Man, ugh, I hate to see you in another thread spreading misinformation. Normally, I'd never re-engage in the same argument across two threads, but you were already corrected in a previous discussion. Lothric's soul description does not "explicitly" say he "never" became a Lord of Cinder. It says:

The two princes rejected their duty to become Lords of Cinder, and settled down far, far away to watch the fire fade from a distance.

You know who else "rejected their duty to become Lords of Cinder"? All of the other Lords of Cinder in the game (except Ludleth of course)!

Absolutely NO ONE could contest that in the present age, Lothric has obviously, definitely, and clearly allowed the fire to fade. That's the setting of the game after all.

However, it's just as obviously possible that this is all the description could be referring to: that, in the present age, the princes rejected becoming Lord. Just because they rejected becoming lord in the present age doesn't mean they've never been lord before. The very same could be said of each of the other Lords of Cinder - after the bell rang, they awoke from their graves and rejected becoming lords once again. You think that the absence of the word "again" makes it "explicit?" It doesn't. That's not what "explicit" means. The word you're looking for is "implicit." Their soul description IMPLIES that they've "never" been Lord of Cinder. It's a small thing, but it's the difference between fact and opinion.

Now, understand, I acknowledge that this interpretation is PERFECTLY VALID. I don't even disagree with it! But it's not the only valid interpretation. Just stop saying that the soul description makes it explicit when it totally doesn't. It's almost as if you don't know what the word "explicit" actually means. You're not adding anything to the discussion. In fact, you're only attempting to shut it down by presenting your interpretation as if it were demonstrative proof.