The viral claim resurfacing in royal discussions: 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 provocative statement taps into the lingering mysteries surrounding Princess Diana’s tragic death in a Paris car crash on August 31, 1997. Ken Wharfe, a former Metropolitan Police inspector who served as Diana’s personal protection officer from 1986 to 1993, has long been vocal about what he sees as critical security lapses that contributed to her vulnerability. While Wharfe has indeed described the absence of official Scotland Yard protection as “astonishing” in various interviews and documentaries, the exact phrasing in an ITV context often references broader discussions of her life and decisions. For instance, in a 2023 ITV appearance reflecting on Diana’s boldness, Wharfe highlighted moments of her personal strength, but his strongest criticisms of security have come in outlets like The Sun and Daily Mail, where he called the reliance on private bodyguards a “major mistake.” The “last-minute change” narrative, however, is more nuanced—referring not to a sudden revocation of protection but to the improvised plans and private security arrangements on that fateful night, which Wharfe and others argue sealed her fate.

Ken Wharfe: The Insider’s Voice on Diana’s Protection

Ken Wharfe’s relationship with Diana was uniquely close; he wasn’t just her bodyguard but a confidant during some of her most turbulent years, including the breakdown of her marriage to then-Prince Charles. In his 2002 book, Diana: Closely Guarded Secret, Wharfe detailed the princess’s desire for independence after her 1996 divorce, which led her to relinquish full-time Scotland Yard protection—a decision he has repeatedly called reckless. In a 2016 Daily Mail interview, Wharfe explicitly blamed the private bodyguards for failing to prevent Diana from entering the ill-fated Mercedes, stating, “The blame for Diana’s death lies with her bodyguards.” He argued that experienced Scotland Yard officers would have intervened, perhaps vetoing the drunk driver Henri Paul or insisting on seatbelts.

Wharfe’s comments on ITV have often focused on personal anecdotes, such as Diana’s confrontation with Camilla Parker Bowles at a 1989 party, which he witnessed and later described in a 2023 ITV segment as “the bravest moment” of her marriage. However, in broader media appearances, including documentaries like Protecting Princess Diana: The Bodyguard’s Story (aired on Channel 5 and referenced on ITV platforms), Wharfe has labeled the post-divorce security downgrade as “astonishing,” emphasizing that it left her exposed during high-risk trips like the one to Paris. In a 2024 exclusive with The Sun (shared on TikTok), he reiterated security failures, noting, “That’s where the security failed. It also failed because of their inexperience.”

Recent X posts echo this sentiment in modern contexts. For example, user @Charlesvoicema1 quoted Wharfe criticizing Prince Harry’s security choices as “very unintelligent,” drawing parallels to Diana’s decisions. Another post from @LoweJacqueline3 stated, “Diana should have kept Ken Wharfe, she would still be alive,” highlighting ongoing debates about what official protection might have changed.

news.sky.com

Former royal protection officer Ken Wharfe recalls an argument between a young Prince Harry and Prince William.

(Former royal protection officer Ken Wharfe speaking in front of Buckingham Palace, reflecting on his time with Diana – a symbol of his insider perspective on royal security.)

The Context of Diana’s Security Arrangements

By 1997, Diana was no longer a working royal, having divorced Charles the previous year. This status change meant she lost automatic entitlement to full Scotland Yard protection, which is typically reserved for active royals. Instead, she relied on private security provided by friends or associates, such as the Al-Fayed family’s team during her Paris trip with Dodi Fayed. Wharfe has argued that the Queen could have overridden this, insisting on Yard officers, but Diana’s push for privacy prevailed.

On August 30, 1997, Diana and Dodi arrived in Paris from Sardinia, pursued relentlessly by paparazzi. They stayed at the Ritz Hotel, owned by Dodi’s father, Mohamed Al-Fayed. Security was handled by Ritz staff and Al-Fayed bodyguards, including Trevor Rees-Jones, the sole survivor of the crash. There was no “last-minute switch” in the sense of abruptly canceling official protection—Diana hadn’t had it for years. However, the “change” often debated refers to the chaotic decisions that night: a decoy vehicle left the Ritz’s front entrance to distract photographers, while Diana and Dodi exited the rear in a black Mercedes driven by Henri Paul, the hotel’s deputy head of security. This improvised plan, meant to evade the media, is what critics like Wharfe call a fatal error.

According to timelines from the French inquiry and Operation Paget, the group lingered near the rear entrance for about seven minutes before departing at around 00:20 CEST. Paul, who was intoxicated (blood alcohol over three times the limit), drove at excessive speeds—up to 110 km/h in a 50 km/h zone—leading to the crash in the Pont de l’Alma tunnel at 00:23. Wharfe contends that Scotland Yard professionals would have assessed Paul’s fitness, ensured seatbelts (none worn except by Rees-Jones), and perhaps negotiated with paparazzi for safer passage.

nzherald.co.nz

Bodyguard Trevor Rees details missing four minutes before Princess Diana crash in Paris – NZ Herald

(Bodyguard Trevor Rees-Jones in the Mercedes with Diana and Dodi moments before the crash – a haunting image of the private security in place that night.)

Why It’s One of the Most Debated Decisions

The “security switch” debate stems from hindsight: Could official protection have prevented the tragedy? Wharfe has been adamant yes. In a 2021 Woman & Home interview about Windsor Castle intrusions, he called similar lapses “totally unacceptable,” drawing implicit parallels to Diana’s exposure. He warned Diana before resigning in 1993 not to drop Yard security, saying in his book that it gave her “freedom” but at great risk.

Official inquiries provide balance. The 1999 French investigation blamed Paul solely, clearing paparazzi and finding no conspiracy. Britain’s Operation Paget (2006) and 2008 inquest ruled unlawful killing due to Paul’s negligence and paparazzi pursuit, noting private security’s inadequacies but not as the primary cause. Mohamed Al-Fayed alleged foul play, including manipulated security, but these were dismissed.

Conspiracy theorists point to unresolved elements, like the untraced white Fiat Uno that may have clipped the Mercedes, or the 36-minute delay in transporting Diana to hospital. Wharfe dismisses plots but insists professional oversight was key. In a 2018 YouTube clip on royal wedding security, he explained how Yard teams secure events meticulously—something absent in Paris.

Public reaction remains emotional. X users like @Rosedragon108_ quote Wharfe on modern risks, while fans mourn “what ifs.” Diana’s last words, as recalled by EMTs—”My God, what’s happened?”—underscore the chaos.

the-sun.com

Princess Diana’s bodyguard reveals how 3 security mistakes killed her – and his heartbreaking warning before her death

(Collage of Wharfe with Diana, the crashed Mercedes, and final moments – illustrating the security lapses he critiques.)

Echoes in Today’s Royal Security Debates

Wharfe’s insights extend to current royals. In 2023, he commented on Prince Harry’s security battles, advising compromise after Harry’s court loss. He drew parallels: Just as Diana sought independence, Harry does too, but risks persist. In a Sky News video, Wharfe recalled Harry and William’s childhood arguments, humanizing the family while stressing protection’s role. (Note: This is image 3 from search, but id=3)

The debate endures because Diana’s death feels preventable. Wharfe’s “astonishing” label captures the shock: A global icon, unprotected in a foreign city, pursued relentlessly. As William and Harry reflected in a 2017 ITV documentary, their last call with her was rushed—hauntingly brief.

theguardian.com

Timeline: the death of Diana, Princess of Wales | Diana, Princess of Wales | The Guardian

(CCTV footage of Diana and Dodi at the Ritz elevator on August 30, 1997 – one of the last images before the security decisions unfolded.)

Lessons from Tragedy: Security and Legacy

Ultimately, the “security switch” wasn’t a single moment but a series of choices. Wharfe’s warnings highlight how independence clashed with reality. Post-Diana, royal protection evolved: More emphasis on private threats, better media coordination. Yet, as Wharfe told NBC in 2017, Diana would “love” her voice being heard now—through documentaries and debates.

In Paris that night, no Yard officer was there to say “no.” The result: A crash that killed Diana, Dodi, and Paul, injuring Rees-Jones. Wharfe’s critique reminds us: Protection isn’t just presence—it’s prevention.

A debated decision that echoes through royal history, one “astonishing” lapse at a time.

independent.co.uk

Harry needs to do a deal in his security fight and move on, says Diana’s ex bodyguard | The Independent

(Portrait of Ken Wharfe, Diana’s trusted bodyguard, whose insights continue to shape discussions on royal security.)