Thread:Lord Maxen Montclair/@comment-6335668-20131201054200/@comment-1457165-20131201054927

I would agree to something being included stating that they did not hold such a post canonically but are recognized by the council as having held such a post.

I had argued the inverse previously, stating that I would have no objection to stating that the Archbishop's in the council's line be labled as "fanon" rather than "claimant". My issue is that "claimant" bears implications which are not included in our RP.