The way I see it, when the Duchess of Cambridge married William, she entered into a contract whereby she was agreed to be photographed in certain situations. Now what those situations are have been debated endless times and it can't be just restricted to public events or coverage of her engagements. But there are things that are obviously off limits. In this situation, HRH went to visit the private home of a family member, in a private capacity and for a private break with her husband. At no point should that suggest to anyone "photo opportunity". So she walked around topless, when I have the house to myself I'll have a mince about in the raw. If someone shoved a camera through the letterbox and took a picture of me and photographed it, I'd sue them and I'd hope to create a precedent that it's illegal to take such pictures. This is exactly where we keep going wrong.
I seem to remember another member of our royal family who was in France and the paparazzi turned to dirty tricks to get a photograph. Didn't end well did it? There should be outcry over these pictures for exactly that reason and it should be aimed at the photographers not the Duchess of Cambridge. She's done nothing wrong and I think it's ridiculous to suggest she should live like a nun in private just in case she's spotted by a photographer (I said the same about Prince Harry). The photographer had no right to take these pictures and the magazine that's published them has no right to print them. HRH has no get out clause here. She married the man she loves knowing full well what lay ahead but she didn't sign up for this sort of crap which should have ended back in 1997. It's time to get a grip and for all countries, not only the UK, to start taking firmer action against a vile and vicious gutter press.