Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:
The Lord Commander is the formal Title of the Head of the High Lords, and Lord Guilliman is the (really stupid, and not only stupid idea from that series, thanks Beast Arises) semi-formal alternate title of the Lord Commander.

Yes because a powerful influential political figures name becoming a title is a silly thing with no precident whatsoever! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesar_(title) nope! no precident!

BrianDavion wrote:

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:
The Lord Commander is the formal Title of the Head of the High Lords, and Lord Guilliman is the (really stupid, and not only stupid idea from that series, thanks Beast Arises) semi-formal alternate title of the Lord Commander.

Yes because a powerful influential political figures name becoming a title is a silly thing with no precident whatsoever! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesar_(title) nope! no precident!

It just being Guilliman would be fine, the whole LORD part just makes it too much. It doesn't elicit the same response as taking Caesar as the title. Plus taking on the Title of Caesar was a full name change, you became Caesar, a part of the Dynasty. Lord Guilliman was literally just a title for a title.

If they became for example, Maximus Guilliman or Koorland Guilliman, it would be different.