So, Can Samuel Prakash Actually Dissolve The Patrimony Of The Primate?

Over the past week, I've mused on whether anyone in the TAC ever actually dissolved the Patrimony, although this reminds me of the exchange in Henry IV, Part I:

GLENDOWER
I can call spirits from the vasty deep.

HOTSPUR
Why, so can I, or so can any man,
But will they come when you do call for them?

A visitor points out that as far as he knows, Abp Falk's source for much of his deposition was David Virtue, who tended to "filter" things a bit. "What Prakash actually said was 'I will not have the Patrimony in my Administration.'"

My visitor says,

In the end, Prakash was NOT elected Primate. So he cannot HAVE a "Patrimony of the Primate." He was only made "acting" Primate. This was to allow Marsh & Gill to keep a tight rein on him. I think the TAC website still lists him as "acting" -- last I looked.

. . . . Hepworth did nothing to let go of his "personal property" (as the TAC College of Bishops had already recognized it to be).

The accounts I've seen of Prakash's succession say that he was made "acting" Primate solely because he was the most senior bishop. I sort of think that if he could dissolve a Patrimony, he could also create one, which would not be what Marsh and Gill had in mind at all. I suspect the policy of the TAC College of Bishops has been to say nothing, which in effect allows Hepworth's Patrimony to continue. But even if it were otherwise, as I've said before, the TAC's only recourse would be to expel him again (and maybe denounce him to David Virtue as well).

But let's keep this in perspective. Within the TAC, perhaps two dozen people take any of this seriously -- but none is sending Marsh or Gill any money. Outside the TAC, this is mainly mild amusement. Nobody's sending Marsh or Gill money from anywhere else, either.

Mr Smuts is so far silent.