The viral claim circulating once again: 🚨 THE SECURITY SWITCH — Former royal protection officer Ken Wharfe said on ITV that Princess Diana not having official Scotland Yard protection that weekend was “astonishing.” The last-minute change in security remains one of the most debated decisions of August 31, 1997

This statement taps into one of the enduring controversies surrounding the death of Princess Diana in the Pont de l’Alma tunnel crash on August 31, 1997. Ken Wharfe, who served as Diana’s personal protection officer (PPO) from 1987 to 1993, has repeatedly described her decision to relinquish full-time Scotland Yard security after their professional relationship ended as a pivotal and risky choice. While Wharfe has used strong language like “astonishing” or “major mistake” in various interviews and documentaries (including appearances on ITV and Channel 5 specials), the specific framing of a “last-minute change” that weekend often blends his broader criticisms with the chaotic events of August 1997.

Wharfe’s Perspective: A Long-Standing Concern

Wharfe, a former Metropolitan Police inspector, was Diana’s closest security confidant during her most high-profile years. In his book Diana: Closely Guarded Secret (co-authored with Robert Jobson) and subsequent interviews, he argued that Diana’s desire for independence after her 1996 divorce led her to drop official royal protection. He has stated that the Queen could have insisted on retaining Scotland Yard officers, and Diana would likely have accepted it—preventing the vulnerability exposed in Paris.

Wharfe has said in interviews (including ITV discussions and documentaries like Protecting Princess Diana: The Bodyguard’s Story) that without trained, official protection, Diana was left relying on private arrangements, which he viewed as inadequate.
He described the absence of Scotland Yard oversight as “astonishing” in hindsight, emphasizing that professional officers would have managed paparazzi pressure differently, potentially negotiating photo opportunities or ensuring safer transport decisions.
In a 2024 Sun interview marking the anniversary, he reiterated that three key mistakes—including no official protection—contributed to the tragedy, calling the lack of Yard security a critical failure.

Wharfe has clarified that Diana herself pushed for less protection to feel “normal,” but he believes senior royals and police should have overruled it for her safety.

What Actually Happened in August 1997: No “Last-Minute Switch” in Official Protection

Diana had voluntarily given up her full-time Scotland Yard protection in 1993–1996, post-divorce. By 1997, she no longer had automatic royal police bodyguards on every trip. Instead:

Security was handled ad hoc, often by private teams.
In Paris, she was accompanied by Trevor Rees-Jones, a former SAS soldier employed by Mohamed Al-Fayed’s Harrods security team (not Scotland Yard).
Driver Henri Paul (Ritz Hotel deputy head of security) was also Al-Fayed staff.
The couple’s plans changed rapidly that night: initial dinner plans shifted due to paparazzi, leading to a return to the Ritz and the fatal decoy departure.

There was no documented last-minute withdrawal of official protection that specific weekend. Diana simply did not have Scotland Yard officers assigned, as per her post-divorce status. The “switch” narrative often stems from:

The sudden plan changes orchestrated by Dodi Fayed and Ritz staff.
Mohamed Al-Fayed’s later claims of conspiracy, which alleged inadequate or manipulated security (rejected by inquiries).
Wharfe’s retrospective view that official protection would have changed everything—e.g., a Yard officer might have vetoed Henri Paul’s driving or coordinated better anti-pursuit tactics.

Official Investigations: Security Was Private, Not Royal

Both major inquiries addressed security arrangements:

French judicial inquiry (1997–1999): Focused on Henri Paul’s intoxication and speed; cleared paparazzi and found no security conspiracy.
Operation Paget (2004–2006 British Metropolitan Police report): Examined 175+ conspiracy allegations, including security lapses. Concluded:

Diana’s lack of official protection was her choice post-divorce.
No evidence of deliberate sabotage or withdrawal.
The crash resulted from Paul’s grossly negligent driving, paparazzi pursuit, and no seatbelts—not a security “plot.”
Private arrangements (Al-Fayed’s team) were in place, but flawed.

The 2008 British inquest verdict: unlawful killing due to gross negligence by Paul and pursuing paparazzi. Security decisions were noted as contributing indirectly via reliance on non-professional drivers/bodyguards in a high-pressure situation.

Why This Remains So Debated

Wharfe’s comments—amplified in documentaries, anniversaries, and media—resonate because they highlight real vulnerabilities:

A future queen consort traveling without elite police protection was unusual.
The Paris night involved improvised plans, a drunk driver, and relentless chasers—conditions a Yard team might have mitigated.
It fuels “what if” grief: many believe official protection could have forced calmer decisions or better escape routes.

Yet no evidence supports a deliberate “astonishing” last-minute revocation. Diana’s security status had been private for years; the tragedy exposed the risks she had accepted for independence.

Ken Wharfe’s enduring point: protection isn’t just bodies—it’s protocol, training, and authority. Without it, even the most famous woman became dangerously exposed.

A heartbreaking reminder that choices made for freedom can carry unforeseen costs.