Hilary Mantel and Kate Middleton

If you have had any connection to social networks at all, you will probably have heard some of the fuss over an essay that Hilary Mantel (award winning novelist) wrote, and its supposed criticism of the Duchess of Cambridge (Kate Middleton). I have found this an interesting experiment in social media.

There are a number of important issues about this whole episode. Not least that the reports of what she said were rather mis-reported. The entire article was actually a balanced and interesting exploration of royalty and fashion. It was not critical of Kate Middleton, rather, it was supportive of her position and place, an acknowledgement of the difficulties she has. In fact the comments and supposed criticisms have more to them than appears - more than David Camerons naive comments about them.

However I want to explore something else first. The thing is, I first heard about the fuss on twitter. There were a few comments and links to people making a fuss. However there were also a number of people who had actually read the article and making sensible comments about what was actually in it. People making more reasoned arguments about the content of the article, and properly understanding it. The article itself is not one I would normally have read, but I have flicked through it, having had my attention drawn to it. Also, I can draw from a range of other people who appreciate and understand it better than I can, and I can draw from their wisdom about it. this wealth of informed, intelligent discussion helped me to realise that some people had got it wrong - and I could do that reasonably easily, because the comments and messages are short.

Of course it depends how you use twitter. It is quite easy to follow people whose posting style is "OMG!! Totes amazeballs!" - not that there is anything wrong in that - or people who just make stupid comments. I follow some of both types, but I also follow people who keep me in touch with other stuff that is going on, people who can give me an insight into events that are happening. It doesn't remove my responsibility to check things out properly, but it can help me to know what is significant, what is mere fluff, what is worth pursuing.

For example, I got a running commentary on the Brits this week, and realised that I didn't actually need to watch it on catch up. Discussing minority TV with others is also interesting and informative. It is like having all sorts of people with you, chatting about stuff.

But what of the comments made about Kate? The problem is that she is, to an extent, exactly what was being criticised. She is not ONLY that, but she is an attractive young lady in the very public eye. Her fashion choices will be discussed and dissected, her food and pregnancy will be a talking point, that is the society we have, where "celebrities" are constantly discussed and debated. It is not her fault, or her choice, it is ours - we decide that we like to know every nuance of her details. I think, in honesty, that she copes remarkably well with it.

What is more, one of her important roles is to have children. Rather like one of William's roles is to behave himself, to maintain the respect and dignity of the monarchy. Everyone has a role which they have to play, or have to reject and accept the consequences. Some people have more responsibilities, others have less; some people get more benefits from their role than others. Kate does get some significant perks from her role, let us not forget, and she made a choice to marry into the family. This is not to justify the intrusion, but it is part of the role.

The problems - and the core lessons form this debacle - is that we need to know and understand the truth. Twitter can help to get some insights, and give some pointers as to what is important, keep me in touch with events. But we also need to have a realistic view on facts, information, ideas. Some people talk rubbish, some don't. It is not always as easy as it should be to identify the difference.