Agreed on the Royal Ballet in that its patronage was different from the other houses.
So aside from that, what exactly are we still arguing about, i.e. which of the three assertions I made towards the end of my last post do you disagree with.
And no, not all evolution required patronage, but the "origins" did, is my point, it takes tremendous effort and imagination to invent a sophisticated dance form and codify words to describe the basic elements within the dance form (fouette', port de bras, grand jete', five positions, and so on). Influence/power also helps to make a particular form canon. Most of the earliest formal definitions I would presume came out Louis XIV's Academie Royale de Danse. It takes less effort to choreograph a new cohesive work once the basic elements have been codified and the musical score is available. It takes even less effort to imitate and re-interpret Swan Lake or Giselle. And it takes miniscule effort to do the Macarena. And so we have scores of kids wanting to become Miley Cyrus, fewer kids wanting to become the next Odette-Odile, even fewer kids wanting to become the next Petipa, and so on. Does our free-market economy or democratic government incentivize anyone who would even think to go down the road less traveled in the same way influential patrons did in the past, absolutely not. Free-market dictates that in the digital age the best and brightest, even those with tremendous artistic talent, go into technology, finance, etc., the former of which caters to the lowest common denominator (billions with smartphones, Facebook/Twitter/..., also contributing to increasingly sedentary unhealthy lifestyles) and the latter of which participates in "efficiently allocating capital to the most productive destinations" (i.e. mostly tech these days).
I saw this from personal experience when I graduated in 2009 from a "prestigious" college and a large majority of graduates irrespective of their majors or interests got shepherded into doing the same things after graduation under economic considerations. It's just a joke, really.
As for bringing up "household names" for the first time, I thought I was already clear when I had put "masterpiece" in quotes as meaning something that is not only widely known by the general public but also widely critically accepted as having high artistic merit, as opposed to being related to personal taste.
I am not arguing that the origins of ballet did not stem from court patronage. The evolution of ballet in the 19th and 20th centuries did not require always require court patronage. No one is arguing that classical arts are not less popular now than they were in the past. The past, as far as the height of popularity of ballet (and other dance) in North America was the '70's, which was well into the latter half of the 20th century. And the Royal Ballet existed as Sadler's Wells, a private company, for the first 25 years of its existence until it was granted the name "Royal Ballet" by Royal Charter. Queen Elizabeth is the company's patron, but not remotely in the sense that the Medicis or Catherine the Great were patrons.
You are arguing "household names" as a criteria for the first time in your last post. It's rather difficult to follow an ever-moving argument.