In defense of the Red Wedding

[The non-bastard Bolton]

I have always been amused by how much people hate the Red Wedding (and the Freys). True, it was morally questionable BUT it really should not be getting as much hate as it is getting.

I will try to make people see that this event was much more than just something for people to hate. Feel free to hate my reasons but please do give them a bit of thought.

Before I begin, let me just get this out of the way: the Freys NEVER owed anything to either Robb or the Tullys. True, the Tullys were their lords, but, given that they rebelled against the King (rightful or not - Freys would not know about Jamie and Cersei and even if they did - where is the proof?), this made Tullys rebels and so should the Freys keep their word to rebels? Either way, I think there is enough uncertainty to give Freys benefit of the doubt here.

Also, they had something that Robb desperately wanted - why not bargain for it and see how much Robb is willing to give? Prudent move, in my opinion.

Now, onto the Wedding.

I consider the Red Wedding to be a VERY shrewd and clever move. Was it despicable? Yes of course. HOWEVER, did it pretty much end the Northern rebellion in a single move? Absolutely. Without the wedding, Robb would have been raging for a few years and countless more lives would have been lost. However, I believe that, at the end, Robb would have lost anyway and little would change. Therefore, why not save time and lives and finish the rebels off? Tywin had the right of it and the move proved to be a masterstroke - neither Robb nor his bannermen saw it coming (and in best moves, the enemy never sees the trap).

Why did Freys abandon Robb? This is also something that people seem peeved about. However, Robb lost the war long before the Red Wedding due to combination of bad decisions, rubbish bannermen, unfaithful friends and family issues (even Robb's battle record was highly overrated in my opinion - however, I will cover that in detail in another post). Therefore, the Freys probably had good chance to realise that they were doomed if they stuck with Robb - unlike Northemen though, they had no love or obligation for Eddard (nor really they had reason to) so, for them, the war was not really personal and they had nothing to gain from it, unless they stuck with the winning side (I will cover Robb's decisions in the war in detail in another post).

As they say, all is fair in love and war. Treason was commonground in the War of the Five Kings. So many houses switched sides and betrayed others - some houses fought for three separate sides in the one war. Why not Freys - they were merely one among many that betrayed the cause (but did it with more ooomph).

Also, Robb did break his word and did not marry a Frey. Now, for some of us (or most), marriage to a Tully would have been sufficient - however, Walder did not operate like that - he wanted a queen. Robb and Catelyn would have known that Walder is a very peevish man and so should have realised the dangers of crossing him - but they did so anyway and, well, as they say, the rest is history. Did that warrant a Red Wedding though? Probably not. HOWEVER, did this, combined with Robb's chances of winning the war, warrant a Red Wedding? Not such a straightforward answer anymore.

Why was Red Wedding so wrong? Yes, guest rights were breached, yes people were killed. However, it was hardly the most savage act done during the war, nor the worst. Think Saltpans, think Karstark killing the little Lannister boys, think Stannis breeding a demon (or whatever it was) to kill his own brother, think Joffrey and all his acts, think Gregor, Amory Lorch, Brave Companions, countless other rapes, murders, etc. However, it is this one that most people (in reality and in book) are most shocked by. It was merely one of many heinous acts, BUT with an added advantage of actually having the impact of being both strategically clever and helping to potentially end the war sooner.

It benefited all perpetrators (at least in the short term): Freys gained Riverrun and alliance with the Crown (and forgiveness of Tywin Lannister) and chance to be on the winning side; Bolton became Warden of the North; and Tywin got rid of a dangerous enemy in one move - all parties won (at least in a short term), so the Wedding was a good move for them - in war, it is the moves that bring results, not the moves that are morally correct, that are encouraged and preferred - no different here.

These are my reasons for not hating the Red Wedding. I am not a fan of it either, but I can understand why it happened and the reasons behind it.

Let me know what you think.

[Ser Arthur Hightower]

I have always been amused by how much people hate the Red Wedding (and the Freys). True, it was morally questionable BUT it really should not be getting as much hate as it is getting.

I will try to make people see that this event was much more than just something for people to hate. Feel free to hate my reasons but please do give them a bit of thought.

Before I begin, let me just get this out of the way: the Freys NEVER owed anything to either Robb or the Tullys. True, the Tullys were their lords, but, given that they rebelled against the King (rightful or not - Freys would not know about Jamie and Cersei and even if they did - where is the proof?), this made Tullys rebels and so should the Freys keep their word to rebels? Either way, I think there is enough uncertainty to give Freys benefit of the doubt here.

Also, they had something that Robb desperately wanted - why not bargain for it and see how much Robb is willing to give? Prudent move, in my opinion.

Now, onto the Wedding.

I consider the Red Wedding to be a VERY shrewd and clever move. Was it despicable? Yes of course. HOWEVER, did it pretty much end the Northern rebellion in a single move? Absolutely. Without the wedding, Robb would have been raging for a few years and countless more lives would have been lost. However, I believe that, at the end, Robb would have lost anyway and little would change. Therefore, why not save time and lives and finish the rebels off? Tywin had the right of it and the move proved to be a masterstroke - neither Robb nor his bannermen saw it coming (and in best moves, the enemy never sees the trap).

Why did Freys abandon Robb? This is also something that people seem peeved about. However, Robb lost the war long before the Red Wedding due to combination of bad decisions, rubbish bannermen, unfaithful friends and family issues (even Robb's battle record was highly overrated in my opinion - however, I will cover that in detail in another post). Therefore, the Freys probably had good chance to realise that they were doomed if they stuck with Robb - unlike Northemen though, they had no love or obligation for Eddard (nor really they had reason to) so, for them, the war was not really personal and they had nothing to gain from it, unless they stuck with the winning side (I will cover Robb's decisions in the war in detail in another post).

As they say, all is fair in love and war. Treason was commonground in the War of the Five Kings. So many houses switched sides and betrayed others - some houses fought for three separate sides in the one war. Why not Freys - they were merely one among many that betrayed the cause (but did it with more ooomph).

Also, Robb did break his word and did not marry a Frey. Now, for some of us (or most), marriage to a Tully would have been sufficient - however, Walder did not operate like that - he wanted a queen. Robb and Catelyn would have known that Walder is a very peevish man and so should have realised the dangers of crossing him - but they did so anyway and, well, as they say, the rest is history. Did that warrant a Red Wedding though? Probably not. HOWEVER, did this, combined with Robb's chances of winning the war, warrant a Red Wedding? Not such a straightforward answer anymore.

Why was Red Wedding so wrong? Yes, guest rights were breached, yes people were killed. However, it was hardly the most savage act done during the war, nor the worst. Think Saltpans, think Karstark killing the little Lannister boys, think Stannis breeding a demon (or whatever it was) to kill his own brother, think Joffrey and all his acts, think Gregor, Amory Lorch, Brave Companions, countless other rapes, murders, etc. However, it is this one that most people (in reality and in book) are most shocked by. It was merely one of many heinous acts, BUT with an added advantage of actually having the impact of being both strategically clever and helping to potentially end the war sooner.

It benefited all perpetrators (at least in the short term): Freys gained Riverrun and alliance with the Crown (and forgiveness of Tywin Lannister) and chance to be on the winning side; Bolton became Warden of the North; and Tywin got rid of a dangerous enemy in one move - all parties won (at least in a short term), so the Wedding was a good move for them - in war, it is the moves that bring results, not the moves that are morally correct, that are encouraged and preferred - no different here.

These are my reasons for not hating the Red Wedding. I am not a fan of it either, but I can understand why it happened and the reasons behind it.

Let me know what you think.

I would say welcome to the forums, but you gave us this.

Of course the crime benefits the perpetrators, thats why they did it.

[PrinceHenryris]

the only good Frey is a dead Rey.

[Lord Knightmare]

I have no problem with the Red Wedding as it was a great strategy to win the war for the Lannister's, the only problem I have is with the betrayal of the Frey's and Bolton's.

[The Once and Future King]

I have always been amused by how much people hate the Red Wedding (and the Freys). True, it was morally questionable BUT it really should not be getting as much hate as it is getting.

I will try to make people see that this event was much more than just something for people to hate. Feel free to hate my reasons but please do give them a bit of thought.

Before I begin, let me just get this out of the way: the Freys NEVER owed anything to either Robb or the Tullys. True, the Tullys were their lords, but, given that they rebelled against the King (rightful or not - Freys would not know about Jamie and Cersei and even if they did - where is the proof?), this made Tullys rebels and so should the Freys keep their word to rebels? Either way, I think there is enough uncertainty to give Freys benefit of the doubt here.

Also, they had something that Robb desperately wanted - why not bargain for it and see how much Robb is willing to give? Prudent move, in my opinion.

Now, onto the Wedding.

I consider the Red Wedding to be a VERY shrewd and clever move. Was it despicable? Yes of course. HOWEVER, did it pretty much end the Northern rebellion in a single move? Absolutely. Without the wedding, Robb would have been raging for a few years and countless more lives would have been lost. However, I believe that, at the end, Robb would have lost anyway and little would change. Therefore, why not save time and lives and finish the rebels off? Tywin had the right of it and the move proved to be a masterstroke - neither Robb nor his bannermen saw it coming (and in best moves, the enemy never sees the trap).

Why did Freys abandon Robb? This is also something that people seem peeved about. However, Robb lost the war long before the Red Wedding due to combination of bad decisions, rubbish bannermen, unfaithful friends and family issues (even Robb's battle record was highly overrated in my opinion - however, I will cover that in detail in another post). Therefore, the Freys probably had good chance to realise that they were doomed if they stuck with Robb - unlike Northemen though, they had no love or obligation for Eddard (nor really they had reason to) so, for them, the war was not really personal and they had nothing to gain from it, unless they stuck with the winning side (I will cover Robb's decisions in the war in detail in another post).

As they say, all is fair in love and war. Treason was commonground in the War of the Five Kings. So many houses switched sides and betrayed others - some houses fought for three separate sides in the one war. Why not Freys - they were merely one among many that betrayed the cause (but did it with more ooomph).

Also, Robb did break his word and did not marry a Frey. Now, for some of us (or most), marriage to a Tully would have been sufficient - however, Walder did not operate like that - he wanted a queen. Robb and Catelyn would have known that Walder is a very peevish man and so should have realised the dangers of crossing him - but they did so anyway and, well, as they say, the rest is history. Did that warrant a Red Wedding though? Probably not. HOWEVER, did this, combined with Robb's chances of winning the war, warrant a Red Wedding? Not such a straightforward answer anymore.

Why was Red Wedding so wrong? Yes, guest rights were breached, yes people were killed. However, it was hardly the most savage act done during the war, nor the worst. Think Saltpans, think Karstark killing the little Lannister boys, think Stannis breeding a demon (or whatever it was) to kill his own brother, think Joffrey and all his acts, think Gregor, Amory Lorch, Brave Companions, countless other rapes, murders, etc. However, it is this one that most people (in reality and in book) are most shocked by. It was merely one of many heinous acts, BUT with an added advantage of actually having the impact of being both strategically clever and helping to potentially end the war sooner.

It benefited all perpetrators (at least in the short term): Freys gained Riverrun and alliance with the Crown (and forgiveness of Tywin Lannister) and chance to be on the winning side; Bolton became Warden of the North; and Tywin got rid of a dangerous enemy in one move - all parties won (at least in a short term), so the Wedding was a good move for them - in war, it is the moves that bring results, not the moves that are morally correct, that are encouraged and preferred - no different here.

These are my reasons for not hating the Red Wedding. I am not a fan of it either, but I can understand why it happened and the reasons behind it.

Let me know what you think.

Just for the record the freys owe no oaths to the iron throne. They swear to the Tullys

[Lee-Sensei]

Just for the record the freys owe no oaths to the iron throne. They swear to the Tullys

No. The Freys are sworn to the IT. In fact, the only reason the Tullys became their overlords is that the Targs raised them above the other Riverlords.

[The non-bastard Bolton]

Just for the record the freys owe no oaths to the iron throne. They swear to the Tullys

I believe reading Walder stating that he swore vows to the Crown but maybe he was lying - however, either way, if Tullys break their vows, why should Freys keep theirs?

[Erkan12]

You're totally wrong.

[Mladen]

I have always been amused by how much people hate the Red Wedding (and the Freys). True, it was morally questionable BUT it really should not be getting as much hate as it is getting.

I will try to make people see that this event was much more than just something for people to hate. Feel free to hate my reasons but please do give them a bit of thought.

LOL, I am more amused by the need of whitewashing atrocities... You made a bad case here... Really, really bad case. I am not hating your reasons, I just find them completely wrong and nonsensical.

Before I begin, let me just get this out of the way: the Freys NEVER owed anything to either Robb or the Tullys. True, the Tullys were their lords, but, given that they rebelled against the King (rightful or not - Freys would not know about Jamie and Cersei and even if they did - where is the proof?), this made Tullys rebels and so should the Freys keep their word to rebels? Either way, I think there is enough uncertainty to give Freys benefit of the doubt here.

Freys rebelled with Tullys, or you forgot that? Freys fought with Robb, owed allegiance to Tullys as their liege lords and Robb as their King. They accepted Robb as their King, therefore this argumentation here is fallible to the core. Their King was Robb, by their own choice.

I consider the Red Wedding to be a VERY shrewd and clever move. Was it despicable? Yes of course. HOWEVER, did it pretty much end the Northern rebellion in a single move? Absolutely. Without the wedding, Robb would have been raging for a few years and countless more lives would have been lost. However, I believe that, at the end, Robb would have lost anyway and little would change. Therefore, why not save time and lives and finish the rebels off? Tywin had the right of it and the move proved to be a masterstroke - neither Robb nor his bannermen saw it coming (and in best moves, the enemy never sees the trap).

Well, you can consider it smart move, but the growing pile of dead Freys all over Riverlands kinda disagree with you. It wasn't the cunning move that Northmen and everyone else didn't see this coming, it was breaking of tradition older than the country itself. A tradition so valued that we kinda have only numerous examples of breaking that law. A tradition that, as Bright Blue Eyes noted, secured the peace many times and is basically the last thing that should have been broken. Lannisters and Freys only managed that no one ever consider sitting at the same table with them. Which is short-term fine, but long-term, as deadly as it can be.

Why did Freys abandon Robb? This is also something that people seem peeved about. However, Robb lost the war long before the Red Wedding due to combination of bad decisions, rubbish bannermen, unfaithful friends and family issues (even Robb's battle record was highly overrated in my opinion - however, I will cover that in detail in another post). Therefore, the Freys probably had good chance to realise that they were doomed if they stuck with Robb - unlike Northemen though, they had no love or obligation for Eddard (nor really they had reason to) so, for them, the war was not really personal and they had nothing to gain from it, unless they stuck with the winning side (I will cover Robb's decisions in the war in detail in another post).

As they say, all is fair in love and war. Treason was commonground in the War of the Five Kings. So many houses switched sides and betrayed others - some houses fought for three separate sides in the one war. Why not Freys - they were merely one among many that betrayed the cause (but did it with more ooomph).

Also, Robb did break his word and did not marry a Frey. Now, for some of us (or most), marriage to a Tully would have been sufficient - however, Walder did not operate like that - he wanted a queen. Robb and Catelyn would have known that Walder is a very peevish man and so should have realised the dangers of crossing him - but they did so anyway and, well, as they say, the rest is history. Did that warrant a Red Wedding though? Probably not. HOWEVER, did this, combined with Robb's chances of winning the war, warrant a Red Wedding? Not such a straightforward answer anymore.

LOL... The "defense" of RW is that betrayal is kinda OK. Well, you are making it sound even worse. Were they allowed to switch sides. Certainly. Proclaim your loyalty, start fighting, even kill Robb on open field if you can, but breaking a custom that sacred in Westeros is supposed to be off the table. We see the reaction of everyone in the Westeros. We see how Arianne is disgusted on the name of Walder Frey. We see what Vale lords think of it. And these are neutral parties... Robb perhaps lost the war the moment Tyrells sided with Lannisters and he lost the North, but that still doesn't justify cowardly betrayal.

Why was Red Wedding so wrong? Yes, guest rights were breached, yes people were killed. However, it was hardly the most savage act done during the war, nor the worst. Think Saltpans, think Karstark killing the little Lannister boys, think Stannis breeding a demon (or whatever it was) to kill his own brother, think Joffrey and all his acts, think Gregor, Amory Lorch, Brave Companions, countless other rapes, murders, etc. However, it is this one that most people (in reality and in book) are most shocked by. It was merely one of many heinous acts, BUT with an added advantage of actually having the impact of being both strategically clever and helping to potentially end the war sooner.

I am thinking of all of them and find rather difficult to imagine those are worse. What Freys have been doing to Catelyn's and Robb's bodies is beyond undignified. It just put them on the top of "who's who of Westerosi scumbag". Do you actually think any noble house would even think marrying to Freys anymore? Having alliance of some sort? They became a plague and while they are dropping as flies around the Riverlands, no one is moving a finger to help them. So, I fail to see how smart RW was...

It benefited all perpetrators (at least in the short term): Freys gained Riverrun and alliance with the Crown (and forgiveness of Tywin Lannister) and chance to be on the winning side; Bolton became Warden of the North; and Tywin got rid of a dangerous enemy in one move - all parties won (at least in a short term), so the Wedding was a good move for them - in war, it is the moves that bring results, not the moves that are morally correct, that are encouraged and preferred - no different here.

I bolded the key words here... It benefited them. For several days... And when chaos starts again, and they are in need of some ally or basically any help, they would be more helpless than Sansa in KL. They are far from fine even today, just imagine what will happen tomorrow when they are vulnerable.

Let me know what you think.

Overall, nice attempt but failed one. Your argumentation is nothing more than a poor attempt of controversial whitewashing. Nothing more.

[Mladen]

No. The Freys are sworn to the IT. In fact, the only reason the Tullys became their overlords is that the Targs raised them above the other Riverlords.

No, the moment Robb became KIng, they were his subjects. They referred to Robb as their King. Iron Throne was no longer their Throne, Robb was.

[darkdude103]

Two words guest right

[Lee-Sensei]

No, the moment Robb became KIng, they were his subjects. They referred to Robb as their King. Iron Throne was no longer their Throne, Robb was.

And that ended the moment he broke his word to them. The understanding was that they'd take up his cause if he married a Frey girl. He did not, and as such they owed him nothing.

[Dorian Martell]

Two words guest right

Exactly, they broke what is possibly the oldest tradition on the continent. They are now cursed, Like the Rat cook eating his children for eternity, something horrible will happen to the Freys. Maybe a siege where the larders in the twins run out because of too many Freys?

[desire]

No joke aye?

[Shireen Shireen]

What's interesting about the guest right is that breaking it is one of the few things that disgusts even the Westerosi, who accept so much brutality. Without at least some basic norms, the feudal society would descend into chaos.

[yomi]

Why was Red Wedding so wrong? Yes, guest rights were breached, yes people were killed. However, it was hardly the most savage act done during the war, nor the worst. Think Saltpans, think Karstark killing the little Lannister boys, think Stannis breeding a demon (or whatever it was) to kill his own brother, think Joffrey and all his acts, think Gregor, Amory Lorch, Brave Companions, countless other rapes, murders, etc. However, it is this one that most people (in reality and in book) are most shocked by. It was merely one of many heinous acts, BUT with an added advantage of actually having the impact of being both strategically clever and helping to potentially end the war sooner.

My morally compass tells me, too, that all the things that Gregor, Amory, Vhargo, Rorge and so on did in the Riverlands are probably worse than the RW. By Westerosi ethics, though, they aren't. Sure, pillaging village and raping harmless peasants is bad, but it isn't a complete taboo, as breaking the guest right is. Karstark's killing of the Lannister boys might be close to equally wrong if you consider prisoners to be something like involuntary guests, and Stannis kinslaying is actually worse (because no man (i.e. not even the man who breaks guest right) is so accursed as the kinslayer), but Stannis has the advantage that he did his deed in secret. Nobody really knows that he had his brother killed, whereas he RW is well known.

So I don't hate the Freys more than I hate Gregor or Rorge or Ramsay, but I do think that the RW was a very short-sighted act. For the moment the guest-right breakers might have profited, but at the cost of making themselves pariahs.

[The non-bastard Bolton]

LOL, I am more amused by the need of whitewashing atrocities... You made a bad case here... Really, really bad case. I am not hating your reasons, I just find them completely wrong and nonsensical.

Freys rebelled with Tullys, or you forgot that? Freys fought with Robb, owed allegiance to Tullys as their liege lords and Robb as their King. They accepted Robb as their King, therefore this argumentation here is fallible to the core. Their King was Robb, by their own choice.

Well, you can consider it smart move, but the growing pile of dead Freys all over Riverlands kinda disagree with you. It wasn't the cunning move that Northmen and everyone else didn't see this coming, it was breaking of tradition older than the country itself. A tradition so valued that we kinda have only numerous examples of breaking that law. A tradition that, as Bright Blue Eyes noted, secured the peace many times and is basically the last thing that should have been broken. Lannisters and Freys only managed that no one ever consider sitting at the same table with them. Which is short-term fine, but long-term, as deadly as it can be.

LOL... The "defense" of RW is that betrayal is kinda OK. Well, you are making it sound even worse. Were they allowed to switch sides. Certainly. Proclaim your loyalty, start fighting, even kill Robb on open field if you can, but breaking a custom that sacred in Westeros is supposed to be off the table. We see the reaction of everyone in the Westeros. We see how Arianne is disgusted on the name of Walder Frey. We see what Vale lords think of it. And these are neutral parties... Robb perhaps lost the war the moment Tyrells sided with Lannisters and he lost the North, but that still doesn't justify cowardly betrayal.

I am thinking of all of them and find rather difficult to imagine those are worse. What Freys have been doing to Catelyn's and Robb's bodies is beyond undignified. It just put them on the top of "who's who of Westerosi scumbag". Do you actually think any noble house would even think marrying to Freys anymore? Having alliance of some sort? They became a plague and while they are dropping as flies around the Riverlands, no one is moving a finger to help them. So, I fail to see how smart RW was...

I bolded the key words here... It benefited them. For several days... And when chaos starts again, and they are in need of some ally or basically any help, they would be more helpless than Sansa in KL. They are far from fine even today, just imagine what will happen tomorrow when they are vulnerable.

Overall, nice attempt but failed one. Your argumentation is nothing more than a poor attempt of controversial whitewashing. Nothing more.

Let me provide a few responses to this (I will answer point by point)

- Freys allegiance: at the time they did NOT accept Robb as their king - they merely called their banners and waited to see what happens. They only accepted him as their king once promises were made. However, Robb was technically a rebel (calling yourself king in a kingdom which was part of something bigger does NOT make you a king) - was he really a king himself?

- Regarding a smart move: an argument can be made that the more dangerous Freys (Hosteen, etc) are still alive - from memory, most of dead Freys were stupid and/or useless (I am open to correction if I am wrong). And how is it deadly? Roose Bolton is still Warden of the North, Freys still hold Riverrun and Tommen is King - all theories and predictions for the future aside, it is just a bunch of dead Freys (and there is many more where they came from) while all parties involved are still ok

- In regards to the betrayal, you are being naive: how would the Freys kill Robb in open battle? They are not that foolish and neither is Roose Bolton. Betrayal is still a betrayal, whether in battle or in a wedding - this was the only way to kill Robb from their viewpoint - they could not openly rebel against Robb themselves. The Red Wedding was the most effective way which got them Tywin's approval as well.

- Couple of side points: I stand to be corrected about Arianne but I think she was disgusted by being offered to a man so old (or one with so many previous wives), not because of the Red Wedding; in regards to the Vale, they have done nothing the whole campaign so what they think does not really matter - if they joined Robb in battle (I know, I know, their lady refused), perhaps the outcome would have been different

- In regards to other attrocities I mentioned: you cannot be serious, surely? You do know what happened at Saltpans or what did Gregor or others did??? What did Freys do: offered a quick kill. Ok, they desecrated the bodies but that is rather better than raping or torturing someone and then killing them slowly - surely you can see that?

I can see that you clearly hate Freys - I am not a huge fan of them either but I do acknowledge that Red Wedding was clever. Let me ask you two final questions though: would your opinion be different had it had been Robb who did this to Lannisters or Freys? And who is your preferred king at the moment?

Please let me know if I missed something in your points.

[Frey Pie]

And that ended the moment he broke his word to them. The understanding was that they'd take up his cause if he married a Frey girl. He did not, and as such they owed him nothing.

in which case their oath of allegiance to the iron throne was broken the moment the Iron throne sanctioned the invasion of their lands right?

As for the thread as a whole...just no

[Lord Knightmare]

I can see that you clearly hate Freys - I am not a huge fan of them either but I do acknowledge that Red Wedding was clever. Let me ask you two final questions though: would your opinion be different had it had been Robb who did this to Lannisters or Freys? And who is your preferred king at the moment?

Please let me know if I missed something in your points.

The Red Wedding was clever for the Lannister's, its a disaster for the Frey's as no one in the story will ally with them, and more Frey's have died since the Red Wedding then died before

[Ser Arthur Hightower]

I have no problem with the Red Wedding as it was a great strategy to win the war for the Lannister's, the only problem I have is with the betrayal of the Frey's and Bolton's.

As far as I'm concerned the action of condoning betrayal and breaking of guest right is highly irresponsible on Tywin's part, given how important they are to westerosi society. However I agree that the true blame lies with Roose Bolton and Walder Frey.