Frey Kings

House Frey should be respected (part 2)

202 posts in this topic

12 hours ago, Adam Yozza said:

Erm, Tully's were traitors exactly twice if my memory serves

It does not, give it a stern talking to.

Tullys sold out Mudds to save their own skin from Andals. They rebelled against the Teagues and The Hoares. They supported usurper Maegor against Prince Aegon, who was Aenys' son and first in line of succession. And then they supported Jahaerys against Maegor when Maegor's throne started tumbling. They rebelled against the Crown with Robert and with Robb. Throw in rebellion against Aegon II if you want.

The Twins were built upon honest work of men who added to the realm. Riverrun was built upon a turncloak's prize, granted by a foreign conqueror to a lowly betrayer for abandoning his King.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Adam Yozza said:

Erm, Tully's were traitors exactly twice if my memory serves. Thrice if you count their rebellion against Harren.

So little difference with the Freys then. 

12 hours ago, Adam Yozza said:

During the Dance they were divided initially but later supported the rightful heir, Rhaenyra, and their candidate ended up on the throne.

They stayed neutral and did not join the war till later on. A pretty sound strategy to take in war. 

12 hours ago, Adam Yozza said:

 

In contrast they rebelled against Aerys when they allied with Arryn and Stark and overthrew a tyrant.

They choose the side that offered them the most. It was not done to overthrow a tyrant, they stayed neutral and haggled for the best price. 

12 hours ago, Adam Yozza said:

They then rebelled against Joffrey after he allowed Tywin's unjust attack on their lands to go unpunished.

I agree, they had every right to rebel. But lets not ignore the fact that it was Tully vassal's, ordered by the daughter of Lord Tully (citing his name) who abducted the King's brother-in-law in the Riverlands which  was one of a multitude of reasons why the war began. 

Before the Red Wedding I'd say honour wise there was little separating the Tully's from their most powerful banner men. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Frey Kings said:

Last thread: 

 

 

They rose from nothing and didn't owe anyone blind allegiance. No legendary or historic roots like some other great houses in Westeros. But they should be proud that a commoner was able to rise to royalty and the the rest of the royalty class didn't accept them and continue to spit on them!!! Sure there are some bad apples but when you are sh_tted on for your entire existence what else would you expect?

 

Here's to House Frey!!! 

The Freys deserve their success.  I like their working-class ethics.  They're not prone to the hubris of the Lannisters and the Starks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

So little difference with the Freys then. 

They stayed neutral and did not join the war till later on. A pretty sound strategy to take in war. 

They choose the side that offered them the most. It was not done to overthrow a tyrant, they stayed neutral and haggled for the best price. 

I agree, they had every right to rebel. But lets not ignore the fact that it was Tully vassal's, ordered by the daughter of Lord Tully (citing his name) who abducted the King's brother-in-law in the Riverlands which  was one of a multitude of reasons why the war began. 

Before the Red Wedding I'd say honour wise there was little separating the Tully's from their most powerful banner men. 

 

In terms of their allegiences in past wars, no there wasn't much difference. I'm not arguing there was.

They only stayed neutral in the Dance because Lord Grover supported Aegon but was too old to do anything about and his grandson Elmo supported Rhaenyra but couldn't call the banners for her. Once Grover died and there wasn't a division between the Lord and the Heir, they declared for Rhaenyra.

Yes they did. But that doesn't change the fact that the rebellion was to overthrow a tyrant. The circumstances behind Roberts Rebellion make it about as just a war as we've ever seen in Westeros. The Tully's joined the righteous side, even if they only did so for profit. Similar to the Frey's during A Game of Thrones.

The Tully vassal's did help Cat arrest Tyrion and yes that was one of the reasons the war started. But they're TULLY bannermen; sworn to obey the Tully's and they hated the Lannisters anyway; so they were bound to accept orders from their lieges daughter. Tywin responding by launching targeted attacks on innocent smallfolk; sending his most brutal men to do it; and then launching an invasion and the King ignoring it; and in fact supporting it; still gives the Riverlords the right to rebel.

Yeah, prior to the Red Wedding there wasn't much difference between Frey and Tully honour, at least in terms of Hoster and Walder. But they weren't particularly dishonourable either. Coming late to the Trident and only joining the rebellion for profit isn't great but it's not too awful either (I personally disagree with both acts and see the Frey's turning up late to the battle as marginally worse but objectively, there's not too much of an issue). But the Red Wedding is the point at which the Frey's go from being considered of dubious honour to having none at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Myrish Lace said:

It does not, give it a stern talking to.

Tullys sold out Mudds to save their own skin from Andals. They rebelled against the Teagues and The Hoares. They supported usurper Maegor against Prince Aegon, who was Aenys' son and first in line of succession. And then they supported Jahaerys against Maegor when Maegor's throne started tumbling. They rebelled against the Crown with Robert and with Robb. Throw in rebellion against Aegon II if you want.

The Twins were built upon honest work of men who added to the realm. Riverrun was built upon a turncloak's prize, granted by a foreign conqueror to a lowly betrayer for abandoning his King.

The Tully's didn't sell out the Mudd's. They bent the knee after they essentially lost the war. No different to the Brackens and Vance's etc kneeling after Robb's death. I had forgotten about the Teagues amongst the long line of River Kings. Thats one

The entire Riverlands rebelled against Harren and I'm not even sure if we should count that as rebellion. To me that seems more like military occupation than rule but okay. That's two.

Maegor was a crowned and annointed King so it actually would have been rebellion to support Aegon. He is the rightful heir/king, no argument but saying the Tully's rebelled against him is like saying Joffrey is rebelling against Stannis. But yeah they rebelled against Maegor in support of Jahaerys. That's three. Plus RR and Wo5K and you have 5. More than I orginally thought but less than you said in your earlier post.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's fair to say the Freys have no honor.  They do.  They had an agreement with Robb in exchange for marriage.  They fulfilled every part of their obligations and they paid dearly to honor their side of the bargain.  They lost Stevron and incurred casualties.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big Walder is Great Other. Proofs:

1. Others are also called white walkers. Walker rhymes with Walder.

2. Big=Great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Myrish Lace said:

It does not, give it a stern talking to.

Tullys sold out Mudds to save their own skin from Andals. They rebelled against the Teagues and The Hoares. They supported usurper Maegor against Prince Aegon, who was Aenys' son and first in line of succession. And then they supported Jahaerys against Maegor when Maegor's throne started tumbling. They rebelled against the Crown with Robert and with Robb. Throw in rebellion against Aegon II if you want.

The Twins were built upon honest work of men who added to the realm. Riverrun was built upon a turncloak's prize, granted by a foreign conqueror to a lowly betrayer for abandoning his King.

Dude, you can't both scold the Tullys for "rebelling against the Hoares" and "prize granted by a foreign conqueror". It's just silly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

I don't think it's fair to say the Freys have no honor.  They do.  They had an agreement with Robb in exchange for marriage.  They fulfilled every part of their obligations and they paid dearly to honor their side of the bargain.  They lost Stevron and incurred casualties.  

They really don’t. 

Honor would have been honoring their leige lord and letting Robb and his army through the bridge without blackmailing them for a marriage. Honor would have been not entering Roberts Rebellion at the last minute expecting recognition for doing jack shit. Honor would be not murdering 3,500 men under a false pretense of forgiveness and protection. The Freys have no honor. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

I don't think it's fair to say the Freys have no honor.  They do.  They had an agreement with Robb in exchange for marriage.  They fulfilled every part of their obligations and they paid dearly to honor their side of the bargain.  They lost Stevron and incurred casualties.  

Some do, some don't. They're by no means monolithic.  The Red Wedding was an extremely dishonorable action taken by the house true, but it was ultimately Lord Frey's want and desire to see it happen and it'd be impossible to really refuse their patriarch even if some of them weren't too fond of the idea-which some definitely were.

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Wolves said:

They really don’t. 

Honor would have been honoring their leige lord and letting Robb and his army through the bridge without blackmailing them for a marriage. Honor would have been not entering Roberts Rebellion at the last minute expecting recognition for doing jack shit. Honor would be not murdering 3,500 men under a false pretense of forgiveness and protection. The Freys have no honor. 

Their liege lord didn't command them to let Ribb through;Edmure and Robb tried to beesech them into lowering their bridge to carry on to their attempts to what could reasonably be seen to commit treason against the IT. Robb had asked for them to use their bridge; thus they ask him to pay a price for them to cross; perfectly reasonable. 

Honestly, the "honorble" (not that such a thing is in it of itself commendable) thing could be argued simply to hold off Robb and his entourage all together from continuing unlawful acts against the crown.

After all isn't house Frey a much if not more  a servent to the IT as it is their lord paramount?

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Their liege lord didn't command them to let Ribb through;Edmure and Robb tried to beesech them into lowering their bridge to carry on to their attempts to what could reasonably be seen to commit treason against the IT. Robb had asked for them to use their bridge; thus they ask him to pay a price for them to cross; perfectly reasonable. 

Honestly, the "honorble" (not that such a thing is in it of itself commendable) thing could be argued simply to hold off Robb and his entourage all together from continuing unlawful acts against the crown.

After all isn't house Frey a much if not more  a servent to the IT as it is their lord paramount?

No. House Frey is much more a servent of Riverrun than the throne. That is made clear in many instances throughout the series. Very rarely is a house punished for following their liege lord regardless of the circumstances behind the war. For example, Tywin punished the Tully's for rebelling but the Riverlords weren't punished for following them and the same can be said of the Northern houses.

When Robert took the throne from Aerys, the Martell's and Tyrell's weren't punished for following the King. But Goodbrook, Darry, Mooton and Connington were all punished for going against their liege lord.

While all houses do owe loyalty to the throne, it seems expected that they show much more loyalty to the lord they are directly sworn to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

No. House Frey is much more a servent of Riverrun than the throne. That is made clear in many instances throughout the series. Very rarely is a house punished for following their liege lord regardless of the circumstances behind the war. For example, Tywin punished the Tully's for rebelling but the Riverlords weren't punished for following them and the same can be said of the Northern houses.

When Robert took the throne from Aerys, the Martell's and Tyrell's weren't punished for following the King. But Goodbrook, Darry, Mooton and Connington were all punished for going against their liege lord.

While all houses do owe loyalty to the throne, it seems expected that they show much more loyalty to the lord they are directly sworn to.

Again, the liege lord of Riverrun isn't commanding Frey to lower his bridge; Robb is. Not all the storm lords allighned with Robert during his rebellion.No one tosses around the word traitor however because it seems to be recognized loyalties to the throne could supercede that of the region's lord paramount; which really makes sense. All in the end swear fealty to the throne and agree to adhere to the laws of it. Hell what got Stannis to join Robert was the " law"of younger brothers heeding the call of the elder; the Freys wouldn't "dishonorable" for having not assisted in Robb's and his entourage's treason

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

Mooton

How were they punished?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand this preoccupation with respect.  Walder Frey terminated the Stark's rebellion, brought peace to the Riverlands, and made his family wealthier.  People fear them now.  Manderly was so scared of their spies from even within his own house.  Shouldn't that tell you how much influence the Freys have now.  It should.  Manderly had to be careful in killing the Freys because even that far north they can still hurt him.  Being disliked is not the same as having no respect for someone.  The Freys are disliked but a lot of people but they also fear the Freys.  That fat seal in the north will get his just desserts for forcing his host and his fellow guest to eat human remains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Adam Yozza said:

 

They only stayed neutral in the Dance because Lord Grover supported Aegon but was too old to do anything about and his grandson Elmo supported Rhaenyra but couldn't call the banners for her. Once Grover died and there wasn't a division between the Lord and the Heir, they declared for Rhaenyra.

Basically the younger Tully disobeyed what his liege wanted. 

Lord Grover Tully spoke for Prince Viserys Targaryen over Laenor Velaryon as the successor to Jaehaerys I in the Great Council of 101 AC. When the Dance of the Dragons erupted in 129 AC, the old lord proved loyal to his principles and King Aegon II...but he was aged then, and bedridden, and his grandson Ser Elmo defied him and had the gates barred and the banners kept close.
Later during the Dance, Ser Elmo Tully led the riverlords into battle at Second Tumbleton, but on the side of Queen Rhaenyra rather than King Aegon II, whom his grandsire had favored.
 
 
This is pretty shady behaviour.  If the lesson here is that Lords who are bedridden are free to be disobeyed then Walder is in keeping with what Elmo Tully did. 
5 hours ago, Adam Yozza said:

Yes they did. But that doesn't change the fact that the rebellion was to overthrow a tyrant.

I hear this a lot but not once is Aerys actually called a Tyrant in the series. Both Aegon and Maegor were, but Aerys not. The fandom have labelled him as such, but it seems less clear that the people of Westeros do. 

5 hours ago, Adam Yozza said:

The circumstances behind Roberts Rebellion make it about as just a war as we've ever seen in Westeros. The Tully's joined the righteous side, even if they only did so for profit. Similar to the Frey's during A Game of Thrones.

Exactly. They did so for profit. I see nothing wrong with that, but there seems to be genuine outrage over the Frey's doing something that Robb's grandfather Hoster, or ancestor Cregan did. Picked a side that offered the best deal in a fight they had no real preference in. 

 

5 hours ago, Adam Yozza said:

The Tully vassal's did help Cat arrest Tyrion and yes that was one of the reasons the war started. But they're TULLY bannermen; sworn to obey the Tully's and they hated the Lannisters anyway; so they were bound to accept orders from their lieges daughter.

They were not bound. The Frey men obviously saw how dumb it was, Cat herself saw it was not the smartest as she saw most of her party killed on the way to the Vale and we saw the King ordering Ned to release his brother-in-law. 

The Tully vassals made a dumb move. 

5 hours ago, Adam Yozza said:

ywin responding by launching targeted attacks on innocent smallfolk; sending his most brutal men to do it; and then launching an invasion and the King ignoring it; and in fact supporting it; still gives the Riverlords the right to rebel.

Does not change the fact that they were rebels or the fact that the war was helped started by them. They made a move against the Westerlands by abducting Tyion and it was only the Westerlands retaliating.

They chose to abduct the King's brother-in-law. It was a dumb move.  

5 hours ago, Adam Yozza said:

 But the Red Wedding is the point at which the Frey's go from being considered of dubious honour to having none at all.

I'd agree with that. But circumstances change and honour can be regained. It is plausible, if this was not a fantasy book, that the Frey's could reclaim this and see this action associated more with Walder than the Freys in general. I am sure every House has their fair share of infamous characters whose reputation has not sullied every generation that comes after it. 

 

36 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

No. House Frey is much more a servent of Riverrun than the throne.

No it is not. The Tully's get their authority over the other Riverland Houses through the Throne. This is not like the North, the Vale, the Westerlands etc. were their rulers have conquered the lands. The Tully's are glorified landlords whose power only comes from the Throne. 

And I find it very hard to believe that Aegon Targaryen, when conquering the realm, would allow the oaths to Lord Paramount supersede the oaths to the Throne. 

Walder makes it clear that neither oath takes precedent 

"You swore an oath to my father," Catelyn reminded him.
He bobbed his head side to side, smiling. "Oh, yes, I said some words, but I swore oaths to the crown too, it seems to me. Joffrey's the king now, and that makes you and your boy and all those fools out there no better than rebels. 
 
Something that Cat does not disagree with, infact in an earlier chapter she is worried about which side the Riverlords would take if it comes to war
 
Her father was the staunchest man who'd ever lived, and she had no doubt that he would call his banners … but would the banners come? The Darrys and Rygers and Mootons had sworn oaths to Riverrun as well, yet they had fought with Rhaegar Targaryen on the Trident, while Lord Frey had arrived with his levies well after the battle was over, leaving some doubt as to which army he had planned to join (theirs, he had assured the victors solemnly in the aftermath, but ever after her father had called him the Late Lord Frey). It must not come to war, Catelyn thought fervently. They must not let it.
 
 
Luckily for the Tully's Tywin forces the Riverlords to choose Tully over the Crown.
36 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

That is made clear in many instances throughout the series. Very rarely is a house punished for following their liege lord regardless of the circumstances behind the war. For example, Tywin punished the Tully's for rebelling but the Riverlords weren't punished for following them and the same can be said of the Northern houses.

But not the same for the Stormlands.

Varys had lists. Forty-seven lesser lordlings and six hundred nineteen knights had lost their lives beneath the fiery heart of Stannis and his Lord of Light, along with several thousand common men-at-arms. Traitors all, their heirs were disinherited, their lands and castles granted to those who had proved more loyal.

Blackwood apart most of the Riverlords started surrendering after the Red Wedding, before the Crown army set foot in the Riverlands.   The Tullys refused to surrender so lost their lands. The Blackwoods seem to be the anomaly in the Riverlands. 

The North is a different matter. Tywin (or Roose) is simply not in a position to start stripping lords of their lands. It would be a fruitless gesture, one that would only prolong the war. 

36 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

When Robert took the throne from Aerys, the Martell's and Tyrell's weren't punished for following the King. But Goodbrook, Darry, Mooton and Connington were all punished for going against their liege lord.

Robert was not in a position to punish the Reach and Dorne without threatening to reignite the war. This is politics 101, not due to oaths. Connington was punished but many other Stormlords who disobeyed Robert were not. 

36 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

While all houses do owe loyalty to the throne, it seems expected that they show much more loyalty to the lord they are directly sworn to.

I don't think that has been shown at all in the series.  What tends to happen is that in most cases a Lord Paramount should have a closer relationship to his vassals then the sitting monarch should. In Hoster and Walder's case the two of them allowed that relationship to turn to shit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Wolves said:

They really don’t. 

Honor would have been honoring their leige lord and letting Robb and his army through the bridge without blackmailing them for a marriage.

It was not blackmail. Walder owed Robb Stark nothing. Him being related to the Tully's does not give him any kind of authority in Walder's lands and Walder received no order from Hoster to allow him into his lands. 

3 hours ago, The Wolves said:

Honor would have been not entering Roberts Rebellion at the last minute expecting recognition for doing jack shit.

Where is it claimed they expected recognition?

Walder simply does not like the fact that Hoster is still mocking him 20 years later. Which seems kind of in poor taste given that Hoster himself joined the rebellion quite late into the war. 

3 hours ago, The Wolves said:

 

Honor would be not murdering 3,500 men under a false pretense of forgiveness and protection.

Can't argue with that. Hugely dishonourable. 

3 hours ago, The Wolves said:

The Freys have no honor. 

One action, no matter how shitty and underhanded it is, should not define an entire House, both their ancestors and future descendent as well as current members who chose to not be there or had little choice in being there.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bullrout said:

I don't understand this preoccupation with respect.  Walder Frey terminated the Stark's rebellion, brought peace to the Riverlands, and made his family wealthier.  People fear them now.  Manderly was so scared of their spies from even within his own house.  Shouldn't that tell you how much influence the Freys have now.  It should.  Manderly had to be careful in killing the Freys because even that far north they can still hurt him.  Being disliked is not the same as having no respect for someone.  The Freys are disliked but a lot of people but they also fear the Freys.  That fat seal in the north will get his just desserts for forcing his host and his fellow guest to eat human remains.

What a pile of BS. Wrong on each point. I smell a troll…

The Frey are doomed. Do you think Manderly fears them when he insults them in Winterfell (Little Walder incident)? :rolleyes:

Edited by Nowy Tends

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Nowy Tends said:

Wrong on each point. The Frey are doomed. Do you think Manderly fears them when he insults them in Winterfell (Little Walder incident)? :rolleyes:

The man is genuinely unhinged and as bitter and gross as Lord Frey. With all that hate where he could make time for fear? Not to say they should fear the Freys; so long as they don't go to a wedding hosted by them.

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now