I assume the photographer was a fair distance away from the couple (I heard it was a kilometre).
So I imagined the quality of any photos taken at such a distance surely wouldn't be very good. Cameras and lenses are pretty good these days, but not that good. So what you would end up with are photos, well...like this:
Truth is, while the Royals have all but admitted it's Kate getting her gear off on the balcony, it could be any one of several million slim, brunettes in the SOF at any given time. In the magazine there is a genuine stock photo of Kate lined up against the "topless" photos, all of which are similar quality as this photo, so the subliminal message sent is that the grainy unidentifiable photos must be of the same person in the crystal clear photo. But I reckon take that photo away and you're left with the afore-mentioned millions of possibilities.
You know what I really think? I think how ridiculous. As a photographer I think it's pretty stupid. The money might be nice, but worth the potential fallout? Probably not. As a general consumer (male), Kate's not that cute so I wouldn't be interested in any photos of her let alone long-distance, grainy, unidentifiably dull ones. As a member of the commonwealth, I'm guessing just a little bit of my taxes find its way into the coffers of the Royals, so from that perspective I think poor little rich girl living off the tit of commoners, enjoying the kind of luxurious holiday most taxpayers can only dream of, doesn't necessarily deserve what she gets, but at the very least should have spent the taxpayers' money on better security. If you can see her through a camera lens, you can see her through a scope. Security fail.
As a human being I can think of more important things for the world to be thinking about.