I know this is an extremely controversial... yet so brave idea:
Dynastic game overs are way overrated.
The fun derived from not getting to play anymore is not worth the limitations it keeps putting on the game. The risks of making the game too easy with adoptions is waaay overrated. So is having to play as your dynastic heir rather than just switching dynasties on death.
The possibilities without it are huge! Playable theocracies, non-matrilenial playable women, eunuchs and dead ends, holy orders, and lastly us gays.
People cry for realism but only when it suits the male-centric view. If it involves women then "it ruins the core of the game". Eleanor of Aquitaine didnt "lose" cuz her house name died, so i think that continuing as another member of the dynasty (the current model) and "dynastic switch" when playing female should be a choice
As a gay man, I also support gay marr-iage reformation (i get a "cant post cuz spam when i write the word without separation). People complaining about the game historically accurate apparently missed the "Player can make incestuous-nudist-sacred lies-cannibal the tennets of the main religion of the whole world" thing)
If they care so much about storytelling, then let people be able to tell what they want in their games, giving more options doesn't remove yours (specially if they're stuff only the player can do)