on history, either because he was unwilling to play a prominent role or because he might have been illegitimate, which would have hampered him. Constantine Arianiti, genealogically unconnected to Andreas, also claimed the title of Despot of the Morea a few months after Andreas's death. One of Andreas's successors as claimant to the position of Despot of the Morea raised problems of protocol when he in 1518 invited Pope Leo X to become the godparent of his son Giovanni Martino Leonardo and also invited ten cardinals to the baptism. Theodore Paleologus, who lived in Cornwall in the 17th century and claimed descent from Thomas Palaiologos through an otherwise unattested son called John, might be a descendant of Andreas instead, but his lineage is uncertain. Theodore's last recorded descendant was Godscall Paleologue, who disappeared from historical records in the late 17th century. In the late 16th century, a theologian by the name Jacob Palaeologus, originally from Chios, became a Dominican friar in Rome. Jacob travelled across Europe, boasting of his descent and claiming to be a grandson of Andreas Palaiologos, through a supposed son called Theodore. Jacob's increasingly heterodox views on Christianity eventually brought him into conflict with the Roman church; he was burnt as a heretic in 1585. Jacob had at least three children, the daughter Despina, the son Theodore, and at least another child whose name is unknown, though little is known of most of them. Jacob's son Theodore lived in Prague in 1603 and referred to himself as a genuine member of the old imperial family and a "Prince of Lacedaemonia", though the authorities in Prague convicted him as a forger. Legacy and analysis Later historians have overwhelmingly seen Andreas in a negative light. Scottish historian George Finlay wrote in 1877 of the fate of Andreas that it "hardly merits the attention of history, were it not that mankind has a morbid curiosity concerning the fortunes of the most worthless princes". According to Jonathan Harris, who in 1995 offered a more redeeming view of Andreas, he is typically characterized as "an immoral and extravagant playboy who squandered his generous papal pension on loose living and eventually died in poverty". Contrary to his typical portrayal, which he considered "by no means entirely fair", Harris believed that it would be wrong to dismiss Andreas as a footnote in history. Andreas's reputation might have been harmed by the actions of his