Towards the back end of last year, Costner was romantically linked with several high-profile female celebrities, but amid the muddy waters of conjecture, one potential match-up gained more traction than the others.
Costner was first linked with singer Jewel in December, seven months on from his split from Baumgartner. Things have been largely quiet on that front since then, but earlier this month came an update courtesy of Elle magazine.
According to reports, Jewel herself in part addressed the rumors regarding herself and 69-year-old Costner, speaking fondly of the actor without categorically defining their relationship.
As per Elle, when quizzed on the much-speculated rumors linking her to Costner, Jewel blushed and answered: “He’s a great person. The public fascination is intense for sure.”
In December fans seeking information on Costner’s love life were given something to sink their teeth in to when the star was seen with Jewel at a charity event at Richard Branson’s Necker Island in the British Virgin Islands.
Costner was pictured with his arms wrapped around Jewel’s waist as she sat on his lap. TMZ, meanwhile, reported that the pair had flown to the Caribbean together but were aiming to keep their romance under the public radar.
Jewel split from previous husband Ty Murray – with whom she shares a 12-year-old son – in 2014. She later told People Magazine of her divorce: “I think going through a divorce was really hard. It wasn’t what I wanted. I don’t think any parent goes into a relationship and a marriage and having a child thinking of a divorce one day.
“I don’t know if that’s a regret,” she added. “One of the reasons I got divorced, though, is when I looked at my child, I realized I wasn’t the woman I wanted him to know. I had to change some things about myself.”
The divorce between Costner and Baumgartner, meanwhile, was finalized last year after some back-and-forth in court over how much child support he would pay. Baumgartner was initially seeking a hefty $248,000 a month, but the court ordered Costner to pay the much lower sum of $63,209.
