No one minds really.

When they were "preparing" her for her role, including teaching her judo-in-self-defence, or whatever, did no one mention big bad men with long lens cameras?

Or the possibility that a pair could become a Royal flush?

It's a Royal blush now!!!

Sorry!

There's a big difference between titties and royal titties though!

Is there? Have they got little Royal crests stamped on them?

Gold tips.

I thought they had little lions printed on them.

Surely the issue is not that she was photographed without her top on. It's when, where, how and by whom. They were on a private holiday in a very secluded chateau where they had every expectation of privacy. They didn't reckon with a paparazzo with a telephoto lens behind a bush. If they'd been on a beach or even on a yacht (remember Fergie and the toe-sucking incident?) they would have been taking a risk and probably 'fair game', as was the hapless Harry. This episode contravenes the French privacy laws but is worth it because the likely fine is far less than the profit the magazine can make from syndicating the snaps.

Gold tips Elegran

But, anno, are they EVER really private except in their own rooms? Aren't there always security personnel with them, even on holiday? I think Kate was foolish to go topless outside anywhere. Please note, that does not mean I'm condoning the photographer. I'm not. I'm just being realisitic.

One would have though that in the light of his mother's experiences, the Duke of Cambridge might have offered his wife some advice. Just because the Princess of Wales died a horrid death in the presence of paparazzi, they won't be nice and just go away if there's the possibility of big money,

You would think she would have had more sense !!!!
The paparazzi will take any photos that will sell, and while people buy these mags it wont stop.

Naive rather than foolish, Bags, but she will very quickly become media savvy now. I think it would be a mistake for the royals to pursue this issue through the courts - it will soon become a back number as are Harry's misjudgements.

Anyone, however much in the public eye, has a right to privacy when they're in private, surely? And voluntary nakedness in a semi-public place (Harry) is different from taking your top off in the privacy of your cousin's (Uncle's?) private estate? The other thread on the Kate topic says what a good thing she is. I hope this won't put her off.

If someone can see into the private estate, which they clearly could, it evdently isn't private enough. So yes, going topless outside in such a place was naive.

Didn't someone photograph Diana topless on a "private" beach, from a boat?

On a more prosaic note, if a photographer got close enough to take these pictures, what were royal security doing? It could just as easily have been telescopic sights on a weapon, couldn't it?

I'm sure I heard a suggestion that the photographer was inside the château, implying a servant or another visitor. I don't know what evidence there is for such a suggestion.

I assume that the photographer was trespassing on Lord Linley's property. These paparazzi are adept at undercover operations, probably using skills developed by the Resistance during WW2. I don't, however, know what the law on trespass is in France. Probably Greatnan could enlighten us on that.

It would be nice if we all said yes, she has tits, and moved on - especially the bbc, most of europe must be shock at the fuss. Everyone goes topless there.

Ooops that should be

Not everyone LaGrande. In some countries, you can still be arrested if you are topless in a public place. (I know the Duchess of Cambridge was on private property.)

Last time I was swimming/sunbathing in France, in the Dordogne, as you say, many women went topless and frankly - they shouldn't have - over a certain age - and shape- it is not an edifying spectacle.

Lovely pictures of her here Prince William doesn't look too happy though

My sympathies are all with Kate.