McGrath, you solemn fellow! I'm afraid those who retain valets and footmen at our expense may expect a certain amount of scrutiny.

You may remember the scandal around Fawcett allegedly calling a black servant "nigger"; also around three staff leaving their posts on account of Fawcett's behaviour; also about Fawcett "fencing off" (in return for 20 per cent of the proceeds) various gifts that had been bestowed on Charles during his travels; also about Charles "unwisely" showering Fawcett - the one member of his staff "he could never manage without" - with expensive gifts. And not least, a former soldier in one of the elite regiments, George Smith, subsequently a royal footman, making the accusation that Fawcett raped him.
As a result making this allegation, Smith was required to leave the staff.

Well that lot resulted in pressure for an independent inquiry into the goings on in Charlie's household. And Charlie duly authorised one. It was conducted by his private secretary. Entirely independent than. Originally to be published last Christmas, it was delayed a couple of times, allegedly while Charles argued over Sir Michael Peat's refusal to put his name to it unless Fawcett left the staff. It was duly published on the eve of the Iraq war - just after Charles had departed for Bulgaria. Fawcett did leave the staff, but was promptly re-engaged as a consultant. He still lives in "grace and favour" accommodation provided by The Firm.

Much of Peat's report is taken up with the rape allegation, and Peat is forced to acknowledge that Charles handled it badly. However he also concludes that Smith's severance package was not enough to have amounted to hush money. In various other ways the report paints a picture of a louche household existing in a world of its own - a law unto itself.

Now, in denying accusations that are still not published in the UK, Charles has resorted to highlighting George Smith's alcohol and mental-health problems, problems which Smith attributes as much to his experiences in the royal household as to his battlefield experiences. To make public reference to anyone's mental health problems in such a denigrating way is a low shot, and we are entitled to expect better of the future George VII.