I guess you’ve seen something about it. It’s certainly all over the British press.

First there was some drunken party games which involved stripping and, surprise, surprise, there was someone with a phone and the next thing you knew it was everywhere.

Then, we have some woman with her tits out and people are outraged. Well, the media is outraged – people can, of course, think what they like.

Now, if I get a job, say, as model, a job in the public spotlight, I don’t want to be caught gorging on burgers. Or a married TV presenter – I really don’t need to be caught kissing one of my colleagues in the park.

And, if you get a job as a royal, you don’t want to be caught with your bits out for all to see.

OK, for Harry, he didn’t get a choice about the job – he can’t really say ‘no’. Even so, can you imagine Charlie having a party like that and permitting someone to take a photo?

And, in any way, can you imagine the Queen being more than semi-naked (and by that I mean with a swimsuit on) in any place except the bathroom?

So, whereas one can argue that the photographer was wrong to take the pictures and that the magazine (or is it magazines, now?) was not really being nice by publishing them, the real question is this:

If Kate took the job of being the future Queen of England, what was she thinking of getting her bits out in anything other than a very private place (like the bathroom)?

Worse, still, is thinking that you should be suing the magazine! Come off it, you were there, without a top, outside. Act like a Queen – after all, you took the job when you married William and, I’m afraid, with the job (for which you will never have to actually work or be short of food or worry about what you can wear or anything that normal people do), come some responsibilities.

And, if the ‘thought didn’t cross your mind’, then you’re quite stupid.

Lost respect, now, I have.

p.s. not that the pics were any good anyway.