The damaging publicity generated in the past three days by the Prince’s court battle over his Hong Kong travel journal has dismayed the Queen and her most senior courtiers.

The privacy hearing at the High Court, which was told that the eight private travel journals in the possession of The Mail on Sunday were routinely copied to up to 40 people, came to an end yesterday. Mr Justice Blackburne has reserved his judgment on the Prince’s plea for a summary judgment — without trial — on his claim that his confidentiality and copyright has been breached by the newspaper.

If he rejects the summary judgment the case will go to a full trial, which could last up to two weeks, guaranteeing more potentially damaging headlines around the world. While the Prince of Wales cannot be compelled to give evidence in a civil case, the prospect of days of legal argument about his political views and manoeuvring has caused alarm among officials at Buckingham Palace.

They also fear the evidence of Mark Bolland, 39, the former deputy private secretary, whose witness statement alleged that the Prince saw himself as a “dissident” against prevailing political views. The Prince tried and failed to have the Bolland statement dealt with behind closed doors. A well-placed royal source said: “There is a growing consensus that how ever well-intentioned it began, this case is turning into a disaster waiting to happen. Just imagine if there is pressure on the Prince to give evidence.” Asked if the Queen was concerned, the source added: “Of course she would be.”

The Hong Kong journal revealed the Prince’s disdain for Tony Blair’s government by “focus groups”, his views on the decommissioning of the Royal Yacht Britannia, his contempt for the Chinese President and his surprise at discovering on the flight out that he was in club class, while politicians were in first.

Clarence House remains bullish about the decision to go to court on a point of principle to establish that the Prince was entitled to privacy for his diaries in the same way as any other citizen. Sir Michael Peat, the Prince’s private secretary, denied Mr Bolland’s assertion that there was a boycott of the Chinese state banquet or that there had been an instruction to brief the media to the effect that the Prince had stayed away in protest at the Beijing regime. The Prince went instead to a private dinner with Camilla Parker Bowles, then his companion, at his London residence.

At his monthly news conference yesterday Mr Blair leapt to the defence of the Prince when he was asked if he had trespassed into politics with his journal. Mr Blair said: “I think that Prince Charles does an amazing job for the country.” Asked another question, Mr Blair replied: “I don’t know if I can answer that question until I’ve had the focus group.” Meanwhile China has chosen to ignore the controversy over the journal.

In the High Court yesterday Hugh Tomlinson, QC, for the Prince of Wales, said: “We accept that a public figure has got to be able to take it on the chin . . . but that doesn’t mean he forfeits all privacy protection.”

The judge, commenting on what would happen if it went to a full trial, said: “The other side is rather hoping the Prince of Wales would be turning up and be cross-examined.” Judgment is expected in two weeks.

Explore Law

• Corporate Law

• Public Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Student Law

• Law Reports

Times Recommends

• HM Revenue sued over pension scheme tax
• Farepak liquidators to sue former directors
• McCartney and Mills: it's finally over