The details seemed straight out of the pages of a 1980s political pot boiler rather than from real life.
But they have ignited yet another round of that old debate about people�s private lives and how much they should be allowed to impinge on their public or professional roles.
Put in its historical context, of course, this is very much a modern obsession.
Many if not most of Britain�s leading statesmen and monarchs would not have lasted long if their private lives had been held up to full public view.
But the modern media and public prurience mean that nowadays we get to hear about some of the most intimate details of the relationships of royalty, politicians and other people in public life.
Tony Blair is surely right to insist that everyone, including politicians, is entitled to a private life and that what went on between Mr Blunkett and his girlfriend is nobody else�s business unless it impacted on the way the Home Secretary did his job.
Mrs Thatcher, for all her faults, was also tolerant of people�s private peccadilloes.
The disaster came when John Major launched his ill fated �back to basics� campaign, which the media turned into open season on politicians� private lives.
Once any leader acknowledges that someone�s private life is relevant to how they do their job, he or she risks unleashing a feeding frenzy as the media moves from one hapless victim to the next. I have forgotten how many Ministers John Major lost in the process.
This is all viewed with incomprehension in most other countries, where it is still possible for presidents to father children without anyone knowing about it.
I don�t see how we can turn the clock back, but what might help is if the private lives of newspaper executives and others who make a living publishing this stuff were equally opened up to the public gaze.
