This article is from the archive of our partner .

The scandalous publication of Kate Middleton's unsuspecting breasts has created three case studies surrounding the right to publish royal private parts, and private is the key word here. Publishers in France, Ireland and Italy are facing legal threats from Buckingham Palace following Prince William and Kate's decision to sue the French magazine Closer for publishing several topless photos of a sunbathing Kate. The scandal began in France where the paparazzo snapped photos of the Dutchess of Cambridge on a private estate in Provence. After finding no takers in the British press, the photographer licensed the photos first to Closer then to the Irish Daily Star and most recently to Italian magazine Chi, which is publishing a 26-page spread of Kate's outdoor exploits. In each country, the legal system and culture play a role in bringing pressure to bear on these prurient publishers. Here's a breakdown of the forces at play:

France

Legal pressure. France has some of the strictest privacy laws in the world and it's the first place where the legal battle will play out. Prince William and Kate have vowed to sue Closer, which is owned by the Berlusconi family's Arnoldo Montadori Editore Spa. According to legal experts, the Royal family's case is a slam dunk. "There is little doubt about the legal position: the publication of topless photographs of the Duchess of Cambridge by Closer magazine in France was illegal," writes Legal Week. "The taking and publishing of the photographs constituted a criminal offence and a civil wrong," given that they occurred on private property. The French Criminal Code criminalizes invasions of privacy under Article 226-1:

A penalty of one year’s imprisonment and a fine of €45,000 is incurred for any wilful violation of the intimacy of the private life of other persons by resorting to any means of: 1° intercepting, recording or transmitting words uttered in confidential or private circumstances, without the consent of their speaker; 2° taking, recording or transmitting the picture of a person who is within a private place, without the consent of the person concerned. Where the offences referred to by the present article were performed in the sight and with the knowledge of the persons concerned without their objection, although they were in a position to do so, their consent is presumed”.

In sum, the pros over at Legal Week expect a find of around €30,000. But that's not all. There is also civil liability that provides that "Everyone has the right to respect for his private life." Damages in such cases are usually "modest." Of course, the publisher surely knew full well of the consequences of publishing the photographs, so why did it go head? It's possible that a rational cost/benefit analysis favors going ahead with it, argue Legal Week. The publisher "made a cynical calculation that the likely penalties were going to be much less than the financial rewards. Weighing worldwide publicity against potential penalties of a few tens of thousands of euros, it was no contest." But will the magazine pay a price in the realm of societal disgust?