Can You Forgive Lord Walder Frey?

[Trigger Warning]

I think people make too much of Walder's initial inaction and his price for letting Robb pass, feudal politics is a constant balancing act. How many time do we see the great houses remain distant when the Iron Throne needs them, they can do it because they have the power to the same as the Frey's do within the feudal hierarchy of the Riverlands, plenty of other Houses in the series don't commit to their overlords or only send token forces, that's between them and their overlord and many factors that influence that relationship and the circumstances demanding they commit to war. The more powerful vassals are a lot more independent than people give them credit for and under certain circumstances too powerful for their overlords to do anything about unless they commit some serious treasons that can't be ignored. 

We even see the Greatjon threaten to go home unless Robb caved in and accepted his demands, Robb just happened to be made of strong enough stuff to keep his vassals in check and had the power to back it up. 

When Robb comes to the Twins the Tully's have already been swept away in a fast and devastating campaign, Edmure's been captured and the armies of the Riverlands scattered, Hoster is too sick to do anything and under siege by Jaime with 12,000 men whilst Tywin with an even larger army mops up the scattered Riverlords, the war pretty much looks done, it's not unreasonable for Walder to marshal his forces and defend his lands. 

Robb's an unproven 16 year old, marching South to face Tywin Bloody Lannister, if he loses he'll probably just flee back North while you're stuck there, you have marriages with the Lannisters, you have a bad relationship with your overlord and his son has been captured, you're also sworn to the crown, opening your gates or keeping them closed both have risks and you live in society of bastard feudalism. Maybe I should ask something in return for this guy demanding I commit to a war that we're losing, badly. 

Robb paid a typical feudal cost and received a strategic bridge he desperately needed, a castle, several thousand men and didn't need to hand out lands and titles. 

Guy got it cheap. 

[One-eyed Misbehavin]

I think the fact he asked for Robb's hand in marriage was a really cocky (unrealistically cocky) move.

But the twins will split into civil war and black walder (along with bitch boy Luthor) will definitely control one castle.

Id like Edmure to enjoy his Frey wife however. She def wasn't happy about her role, he should forgive her (if given the chance)

[Trigger Warning]

Why's it cocky? He had something Robb needed. He didn't ask for lands or titles or much else. 

Also it ensures that Robb can't just abandon him if it Tywin gains the upper hand when the deal was committing to a war that Tywin was winning. It was perfectly fair in a feudal setting. 

[Aenarion]

1 hour ago, Trigger Warning said:

I think people make too much of Walder's initial inaction

The guy stood on the sidelines until Robert's Rebellion was won at the Trident. Hoster Tully, Jon Arryn, and Eddard freakin' Stark brought their levies from the Riverlands, The Vale, and THE NORTH of all places to the Battle of the Bells to fight. Walder Frey just happened to not be present for it? 

Not buyin' it. He stayed back deliberately to pick the winning side, and then showed up late to the Trident. Admittedly, he might well have planned to show up DURING the battle of the Trident (who knows on which side of the river), and joined Robert's side (seeing that they had the advantage). That does not excuse the fact that he wasn't present for any battle beforehand. 

Hoster Tully would have had every right to strip Walder and his brood of the Twins (remember that he has maybe 4k people at that point, vs. Robert's army of over 30k at the Trident), and had them count themselves lucky to keep their heads. I can almost guarantee that if Tywin called his banners and someone ignored the call, that person would have some VERY difficult explanations to make to Lord Lannister. If Eddard were more in the vein of the old Stark Kings (rather than Jon Arryn's style of ruling), he'd have served a disloyal bannerman some nice Fire and Steel for that (e.g. Greystarks). 

[Trigger Warning]

Well my point was that every overlords relation with his vassals is different so I don't see what Tywin has to do with it, the balance is different for every vassal, region, overlord. The entire Vale remained absent from the War of Five Kings taking no sides, does Tywin want to attack them for abandoning their king? No he doesn't, he wants them on side because they're too powerful. It's not always a matter of going along and crushing your vassals because you're not always in a position to do so, it's typical feudal realpolitik both in ASOIAF and in our own feudal history. If you just go around stripping vassals of lands and titles because they turned up late you'll quickly have rebellion after rebellion on your hands and war that might not be easily fought in the first place, especially when they have such large levies and a powerful castle. 

Let's not forget that Hoster sold is allegiance for a marriage pact as well. 

[Woe to the Usurper]

Hard to justify massacring thousands of people under a false pretense of friendship just because Robb didn't marry a Frey.  

[Aenarion]

I guess it just meant that in the situation where it happened, Walder Frey should have counted himself lucky not to be punished. At that point he had rushed in with MAYBE 4k soldiers. Robert would have had at least 20 to 30k, so he'd have been able to put Frey in his place if Hoster asked for it. 

The issue with Frey isn't that he showed up late to the Trident (certainly could be true that he was ACTUALLY late), it's that he didn't show up to all the battles BEFORE then, when all the other vassals in the Riverlands did (and the Vale, AND THE NORTH). Everyone talks about him showing up late to the Trident, but who cares about THAT? Yes, it was the turning point of the war, and Robert won (mainly because Mace Tyrell was a dunce and sat it out). That being said, if Walder had shown up to the Battle of the Bells, and had his levies fight, nobody would have judged him for being late to the Trident (even IF he hadn't been there for the battle). 

 

You don't earn rewards, distinction, gratitude from your lord by being a bad vassal. He deemed himself insulted by not being treated like a Lord Paramount when in reality his Lord Paramount was probably praying and hoping that Frey would get it in his head to rebel so he could carve him up, and install someone more amenable to the ruling overlord. Hoster Tully would have been well within his rights to accuse him of being a Targaryen Loyalist that decided to switch sides when the dragons were defeated, and I doubt anyone would have faulted them being punished (certainly not Jon Arryn, who had lost nephews, Eddard, whose family deaths were the start of the Rebellion, or the River Lords who all showed up and suffered for their devotion). Maybe not stripped of lands or titles, but certainly paying for their disloyalty. 

 

The main difference between the Freys and the Reynes/Tarbecks/Greystarks is that the latter got big enough that they challenged the Lord Paramount (and lost). Give the Freys another generation or two, and history would probably have repeated itself. 

 

PS. If Westeros got invaded by a foreign enemy, and the Vale sat the war out for whatever reason you can BET that they'd have to answer for it (be it in reparations, losing lands/titles, etc).

[The Wolves]

38 minutes ago, Woe to the Usurper said:

Hard to justify massacring thousands of people under a false pretense of friendship just because Robb didn't marry a Frey.  

It comes pretty easy to some, hence multiple threads of justifying it. 

[Trigger Warning]

I'm sorry but a situation where any army turns on several thousand reinforcements when you still have a war to fight because they were late is just silly, Bob would likely flat out refuse. 

And ultimately Hoster didn't do anything about it, I'm not saying Frey deserved to be treated well but like I said it's not particularly bad feudal behaviour, he had bad relations with his overlord it happens and he committed his forces for the remainder of the conflict, it really isn't enough of a justification to strip land and title in comparison to the Frey/Tully balance of power, the other lords would take note. Neither should Hoster taunt his most powerful vassal either if he has no intentions or curbing that power, ultimately it bit him in the arse didn't it. 

The other vassals don't give a shit about Frey but they'll certainly give a shit about the Tully's going to war with their most prominent vassal over something less than open rebellion because then that threat's there for them, they may support Hoster now but he may become involved in a war they don't want to commit to later, the balance of power would be massively disrupted. It's also not really surprising that the Frey's didn't take part in the Battle of the Bells, even if they committed to raising troops for Hoster it's not strange that a feudal lord relying on a levy system will not have all lords present for all battles.

Can you list each and every lord and his retainers and forces that fought at the Battle of the Bells? Do you know that all these armies were mustered and at full strength? Every lord in the Riverlands etc etc, I doubt it and the fact that they were responding to an imminent threat makes it even more likely that not everyone would muster and march in time. 

We don't even know if Hoster had commanded the Frey to raise an army at that point. There's too many unknowns pre Trident. 

Armies take time to raise, equip, supply, they need time to march, pass rough terrain etc etc. The Trident was a pitched battle, the royal army was marching North and we can assume that Hoster demanded Frey raise his levies and march but he was late, on purpose or not, stripping your most powerful vassal of his lands, castles whatever because he was late is a huge move and sets a dangerous precedent. 

Ultimately I think you're giving the Tully's too much power as overlords than is indicative of the series or bastard feudalism historically but that's just my opinion and I don't think we're really going to convince each other to be honest. 

And I don't particularly see what difference it makes if the power is foreign or not, Joffrey would have been just as dead, they're sworn to the king not the realm, protecting the king from rebels and usurpers is no less important than protecting the king from foreign invaders. The point is you don't start wars (unless you have to or have a very good justification or need whilst in a favourable position to do so, basically have everything going for you including full support of your vassals) when you can make allies with people that are incredibly powerful especially in the middle of a war or just after, even if they are supposed to be under you. 

[Little Scribe of Naath]

5 hours ago, The Wolves said:

What gets me is why taint the Frey name? Why curse your house for petty revenge and get nothing but land, hatred, distrust, and having to look over your shoulder at everyone and carry a knife over such petty revenge? 

I don't understand the Freys. 

Exactly this. I mean, it was one of the dumbest political moves ever. The idea that any house would ever want to associate with him after he breaks one of the biggest taboos of Westeros is utterly insane. As also the delusion that the Lannisters or Boltons would publicly associate with such a house. and share this kind of publicity. 

His house has gone down in history now as one which broke guest right, and forget about great houses, even smallfolk might not want to marry people of his blood as they would consider them cursed by the gods for this action. The Westerosi are really superstitious, after all.

The fact that there are people justifying his extreme overreaction and cruelty for nothing more than what was essentially a slight to his pride is mind-boggling. The best move would have been to simply withdraw all support and transfer it to the Lannisters.

 

[Trigger Warning]

5 hours ago, The Wolves said:

What gets me is why taint the Frey name? Why curse your house for petty revenge and get nothing but land, hatred, distrust, and having to look over your shoulder at everyone and carry a knife over such petty revenge? 

I don't understand the Freys. 

He's a petty dick with no qualms about killing that can only think of the short term benefits. 

But more to the point I think it's that it's very personal this way, he gets to gloat and throw it in their faces from his high seat. Wouldn't be the same if he just got to order his sons to lead an army against Robb while he fights Tywin or something. 

 

[AssHat Ahai]

What's to forgive? He did say "mayhaps".

[The Fattest Leech]

26 minutes ago, Little Scribe of Naath said:

Exactly this. I mean, it was one of the dumbest political moves ever. The idea that any house would ever want to associate with him after he breaks one of the biggest taboos of Westeros is utterly insane. As also the delusion that the Lannisters or Boltons would publicly associate with such a house. and share this kind of publicity. 

His house has gone down in history now as one which broke guest right, and forget about great houses, even smallfolk might not want to marry people of his blood as they would consider them cursed by the gods for this action. The Westerosi are really superstitious, after all.

The fact that there are people justifying his extreme overreaction and cruelty for nothing more than what was essentially a slight to his pride is mind-boggling. The best move would have been to simply withdraw all support and transfer it to the Lannisters.

 

Don't take this wrong way, because I loathe the Frey name and family practice, but Lord Walder is a cunning old fart and someone needs to light a match to that guy. We readers know this below, and I freaked when the Red Wedding was being set up in the books, so I do agree with what you say as far as in-story characters are careless to trust him after what he did, but he was attempting to protect himself from the gods by playing a game... however, even the gods aren't playing around in the end , so NO, I cannot forgive him because he was mocking his oaths, the gods, the Starks and other people because of a petty arrangement.

A Clash of Kings - Bran I

Both of them were called Walder Frey. Big Walder said there were bunches of Walders at the Twins, all named after the boys' grandfather, Lord Walder Frey. "We have our own names at Winterfell," Rickon told them haughtily when he heard that.

The way their game was played, you laid the log across the water, and one player stood in the middle with the stick. He was the lord of the crossing, and when one of the other players came up, he had to say, "I am the lord of the crossing, who goes there?" And the other player had to make up a speech about who they were and why they should be allowed to cross. The lord could make them swear oaths and answer questions. They didn't have to tell the truth, but the oaths were binding unless they said "Mayhaps," so the trick was to say "Mayhaps" so the lord of the crossing didn't notice. Then you could try and knock the lord into the water and you got to be lord of the crossing, but only if you'd said "Mayhaps." Otherwise you were out of the game. The lord got to knock anyone in the water anytime he pleased, and he was the only one who got to use a stick.

In practice, the game seemed to come down to mostly shoving, hitting, and falling into the water, along with a lot of loud arguments about whether or not someone had said "Mayhaps." Little Walder was lord of the crossing more often than not.

 

A Storm of Swords - Catelyn VI

[Lord Walder] "Apologies, heh. Yes, you vowed to make one, I recall. I'm old, but I don't forget such things. Not like some kings, it seems. The young remember nothing when they see a pretty face and a nice firm pair of teats, isn't that so? I was the same. Some might say I still am, heh heh. They'd be wrong, though, wrong as you were. But now you're here to make amends. It was my girls you spurned, though. Mayhaps it's them should hear you beg for pardon, Your Grace. My maiden girls. Here, have a look at them." When he waggled his fingers, a flurry of femininity left their places by the walls to line up beneath the dais. Jinglebell started to rise as well, his bells ringing merrily, but Lady Frey grabbed the lackwit's sleeve and tugged him back down.

 

*** then***

 

"They shan't get lost," Lord Walder complained. "They're crossed before, haven't they? When you came down from the north. You wanted crossing and I gave it to you, and you never said mayhaps, heh. But suit yourself. Lead each man across by the hand if you like, it's naught to me."

"My lord!" Catelyn had almost forgotten. "Some food would be most welcome. We have ridden many leagues in the rain."

Walder Frey's mouth moved in and out. "Food, heh. A loaf of bread, a bite of cheese, mayhaps a sausage."

"Some wine to wash it down," Robb said. "And salt."

[Aenarion]

Putting it like that, them holding a silent grudge (and passing over the Freys when the time came to reward vassals for their service) makes more sense. At that point there was still Dorne fairly untouched by war and able to bring at least one more army to bear, and the armies of the Reach under Mace Tyrell were still investing Storm's End. 

 

Though from what I'd understood, feudalism had certain obligations on both sides. Your lord vows to protect you and uphold peace, but you vow to serve your lord with taxes and soldiers if needed. If you violated the one or the other (a lord failing in his duties to maintain/protect the realm or a vassal that failed to meet their military or economical obligations), then you were fair game for reprisals? That is probably a gross oversimplification, and I admit that my knowledge of feudal politics is extremely limited. I suppose that in reality it would be limited to what actually happened and the current situation (e.g. Tywin sending some lord an envoy to play The Rains of Castamere rather than an army to burn his house down for not paying taxes and making noise). It just seems to me that showing  up with your army long after the battles have been won and your lord called you to war would garner more than just a mean nickname. 

 

Plus, what can I say? I am biased against the Freys, and want to see them burn. XD

 

One thing I will say about the Battle of the Bells is that we KNOW Eddard led an army there, as did Jon Arryn. So regardless of whether everyone was there or not, there was time to raise the North and the Vale and reach the battle. Walder Frey certainly wouldn't take longer than the North to call his banners and march on the town.

[The Wolves]

12 minutes ago, Trigger Warning said:

He's a petty dick with no qualms about killing that can only think of the short term benefits. 

But more to the point I think it's that it's very personal this way, he gets to gloat and throw it in their faces from his high seat. Wouldn't be the same if he just got to order his sons to lead an army against Robb while he fights Tywin or something. 

 

You're right. 

[Little Scribe of Naath]

20 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Don't take this wrong way, because I loathe the Frey name and family practice, but Lord Walder is a cunning old fart and someone needs to light a match to that guy. We readers know this below, and I freaked when the Red Wedding was being set up in the books, so I do agree with what you say as far as in-story characters are careless to trust him after what he did, but he was attempting to protect himself from the gods by playing a game... however, even the gods aren't playing around in the end , so NO, I cannot forgive him because he was mocking his oaths, the gods, the Starks and other people because of a petty arrangement.

A Clash of Kings - Bran I

Both of them were called Walder Frey. Big Walder said there were bunches of Walders at the Twins, all named after the boys' grandfather, Lord Walder Frey. "We have our own names at Winterfell," Rickon told them haughtily when he heard that.

The way their game was played, you laid the log across the water, and one player stood in the middle with the stick. He was the lord of the crossing, and when one of the other players came up, he had to say, "I am the lord of the crossing, who goes there?" And the other player had to make up a speech about who they were and why they should be allowed to cross. The lord could make them swear oaths and answer questions. They didn't have to tell the truth, but the oaths were binding unless they said "Mayhaps," so the trick was to say "Mayhaps" so the lord of the crossing didn't notice. Then you could try and knock the lord into the water and you got to be lord of the crossing, but only if you'd said "Mayhaps." Otherwise you were out of the game. The lord got to knock anyone in the water anytime he pleased, and he was the only one who got to use a stick.

In practice, the game seemed to come down to mostly shoving, hitting, and falling into the water, along with a lot of loud arguments about whether or not someone had said "Mayhaps." Little Walder was lord of the crossing more often than not.

 

A Storm of Swords - Catelyn VI

[Lord Walder] "Apologies, heh. Yes, you vowed to make one, I recall. I'm old, but I don't forget such things. Not like some kings, it seems. The young remember nothing when they see a pretty face and a nice firm pair of teats, isn't that so? I was the same. Some might say I still am, heh heh. They'd be wrong, though, wrong as you were. But now you're here to make amends. It was my girls you spurned, though. Mayhaps it's them should hear you beg for pardon, Your Grace. My maiden girls. Here, have a look at them." When he waggled his fingers, a flurry of femininity left their places by the walls to line up beneath the dais. Jinglebell started to rise as well, his bells ringing merrily, but Lady Frey grabbed the lackwit's sleeve and tugged him back down.

 

*** then***

 

"They shan't get lost," Lord Walder complained. "They're crossed before, haven't they? When you came down from the north. You wanted crossing and I gave it to you, and you never said mayhaps, heh. But suit yourself. Lead each man across by the hand if you like, it's naught to me."

"My lord!" Catelyn had almost forgotten. "Some food would be most welcome. We have ridden many leagues in the rain."

Walder Frey's mouth moved in and out. "Food, heh. A loaf of bread, a bite of cheese, mayhaps a sausage."

"Some wine to wash it down," Robb said. "And salt."

GRRM's unbelievable foreshadowing skills strike again. That's a great observation, TFL! 

But yes, I don't think the gods are going to forgive him even if he tried. It's just a major violation of basic human decency to kill a guest under your roof after offering them hospitality.

[Trigger Warning]

34 minutes ago, Aenarion said:

Putting it like that, them holding a silent grudge (and passing over the Freys when the time came to reward vassals for their service) makes more sense. At that point there was still Dorne fairly untouched by war and able to bring at least one more army to bear, and the armies of the Reach under Mace Tyrell were still investing Storm's End. 

 

Though from what I'd understood, feudalism had certain obligations on both sides. Your lord vows to protect you and uphold peace, but you vow to serve your lord with taxes and soldiers if needed. If you violated the one or the other (a lord failing in his duties to maintain/protect the realm or a vassal that failed to meet their military or economical obligations), then you were fair game for reprisals? That is probably a gross oversimplification, and I admit that my knowledge of feudal politics is extremely limited. I suppose that in reality it would be limited to what actually happened and the current situation (e.g. Tywin sending some lord an envoy to play The Rains of Castamere rather than an army to burn his house down for not paying taxes and making noise). It just seems to me that showing  up with your army long after the battles have been won and your lord called you to war would garner more than just a mean nickname. 

 

Plus, what can I say? I am biased against the Freys, and want to see them burn. XD

 

One thing I will say about the Battle of the Bells is that we KNOW Eddard led an army there, as did Jon Arryn. So regardless of whether everyone was there or not, there was time to raise the North and the Vale and reach the battle. Walder Frey certainly wouldn't take longer than the North to call his banners and march on the town.

 

You're basically right about feudalism, it's just very complex, because it's such a personal system of rule what actually happens varies incredibly on a case by case basis, it emerges as a result of decentralisation. Power lies with the vassals and it takes a strong ruler to control them. 

In  principle yes, the lord offers you protection and you offer him fealty, service and homage. The issue is that the more powerful a vassal is the harder it is to enforce, you have external forces to think about, marriage alliances, rival vassals that might gather against you many, many things, it can be incredibly dangerous to go to war with a powerful vassal, especially if your justification isn't solid enough to convince other vassals.  

Just as an example, look at feudal France, fiefs like Flanders and Normandy were in some cases more powerful than the king, despite being officially their vassals, the power and independence of such vassals makes them hard to control, they're basically kings in their own right, but simply bearing a different title and officially sworn to an overlord. In some cases these vassals went out and conquered kingdoms of their own, the history of absolute monarchy in France is basically a history of curbing the power of these incredibly powerful lords and it's a history that transpired over hundreds of years. 

Looking at the Freys as powerful vassals of the Tullys is like looking at the Arryns as powerful vassals of the crown, they have enough strength and independence to get away with certain feudal contract violations within their bubble, just happens that the Frey bubble is on a smaller scale, this is just an accepted realty within feudal society. 

Consider that the King of England was vassal to the King of France in regard to the Angevin Empire, yet the French king generally would be in no position to order them about, they're simply too powerful. 

And ultimately turning up late can be turning up late, everyone might know it's an excuse but it's just not a good enough justification to act on, it's not easy to assemble and march an army, they could have just been late and when you start punishing men that have actually mustered for you for being late (suspect intentions or not) you're setting a precedent that will worry your other vassals. The Freys are just too powerful for Hoster to get them for this, especially when they're there with their men ready to commit to the rest of the campaign. 

Regarding the Bells like I said we don't know that Hoster even ordered them to muster and about the Arryns, and Starks we don't know how much of their armies had assembled, we don't know much of the campaign at all really. Yes they marched but they may have been encamped waiting for the Riverlords lords to assemble or any other number of reasons, it would take a long time for the Stark and Arryn forces to Reach reach the Riverlands and assemble, perhaps the Riverlords didn't want to leave their castles when a royal army was present in the Riverlands until after the Starks and Arryns had assembled, we don't know their dispositions or order of battle, we don't know what commands Hoster has issued to his vassals. 

Without knowing what Hoster had commanded or what the Riverlords were doing whilst they assembled we can't know whether Frey had valid reasons for being there or not, what we do know is that the Battle of the Bells was a reaction to Conningtons actions at Stony Sept and Robert's immediate danger, we don't know if the fully assembled army marched, we don't know if only the fastest elements of the army marched, we don't know if their forces were still split up across the Riverlands heading for the mustering area and only the available forces marched. 

To be honest, if the Northern army, Riverlords and Arryn forces had fully assembled I doubt Connington would be bumbling about within marching distance. 

And personally I doubt Frey would have committed anyway, just don't think we can really pull him on this one without more information. 

[Aenarion]

Gotcha. I guess I just always assumed that it was a major battle and that since Eddard and Jon Arryn reached the place with some number of their soldiers, the riverlords had as well. 

 

I definitely want to know more about the Battle of the Bells. From my understanding of Jon Connington's musing on the battle, he himself admitted to having bumbled around there and wasted time rather than make an end of the rebellion in some way. I always thought that meant that he HAD his army (maybe a smaller force from the crownlands of several thousands?), and wasted enough time trying to find Robert that the battle happened. 

 

 

PS. I see what you mean about feudalism. I'll read up more about it (admittedly, the knight mythos is something that has always attracted me, so I'm sure it will be interesting on several levels). Seeing it spelled out in detail makes it more understandable.

[Tijgy]

3 hours ago, Woe to the Usurper said:

Hard to justify massacring thousands of people under a false pretense of friendship just because Robb didn't marry a Frey.  

I agree

And a lot of people also tend to forget that it was not only Robb and his lords who died, but that they also murdered thousands of people feasting outside. 

And that because Walder was little hurt in his pride.

[Wall Flower]

First off, I can't even forgive Old Walder for the horror he inflicts on his unfortunate young wife, never mind the Red Wedding.

A few posters seem to be taking the BS that comes out of Walder's mouth as gospel truth (or light of the seven). I think it's pretty clear that he held off in Robert's Rebellion to avoid being caught on the wrong side, arriving at the Trident just in time to look like one of the winners. Blatantly looking after his own interests might be okay if he didn't expect to be richly rewarded by Hoster for failing to back his own Lord Paramount until the last possible moment. Walder's idea of feudal obligation is that he should do as little as possible while demanding as much reward and respect as the most loyal of vassals.

When Cat goes to negotiate with Walder, he insults her, whines incessantly and makes vomit inducing comments about his sex life with his young wife. I really can't imagine why Hoster wasn't popping over every week for the pleasure of Walder's company. I tend to think that Hoster could have been kissing Walder's arse once a day and Walder would be whining that it wasn't twice a day. 

I may be suspicious in nature, but I think it's interesting that the rewards for the Red Wedding went to Tywin's sister's husband and Amerei Frey who could be married off to a Lannister. Meanwhile, a lot of the blame for the shocking break in guest rites falls on Walder. I wouldn't be surprised if Walder taking the blame was an added bonus for Tywin and the repayment of a debt that he had been waiting to settle since Genna's marriage.