People are not able to derive the essence from the form.

In other words Basil II the "Bulgar-slayer" is the form, but Basil II the "Slav-slayer" is the essence.

Well, I think that Samuel was originally from Sofia (Sredets) and later fled to "Kutmičevica" and the Medieval Armenian historians call him "Samuel the Armenian", because (at least) his mother Ripsimia was Armenian, his wife Kosara was Armenian, he had another Hungarian wife which he divorced and finally he married "the beautiful Helena" from Larissa (Vlahinka or Grkinka in origin) as Skylitzes says.


The actual name of the dynasty is not known. “Cometopuli” is merely the nickname which is used by Byzantine historians to address rulers from the dynasty as its founder, boyar Nikola, was a comes (governor, cognate to "count"; Byzantine Greek Κóμης, from the Latin; Bulgarian Комита Komita) probably of the region of Sredetz (the present-day capital of Bulgaria, Sofia). According to some sources the dynasty was of Armenian origin.[4][5] In 969 AD and following the Russo-Byzantine conquest of Eastern Bulgaria, count Nikola assumed control of the Bulgarian lands west of the rivers Iskar and Struma.

So if we apply your "essence but not form" theory we all end up like Vonko the Serbo-Albanito-Bulgaro-Vlach … and we'll miss the most important fact of ethnicity, conscient choise of ethnic identity = if asked, Samuilče would have declared himself a Bulgarian and would have called his people Bulgarians.