> This is simply a related hypothesis to the selection of politicians back then based on the postulate that it was easier to be educated to a useful degree relative to the general population.

Even if it was (and I see no reason to believe that it was or wasn't), it doesn't necessarily follow that politicians then would have availed themselves of it more than they do now.

> Anyways I find this argument quite pointless.

My apologies. I thought that you made those claims because you found them interesting, which surely includes whether or not they're true.