Come on Kate, it's only pair of titties.

I know they have privacy laws i France but I heard a journalist on the radio saying that recently the profit from the sales of the magazine and from selling on the pictures to other publications far outweighs the fines levied for the offence.

I am not amazed they have bits but that they are not more careful where they flash them.

Well said, crimson. I do agree with all you say. Surely this will fade away before too long. Why is everyone so amazed that members of the Royal family have bits just like everyone else?

I would imagine she feels as if she's been violated in some way. Feel really sorry for her [although do agree it was a bit silly to go topless even in a private property].

Yes, very strong privacy laws. I believe they are pursuing the paper and the photographer through the courts.

greatnan Never mind trespass. I think there are privacy laws in France

I am no expert in French law, but I believe there is no law of trespass in France.

So are mine, jings but I wouldn't worry about the thread title. Supporting the Royals doesn't mean we can't have a sense of humour amongst ourselves.

When will the younger royals learn to cover up? There is no such thing for them as a private beach, balcony, yacht or anything else. There are people who will stop at nothing to get compromising shots of them, and the only 100% guarantee of protection is to ensure that no opportunity is provided. Hopefully Kate will learn from this very obvious error.

I feel sorry for Wills too. It must be stirring up awful memories of what his mother endured.

Mine are too Granny-a. (A bit ashamed of the thread title now )

Apparently they are going to sue.

it is just that a bit if tittilation sells papers!

My sympathies are all with Kate.

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

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.

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.)

Ooops that should be

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.