I'm just saying that forbidding their names serves no end and gains nothing and it goes against quintus aemilius sense of honour to deprive a people of their right to call themselves what they want.
Which is why I am against.
As the House has nothing to gain by this measurement, I can disagree as much as I want ;-)

Same thing for the protectorate. As we do not control the regio's we cannot govern them and the House cannot make any money.
besides that, Romans were very reluctant to take over territories as provinces, let alone stand as 'protectorates'.
Which is why my opinion is: either we conquer them or we don't. Protectorates are useless. A client-king ruler type IV is as far as I go.


Although I agree a house should stick together in conflicts etc, a difference in opinions should certainly be allowed.
A house is a collection of fairly likeminded people, it's not attack of the clones with 2-3 peepz pulling the strings.


Should my disagreeing on your latest proposals means i transgress house rules, i'll be glad to leave the house.
I didn't sign up to be under the thumb of a privileged few ;-)