After bemoaning the plight of middle-class white males struggling to get a foot up in television and writing off the work of poet Robbie Burns as "sentimental doggerel", the Newsnight presenter has now turned his attention to the Royal Family.

According to Paxman, who takes any opportunity to get his teeth into the country's political leaders, when it comes to coverage of the British monarchy, the BBC is something of a soft touch.

Never known to mince his words, Paxman pulled few punches when the makers of Radio 4's Archive Hour asked him to take part in a programme looking back with a large helping of hindsight at how the Palace reacted to revelations made by Princess Diana on the now infamous Panorama programme.

"While the BBC does report royal matters pretty straightforwardly as it should, there is still a fawning taste, a fawning sense to the tone of voice it adopts when dealing with the heir to the throne and his family," said the veteran broadcaster.

"The BBC really thinks, and spends a lot of time protesting to the rest of the world, that it is an independent news-gathering operation.

"But it equally depends upon and understands that it is a national institution and the monarchy is the thing that really illuminates the question of the BBC's complete confusion about what on earth it is. It never knows whether it should be reporting what has happened or celebrating what has happened."

Paxman didn't divulge how he would change things for the better, but he did helpfully point to a couple of occasions where he believed the BBC had got it wrong.

Firstly, there was the coverage of Prince Charles's wedding to Camilla Parker Bowles. While politicians were busy debating its constitutional implications and the public were wondering whether they would ever truly warm to the heir to the throne's new wife, the BBC blew the dust of its royal correspondents and set the cameras rolling for much hyped live coverage.

Huw Edwards and Sophie Raworth did their best, but ended up wholeheartedly siding with the flagwavers, while for the majority of viewers the gloss of a Royal wedding lost its lustre a long time ago. The broadcast, punctuated by awkward silences and wordy descriptions about nothing very much at all, was proof if any were needed of the pitfalls of modern-day coverage of the Royals.

Paxman also pointed to the seemingly endless hours of airtime devoted to the Queen's Golden Jubilee celebrations, but particular frustration was reserved for BBC protocol surrounding royal funerals. In the days after the death of the Queen Mother back in 2002, he claimed the broadcaster was unsure whether it should be impartial observer or "mourner-in-chief" and described the rehearsal for the coverage, which took place every six months, as "absurd".

Early feedback suggested that Paxman had read a growing public mood, and some of those moved to post their thoughts on internet sites went even further. One accused the BBC of "spreading monarchist propaganda", another called for him to be given a knighthood and still more sent virtual pats on the back. However, as with most Paxman outbursts, opinion was divided. The BBC was quick to point out that his was just one of a number of voices on the show, and while his argument was certainly persuasive, it's one in which is easy to pick holes.

It's only a few decades ago that the Royal Family enjoyed the view of their subjects from a high pedestal. Rumours and gossip surrounding their daily affairs was suppressed for the good of the country and official duties and trips abroad were given overwhelmingly positive coverage. Even Prince Philip's gaffes were brushed off as harmless eccentricity.

Times have changed. Thanks to a couple of divorces, the death of Diana, and Prince Harry's presence on the London nightclub scene, they have shown themselves to be flawed like the rest of us, and whatever Paxman says, the BBC hasn't shied away from those events.

When Harry decided to turn up to a fancy dress party wearing a swastika, it was the BBC who invited various politicians and Royal aides on to Radio 4 calling for a public apology and while the recent documentary A Year With The Queen may not have been prime viewing for the average republican, it did at least try to show a human side to Britain's monarchy.

Yes, the BBC might go overboard when it comes to Royal weddings, funerals and anniversaries, but as Paxman himself must have learnt by now, if viewers don't like what they see they can and do switch off.