Afterthought: the fool can be wise

It's funny how, sometimes the fool is an archetype in literature that's always there to be wise. Yet what they are called is contradictory to what they really are. Odd enough, if the historic representation of the fiction's I've watched, the fool's occupation in royalty were mostly to jest around the court. They were clowns.

If they're were to be wise, shouldn't they be adviser to royalty?

Or mayhaps, the fictional representation were a bit rude and rather harsh to these wise men. Though, the irony they possess can sometimes be seen as romantic. Even they do nothing else but fool around the court and make it happy even for the saddest moment of prince and princess, I'd assume these fools are the ones who can somehow understand the royalty beyond their coats and crowns.

If for a fact they can play and act as mad man, then perhaps in a sense they can see differently. And odd enough, if by chance them seeing things differently is what make them see clearer, then mayhaps it would be unwise to call them fools at all. But then again, if they weren't fools and never be called as one, would they still fool around and play with the royalties?

Or would they be no more fools but madmen guiding men to foolishness?

It would be better if the fools are rather madmen guiding men to righteousness, right?

I guess, I should've paid more attention to world history when I was still studying and unlike right now, I'm making a fool out of myself assuming contradiction, ironies and romanticizing them.

Mayhaps I'm a fools as well. But I wonder if I'm cut out to be a fool or just someone who's foolish.