The all-powerful early modern royal favorite, towering over other royal advisors and courtiers, became an infamous part of many government machineries. Yet it was an exposed and difficult position, as Alistair Malcolm makes clear in his analysis of Luis de Haro as the valido—or favorite—of Philip IV of Spain. Luis de Haro is by no means the most well-known valido; his uncle the Count-Duke Olivares and his predecessor before him, Lerma, are far more famous. As Malcolm makes clear, Haro tried carefully to be perceived as different from his swaggering, arrogant predecessors.

Malcolm places the valido within a broader early modern intellectual framework, where the concept of a valido was fundamentally problematic to members of the Spanish elite—and, indeed, to many European elites. Power rested with the monarch, who should wield power advised by traditional grandees. A favorite, who might even come from a somewhat lesser background than the traditional advisors, was seen as usurping royal power. In reality, favorites were in evidence all over Europe as an increasingly complex government made hands-on personal rule an exhausting business, as demonstrated by Philip II. His grandson Philip IV, lazier and more elusive than his grandfather, did declare on several occasions that he would rule without a valido, but tended to give up that endeavor after some time.

The fact that Olivares after many years as valido crashed so spectacularly meant that Luis de Haro only gradually moved into that role and was careful not to be seen as too much of a new Olivares. Malcolm stresses how Haro was much less abrasive than Olivares and was seen instead as smooth and cautious. This caution also normally led Haro to avoid clearly stating his policies or ever drawing up a program as Olivares had done. Apart from generally favoring the traditional Austrian alliance and working to reconquer Portugal, Haro's policies shifted according to circumstance. His political actions—such as working for war or peace—were largely interwoven with his constant efforts to shore up his position with Philip IV.

Haro's elusive nature means he has not come to the fore in later historiography, and Malcolm's study rectifies this situation. However, it also means that Haro comes across as somewhat impersonal, even in such a carefully researched and detailed analysis as this. What Malcolm does to fill in the gaps is to combine an impressive grasp of mid-seventeenth-century Spanish aristocracy, its intermarriages, feuds, and pretentions of royal ancestry with an equally impressive depiction of the ideas shaping this aristocracy. In contrast to what is often believed, the resulting image is of a world of Spanish elites functioning reasonably well, and to a high degree different elite groups working together, though marriage between groups may have been a bridge too far for many. Malcolm also highlights integration through marriages between elites in different parts of the Spanish Habsburg realms. In this complex web Haro maneuvered skillfully: “His regime therefore amounted partly to a power-sharing arrangement, and partly to a patronage balancing-act in which a variety of different players were included, whilst others—not necessarily all of them his enemies—would be left out in the cold” (149).

At the same time Malcolm paints a picture of an aristocracy that had deep faith in a hierarchical society and that believed divine providence would, in the end, always save the House of Austria. In this view of society the existence of a valido was an aberration, and Malcolm gives many examples of critics of valido rule and how both Philip IV and Haro avoided being too open with the dominant status the latter eventually reached. Haro was also plagued by constant insecurity; he was never as supremely the valido as Lerma or Olivares but, instead, always had to accommodate other people to a certain degree.

The fact that Luis de Haro was not quite the archetypal favorite in the same way as Lerma, Olivares, Buckingham, or Richelieu makes Malcolm's study even more valuable. A different kind of favorite, like Haro, shows the many nuances and forms early modern government could take and adds to our understanding of a fascinating and complex phenomenon.