys. Absolutely no TV or video games. The only thing my 2 1/2 year-old has watched are a couple of home movies so he thinks that’s what the tv set is for. It’s not hard for us because we watch very little tv and only when the children sleep.

      Reply
    • vivien leigh

      well said

      Reply
    • Daniella

      My mother never put a limit on our television time (except for none after our bedtimes or until homework was done) & my brothers & myself turned out just fine. We spent most of the daylight hours in school or outside playing, TV was of no interest to us when it was nice out & our friends could play with us. It didn’t affect our reading since I am an extremely avid reader, as is my youngest brother. We played video games from time to time, usually only for long hours immediately after we got the game before deciding that being outside with our friends was more fun. Never had a problem with computers either, although our mum did keep a closer eye on that than the television or video games.

      I truly think the fact that it wasn’t forbidden, but allowed in moderation, is what made those three technologies so…..un-troublesome for us. Some of my fondest childhood memories involve watching Disney movies or the ’90′s Nickelodeon & Saturday morning cartoon shows with my brothers & friends. Actually, a lot of those shows fuelled our imaginations for playtime, which is always a great thing.

      Moderation is the key & my mum pulled it off great with us.

      Reply
  2. Amaryllis

    You are a wise mother. A friend of mine yanked the cord from her t.v. a couple of years ago and threw it out. Guess what – her kids are actually reading books now.

    Reply
  3. Amaryllis

    You are a wise mother. A friend of mine yanked the cord from her t.v. a couple of years ago and threw it out. Guess what – her kids are actually reading books now.

    Reply
  4. lara

    . A friend of mine yanked the cord from her t.v. a couple of years ago and threw it out. Guess what – her kids are actually reading books now. What do you except her children to do if there no t.v sleep? You can’t control everything in your child life. I hate to live an Amish life.

    Reply
  5. vivien leigh

    Everybody knows, even an idiots, what does it mean to be able to read vs. tbe able to watch tv. Who became a professor from watchin TV? Reading is a miracle, its a power, because the big difference between readin and watchin for me is: to read means to use your imagination, your will, you control things and use your mind and to watch means to sleep awake, you control nothing, its all done for you, this is not a dialog, but a monolog. Not everything on tv is bad, of course, but the way to know things is completely different by watchin: your brain is not so active like by reading. On the TV there is limit of showing things. Its just cuts. In the book there is cut, but no cut like this. 1 book has many lives cause it has many sides and many, many aspects. After reading you can have a global look to a problems, as if u are looking from the top of the building and TV- from the 1 fl. This does not mean that TV is bad- it just can NEVER do the work the books do for our brain. I think these 2 guys are very brave men to be so open and ohnest and smart to let their child have a real childhood- cause for the modern way of living there will always be time enough. Always.

    Reply
  6. Anonymous

    I don’t think tv is bad in moderation. I got to watch it as a child for a couple of hours a day and I was (and still am) an avid reader. My brother-in-law, though, never got to watch tv as a child and wouldn’t pick up a book if you held a gun to his head. People are either readers or they’re not. TV in moderation isn’t going to change that fact.

    Reply
  7. Anonymous

    With all due respect, this kid was born via surrogate, to 2 very ostentatious gay men, worth mega millions…nothing about this situation is “old fashioned”

    Reply
  8. Anonymous

    1. Don’t have kids after 40, much less 50 or 60
    2. Sheesh(tm)

    Reply
  9. Lady Ann

    So, “Anonymous,” get over yourself. Women are staying fertile later and later, thanks to eating healthy in this day and age. Some women continue to have their periods (ergo, ovulate), until 55 years old, and sure don’t look it. The majority of people who’re over 40, want their kids, and are going to take the time to spend with them, care for them, etc. Children just want to be loved, cared for, you know the drill.

    I think that sure tops any kids being born unwanted to parents, who had them only to prove they could reproduce.

    Reply
  10. Anonymous

    Okay, just because a parent doesn’t “look” old, does not mean they would have a healthy child if they try to get pregnant after 40. Just because someone doesn’t “look” old, does not give them the right to bring a child into the world with a higher chance of complications and therefore a lower quality of life, especially when there are so many children in the world that can be adopted. If someone is going to be that vain and throw caution to the wind and get pregnant at an older age, then they need to be fully prepared for any health issues and problems that baby may have.

    For instance:

    “The chance of having a baby with Down syndrome increases as a woman gets older—from about 1 in 1,250 for a woman who gets pregnant at age 25, to about 1 in 100 for a woman who gets pregnant at age 40.”

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>