House Frey should be respected

[Kandrax]

I know why some readers try to justify RW. They want to reduce bloodlust of others readers.

[Universal Sword Donor]

On 1/28/2018 at 3:32 PM, Bernie Mac said:

Edwyn does not. Or did you miss the perhaps?

"Are they your guests as well, Frey?"

"Some of the knights, perhaps. The others were served no more than they deserved."

 

And Piper only mentions that his son was a guest. 

And then asks about the rest of his family members who would have been outside with the men-at-arms

Quote

Forget it. I have no idea what you are on about. Instead of responding to what I wrote you made some  bizarre comment about the Freys being free and clear in reply to what I said. As I have never claimed that they I don't understand what you were trying to infer. 

I think you're misrepresenting both what is in the books as well as the historical roots of "bread and salt."

Quote

 

Some things are. You want to make an argument that Guest Rights does not include food, that the many characters I quoted who all claimed that food is part of the deal then make a decent case for it. So far you have offered nothing. 

And if you think the whole point of the series is that nothing is "free and clear" then why are you adamant that the Freys owed the soldiers outside of the Twins, the soldiers who they offered no food to, the protection of Guest Rights?

 

Some things are. This is not. Hence why Piper and Edwyn argue and don't quibble about it being guest right. The Freys frame it as self-defense monstrous murderers. Why would I be adamant? Well frankly it's because they offer hospitality and shelter to men under false pretenses to murder them. Typically when I invite someone onto my property and show them hospitality, I would consider it ill for anyone else in or around my property to insult them or do them harm.

[Universal Sword Donor]

20 hours ago, 300 H&H Magnum said:

Closing the gates and waiting for Tywin is not a bad choice if the Tullys all die in the war.  The Tullys would punish the Freys for staying neutral.

They didn't after Robert's Rebellion. The Freys have all sorts of options and the RW was honestly probably the worst way to handle it.

[Bernie Mac]

1 hour ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

And then asks about the rest of his family members who would have been outside with the men-at-arms

No he does not. I think you are confused like you were  earlier confusing Marq Piper with his father Clement Piper. There is no reason to think that the nobles who travelled with Edmure would be outside

Karyl Vance turned to Jaime. "Lord Piper spoke from grief. Marq is his firstborn son. Those knights who accompanied him to the Twins were nephews and cousins all."

 

These would be more than likely inside, nobles brought along as Edmure's guests. 

It is the common soldiers who were outside and nephews and cousins of Lord Piper do not count as common. Lord Piper has every right to be furious as his son, nephews and cousins were protected by Guest Rights and the Freys attacked them, possibly killing some, regardless. 

Quote

I think you're misrepresenting both what is in the books as well as the historical roots of "bread and salt."

I'm not at all, I am just using what GRRM has wrote. I have provided multiple quotes, pretty much every quote that is in the series on Guest rights infact. 

I am not misrepresenting what these characters say or believe. Davos, Cat, Sansa, Mance and others all believe that guest rights is only activated once they have eaten under their guests roof. 

If there is other information from either GRRM or in the books that contradict the beliefs that these characters have then I am more than happy to read about them.

I have stressed continuously in this debate with you and others that GRRM can add more information later and it could change what is currently canon in the books, but the information we currently have is that bread and salt under a hosts roof is what constitutes guest rights. 

And I am not misrepresenting what is written. Whoever wrote the wiki also shares the same understanding of the custom as well. What motive has GRRM got to repeatedly give the reader the wrong information on the subject? 

Quote

Some things are. This is not.

Of course not. The books and the wiki back my argument up. If you want to seriously engage in a debate then please source the books instead of tumblr. I am happy to change my mind on the subject, but you have offered little in the way of an argument to contradict what the author has said. 

Quote

Hence why Piper and Edwyn argue and don't quibble about it being guest right.

Edywn does. It is right there in the quote. 

"Are they your guests as well, Frey?"

"Some of the knights, perhaps. The others were served no more than they deserved."

 

He makes it clear, the nobles/knights were their guests. The common soldiers were not. 

Quote

The Freys frame it as self-defense monstrous murderers.

Yup, as they legitimately betrayed the guest right protection offered to Robb and the noble guests who has eaten their food under their roof. I thought that was clear?

Quote

 

Why would I be adamant? Well frankly it's because they offer hospitality and shelter to men under false pretenses to murder them.

But the common soldiers neither had the Freys food nor were under Walder's roof. They were in a tent outside of Walder's roof. 

Quote

 

Typically when I invite someone onto my property and show them hospitality,

They didn't invite the soldiers inside their property though, they expressly told Robb that his soldiers were not coming in and would not be offered food (bread and salt) and that his soldiers could make camp on the far side of the bank river. 

Quote

 

I would consider it ill for anyone else in or around my property to insult them or do them harm.

Me too. But the custom of Guest Rights, as repeatedly mentioned in the books, states that a guest has to be both under a hosts roof and given his food before the protection is in place. 

Why is Cat still worried when invited into the Twins, invited into Walder's hall? It is only after she and Robb and the other guests have eaten some of Walder's food does she feel relieved. 

"My guests," he said. "My honored guests. Be welcome beneath my roof, and at my table."

"We thank you for your hospitality, my lord," Robb replied. Edmure echoed him, along with the Greatjon, Ser Marq Piper, and the others. They drank his wine and ate his bread and butter. Catelyn tasted the wine and nibbled at some bread, and felt much the better for it. Now we should be safe, she thought.

 

Either Cat ,as well as a multitude of other characters who live in this world, understanding of the custom is wrong or yours is. 

 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

11 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

No he does not. I think you are confused like you were  earlier confusing Marq Piper with his father Clement Piper. There is no reason to think that the nobles who travelled with Edmure would be outside

Karyl Vance turned to Jaime. "Lord Piper spoke from grief. Marq is his firstborn son. Those knights who accompanied him to the Twins were nephews and cousins all."

 

These would be more than likely inside, nobles brought along as Edmure's guests. 

It is the common soldiers who were outside and nephews and cousins of Lord Piper do not count as common. Lord Piper has every right to be furious as his son, nephews and cousins were protected by Guest Rights and the Freys attacked them, possibly killing some, regardless. 

I'm not at all, I am just using what GRRM has wrote. I have provided multiple quotes, pretty much every quote that is in the series on Guest rights infact. 

I am not misrepresenting what these characters say or believe. Davos, Cat, Sansa, Mance and others all believe that guest rights is only activated once they have eaten under their guests roof. 

If there is other information from either GRRM or in the books that contradict the beliefs that these characters have then I am more than happy to read about them.

I have stressed continuously in this debate with you and others that GRRM can add more information later and it could change what is currently canon in the books, but the information we currently have is that bread and salt under a hosts roof is what constitutes guest rights. 

And I am not misrepresenting what is written. Whoever wrote the wiki also shares the same understanding of the custom as well. What motive has GRRM got to repeatedly give the reader the wrong information on the subject? 

Of course not. The books and the wiki back my argument up. If you want to seriously engage in a debate then please source the books instead of tumblr. I am happy to change my mind on the subject, but you have offered little in the way of an argument to contradict what the author has said. 

Edywn does. It is right there in the quote. 

"Are they your guests as well, Frey?"

"Some of the knights, perhaps. The others were served no more than they deserved."

 

He makes it clear, the nobles/knights were their guests. The common soldiers were not. 

Yup, as they legitimately betrayed the guest right protection offered to Robb and the noble guests who has eaten their food under their roof. I thought that was clear?

But the common soldiers neither had the Freys food nor were under Walder's roof. They were in a tent outside of Walder's roof. 

They didn't invite the soldiers inside their property though, they expressly told Robb that his soldiers were not coming in and would not be offered food (bread and salt) and that his soldiers could make camp on the far side of the bank river. 

Me too. But the custom of Guest Rights, as repeatedly mentioned in the books, states that a guest has to be both under a hosts roof and given his food before the protection is in place. 

Why is Cat still worried when invited into the Twins, invited into Walder's hall? It is only after she and Robb and the other guests have eaten some of Walder's food does she feel relieved. 

"My guests," he said. "My honored guests. Be welcome beneath my roof, and at my table."

"We thank you for your hospitality, my lord," Robb replied. Edmure echoed him, along with the Greatjon, Ser Marq Piper, and the others. They drank his wine and ate his bread and butter. Catelyn tasted the wine and nibbled at some bread, and felt much the better for it. Now we should be safe, she thought.

 

Either Cat ,as well as a multitude of other characters who live in this world, understanding of the custom is wrong or yours is. 

 

I'm not sure why it matters so deeply if Walder broke guest right with the soldiers as we already know he did with Robb & Co but for what it's worth I agree. I don't know how much clearer or how much more evidence you could provide. There are specific rules laid out for putting someone under the protection of guest right & those rules were not met with the soldiers. 

I'm no Walder apologist & like you think it was a rotten thing to do but it wasn't breaking guest right. 

[Universal Sword Donor]

2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I'm not sure why it matters so deeply if Walder broke guest right with the soldiers as we already know he did with Robb & Co but for what it's worth I agree. I don't know how much clearer or how much more evidence you could provide. There are specific rules laid out for putting someone under the protection of guest right & those rules were not met with the soldiers. 

I'm no Walder apologist & like you think it was a rotten thing to do but it wasn't breaking guest right. 

It doesn't really matter. Either way they are already condemned to whatever hells their gods laid out for them.

I just find it utterly fascinating that people can sit there straight-faced and pretend that people the hosts invited (or knew would attend) to a party where they provide drink, shelter, and merriment for all are not guests. Minus the murder(s), it's basically the definition of hospitality, which is the entire spirit of guest right historically and in the book. 

There's nothing to gain by saying it doesn't apply, so why wouldn't it in a series about dark realpolitik and this event being inspired by soldiers, who were guests, massacring the hosts

[Ralphis Baratheon]

2 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

I just find it utterly fascinating that people can sit there straight-faced and pretend that people the hosts invited (or knew would attend) to a party where they provide drink, shelter, and merriment for all are not guests. Minus the murder(s), it's basically the definition of hospitality, which is the entire spirit of guest right historically and in the book. 

There's nothing to gain by saying it doesn't apply, so why wouldn't it in a series about dark realpolitik and this event being inspired by soldiers, who were guests, massacring the hosts

I agree and so it seems that Dunk and Lady Rohanne of Coldmoat do as well.

Dunk seems to think that he is protected by some form of Guest Right/rules of hospitality when he has only drunk wine but ate no food at Coldmoat. Something he was probably taught by young Aegon V.

"So be it, Let us speak of less pleasant matters." Lady Rohanne gave her braid a tug. "We do not suffer attacks on Coldmoat or its people. So tell me why I should not have you sewn in a sack."

"I came to parlay," he reminded her," and I have drunk your wine."

Though she still slaps him for bringing up Addam in negotiations, she realized it was wrong and even tells him so later once Dunk and Rohanne meet at the stream. 

"Ser. Duncan," She reached up and laid two finger on his swollen lip. "Did I do this, ser?"

"No one else has slapped my face of late, m'lady."

"That was bad of me. A breach of hospitality. The good septon has been scolding me." 

If a slap that resulted in a fat lip is a breach of hospitality then what is slaying unsuspecting men?

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

6 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

It doesn't really matter. Either way they are already condemned to whatever hells their gods laid out for them.

I just find it utterly fascinating that people can sit there straight-faced and pretend that people the hosts invited (or knew would attend) to a party where they provide drink, shelter, and merriment for all are not guests. Minus the murder(s), it's basically the definition of hospitality, which is the entire spirit of guest right historically and in the book. 

There's nothing to gain by saying it doesn't apply, so why wouldn't it in a series about dark realpolitik and this event being inspired by soldiers, who were guests, massacring the hosts

I get what you are saying I just don't understand why Cat & the other quoted characters make specifications about what constitutes 'guest right' if those specifications don't really have to be met. 

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

7 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I get what you are saying I just don't understand why Cat & the other quoted characters make specifications about what constitutes 'guest right' if those specifications don't really have to be met. 

Maybe as "extra careful now really ironclad with a cherry on top". Like giving the guest a parting gift isn't mandatory by any means, but a parting gift means that the guest's stay has come to an end for sure.

Is a contract still valid if not all T's are crossed and not all I's dotted? Likely yes, but let's do that anyway.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

2 hours ago, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

Maybe as "extra careful now really ironclad with a cherry on top". Like giving the guest a parting gift isn't mandatory by any means, but a parting gift means that the guest's stay has come to an end for sure.

Is a contract still valid if not all T's are crossed and not all I's dotted? Likely yes, but let's do that anyway.

Well that's what I mean though. Typically a contract is not valid if the terms aren't met. Probably a 'T' not being crossed isn't going to nullify the contract but if there are terms set forth that have to be met for the contact to be valid & all those terms are not met the contract isn't going to be valid. For example if you get a loan & the loaner writes up a contact saying you don't have to pay any interest on said loan IF you make a minimum monthly payment AND pay it off within a certain time period & you do pay it off within the time period but fail to make the minimum monthly payment you will be charged interest. 

I guess it's all in how you view it. If you view the terms not met under guest right as the equivalent of not dotting an 'I' then you are probably right. I view it more significant than that & more equivalent to not meeting the terms. 

[Blackfish Tully]

On 1/28/2018 at 11:24 PM, 300 H&H Magnum said:

Closing the gates and waiting for Tywin is not a bad choice if the Tullys all die in the war.  The Tullys would punish the Freys for staying neutral.

The Freys stayed neutral through the last rebellion and didn't suffer from it . Hoster was pissed and called Walder the "late Lord Frey" but he did nothing to them.  

[Blackwater Revenant]

23 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

It doesn't really matter. Either way they are already condemned to whatever hells their gods laid out for them.

I just find it utterly fascinating that people can sit there straight-faced and pretend that people the hosts invited (or knew would attend) to a party where they provide drink, shelter, and merriment for all are not guests. Minus the murder(s), it's basically the definition of hospitality, which is the entire spirit of guest right historically and in the book. 

There's nothing to gain by saying it doesn't apply, so why wouldn't it in a series about dark realpolitik and this event being inspired by soldiers, who were guests, massacring the hosts

I agree with your stance on this issue. Sure, the men outside were not technically offered guest rights under the letter of the law, by being offered food, but they were housed under a roof of Walder's, as well as supplied with his wine.

The fact of the matter is that they were invited, and are a part of Robb's entourage. As far as I see it, the invocation of guest rights offered to Robb, would include those of his party, whether they are physically in Walder's castle or not.

The slaughter of Robb's men while he is under protection of guest rights, all of whom were invited and are currently guests of Walder's, surely would be considered breaking guest rights; The killing of these men is certainly an affront to Robb, and can be considered an assault directed towards him.

[Adam Yozza]

34 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

I agree with your stance on this issue. Sure, the men outside were not technically offered guest rights under the letter of the law, by being offered food, but they were housed under a roof of Walder's, as well as supplied with his wine.

The fact of the matter is that they were invited, and are a part of Robb's entourage. As far as I see it, the invocation of guest rights offered to Robb, would include those of his party, whether they are physically in Walder's castle or not.

The slaughter of Robb's men while he is under protection of guest rights, all of whom were invited and are currently guests of Walder's, and a part of Robb's entourage, surely would be considered breaking guest rights. The killing of these men is certainly an affront to Robb, and can be considered an assault directed towards him.

Plus, as Ralphis Baratheon pointed out, Dunk seemed to think the wine was in fact enough to place him under guest right and Lady Webber thought slapping him was a breach of hospitality. So that's two seperate characters (one of whom is both a noble lady and the head of a house) who believe that the wine alone was enough. That would suggest that the soldiers at the twins; who Walder Frey sheltered with the tents; were in fact covered by guest right.

As you say it doesn't really matter. Whether the soldiers were covered by guest right or not, the guests within the castle most certainly are. So the Frey's are guilty either way.

[Blackwater Revenant]

4 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

Plus, as Ralphis Baratheon pointed out, Dunk seemed to think the wine was in fact enough to place him under guest right and Lady Webber thought slapping him was a breach of hospitality. So that's two seperate characters (one of whom is both a noble lady and the head of a house) who believe that the wine alone was enough. That would suggest that the soldiers at the twins; who Walder Frey sheltered with the tents; were in fact covered by guest right.

Ah yes, good point, backed by the text provided by @Ralphis Baratheon, I had not seen that yet.

It seems that others are taking the phrasing of "bread and salt" much to literally. I mean, should one serve his guests an unsalted roast boar, without a side of bread, would that not be considered the invocation of guest rights? Some just want to make a contrarian argument, using weasely loopholes, just for the sake of being contrarian.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

8 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

Ah yes, good point, backed by the text provided by @Ralphis Baratheon, I had not seen that yet.

It seems that others are taking the phrasing of "bread and salt" much to literally. I mean, should one serve his guests an unsalted roast boar, without a side of bread, would that not be considered the invocation of guest rights? Some just want to make a contrarian argument, using weasely loopholes, just for the sake of being contrarian.

I don't mean to be contrarian at all. I'm in total agreement that Robb's men were invited & therefore guests. I also agree slaughtering them was an evil deed. I just don't think they fall under the Westrosi rules of 'guest right'. I would not make a fuss over the difference between bread & boar. Bread can mean food in general as in the saying 'Breaking bread' I do say there is a difference in eating food & eating no food though & the soldiers did not eat Walder's food. I wouldn't differentiate between being under Walder's dining hall roof & his chamber's roof but I do differentiate between being under Walder's roof & not being under Walder's roof. 

I understand that it is questionable, hence the different view points. It just so happens that this is my view on the subject. Because it is questionable I don't think it's fair to say those with the opposing view point are being contrarian &/or trying to find weasely loop holes. Surely you see why someone may see things the way I do even if you don't see them that way? 

[Blackwater Revenant]

13 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I don't mean to be contrarian at all. I'm in total agreement that Robb's men were invited & therefore guests. I also agree slaughtering them was an evil deed. I just don't think they fall under the Westrosi rules of 'guest right'. I would not make a fuss over the difference between bread & boar. Bread can mean food in general as in the saying 'Breaking bread' I do say there is a difference in eating food & eating no food though & the soldiers did not eat Walder's food. I wouldn't differentiate between being under Walder's dining hall roof & his chamber's roof but I do differentiate between being under Walder's roof & not being under Walder's roof. 

I understand that it is questionable, hence the different view points. It just so happens that this is my view on the subject. Because it is questionable I don't think it's fair to say those with the opposing view point are being contrarian &/or trying to find weasely loop holes. Surely you see why someone may see things the way I do even if you don't see them that way? 

I'm sorry, I wasn't referring to you. I have found all posts I've come across by you to be well thought out, genuine, as well as polite and respectful, regardless of whether I've agreed with you or not. I apologize for making a statement that would generalise all posters of that view under the same sentiment. No offence was intended. 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

13 minutes ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

I'm sorry, I wasn't referring to you. I have found all posts I've come across by you to be well thought out, genuine, as well as polite and respectful, regardless of whether I've agreed with you or not. I apologize for making a statement that would generalise all posters of that view under the same sentiment. No offence was intended. 

No worries none taken! 

[Kandrax]

2 hours ago, Blackfish Tully said:

Hoster was pissed and called Walder the "late Lord Frey"

I hope that he called Goodbrook, Mooton and Darry traitors, because he would be hypocrite if he didn't 

[Universal Sword Donor]

1 hour ago, Kandrax said:

I hope that he called Goodbrook, Mooton and Darry traitors, because he would be hypocrite if he didn't 

Well:

“This was Lord Goodbrook’s village. When Riverrun declared for Robert, Goodbrook stayed loyal to the king, so Lord Tully came down on him with fire and sword.”

“Unlike the Freys, the Darrys had been prominent Targaryen loyalists, which cost them half their lands, most of their wealth, and almost all their power. ”

The Mootons we don't really know a lot about, except that Myles Mooton died during the Battle of the Bells and they sided with the Targs. I have to imagine they were similarly punished.

[Yukle]

3 hours ago, Blackwater Revenant said:

It seems that others are taking the phrasing of "bread and salt" much to literally. I mean, should one serve his guests an unsalted roast boar, without a side of bread, would that not be considered the invocation of guest rights? Some just want to make a contrarian argument, using weasely loopholes, just for the sake of being contrarian.

Yeah, guest right clearly begins as soon as hospitality is offered and you share a house with a guest. Bread, salt and parting gifts seem to be traditions used to indicate observing guest right, rather than being a necessary element of it.