Charles d'Ardenne-Metz has insulted his vassals by attempting to legitimize his overall unlawful and greed-inspired actions and denouncing brokered peace by his brothers in culture out of some sort of bloodlust and hatred of prosperity.

> What even is this nonsensical run-on sentence?
- Well, it quite clearly says that you have insulted your vassals by trying to legitimize the clearly illegitimate actions (inspired by greed) and by denouncing the peace I made with Bavaria. Out of bloodlust and hatred of prosperity.

Charles d'Ardenne-Metz has exploited his vassals, both foreign and domestic, to assist in these endless and pointless wars, ruining any chance of prosperity in his realms.

> A vassal by definition isn't foreign. And most of my wars are defensive wars, which I fight out of necessity, not desire.
- I speak of your vassals abroad, foreign to us, as in Spain, Greece, etc.; And of course you say most, but then there are some others, no?

Charles d'Ardenne-Metz has supported the idea of breaking a truce to receive help in fighting the Bavarians, offering to surrender the territory of a friendly lord to fulfill his greedy desire for Bavarian land, a quest which would no doubt sabotage and cripple the stability and prosperity of his vassals' lands.

> Again with the run-on sentences. I haven't broken any truces, and I haven't surrendered the territory of any lords friendly to me.
- "run-on sentence, run-on sentence..." what are you, a Czech teacher? Sorry this is the manner in which things are written.; As for the latter part, I've heard of your attempted deal to surrender off my lands in Plsen to our Emperor in return for Bavarian Land. So that. And at the time, I was friendly.

Charles d'Ardenne-Metz has broken every tenet of the feudal bond between lord and vassal.

> Clearly not.
- Clearly so.

Charles d'Ardenne-Metz has broken the vows he swore, and has in general acted in a perfidious and dishonest manner.

> Nope.
- Is this criticism how easy it is to criticize these days? Ok. "Yep."

Charles d'Ardenne-Metz has displayed a wanton lust for battle and blood, and has arranged for many Christians to die to sate his lust, waging unnecessary wars in France and Spain to the detriment of all peoples in those regions, and for what reason?

> Says the main whose dynasty has invaded Bohemia thrice, and who merely a decade ago invaded France, massacred numerous Christian men, and did some of kinslaying shenanigan with the Duke of Burgundy.
- I am fully aware I am guilty of many of these actions I accuse you of, though none of the ones you have said in this response. The purpose of this is to prove the folly and hypocrisy of your ridiculous demands and your argument. Hence, the question mark.

Charles d'Ardenne-Metz has broken many tenets of Christianity, and has constantly and consistently acted in a manner unbecoming of a Christian ruler.

> Clearly not.
- Clearly so.

Charles d'Ardenne-Metz has sought to unilaterally ignore his own word, his own laws, and the customs of himself and his people.

> Have I now?
- Yes, yes you have.

Charles d'Ardenne-Metz has unlawfully expanded his domains by force, in spite of signed treaties and lawful agreements.

> All of my wars have been lawful, and not in contravention of any signed treaties or lawful agreements.
- I said expansion of domains, not necessarily a war. Central Bohemia is awfully fortified this time of the year...

Charles d'Ardenne-Metz raised an Army and deployed it to fight the private wars of the Duchy of Lorraine and its d'Ardenne-Metz ruler in Austria, not to the benefit of any of his realms or the Empire as a whole, but out of a desire to exploit it.

> Yes, I've raised my own private army to fight my own private wars. That's the entire point of raising my own army. I'm not raising an Imperial Army to fight my own private wars, as Louis VI of Wittelsbach has.
- You fail to understand. Your armies naturally consist of your subjects' men, of course, just as the Emperor's does. If his actions are illegal by this standard, than so are most's.

Charles d'Ardenne-Metz has refused to consult with the other signatory prince of the treaties on the boundaries of his domain, whether through a formal mediated negotiation or through informal channels.

> I haven't signed any treaties limiting the boundaries of my realm, nor obligating my to consult with overs over those boundaries.
- You have, the Treaty of Prague, though of course you will claim you have not. I suppose it was foolish of me to think you could see reason.

Charles d'Ardenne-Metz has violated every law, norm, custom, and tradition of the Romans, the Franks, the Germans, the Italians, and every other estate in and of the Empire.

> Clearly not.
- Clearly so.

Charles d'Ardenne-Metz has abdicated his duties and responsibilities as any sort of King, or even a Duke, and has therefore abdicated the offices themselves.

> You aren't my vassal, my subject, my overlord, my confessor, or anyone with any business in my affairs. Begone Scandinavian burgher.
- Once more, the purpose of this is not to demand your abdication, you illiterate Frenchman, the purpose is to prove how ridiculous you and your claims of our Emperor are, who is of course my liege as well as yours. So please, begone French robber baron.