Maybe I can provide some context.
This incident arose from In-Character reasons; Dread is very old, and also the founder of the realm, and Autrey wants him to live out his last years with dignity and respect. She sees him as a mentor. This has been an ongoing thing ever since Autrey took power. Autrey chose Artimus because Dread is a longtime friend and mentor to him as well, and she hoped Artimus would feel the same way about respecting an elder.
If you want to know who is technically at fault, I don't know. I DO know that I personally violated, at the very least, the spirit of the law by re-appointing Dread, because my intent behind appointing Artimus was ultimately to get Dread back in the Ducal Seat, and I forgot there was a law against it. I'm ready to take full responsibility for that; ignorance of the law is no excuse.
However, it is a little alarming to me that making a theoretical interpretation of a Ruler's language would have any bearing on any trial, either presently or in the future:
"your options become suggestions to them, and your suggestion become orders to them."
This is an illogical theory, at least in this case: if a Ruler gives a Subject two options without expressing an opinion on either option, how is the Subject supposed to know which option the Ruler wants him to pick? For all Artimus could have known, I might have wanted him NOT to give the power back; at no point did I tell him that I would prefer him to step down.
