#ll.ask

Hi! Thank you so much for your kind words! We hope you join us!

There are a few ways a title could legally fall to be held by a woman as opposed to needing to be held by a man. The title being created to be inherited by ‘heirs general’ is one of them, as you said. This is pretty much the standard for really, really old English Baronies and Scottish peerages, where sons were still considered before daughters for inheritance of a title, but the daughters could inherit the title before it would go to more distant relatives.

Another way is by special writ, or essentially the crown saying ‘Due to special circumstances, this title will pass to this female’, essentially a ‘one time exception’ for something that might otherwise leave the immediate family and cause problems. This could take a royal decree and an act of Parliament to actually change things. (The biggest, most famous case of this is the Duke of Marlborough, which I won’t go into here.)

If her father had been someone Very Important but who died before he could be properly recognized, it’s possible that her mother was made a Peeress in honor of him instead, but the title would stay the mother’s until she died, and would only pass to the daughter is specifically allowed in the creation of the title—plausible if it was a circumstance where he obviously only had a daughter when the title was created. (If the daughter had a brother, even a younger one, the title would go to them first.)

Again, it’s most common among really old English baronies and Scottish titles. I would suggest for our case the Peeress not being above a Countess, whether Scottish or English. The title being inheritable by ‘heir general’ is the sort of simplest option with the fewest headaches involved, but you could also always just hand wave and say “Titles are complicated, buried back in history is this weird quirk that collided with specific family circumstances so that this woman is now a Peeress.” I will say it would be unusual for her becoming a peeress in her own right to be unexpected for her, as families would usually well keep track of where the titles were going.

Hi Nonnie! No, actually it's quite the opposite! Our apologies if we weren't clear in our previous post. We have several LGBTQ+ characters currently in play, and would welcome a muse who was openly lgbtq+ if that is the muse you hope to bring. However, because of our historical period, we only ask that our players be aware of the period attitudes and restrictions towards LGBTQ+ culture and community. This was a period of time where holding hands in public and generally any displays of affection among people of any gender (while unmarried) were not socially acceptable.  Even married people being affectionate in public was a bit frowned upon in polite society, so they were relegated to secretive missives, longing glances, and covert assignations. These sorts of tensions are what we hope add to our muses' journeys of character development.