Dieu et mon droit... to make and keep an absolute fortune

If King Charles were a brand, it would be part Hovis, part Dalai Lama, part Duchy Originals.

- ALAN RUSBRIDGER

Artisanal craft blended with a big dollop of spiritualism. Capability Brown meets Inigo Jones, with a Highland twist.

But is it just possible that the King is also just a bit.... greedy? And so was his mum, and so is his brother Andrew, and so is his son William?

That was certainly the impression left by the second episode of David Dimbleby's three-part BBC documentary series, What's the Monarchy For? Yes, it's all about duty, selflessness, and serving the people. But is it also about becoming filthy rich?

When a Dimbleby interrogates a monarch, we have one grand hereditary dynasty questioning another. Whereas Charles is ultimately a Saxe-Coburg, David Dimbleby is a descendant of Richard, whose hushed tones narrated the coronation of Elizabeth II in 1953.

His own brother, Jonathan, was the authorised biographer of Prince Charles in 1994 and the interviewer for a film that same year, in which he famously asked the king-in-waiting if he had been “faithful and honourable” to Princess Diana.

And now we have David getting in on the act. At 87, he has the air of a stern but kindly headmaster, unable to conceal his disappointment at the apologetic wretches who have been summoned to his study for questioning.

None more so than the former chancellor, George Osborne, who, in a fumbling way, tried to explain why he had blessed arrangements that would help ensure that Charles, by the time he ascended to the throne, would be a billionaire.

On the page, a transcript would show Dimbleby behaving as a model of BBC due impartiality. But on screen, he seemed to convey infinite disdain with the raising of a single eyebrow. A finger resting insouciantly on his temple spoke volumes as he asked Osborne whether the Queen “purred with pleasure” at the generous settlement he fixed for her. A scratched earlobe looked like a form of semaphore to the viewers.