Ok, I admit this sounds far-fetched. But let’s say for a minute that it happened: a photographer took a long lens shot of Closer’s Laurence Pieau topless in her exclusively located London bathroom. What would happen next? A British tabloid (forgetting the Leveson Inquiry) would publish the photos as a stand against those trying to “muzzle” the press’s freedom to print pictures of breasts. Rumours are, this type of quality publication can be found in all good newsagents. 

We can see how this hypothetical exposé would hit the world media. Using Pieau’s logic, a ‘Pieau’s Bathtime’ feature would be perfectly acceptable. After all she is also “a woman who is topless” albeit not a “young” one.

Closer defended the Middleton photos by arguing that they were “not degrading.” Surely seeing topless photos of yourself published with neither your permission nor your knowledge is the definition of degrading? Not for Pieau. Her bathtub photos would be a “beautiful series” and the following days’ headlines (‘Bidet Pieau!’) would only be a tribute to them. If her bathroom was “visible from a public road” it’d be her own fault, even if the photographer had to abseil down a nearby monument with a large mirror to get the shot. Any reaction other than unadulterated appreciation of the artful lighting would be “disproportionate”. And let’s not forget that French privacy laws allowed President Hollande’s girlfriend to claim damages for photos of the couple holding hands!

The editor of the Italian magazine Chi, Alfonso Signorini, offered equally logical explanations for his own 26-page Kate feature. He defended his publication of the 18 photographs as “a journalistic scoop,” which in non-journalistic speak translates as “moneymoneymoneymoneymoneymoney”.

Not a moral defence, but nevertheless the reason behind many controversial editorial decisions. The Sun, for instance, suggests one of the “vital” reasons that it printed Harry’s Vegas photos were so that the “millions of people who get their news in print, or have no web access” could “take a full part in that national conversation.” (Their readers need lots of pictures to help them understand the paper’s complex journalism.)

“If you talk about going topless as making a mistake that makes me laugh,” Signorini said. At least he finds himself funny, since he spectacularly misses the point. It is not relevant whether or not Kate was right to go topless in the privacy of the house – the whole thing is only a problem because someone with a zoom lens prostituted the images to the international media. Is this Italy’s “intellectual freedom”? Yes – if we use the word ‘intellectual’ very liberally…

And, in the UK, what about The Sun? Quick to condemn Closer and Chi for printing “grossly intrusive pictures no decent British paper would touch with a bargepole” they seem to forget that just a few weeks ago they labelled newspapers as cowards for “bowing to official pressure” over the Harry photos. The backlash they received for the Vegas issue remarkably coincided with their decision to give Kate her privacy.

The key difference, seemingly, is that “Harry had no realistic expectation of privacy.” The “large numbers of strangers” involved in his “stripping naked” weren’t subject to any checks. Obviously – how can you guarantee privacy without Bond-style security checks each time you meet someone? Would Pieau not be entitled to her privacy either if she failed to check neighbours and passers-by for long lens cameras? Should she subject them to polygraph tests?

Based on an application of the completely illogical justifications the newspapers gave for printing such invasive photos, the pictures in this fictional spread would undoubtedly go viral not only in France but also in Italy, on the Internet – and one day maybe even in The Sun.

Some people may still agree that the photos of Kate (and Harry) were printed for legitimate public interest reasons. I would suggest that in order to protect their privacy these people should get online sharpish and order that home polygraph machine in case they ever become famous. The one that says “60% of the time it works every time” should do the trick.