I've been read the Enquirer for forty years and most of its stories in the last 30 years have been 100% accurate — really. When they've made mistakes, such as the time they claimed some guy was the recently departed Philip Seymour Hoffman's “homosexual lover”, the paper owns up to the mistake completely. HOWEVER, the big exception to the accuracy rule involves the British Royals. The stories the Enquirer runs about the Royals are 90% nonsense. This one is an example. Camilla Parker-Jones Windsor very well may be a functioning alcoholic — but, so what? Most of the British aristos over, say, 50 are sots. I'd bet every other detail of this story is fabricated. The Enquirer has ZERO worry of being sued when it comes to anything ti publishes about the Royals, so it always has published any rubbish it likes.
You are correct. This is story that sounds plausible to someone who doesn’t know how the Monarchy works.
The part about her antics preventing Charles from becoming King is pure BS. The Line of Succession to the Crown is set by Act of Parliament. Changing it to Exclude the Prince of Wales would take an Act of Parliament in everyone of the 16 Countries that share Elizabeth II as Queen.
Not going to happen.
The Enquirer has broken some big stories over the years.
Some that come to mind....Sen. Edwards and his girlfriend....Rush Limbaugh being addicted to pain killers....Gary Hart and Donna Rice.
Whether this Charles and Camilla story is true, who knows. If Charles and Camilla do in fact get divorced, then we can say “hmmmm.”