THE Queen’s warning to the paparazzi has thrown her into the middle of the privacy debate. Her spokesman has told editors they could face legal action if they publish photos taken at the family estate over Christmas.

If she sued, any action would place her at the forefront of the “right to privacy” debate.

The family is frustrated by photographers who stand on the public roads which criss-cross the family’s 20,000-acre Sandringham estate in Norfolk. Last Christmas, Prince Edward was photographed swinging a stick at hunting dogs during a pheasant shoot.

Paddy Harverson, the Prince of Wales’s spokesman, said: “The family recognises there is a public interest in them and what they do. But they don’t think this extends to photographing the private activities of them and their friends.”

Any member of the public is entitled to take photos in public places. However, Article 8 of the Human Rights Act gives people the right to respect for a private life.

British courts have to take it into account since a 2004 legal victory by Princess Caroline of Monaco over paparazzi photos.

Dr Howard Davis, a Bournemouth University human rights specialist, said: “The ruling means even the most prominent person has a right to a private life.”

The ramifications of the ruling are still being worked out.

The Editors Code of Conduct is also open to interpretation. Clause 3 says it is “unacceptable to photograph individuals in private places without their consent” – unless the photo is in the public interest.

Professor Stuart Allan from Bournemouth University’s media school said: “It’s important to recognise the difference between public interest and what interests the public.

“Too often the blurring of this distinction leads to sensationalist photographs with little reportorial integrity.

“That said, the Press has published many important photographs which provide valuable insights – for example Prince Harry in the Nazi costume.”

Editors may decide that the reaction of readers is the ultimate yardstick.

Tom Hill, course director of Bournemouth-based Up To Speed Journalism, was a producer at ITN when Princess Diana died as her vehicle was pursued by the paparazzi.

He said: “The Press distanced itself from those kind of practices – for instance, when Harry and William were growing up the Press showed a degree of restraint.

“Nobody would like to on the receiving end of a paparazzi scrum. But the media certainly feels things are stage-managed, for instance when Harry was out in Afghanistan.”

The Royals often pose for photos at charity events, and the Queen’s grandchildren, Zara and Peter Philips, both sold their wedding photos to magazines.

A spokesman for campaign group, Republic, said: “The Windsors routinely use the media when it suits them, to promote their activities and personal lives. They can’t have it both ways. If they demand privacy they must submit to accountability, transparency and scrutiny.”

Richard Drax, the Tory candidate for South Dorset, can trace his aristocratic tree back to 1439 and he is a former BBC reporter.

He said: “As a journalist for 17 years I never saw the need to stick cameras into people’s private lives. The Royals shouldn’t be hounded by people with long lenses.

“If they’re on a private estate they should be left in peace.”

However, even if the British media abides by their request, it is unlikely to deter the paparazzi. Princess Caroline was upset by pictures take in France but they were actually sold abroad. Photos of the Royal Family taken in England still command huge sums on the international market, whatever tabloid editors do.