THE Prince of Wales was plunged into a constitutional row last night when the High Court was told that he deliberately flouted the convention that senior members of the Royal Family should steer clear of political controversy.

It was claimed that the Prince thought of himself as a “dissident” who, despite warnings from his senior advisers and ministers, regarded his role as working against the political consensus of the day.

The revelations are contained in a High Court witness statement by Mark Bolland, 39, a former deputy private secretary at Clarence House, which the Prince tried and failed to have heard in secret.

Mr Bolland said that ministers were so worried about the Prince straying into the political arena that they regularly telephoned him to complain.

The statement by Mr Bolland, who for seven years was one of the Prince’s most trusted aides, provided an extraordinary insight into the way the heir to the throne conducts his affairs. He was giving evidence for The Mail on Sunday, which is fighting the Prince’s confidentiality action.

Mr Bolland said that the Prince had ignored advice not to take on a campaigning role. His stance was in sharp conflict with other members of the Royal Family, who never became involved in, or expressed views on, political matters.

“This aspect of the Prince’s role has been created by him and has not, so far as I am aware, been endorsed either by the Queen or by Parliament,” Mr Bolland said.

The statement said that Mr Bolland was instructed by the Prince to publicise his decision to boycott an official banquet hosted by the Chinese President for the Queen in 1999 because of his hostility to the Beijing regime. Clarence House has denied the allegation.

Mr Bolland said that he and the Prince watched the coverage on Newsnight on BBC Two, which showed a mock-up of the Prince with a placard bearing the question: is this the only person allowed to protest? Mr Bolland said: “The Prince of Wales was delighted with the coverage. It certainly made the point he wanted to convey.”

Despite the best efforts of advisers, the Prince had not tried to avoid politically contentious issues, if he felt strongly about them. “In fact, he would readily embrace the political aspects of any contentious issue he was interested in and this is an aspect of his role which the Prince saw as particularly important.

“The Prince’s very definite aim in all this activity, as he explained to me, was to influence opinion. He saw that as part of the job of the heir apparent. He often referred to himself as a “dissident” working against the prevailing political consensus.”

Mr Bolland said that the Prince’s private office was “chaotic” and his private letters were placed in day files and seen by everyone there. “I remember on many occasions seeing in these day files letters which for example denounced the elected leaders of other countries in extreme terms and other such highly politically sensitive correspondence.”

He added: “We all used to try and stop the Prince writing these political letters, and, given that they were being written, also tried at least to stop them being circulated round the office because of the obvious risk of embarrassing leaks.”

When Sir Stephen Lamport took over as private secretary in 1996, Mr Bolland said that they had tried to “dampen down” the Prince’s tendency to make public his views and thoughts on sensitive issues on subjects ranging from genetically modified foods to education.

Of the Chinese state visit, he said: “The Prince chose not to attend the return state banquet at the Chinese Embassy but to attend instead a private dinner at his home with Camilla Parker Bowles and close friends. He did this as a deliberate snub to the Chinese because he did not approve of the Chinese regime.”

The Prince was aware of the importance of the state visit but “wanted to make a public stand against the Chinese. We tried to persuade him to attend, but to no avail.”

The Prince is asking Mr Justice Blackburne at the High Court to rule that The Mail on Sunday breached his confidentiality and copyright when it published extracts from his diaries in which he referred to Chinese diplomats as “appalling old waxworks”. The case was adjourned until today.

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• BGC 'set aside £40m to lure Tullett brokers'
• Legal aid review to ensure value
• Fears as 21 magistrates' courts face closure