'She said we were all rocks'

I was Princess Diana's Scotland Yard personal protection officer for seven years, a crucial figure in her life from 1987. In that time I became a close friend and trusted confidant and shared many of her private moments. Many people, even her family, have admitted I perhaps knew her better than anyone.

This first-hand experience gave me a working insight into the daytoday life inside the royal family. When I was there, until the end of 1993, Kensington Palace relied upon the professionalism of its small but dedicated staff. The Princess was very much a "hands on" employer, from time to time certain people were in favour, but like in any employee/employer relationship, no one member of staf f was singled out for favouritism.

Unlike her trusted circle of servants and household I was in a unique position as I worked for Scotland Yard and was not on her payroll.

When I joined the Princess, Paul Burrell was employed as an under butler at Highgrove, the number two to Harold Brown, who both served the Prince and the Princess of Wales.

It is fair to say Burrell was liked by the Princess, but so were many other members of her personal staff such as her chef Mervyn Wycherley, chauffeur Simon Solari, and George Smith, the former Welsh Guardsman who worked as a butler's assistant.

The princess might easily have remained in her ivory tower, but that was not her style. Instead she would wander into the kitchen and would pick at the latest creation of her chef.

She would kick off her shoes and talk with the two of us about her day. This was an important way for her to unwind amid all the stress of her life. I often heard her refer to Mervyn in these moments of relaxation as her "rock" in the same way that she praised Simon Solari, her driver, for unfailing loyalty. As Diana's mother, the Hon Frances Shand Kydd said from the oakpanelled witness box at the Old Bailey during the trial of Paul Burrell her daughter had many "rocks".

She called me the rock, she called Simon, she called her secretary Victoria Mendham, her rock.

It was an frequent expression that Diana used for acknowledging the dedication of her small but loyal team.

Paul Burrell was one of these people, but like all of us, there were periods of isolation from her favour. But while others were not concerned about it, Burrell always seemed to preoccupied with being popular with his patron. In my opinion it became an obsession.

This obsession, according to his version of events, led him to believe that he was the only person she could trust, apparently to the exclusion of her own family.

This was a surprise to me. For what I witnessed told a very different story. Diana enjoyed a close and loving relationship with her mother, Frances, and family, particularly-Lady Sarah McCorquodalewho accompanied the princess around the world in public and private.

Unlike Burrell, who was never invited on family holidays, in my protection role, I witnessed a close family bond and unity.

When Diana was at her most troubled and really needed the most private of counsel it was to her mother that she would always turn. Yes, they would fall out from time to time, but what family doesn't? But their relationship was too strong, trusting and loving for either of them to allow the silences to continue. It is unfortunate that in the recent trial one of these periods of silence was highlighted.

I am mystified as to why Frances, whom I have great deal of respect for, and the entire Spencer family have been vilified and unjustly criticised.

All they have done is what anyone else would do in their position.

As executors, it was Lady Sarah McCorquodale and Frances's duty to cooperate fully with the police inquiry after it was alleged that Paul Burrell had taken property belonging to Diana's estate without their consent.

Clearly, both the police and crucially the Crown Prosecution Service believed there was a case to answer. The Spencers were completely cooperative throughout all stages of the investigation. It was a result of the thorough police investigation and the ultimate judgment of senior lawyers of the CPS that the case went for trial.

Burrell's revelations about the princess's property and his subsequent meeting with the Queen at Buckingham Palace are equally mystifying.

He says he told Her Majesty in a three-hour stand-up meeting in November 1997 that he had possession of personal letters and artefacts of the late princess and that he intended to keep them safe, to protect the "Princess's world".

I seriously question, from my experience, that the Queen, given her busy schedule, would entertain Burrell for three hours on a matter that at best would take 15 minutes to discuss. This was after all not even her property but belonged to Diana's estate.

This surely is the crux of the matter. If the Princess had wanted Paul Burrell to take charge of her estate after her death then she would have made him an executor of her will. But she did not. She entrusted that heavy responsibility to her sister and mother who endeavoured to carry out all her wishes to the best of their ability.

If, as Paul Burrell has stated, he was concerned about the safety of Diana's property and could not trust her immediate family, why not entrust them for safekeeping (or at least tell him about the fact he was keeping them) with the other executor, the Bishop of London, the Rt Rev. Richard Chartres?

Instead, he chose to tell the Queen and remained tightlipped about the crucial details of the conversation until he told his defence counsel Lord Carlile just as the case for the prosecution was drawing to a close.

This conversation with the Queen was pivotal.

I am not aware of anyone, not even the prime minister of the day who would be guaranteed such a lengthy audience with the monarch, standing up too.

But what is even more intriguing is that the Queen is supposed to have discussed matters of national security with the former butler, by claiming that there were "powers at work" behind the scenes. This sounds like something from the pages of a best-selling work of fiction. I find it hard to believe that the Queen, given her wealth of experience, would say this to anyone.

There were other claims made by Burrell which I know were untrue.

Unlike many Royals, Diana carried money, but frequently she would ask me to pay for items such as CDs and records when she did not have enough cash. But never in my service with her did she refer to £50 notes as "pink grannies" or £10 notes as "brown grannies" as Burrell claims.

Like the Spencers, Scotland Yard has also been heavily criticised in the aftermath of the collapse of the £1.5 million Paul Burrell theft case.

Some have suggested that the case should never have been brought to trial. But what exactly have the police done wrong?

During the course of their investigation they believed they had amounted evidence of a prima facie case of theft. They then tried to establish provenance of the possessions alleged to have been taken.

They therefore, rightly asked both Lady Sarah McCorquodale and Frances Shand Kydd if they knew the property to be Diana's and if they, as executors of the estate, had given Burrell permission to remove it.

So when they discovered that no such authority had been given by who they rightfully perceived to be the owners, the findings and recommendations of their inquiry were submitted to the CPS for judgement.

This was a high profile case going to the very heart of the British Establishment. I am sure that Sir John Stevens, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner would have considered every aspect of it very carefully and given his officers all the resources possible to ensure a thorough and professional investigation.

The officers have been accused of having "their heads turned" by the high profile nature of the case. They were criticised for not interviewing the Queen.

But at no stage did Paul Burrell volunteer the importance and alleged extent of his conversation with the Queen.

Had he done so, and indeed had the Queen spoken out sooner, I am confident the police officers would have reacted appropriately.

There are not many days when I do not think of Diana - her presence, and above all her yearning to live life to the full. I am sure I am not the only one. There are some who want us to believe that the Diana legend is fading , or even the substance behind that legend was worth little.

The Diana I knew was full of fun; always in search of laughter, not wallowing in selfobsessed pity as she is so often portrayed.

Since her death on 31 August 1997 history has all too often presented a very different - not to say distorted - image of this extraordinary woman. Worse, since 1997 a PR offensive has been waged against a dead woman's memory. Her motives have been derided and even her sanity questioned. It has, as with Burrell's claims, been a one-sided war, and as in any war, the truth has been the first casualty.

Ken Wharfe did not ask for or receive payment for this article.