Cascading errors at Buyers' "Royal Ark"

There a little devil on my left shoulder, and it happens that this
little devil, sometimes, needs to be entertained. Therefore, I just
took a look at Mr. Buyers' "Royal Ark" and this is what I found :

1) 1574 - 1595 H.M. Sultan Murad Khan III, 12th Sovereign of the House
of Osman, Sultan of Sultans, Khan of Khans, etc, etc... m. (fifthly)
1575, a daughter of Mircea III Shoban, Lord of Eflak.

a) a daughter ? Her name is... ? her name is well-known, except to
those who do not know how & where to make researches.

b) Mircea III ? Mircea is a Roumanian name. But Mircea III never had a
daughter who married Murad III. In fact, the Bassaraba princess who
married Murad III was not a daughter of Mircea III, but of another
Mircea. The numbers are totally wrong.

c) what is that "Shoban" ? ... Such a word does not exist in the
"Eflakian" language ! In fact, what poor Mr. Buyers means is Mircea
Ciobanul - the Shepherd - , but Mircea Ciobanul was not the III-rd
Mircea on the Walachian throne. Wrong again.

d) what is that "Lord of Eflak" ? Where is this country ?... In fact,
what poor Mr. Buyers does not know (again) is that fact that Eflak was
the Turkish name of Walachia (full name : Kara Eflak). Ergo, I'll ask
the well-informed and "credible" Mr Buyers to give me the Roumanian
name of the "daughter" and the Greek version of her name, the one she
used when she became Murad's wife. I underline that her name is
well-known, except to those who do not know how & where to make
researches.

e) since when the monarchs of Wallachia were "Lords" ? What's that
"Lord of Wallachia" ?

f) if Mr. Buyers will pretend knowing that Eflak is the same with
Wallachia, I'd ask him why didn't he make this rectification earlier ?
I saw that Mr. Buyers uses someplace else "[Mircea the Great,] Prince
it's either Wallachia, or Eflak ; but Mr. Buyers does not seem to be
aware. At all. Again.

g) since when the monarchs of Wallachia were "Princes" ?

***

2) 1389 - 1403 Sultan Bayezid Khan I Ghazi Yildirim.... m. (tenthly),
at Krushevatch Jami, 1390, Princess Despina Maria Olivera Khanum (b.
1372), daughter of Lazar I Grebelyanovich, King of Serbia, by his wife,
Queen Militza, n=E9e Bulco...

pierre_aronax...

[=2E..]

a) She was not "princess Despina" because Despina already means
princess, daugther of a Despot. Mr. Buyers talks abouts titles whose
content and sense he does not even know.

pierre_aronax...

In 14th century Byzantium at least, "despoina" does not mean a
"princess, daughter of a despot". Technically, a despoina is not even

Radu Bogdan...

In the 14th century Byzantium. We are talking about Serbia. Not every
Orthodox monarchy embraced the institutions of Byzantium, not every
Orthodox monarchy gave the same understanding and attributions to the
institutions and titles inspired by those of Byzantium.

pierre_aronax...

I am not familiar with Serbian sources: is there any evidence that
daughters of despots were titled "despoina" in them?
Is it correct to say that "Orthodox monarchies" adopted "titles
inspired by those of Byzantium"? Would it not be more correct to say
that, during some decades of the 14th century, the Serbian ruler
claimed to be himself the Byzantine emperor (styling himself "emperor
of the Serbs and the Romans") and for that reason attributed Byzantine
titles to his followers? After all, only an Emperor can make a despot,
and in theory there is only one emperor. In that context, there is not
much room for a Serbian "Orthodox but not Byzantine" understanding of
Byzantine titles at that time, or at least it needs to be documented.
In the case of Lazar, a fact is, IMHO, against that interpretation: as
I said, I am not familiar with Serbian sources but, according to
Lazar's notice in the "Prosopographisches Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit",
he is NEVER titled "despot" in Serbian sources, only "knez",
"samdrzac", "samodrzavni gospodin" and, one time, "veliki knez". So, in
his case at least, "despot" seems to have been a purely Greek title.
For what is of 15th century Serbian despots, who were Lazaro's
descendants, they were created such by the Byzantine emperor, so there
was not (or no more) at that time an independent Serbian tradition for
that title (at least not before the fall of the Empire).

Question : how many times does one have to mention a source when
posting a simple message, concerning elementary historical information
? If someone says that Louis XIV is born at ..... on the ..... 16
.=2E..., is it necessary to mention the source of this basic historical
information ?

I can wonder how many times did Mr. "Aronax" mention his sources. Given
the quantity of his messages, this was an exceptional case.

the wife of a despot (although the word can of course have been used in
that sense for commodity, particularly by foreigners not aware of
Byzantine etiquette): the wife of a despot is a basilissa, when the
despoina is the wife, the bride or the mother of an emperor (basileus).
That is how the word are used in the treaty "On the offices" attributed
to the pseudo-Kodinos (see for example, in the section on the imperial
coronation, the passage which describes the emperors seating on thrones
with their wives the despoinai, and then the despots with the
basilissai). The Byzantine writers' practice seems coherent with this
pattern: Sphrantz=E8s for example, when speaking of the "despoina",
always refers to the wife, bride or mother of the emperor (for example
V, 2: Anna of Russia, John VIII's wife: "h=E8 despoina kyra Anna h=E8 apo
t=E8s Rh=F4ssias"; VI, 1: Sophia of Montferrat, bride of the same
sovereign: "h=E8 despoina kyra Sophia h=E8 tou Montes Pherantes markesiou
thygat=E8r"; XIII, 4: H=E9l=E9n=E8 Dragash, mother of the same: "h=E8 d=E9
hagia despoina". Conversely see XX, 8, where, as in other passages,
despot Constantin's wife is called "h=E8 basilissa kyra Th=E9=F4dora"). I
am ready to be corrected, but I don't see any example where a lady
would have been titled "despoina" for being the daughter of a despot.
Obviously, if Maria, daughter of despot Lazar, bore that title, it was
not for her father but rather for her husband, sultan Bayezid. That is
not surprising at all: the sultan being considered as some kind of
emperor, their wives were known in Byzantium as "empress of the Turks"
("despoina t=F4n Tourk=F4n").

Concerning the expression "princess despina", one must note that Maria
is named in Latin source "domina despoina": an exact translation would
be "lady despoina", however "princess despoina" can be a rougher but
not absolutely meaningless one. I plead guilty on this one Your Honour:
I have not the exact reference at hand.

Caveat: all this is given as it stands, concerns a very minor point
related to my personal amateurish interests and is not developed here
to dismiss or disqualify anybody's expertise on any kind of subject.

Pierre Aronax

b) Lazar I Grebelyanovich (sic) [Lazar Hrebeljanovic, in fact] was not
King of Serbia, he asumed only the title of Prince ; at the time, "King
of Serbia" was the title of the Bosnian King, Stefan Trvrtko.

c) Lazar's wife was not "Queen Militza", but Militza ; he did not marry
a queen because she was not a queen. This error is repeated all over
the site ("empress X", "queen Y", etc.). She became a "queen" after her
marriage, but in fact, Militza never became a queen as she was the wife
of a sovereign Prince. (Duh.)

***

3) Kantakouz=E8nos is spelled here Cantacuzene, there Cantacuzenu (sic)
- Buyers probably means Cantacuzenus, but one can wonder why doesn't he
stick to the original Greek version of the name...

***

4) 1360 - 1389 Birinci Sultan Murad Khan I Khudavandigar Ghazi ... m.
(fourthly) 1370, Princess Marya Tamara Khanum, daughter of Ivan
Alezander II Shishman, King of Bulgaria, by his wife, Braide, daughter
of Ivanko, King of Bassarabia.

a) Oh, Bassarabia ? What's that Bassarabia, Buyers ? Where is the
"kingdom of Bassarabia" on Europe's map in the 14th century ? or is it
in Asia ? or in Africa ?

What poor Mr. Buyers does not know is that "Bassarabia" is Walachia,
where the Bassaraba dynasty ruled ; this name was given to Walachia by
the Serbian chronicles, meaning "Land of the Bassaraba". Another proof
that Buyers has no idea what he's talking about, not to mention that he
is totally incapable of analysing the "sources" he uses. Historiography
must be too painful for him.

b) Ivan Alezander II Shishman, King of Bulgaria ??? What "Bulgaria" ?
Which "Bulgaria" ?

c) who is Ivan Alezander II Shishman ?? There is only one Ivan
Aleksandar in the history of Bulgaria, regnavit 1331-1371 ; there are
several Ivan, but that's another story, given the special meaning of
"Ivan".

d) "Braide" ? what kind of name is that ? There is no daughter of no
Ivanko (king of no Bassarabia) who married any Ivan Aleksandar II. The
wife of Ivan Aleksandar was Theodora, but she wasn't the daughter of
any "Ivanko, king of Bassarabia". She was the daughter of someone else,
a ruler of "Bassarabia" (Wallachia), whose is well-known, except to
ignorants like Mr. Buyers who do not know how & where to make
researches.
Iin the Serbian chronicle, "Ivanko" appears to be the name of the
Wallachians ruler, but there is again another confusion between the
royal particle of the monarch and his name.

Spectacular display of errors, contemptible errors - all this when Mr.
Buyers pretends to be able to give lessons to others concerning
precision, classification and how one should use sources. Ha.

susuhanan...

I see the lunatic is obviously smarting. Over what, I wonder?

Rattle on old boy, I am sure your credibility improves with every
little shake.