I NEVER thought I would say this but I'm sticking up for the Queen. Reading the papers this week, you could be forgiven for thinking she is a forgetful, doddery old woman who doesn't have a clue what is happening in her own family, let alone her kingdom.
Either that, or she's part of a huge conspiracy, manipulating the courts for her own ends and prepared to let an innocent man go to jail rather than expose the monarchy to ridicule.
She has been accused of being a heartless coward and craven hypocrite who is beyond the reach of justice and guilty of wasting police time.
But I don't buy any of it. There has been an ugly rush to condemn Her Majesty after 11th-hour revelations about her conversation with Diana's butler Paul Burrell resulted in the dramatic collapse of his high profile trial.
But her behaviour was totally understandable, given that the police had, wrongly, led the family to believe Burrell had sold off a huge number of Diana's possessions and had become incredibly wealthy as a result.
They even claimed, with no evidence whatsoever, that Burrell had helped staff dress up in the dead Princess's clothes, thus treacherously mocking her memory.
In the light of such alleged monstrous acts, why would the Queen think Burrell telling her he had "some papers for safe-keeping" would be a significant factor in his defence?
She must have been as shocked as the rest of us to learn, at the opening of the trial, that he had amassed hundreds of the dead princess's belongings including clothes, furniture, silverware, photographs and ornaments. Much, much more than a few papers for safe- keeping.
At the outset, her role appeared peripheral. She may be the Queen but for the purposes of this case she was merely Burrell's former employer's ex-mother-in-law, with no rights over Diana's possessions, nor any say in who should be allowed to keep them.
Her conversation with Burrell only became significant as the case unfolded and it was clear police didn't have a shred of evidence to back up their outlandish claims.
They should have been able to work out that Burrell's sudden wealth was down to profits from his book and speaking engagements. The average reader of a tabloid newspaper could have deduced that.
Officers were clearly overwhelmed at being involved in such a high-profile, royal case. They became self-congratulatory and arrogant and that led them to compromise basic standards.
They didn't follow leads, they didn't gather evidence, they didn't interview everyone they should have - including the butler's former employer's ex-mother-in-law.
Forget the conspiracy theories. The Queen and the Royal Family are not to blame for this mess, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service are. The only people guilty of wasting police time - and one and a half million pounds of our money - are the police themselves.
And this is just the latest in a long line of cases in which they and the Crown Prosecution Service have proved nothing, other than just how utterly incompetent they can be.
WHILE I'm at it, I must leap to the defence of Prince Charles. One anecdote reportedly about to be revealed in court was that when Prince Charles had to give a urine sample in hospital after a riding accident he made his valet hold the little bottle as he did it. How arrogant, how disgusting, said commentators. But as I recall, Charles broke a bone in his arm, and had to wear a sling. So to be fair, he probably did need some help. I have nothing against bashing the Royals, but surely there's enough to pick at without having to exaggerate...
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article