Does anyone ever go back and check how many of these stories turn out to be complete BS?
” ... has confined the Duchess of Cornwall to her quarters in Highgrove.”
Camilla supposedly doesn’t even live at Highgrove. She lives in her own house nearby. The British taxpayers have been upset about this because they are paying for security at two residences.
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.
Only a handful of successful lawsuits leading to redacted articles have occurred since the enquirer was first founded.
They’re fairly accurate when it comes to damaging info on people.
Other stuff like bigfoot and the easter bunny, not so much.
Who cares, it is a funny and entertaining read if nothing else!
“Does anyone ever go back and check how many of these stories turn out to be complete BS?”
No way this tabloid had all these inside details (exactly how much was offered and counteroffered in a divorce, every word spoken at several incidents) without people being fired for leaking.
It just gets far too over the top to believe:
(Camilla) was “discovered in a broom closet off the kitchen, sitting on the floor and swilling warm gin right out of the bottle”, and “also suffers from embarrassing chronic flatulence”