Oh course I was just trying to make the point that in lore you read about the hero of kvatch and etc. why couldn't they just say the last dragonborn took the mantle of high king and his descendants have ruled since etc etc.
"His" descendants? You've simply illustrated the point about extreme awkwardness right there. It could easily be "her" descendants. There's no precedent for putting the central character of the games into that context because of it.
With the exception of one book, there isn't a single lore document within the games or published outside of it by Bethesda that doesn't refer to a historically noteworthy figure by their name and gender and, often, by their race. The one exception is
The Oblivion Crisis introduced into the Elder Scrolls Universe in ES V which only does so for the Hero of Kvatch/Saviour of Bruma in that exact role. It is, in fact a very awkward read because of the limitations imposed by introducing the player character into a lore text and it's arguably the most awkward non-immersive read in the games
That being said, it has little impact because in the lore documents, the player character disappears into obscurity afterwards. That's not something one can do with the High King of Skyrim or any other similarly historically noteworthy figure in the game without it having a negative effect on immersion which is probably why references to the player character in the lore texts of the games are otherwise non-existent. I doubt they're going to break precedent here, especially when it would require them to depart from the additional precedent of not adopting one conflicting result over another that's based on player choice as canon.
