.  Note that this turns the most recent metadynasty into one of Kevan’s, and the Three Nomics metadynasty into one of Rodlen’s.

Idk, as Bucky stated this would ripple back and change some of the past ones

I don’t see why the rules need to define dynasty naming at all, and a paragraph there looks like it would potentially confuse new players. (We repealed the definition of a metadynasty a while ago, for instance.) Besides, potentially broken in that, say, with that definition, all three of my dynasties would be “the third dynasty of ais523”, because I’ve been the first Emperor in a dynasty three times now, and nothing in the rules says it’s measured at the time of the dynasty.

ais523, the potential brokenness is also present in the current rule.

However:  due to awkward wordy-ness. Why create the concept of a progenitor? why not just state that a dynasty is named for it’s first RNG?

Better yet, keep the current wording and add a clause along the lines of “Once a dynasty has begun, its name does not change, regardless of any changes to the naming scheme for dynasties, or to the identity of the RNG.

Why not just say that a dynasty is customarily named for its first RNG (but there have been exceptions)?

As spikebrennan says.  Or go further and don’t mention it at all in the Ruleset.

I kind of like it in the Ruleset, just for references. But all are right, it’s a bit unclear atm