This week¡¯s issue of In Touch reports that Lady Gaga is both expecting a child and secretly engaged to Michael Polansky, her boyfriend of seven months. Accompanying the tabloid article is a photo of Lady Gaga displaying her ¡°telltale bump¡± as snapped by paparazzi a couple of weeks ago. ¡°Gaga is absolutely glowing,¡± a source says. ¡°All of her friends think it¡¯s true because she won¡¯t give a straight answer about it.¡± The outlet also mentions a ¡°series of rocky relationships¡± that Gaga has endured recently, including a ¡°romance with Bradley Cooper that fizzled when he couldn¡¯t commit.¡± But Polansky, the source says, is her ¡°perfect match.¡± The tipster continues, ¡°Her friends think the pair might also be secretly engaged.¡±
We¡¯re happy to think that Gaga has found her forever guy, but let¡¯s just consider what exactly this article is claiming. The tabloid has decided based on a single photo of Gaga¡¯s body that she must be sporting a baby bump, even though that¡¯s not always something you can tell from a photo. And who is this ¡°source¡± supposed to be? The story just doesn¡¯t add up. Also, Gossip Cop is honestly surprised that we still have to clarify this, but Bradley Cooper and Lady Gaga never dated. They weren¡¯t romantically involved on any level. In Touch has tried to pull that ¡°Cooper/Gaga¡± schtick multiple times in the past, Gossip Cop debunking each one. Other recent reports from reliable news outlets had confirmed what we already knew was true: Gaga and Cooper are seriously just friends.
¡°Tiara stolen! Everyone¡¯s a suspect,¡± reads the headline of an article published in New Idea. That headline, situated next to images of the Duchesses of Sussex and Cornwall, implies that they're responsible for some new crime. The outlet contends that Queen Elizabeth is ¡°preparing to reopen¡± investigations into an old crime: The Case of Queen Maud¡¯s Stolen Pearl Tiara. It was stolen in 1995 and the perpetrator was never caught. The article quotes an unspecified person as saying, ¡°The queen is getting more protective of her jewels in her late age, probably because everyone from Camilla to Meghan to Fergie have their beady eyes on them!¡±
Um, what? The Queen Maud's pearl tiara was stolen in 1995 ¡ª when Meghan Markle was a child living in Los Angeles ¡ª so we¡¯re a tad doubtful she was the mastermind behind the theft. Camilla Parker Bowles was busy at that time as well, trying to improve her public image as the woman whom Prince Charles had left Princess Diana for, so she was most likely not planning a high-stakes jewel heist either. In May, the magazine wrongly reported that the Duchess of Cornwall was fighting with Kate Middleton ¡°for the throne¡± because Queen Elizabeth was supposedly considering replacing Prince Charles and Parker Bowles with Prince William and Middleton as her chosen successors to the roles of King and Queen. Just last week, we called out the tabloid for claiming that Prince Harry had returned to the UK without Meghan Markle, supposedly because he was upset over his brother and father posting a Father¡¯s Day picture that didn¡¯t include him on Instagram. The claim was nonsense.
According to the latest issue of Globe, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie have ¡°called off their ferocious feud¡± to go on a family vacation with their six children, and pals speaking to the outlet predict it won¡¯t end well. ¡°Brad and Angie are dreaming if they think they¡¯ll be able to keep up this friendly faade,¡± says one insider. ¡°Being calm and cordial with someone whose guts you¡¯ve hated for 99 percent of the past four years is certain to spell a lot of tension.¡±
It¡¯s amazing the spitefulness of tabloids to continually exploit what must have been a very difficult and taxing few years for Pitt and Jolie to the point where they can¡¯t even be allowed to co-parent in peace. Gossip Cop investigated this story and found that, like nearly every other Pitt/Jolie rumor printed in this often-discredited rag, it wasn¡¯t true. They are not planning to go on vacation together just to prove to people that they¡¯re friends. The Globe has never been one to pull its punches when it comes to making up rumors about Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt. In January, the publication claimed that Jolie was ¡°refusing to eat¡± after finding out about Pitt¡¯s ¡°reunion¡± with Jennifer Aniston. Gossip Cop dismissed the claim: Aniston and Pitt are friendly, but they haven¡¯t rekindled anything remotely romantic. More reliable outlets, as well as both actors¡¯ spokespeople, have confirmed multiple times that they¡¯re just friends.
Life & Style reports Jennifer Aniston is looking to reconnect with her mother, Nancy Dow, who passed away in 2016. For those who may not remember, Aniston had a falling out with Dow after she published a controversial memoir detailing her relationship with Aniston. The two were estranged for nine years before reconciling following Aniston's divorce from Brad Pitt. The outlet maintains that despite their reconciliation, there were still some ¡°unresolved¡± issues. ¡°Jen wants closure and forgiveness,¡± a source tells the outlet. ¡°She has a lot of questions about her childhood, things she was too afraid to ask in person.¡±
Can we just take a second to grasp how utterly gross this story is? Life & Style has been proven to be unreliable when reporting on Aniston. The magazine¡¯s recent attempt to profit off of the actress's strained relationship with her late mother is as low as it can get. Additionally, Gossip Cop just cleared up the bogus premise that Aniston was using a psychic. A few weeks ago, Gossip Cop exposed OK!, a sister publication of Life & Style, for falsely claiming that Aniston was consulting a psychic to see if she was destined to be with Brad Pitt. A rep for Aniston told us on record that this story was also untrue. A few years ago, we busted In Touch for incorrectly stating that Aniston was relying on Pitt to help her get over her mother¡¯s tragic death. Just like Life & Style, this story disgustingly tried to use Aniston¡¯s loss for its gain. Gossip Cop wasted no time in setting the record straight on the false article.
The Globe reported that Camilla Parker Bowles Bowles had been given seven months left to live by doctors after a liver cancer diagnosis. According to a high-level royal source, Bowles had already been struck low by the news that Queen Elizabeth had ¡°ordered Charles cut out of succession to the throne, appointing Prince William and his wife, Kate, in his place.¡± As a result, a desperate Camilla Parker Bowles threatened Prince Charles with both a ¡°$450 million divorce¡± and a vow to ¡°expose the royals¡¯ dirty secrets if she isn¡¯t made the next queen.¡± Bowles¡¯ play came back to bite her, since what she needed most was a liver transplant, and now Prince Charles was refusing to use his influence to bump her up the transplant list. ¡°He says it would be a public relations disaster... But the chilling truth is Camilla¡¯s cancer is the answer to Charles¡¯ prayers.¡±
This article just got more and more ridiculous the further it went. Why would Bowles threaten to divorce Prince Charles if her end goal was to be queen? Doesn¡¯t that sort of defeat the purpose? Also, absolutely zero reputable outlets have reported that Bowles suffers from any sort of liver malady, much less cancer. It¡¯s no surprise that the Globe would publish a story so embarrassingly false. Last year, the outlet reported that Queen Elizabeth had ordered Prince Charles to divorce Camilla Parker Bowles. That was terribly false, Gossip Cop discovered. This was also the same publication that made the truly unhinged claim that Princess Diana¡¯s ¡°secret daughter¡± had come out of hiding to warn Meghan Markle about Prince Charles. Honestly, it seems like this tabloid prints more fiction than truth.