Jump to content
The Way of the Dragon

Fair Compensation for House Frey

Recommended Posts

F'ing Frey sympathizers! 

At this point,  all Frey's involved in the Red Wedding deserve a slow death.  

Mayhaps if they just went thru with the Tully wedding and continued their support they could have been paid off with a little coin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, The Sleeper said:

His excuse to Catelyn is him telling her to go fuck herself. That whole chapter is quite telling, particularly how he describes his own oath as "some words". 

At this moment, Robb had already decided to betray his King, in which case the Freys had the duty to stand agains't the Tullys and Starks. Of course, the Freys don't care about honour so they just accepted some marriage deals and declare for a traitor lord.

The stuff about "some words" is meaningless when dealing with a Tully. The Tullys were never a honourable bunch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, The Hoare said:

At this moment, Robb had already decided to betray his King, in which case the Freys had the duty to stand agains't the Tullys and Starks. Of course, the Freys don't care about honour so they just accepted some marriage deals and declare for a traitor lord.

The stuff about "some words" is meaningless when dealing with a Tully. The Tullys were never a honourable bunch

No they don't. First of all you're ignoing the point that when the banners get called, its perfectly legal and not breaking any oaths to the King. Walder refuses to march and so he's breaking his oath to the Tully's.

Second of all, it seems there is a higher emphasis placed on oaths to a liege lord than to the King. After the Wo5K the Tully's are attainted and imprisoned, but for the most part their vassals aren't punished much at all. Same goes for the North. After Robert's Rebellion, the Darry's, Mootons and Conningtons all received massive punishment while Dorne and the Reach didn't. They all fought for the same cause so why does one get punished and the other doesn't? Simple. One broke the oath to their immediate liege and the other did not.

Even Stannis, the walking embodiment of duty in Westeros, thought on the matter and concluded that between duty to the King and to his liege/brother, the King lost out.

Share this post


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

No they don't. First of all you're ignoing the point that when the banners get called, its perfectly legal and not breaking any oaths to the King. Walder refuses to march and so he's breaking his oath to the Tully's.

Second of all, it seems there is a higher emphasis placed on oaths to a liege lord than to the King. After the Wo5K the Tully's are attainted and imprisoned, but for the most part their vassals aren't punished much at all. Same goes for the North. After Robert's Rebellion, the Darry's, Mootons and Conningtons all received massive punishment while Dorne and the Reach didn't. They all fought for the same cause so why does one get punished and the other doesn't? Simple. One broke the oath to their immediate liege and the other did not.

Even Stannis, the walking embodiment of duty in Westeros, thought on the matter and concluded that between duty to the King and to his liege/brother, the King lost out.

Interesting point about the liege or king dilemma, perhaps psychologically, the 7 Kingdoms will always be the 7 kingdoms Iron Throne or not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/9/2019 at 10:03 PM, Anti-Stark said:

What do  you consider is fair payment from the Starks to the Freys after Robb broke his oath?

Increased toll on all goods coming from the North for 100 years.  Walder's choice of any northern highborn boys for his daughters.  No exceptions.  House Frey to displace the Tullys as the leading house in the riverlands.  The abortion for Jeyne Westerling if she is pregnant.  A reasonable land from the Starks to the Freys.  To give the Freys a foothold in the north.  The death of greywind for attacking a Frey.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Wolf's Bane said:

Increased toll on all goods coming from the North for 100 years.  Walder's choice of any northern highborn boys for his daughters.  No exceptions.  House Frey to displace the Tullys as the leading house in the riverlands.  The abortion for Jeyne Westerling if she is pregnant.  A reasonable land from the Starks to the Freys.  To give the Freys a foothold in the north.  The death of greywind for attacking a Frey.  

HUH? where do you do you come up with Jeyne Westerling as Frey compensation, it is made pretty clear that it is westerling compensation nothing to do with Freys and in the same vane in the same chapter it is made clear that it is a Frey fallacy regarding Greywind's death considering Raynald freed him a Jon chapter and a Bran chapter in Adwd confirm that fact. 

Share this post


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

After the Wo5K the Tully's are attainted and imprisoned, but for the most part their vassals aren't punished much at all

That's because the crown had a interest in restoring peace to the Riverlands. If all of the river lords were stripped of their lands like the Tullys were, the war would last much longer simply because these lords would have no other choice.

The King clearly have the legal right there, most lords will simply follow their immediate liege lord because they're more likely to be punished by them than by the king.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's pretty clear that the Starks wronged the Freys.  House Frey is absolutely entitled to compensation.  Walder was the one who was wronged and Robb is the oathbreaker in this matter.  Walder should get to choose his compensation.  Let us start with a percentage of all tax revenues from the north for a lengthy period of time.  Fifty years is reasonable.  Punitive damages against Robb for being an oathbreaker should also be part of the new deal.  Little Wader and Big Walder will be given choice lands close to the Neck.  The north will give up claims to some of the lands closest to the Riverlands.  Such lands will become part of Frey property.  The crannogmen must stop trespassing on Frey lands without permission.  No more illegal crossing.  All traffic must go through The Twins and all must pay.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, The Hoare said:

That's because the crown had a interest in restoring peace to the Riverlands. If all of the river lords were stripped of their lands like the Tullys were, the war would last much longer simply because these lords would have no other choice.

The King clearly have the legal right there, most lords will simply follow their immediate liege lord because they're more likely to be punished by them than by the king.

That's correct.  Most lords do not have contact with the King.  

It is wrong to assume Walder Frey should automatically support Hoster Tully.  Tully's daughter, after all, started the fight.  Eddard was already accused of treason. The Starks are in rebellion from Walder's view and those without intimate knowledge of what went on in the capital would think the same.  It doesn't matter to the Starks whether Eddard was guilty of treason or innocent.  They were going to help him even if it meant rebellion.  The Starks are not heroes.  They're just as bad, depending on how you feel, as the other families.  

Share this post


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

It's pretty clear that the Starks wronged the Freys.  House Frey is absolutely entitled to compensation.  Walder was the one who was wronged and Robb is the oathbreaker in this matter.  Walder should get to choose his compensation.  Let us start with a percentage of all tax revenues from the north for a lengthy period of time.  Fifty years is reasonable.  Punitive damages against Robb for being an oathbreaker should also be part of the new deal.  Little Wader and Big Walder will be given choice lands close to the Neck.  The north will give up claims to some of the lands closest to the Riverlands.  Such lands will become part of Frey property.  The crannogmen must stop trespassing on Frey lands without permission.  No more illegal crossing.  All traffic must go through The Twins and all must pay.  

Littlle Walder he's dead not much chance of choice Neck lands there. Why give up claims when the north is already Bolton's? Crannogmen trespassing I think not just Frey fallacy. Why would any tax revenue be redeemable? there was nothing financial in the Stark/Tully/Frey arrangement bringing up dragons is a non starter. Punitive damages? Robb Stark is already dead Emmon Frey is lord of Riverrun Dipshit Tully is a captive of Jamie Lannister what more can be expected with two families wiped out, two castles in Frey hands and the dispersal of both northern and riverland fighting forces. No I suppose that is not enough how bout Walder Frey Lord Paramount of the Riverlands and the Iron Isles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/10/2019 at 4:05 PM, The Hoare said:

But Tywin had the moral ground for attacking the Riverlands. Catelyn and quite a few riverlanders unlawfully kidnapped Tyrion. From Tywin's point of view, it was the Riverlands breaking the King's peace.

Tywin has grounds to petition King Robert for redress of his grievance and release of his son.  What Catelyn did as Lady Stark - and which Ned claimed responsibility for in virtue of the attempt on his son's life - is absolutely not grounds for Tywin to go to war with an uninvolved third party, Hoster Tully.  The Riverlands had nothing to do with Tyrion's arrest and nothing to do with breaking the King's Peace - that was Tywin attacking at the Golden Tooth (and Jaime waylaying Ned in KL and killing his men).

On 6/10/2019 at 4:48 PM, Loose Bolt said:

As warden of the west Tywin had excuse to call his banners. After all "someone" had just kidnapped queen's brother.

King Robert decides when to call the banners and wage war.  Without that call any Lord waging war is a rebel lord as Ned is quick to point out when he calls anathema on Gregor Clegane as a false knight and orders his arrest.  Tywin was simply canny enough to keep his distance and use subterfuge (absence of banners and house colours) in the initial attacks until after Robert was dead.

Even if his House was wronged and he decided to indulge in a private war Tywin's grievance is with Lady and House Stark not the Riverlands.  Slaughtering villagers in the Riverlands as a proxy for the Starks is simply murder.  His plan was to try and provoke Ned to ride out as Hand to restore order, be taken captive and exchanged for Tyrion.  None of this has or would have had Robert's sanction, even he wasn't that shitty a king or that far under Cersei's thumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

The Riverlands had nothing to do with Tyrion's arrest and nothing to do with breaking the King's Peace - 

Several riverlander knights helped Catelyn. Kidnapping the son of another lord, which happens to be the Queen's brother does seem as if the Tullys were breaking the King's Peace.

Share this post


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

No they don't. First of all you're ignoing the point that when the banners get called, its perfectly legal and not breaking any oaths to the King. Walder refuses to march and so he's breaking his oath to the Tully's.

Second of all, it seems there is a higher emphasis placed on oaths to a liege lord than to the King. After the Wo5K the Tully's are attainted and imprisoned, but for the most part their vassals aren't punished much at all. Same goes for the North. After Robert's Rebellion, the Darry's, Mootons and Conningtons all received massive punishment while Dorne and the Reach didn't. They all fought for the same cause so why does one get punished and the other doesn't? Simple. One broke the oath to their immediate liege and the other did not.

The Reach and Dorne threw their whole weight behind House Targaryen, while the royalist Stormlands and RIverlands houses were part of regions where most Houses did not. Robert and his allies shored up their base at their regional opponents expense. 

Also there does not seem to be any border changes between "kingdoms", only inside "kingdoms". 

11 hours ago, Adam Yozza said:

Even Stannis, the walking embodiment of duty in Westeros, thought on the matter and concluded that between duty to the King and to his liege/brother, the King lost out.

Did Stannis chose Robert because he was his liege, or did it have more to do with Robert being his brother?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, The Hoare said:

That's because the crown had a interest in restoring peace to the Riverlands. If all of the river lords were stripped of their lands like the Tullys were, the war would last much longer simply because these lords would have no other choice.

The King clearly have the legal right there, most lords will simply follow their immediate liege lord because they're more likely to be punished by them than by the king.

Yeah. That's pretty much exactly what I was getting at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, norwaywolf123 said:

The Reach and Dorne threw their whole weight behind House Targaryen, while the royalist Stormlands and RIverlands houses were part of regions where most Houses did not. Robert and his allies shored up their base at their regional opponents expense. 

Also there does not seem to be any border changes between "kingdoms", only inside "kingdoms". 

Did Stannis chose Robert because he was his liege, or did it have more to do with Robert being his brother?

I'm not entirely sure what your point is here? Are you agreeing with me? Disagreeing? Can I ask you to clarify?

As for Stannis, I'm not sure which was the bigger factor but I'm sure both played a part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The two sides need to have a little trust from each other to have any chance of a new pact.  Walder (understandably in this case) can no longer trust Robb Stark.  Anything Walder wants from the Starks have to be received in advance.  Future promises from the Starks are worthless as it is.  Robb was only interested in striking a new deal because he was brought low by the Greyjoys.  He would otherwise have no interest in begging forgiveness from Walder and only did it because he needed Frey support.  It was harsh but what Walder chose to do was right for his family.  He owed nothing to the Starks after the disrespect they did to him and his family.  

Walder gets a lot of hate for breaking guest rights.  I can only hope these Frey haters are not the same fans who are so more than willing to look the other way when Jon and Robb broke their oaths.  Breaking guest rights and breaking oaths are both evil.  It's inconsistent to condemn one and forgive the other.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, norwaywolf123 said:

Did Stannis chose Robert because he was his liege, or did it have more to do with Robert being his brother?

He chose the brother because of blood.  Robert was no longer his liege.  Stannis is not the dutiful lord that many people think he is.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/9/2019 at 11:47 PM, The Hoare said:

Their duty to the king is above any oath made to any traitor lord.

The freys should be hanged, yes, but not for "betraying" the Tullys/Starks but for murdering a guest, and that's all.

The Freys were not traitors in that context, as the Tully/Stark war with the Lannisters was not over the crown, but simply a dispute between Great Houses. Robb was not crowned till after that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Annalee said:

He chose the brother because of blood.  Robert was no longer his liege.  Stannis is not the dutiful lord that many people think he is.  

How exactly is Robert no longer his liege? Robert is Lord of Storms End and Stannis' direct superior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Annalee said:

The two sides need to have a little trust from each other to have any chance of a new pact.  Walder (understandably in this case) can no longer trust Robb Stark.  Anything Walder wants from the Starks have to be received in advance.  Future promises from the Starks are worthless as it is.  Robb was only interested in striking a new deal because he was brought low by the Greyjoys.  He would otherwise have no interest in begging forgiveness from Walder and only did it because he needed Frey support.  It was harsh but what Walder chose to do was right for his family.  He owed nothing to the Starks after the disrespect they did to him and his family.   

Yeah right for his family. I'm sure thats what he's telling them as they systematically get hunted down and killed. Even their own allies spit on them now.

7 hours ago, Annalee said:

Walder gets a lot of hate for breaking guest rights.  I can only hope these Frey haters are not the same fans who are so more than willing to look the other way when Jon and Robb broke their oaths.  Breaking guest rights and breaking oaths are both evil.  It's inconsistent to condemn one and forgive the other.  

Frey broke his oath to his liege Lords the Tully's by refusing to answer when called to the field. Note that this happened while Robert was alive and Ned was Hand of the King, so Tywin's raiding was illegal. By rights he should have allowed Robb to cross his bridge free of charge. So when Robb breaks his oath to the Frey's, yeah its not good of him. But he tries to reconcile with the Frey's and offer them compensation for the deal they shouldn't have been forced into making in the first place. The Frey's retaliate by killing Robb, his mother, his bannermen and thousands of his soldiers, imprisoning many more and generally crippling any semblence of safety anyone felt visiting another mans home.

Which oath did Jon break again?

And was it evil of Jaime to break his oaths as a Kingsguard to kill Aerys and save Kings Landing? If you think breaking a vow is inherintly evil I don't think you've really understood what Martin's going for.

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

×