Why would the bankruptcy of her husband affect her sister? Or was it their father being bankrupted?

I think he roped in both the husband and the father. That's why lady gus' marriage prospects are at stake

Yep, double checked and he said "count steward and baron gus", so both.

So maybe I'd cut off funding to the husband/count but not to baron/father

I think they should forgive. Yeah it’s a lot to forgive, but considering where she’s coming from. She makes a good point. There are no other opportunities, and imagine her sister, imagine our own sister. We can be judgmental from our point of view because we live in places that give women opportunities like jobs and education, but imagine places like Iran or Afghanistan. Places were women or second class citizens, I mean, it’s not as bad as Afghanistan or Iran, but imagine the things you have to do in order to escape that kind of oppression? And if you work with the system, imagine the things you have to do to ensure that you are happy while being forced to be dependent on your husband.

That's a really good point, but it also doesn't sit well with me that she can literally hide the body of mildred's former husband, pay someone to steal the identity of said former husband, orchestrate a potential feud between the baron and her, and then inadvertently place her DAUGHTERS' lives in danger...only to let her, what, get away nearly scot-free? That's like, so many transgressions one after another. I sympathize with her in considering the future of her sister, but did the countess/older sister consider the impact of her schemes to the future of mildred's children too?

I mean, the eldest of mildred's children is applying to be a princess. Did you think rumors of the future princess's mother's "affair" after her husband returned bandaged up, won't affect her chances of winning or her future political influence? Did she even think about how Ashley could be so mentally scarred by the news that her "wounded father" that she finally reunited with, ended up being an imposter? That her father was dead this whole time after all?? How that traumatizing experience can affect her future relationships with men? Or how rumors circulating among nobility can affect the way future suitors will see the three children as their prospective wives?

I mean, yeah, sure, the younger sister's innocent. She's just collateral damage from the baron's revenge to the countess. But so are Mildred's children. They will be the collateral damage from this scheme that the countess literally orchestrated.

Totally respect your decision and your points, but I personally think it's too unjust, too unfair to turn the other cheek when not only were Mildred and the Baron's relationship targeted, but also her children's futures. Harming your loved ones too? Now THAT I don't think I can ever forgive.

Finally, in consideration of the younger sister's prospects of marriage, I'd consider re-funding the father to ensure the sister's marriage. Once she's married, though, it's all fair game. Not to the innocent one, but to the older sister.

I just genuinely think it's so unfair that she gets to cry wolf for her unmarried younger sister, when she didn't care about trampling over the innocent lives of mildred's family and, similarly, unwedded children. If we're talking about the system, then the countess is likewise perpetrating this system.
.
Sorry if my words sound harsh, but I got worked up. Not arguing with you as a person, just with the ideas shared. I think you're a Saint to choose to forgive, and that's amazing, but after being a Saint myself for so long and experiencing people stepping on me while I turn the other cheek, I've had enough.

I understand your passion and concern for justice, but I'd like to offer a counterargument:
While it's true that the countess's actions had consequences for Mildred's family and unwedded children, it's essential to consider the context and motivations behind her actions. The countess was desperate to secure her younger sister's future in a society where marriage was often the only means of survival for women.
Refunding the father to ensure the sister's marriage might seem like a pragmatic solution, but I see it that it would only perpetuate the same system that oppresses women. By acknowledging the countess's actions as a desperate attempt to navigate this system, we can begin to dismantle the root causes of oppression rather than just treating its symptoms.
It's also important to recognize that the countess's actions, although flawed, were motivated by a desire to protect her sister. This doesn't excuse her behavior, but it does highlight the complexities of her situation. Rather than condemning her entirely, we should strive to understand the nuances of her experiences and the societal pressures that shaped her decisions.
Regarding your personal experiences and feelings, I acknowledge your frustration and empathy and to have people take accountability for their actions. However, I'd like to gently suggest that forgiveness and compassion aren't about being a "Saint" or turning the other cheek; they're about recognizing the humanity in others and acknowledging that we all make mistakes. By choosing to forgive and understand, we can create a space for growth.

No, you're right. The countess's actions ARE inexcusable. I initially wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt, but after reading your comments and the sudden change in your tone, words of choice, sentence construction, and the implications of that...I changed my mind. I stand by what I said.

The "pragmatic solution" I proposed was also done out of consideration to to the younger sister, to remove the empathy with which I considered in proposing that solution is unfair. And that doesn't perpetuate the current system either.

Pray tell, how does forgiveness change the system? How does empathizing with the blue-haired sister change the system? Have you actually proposed any ways to change this so-called system?

And also, don't ever confuse "understanding" with "forgiving". Just because we understand them doesn't mean what they did is okay. Just because their circumstances are dire doesn't mean it's okay for them to hurt others. Just because they're scared doesn't mean they can step on other people just to ensure their survival.

Finally, it's throughly unfair to claim high moral ground because you "advocate for forgiveness", but just as forgiveness is a virtue, so is justice.

Sorry, I know I said finally, but I have another reply.

"They're about recognizing the humanity in others ans acknowledging that we all make mistakes"

That's what you typed out. Or well, the generated response.

But it's not a mistake. It's really not. A mistake is forgetting someone's birthday, or to say the wrong words in an argument. But this? The things that blue-haired girl did? That's no mistake. That's a pre-meditated decision. A plot. A scheme. A drawn-out plan to sabotage a family. To harm innocent children, to claim an unwilling man, to ruin a loving relationship, to nearly destroy the future of not one but THREE young ladies. All carefully, spcificically, and meticulously planned out.

That was not a mistake.