The Princely Courts of Europe 1500-1750 by John Adamson (Editor) arrived today.  I wanted a better understanding of the heart of government in Europe to see why England was so different. 

In his Introduction, John Adamson, whom I regard highly, says:

For all their diversity, however, the popular stereotype of the court favourite remained strikingly consistent in form, from the sixteenth through to the eighteenth centuries.  Whether in plays, ballads, histories, or learned treatises, the characteristics remain the same: a manipulative arriviste, ‘basely born’, who usurps powers of patronage that should rightfully go to the hereditary grandees, and exploits office, not for the good of the realm, but to feather his own nest.  Warranted or not, most of the ‘new men’ who acquired extensive influence as a consequence of personal royal favour – from Wolsey to Mazarin – found themselves assimilated to this opprobrious stereotype…. The loyalty of a parvenu or lowly born favourite was thought to be doubly assured.  Not only were they inherently more grateful for their promotions, but they also knew that if they ever forfeited their monarch’s favour, there was usually a posse of hostile court grandees ready and waiting for the moment to bring them down.

That is a useful picture of King Donald and what passes for his Cabinet.  And none of them would ever have heard of Wolsey or Mazarin.

And while we are on their obvious intellectual limitations, how many of those criticizing President Zelensky speak a second language as well as he speaks English?