Is Walder Frey the smartest man in Westeros?

[Lord Varys]

4 hours ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

Only time will tell if it was the correct decision for the long term.  But it is the right one for the moment because he owed nothing to the Starks after Robb broke his oath.  The Starks were going to lose after they lost control of Jaime, Theon, and the north.  It's dumb to go down in a sinking ship when it's captain had already proven that he has no respect for the Freys.

One can make a case that he was very well within with his rights to take his vengeance - but again, the Red Wedding was over the top. It didn't even make the Freys popular with the Lannisters. Cersei refused to punish them for the atrocity, but even she agreed that she Walder's successor would use those Freys opposing his rise as scapegoats for the Red Wedding. Had Tywin lived we can be reasonably sure that neither Walder nor his ilk (at least those not descended from Lady Genna) would ever be favored by the king.

Tywin wanted Robb dead, he did not want a bloodbath that could further blacken his or Joffrey's reputation.

One can certainly approve of the Freys abandoning the sinking Stark ship - especially after what Robb had pulled. But there would have been the possibility to openly declare for Joffrey, or to arrange some accident for Robb (say, poison him at the wedding). That would have been less controversial and less likely to utterly destroy the reputation of House Frey.

I mean, just look how Manderly later treats the Freys. He essentially sees them as animals to be slaughtered and eaten. That kind of dehumanization only happened because of the Red Wedding.

[Moiraine Sedai]

On 7/10/2019 at 4:59 PM, Lord Varys said:

One can make a case that he was very well within with his rights to take his vengeance - but again, the Red Wedding was over the top. It didn't even make the Freys popular with the Lannisters. Cersei refused to punish them for the atrocity, but even she agreed that she Walder's successor would use those Freys opposing his rise as scapegoats for the Red Wedding. Had Tywin lived we can be reasonably sure that neither Walder nor his ilk (at least those not descended from Lady Genna) would ever be favored by the king.

Tywin wanted Robb dead, he did not want a bloodbath that could further blacken his or Joffrey's reputation.

One can certainly approve of the Freys abandoning the sinking Stark ship - especially after what Robb had pulled. But there would have been the possibility to openly declare for Joffrey, or to arrange some accident for Robb (say, poison him at the wedding). That would have been less controversial and less likely to utterly destroy the reputation of House Frey.

I mean, just look how Manderly later treats the Freys. He essentially sees them as animals to be slaughtered and eaten. That kind of dehumanization only happened because of the Red Wedding.

Manderly just shows how serious these guys are in taking revenge.  Walder might not get the chance to poison Robb.  That alone won't keep him safe.  Edmure is not about to say, "you know, Walder had all the right in the world to side with Joffrey after the despicable way the Starks treated him.  I will formally apologize on behalf of Robb and guarantee no trouble to the Freys.  It's all behind us now."

Edmure will punish the Freys.  The Starks and the Tullys had to lose.  Bolton is not safe until the Starks are done.

[Lord Varys]

18 minutes ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

Manderly just shows how serious these guys are in taking revenge.  Walder might not get the chance to poison Robb.  That alone won't keep him safe.  Edmure is not about to say, "you know, Walder had all the right in the world to side with Joffrey after the despicable way the Starks treated him.  I will formally apologize on behalf of Robb and guarantee no trouble to the Freys.  It's all behind us now."

Edmure will punish the Freys.  The Starks and the Tullys had to lose.  Bolton is not safe until the Starks are done.

You mean, like the Lannisters punished the Tyrells for murdering Joffrey at his wedding feast? Edmure does not have to know what happened, not to mention that it would be rather difficult to enforce anything while you have no proof of foul play nor any right open hostilities - the Tullys would be guests at the Twins, no?

Manderly also wants to avenge his own son. I don't doubt the Manderly devotion to House Stark is strong enough so they would also want to avenge Robb if they knew he had been betrayed and slain, but Lord Wyman has reasons to destroy House Frey that have nothing to do with Robb.

And that goes for most of the Northern lords, in fact. Roose and Walder slaughtered Robb's entire host, meaning that basically every Northern and Riverlander family who had men with Robb at the Twins has reason to desire vengeance.

This wouldn't be the case if the Freys had just killed Robb. It would also not be the case if they had just killed Robb and the Tullys.

And it is quite clear that the Riverlords and even the North would have fallen in line if just Robb had been killed. They would have had no figurehead that could successfully carry the torch of Robb's stillborn kingdom.

[Texas Hold Em]

He's a smart businessman.  The rw was the work of Lothar and Roose.  Walder and Tywin approved the plan is all.

[Moiraine Sedai]

On 7/18/2019 at 10:54 AM, Lord Varys said:

You mean, like the Lannisters punished the Tyrells for murdering Joffrey at his wedding feast? Edmure does not have to know what happened, not to mention that it would be rather difficult to enforce anything while you have no proof of foul play nor any right open hostilities - the Tullys would be guests at the Twins, no?

Manderly also wants to avenge his own son. I don't doubt the Manderly devotion to House Stark is strong enough so they would also want to avenge Robb if they knew he had been betrayed and slain, but Lord Wyman has reasons to destroy House Frey that have nothing to do with Robb.

And that goes for most of the Northern lords, in fact. Roose and Walder slaughtered Robb's entire host, meaning that basically every Northern and Riverlander family who had men with Robb at the Twins has reason to desire vengeance.

This wouldn't be the case if the Freys had just killed Robb. It would also not be the case if they had just killed Robb and the Tullys.

And it is quite clear that the Riverlords and even the North would have fallen in line if just Robb had been killed. They would have had no figurehead that could successfully carry the torch of Robb's stillborn kingdom.

Then what would Bran do when news says his brother was killed by the Freys?  Call his banners and attack the Freys.  Think about it.  How safe is Roose if the Starks keep their hold on the north.  Tyein, Roose, Walder and their allies had reasons.  Some of it being fear of what could happen.

[cpg2016]

On 7/18/2019 at 10:54 AM, Lord Varys said:

You mean, like the Lannisters punished the Tyrells for murdering Joffrey at his wedding feast? Edmure does not have to know what happened, not to mention that it would be rather difficult to enforce anything while you have no proof of foul play nor any right open hostilities - the Tullys would be guests at the Twins, no?

Except it's common knowledge that the Freys/Boltons orchestrated the Red Wedding.  Even the Lannisters don't know that Tyrion wasn't responsible for Joffrey's death, let alone whose fault it is.  On the contrary, to an outside observer Tyrion is the most likely suspect by an overwhelming margin, moreso after killing Tywin and fleeing Westeros.

On 7/18/2019 at 10:54 AM, Lord Varys said:

Manderly also wants to avenge his own son. I don't doubt the Manderly devotion to House Stark is strong enough so they would also want to avenge Robb if they knew he had been betrayed and slain, but Lord Wyman has reasons to destroy House Frey that have nothing to do with Robb.

But he has no reason to save Rickon if not for his loyalty to the Starks.  They do know that Robb was betrayed and slain; everyone in Westeros knows it.  And whatever Wyman Manderly's motives are, he clearly is risking a great deal to help put a Stark back in Winterfell.

On 7/18/2019 at 10:54 AM, Lord Varys said:

And that goes for most of the Northern lords, in fact. Roose and Walder slaughtered Robb's entire host, meaning that basically every Northern and Riverlander family who had men with Robb at the Twins has reason to desire vengeance.

This wouldn't be the case if the Freys had just killed Robb. It would also not be the case if they had just killed Robb and the Tullys.

This is debatable.  Obviously breaking guest right was a big deal; if the Freys had abandoned Robb and then killed him on the battlefield I agree, there would be much much less rancor.  But I suspect they would still be fairly reviled even if they had limited their slaughter to specifically Stark and Tully troops and not "Stark loyalists" in general.

On 7/18/2019 at 10:54 AM, Lord Varys said:

And it is quite clear that the Riverlords and even the North would have fallen in line if just Robb had been killed. They would have had no figurehead that could successfully carry the torch of Robb's stillborn kingdom.

This is debatable.  If Jeyne is pregnant (which we know isn't the case but wasn't obvious at the time), then Catelyn or any of the major northern lords can carry on the fight for her potential child.  Once Robb's will is known, there is an adult, battle-tested commander with administrative experience ready to take up the crown.  The Manderly's know that Rickon is alive and well and would certainly make that knowledge known if there was still a formidable Stark-loyalist army running around.

[Lord Varys]

5 hours ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

Then what would Bran do when news says his brother was killed by the Freys?  Call his banners and attack the Freys.  Think about it.  How safe is Roose if the Starks keep their hold on the north.  Tyein, Roose, Walder and their allies had reasons.  Some of it being fear of what could happen.

We talk about a scenario where Robb's younger brothers are presumed to be dead. Robb Stark was the last male Stark alive when he was killed - at least as far as everybody knew. In fact, this was likely the reason why Walder and Roose risked putting him down in the first place - because there is nobody out there who could avenge him.

12 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

Except it's common knowledge that the Freys/Boltons orchestrated the Red Wedding.  Even the Lannisters don't know that Tyrion wasn't responsible for Joffrey's death, let alone whose fault it is.  On the contrary, to an outside observer Tyrion is the most likely suspect by an overwhelming margin, moreso after killing Tywin and fleeing Westeros.

The point I was making is that the Freys/Bolton could have killed Robb the way the Tyrells killed Joffrey. By poisoning him or devise some other means that made his death look like an accident. Tywin mentions that he thought of it being done by an arrow that gone astray. Think about a Strangler in Robb's wine - the king choked to death, nobody murdered him (at the Twins Lord Walder's maester would conduct the investigation of his body). Think of a hunt where somebody accidentally shoots the king to death. It would be pretty hard to prove it was murder, and possibly even harder to tie it to the Freys and, especially, the Boltons. And if something isn't even confirmed or necessarily widely believed the amount of people continuing a lost war over this wouldn't be high.

12 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

But he has no reason to save Rickon if not for his loyalty to the Starks.  They do know that Robb was betrayed and slain; everyone in Westeros knows it.  And whatever Wyman Manderly's motives are, he clearly is risking a great deal to help put a Stark back in Winterfell.

Manderly wants to get Rickon to have a pawn to use against Bolton's Stark pretender ('Arya'). He doesn't want to save him (for all we know he might be safer on Skagos!), he wants to use him to get his revenge. It is about what he wants, not (necessarily) what Rickon Stark wants. Nobody has asked him at this point whether he wants to risk his own life to avenge his brother and mother - and we can be pretty sure that nobody is going to care about his opinion when they find him. 

12 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

This is debatable.  Obviously breaking guest right was a big deal; if the Freys had abandoned Robb and then killed him on the battlefield I agree, there would be much much less rancor.  But I suspect they would still be fairly reviled even if they had limited their slaughter to specifically Stark and Tully troops and not "Stark loyalists" in general.

See above. The idea was about an accident/poisoning scenario - and I meant only to take out Robb and the Tullys (i.e. Catelyn and Edmure), not their troops, vassals, bannermen, etc.

But it is also quite clear that smaller scale bloodbath - say, Robb, Catelyn, Edmure and some of their attendants being butchered in the middle of the night in their beds without this extending to the entire army assembled at the Twins - shouldn't have had the impact the Red Wedding had about both the Northmen and the Riverlanders. I mean, even Barbrey Dustin shows her contempt for the Freys at Winterfell because they also killed some Dustin men, and she is very close with Roose.

12 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

This is debatable.  If Jeyne is pregnant (which we know isn't the case but wasn't obvious at the time), then Catelyn or any of the major northern lords can carry on the fight for her potential child.  Once Robb's will is known, there is an adult, battle-tested commander with administrative experience ready to take up the crown.  The Manderly's know that Rickon is alive and well and would certainly make that knowledge known if there was still a formidable Stark-loyalist army running around.

If there had been a smaller scale bloodbath or some accident then the other lords could have been brought back into the fold by offering them favorable terms. This could have worked. The idea of Jon Snow leaving the Watch and succeeding Robb as king was always ludicrous - this could have worked, perhaps, if Robb had retaken the North and actually enforced Jon's release from his vows somehow, but even then: A Jon Stark has no claim to half of Robb's kingdom. He has no Tully blood, and Catelyn, Edmure, and the Blackfish - and with them all the Riverlands - would never bent their knee to him. For rather obvious reasons. And the idea that the people of the Seven Kingdoms suddenly acknowledge a bastard king who turned his back on the Night's Watch is completely unconvincing. He would be an outcast among his own people, and this kind of background should make it very easy to end his reign if he actually tried to set himself up as king. The Lannisters wouldn't need to throw a lot of gold on some Northern lord for him to realize that this 'king' was spitting on everything they held dear in the North.

As for the other boys: They don't really work as people succeeding Robb. The cripple and the child could be used as pawns by other lords, but they cannot hope to properly succeed Robb and lead and command their armies or rule whatever kingdom is left.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Root and stem. It is coming.

[Lord Varys]

Just to clarify what I mean by a less bloody Red Wedding or rather the surgical removal of Robb Stark:

Compare it to Renly. He was murdered in the middle of his army and in the end only Loras Tyrell and Brienne of Tarth want to avenge his death. Anybody else quickly falls in line and allies with either of the powers who profited from Renly's murder and who could both have been the powers arranging his murder - Stannis or Joffrey.

If Robb had met a similar end his followers would have basically done the same thing as Renly's followers did.

[Hugorfonics]

21 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The idea of Jon Snow leaving the Watch and succeeding Robb as king was always ludicrous - this could have worked, perhaps, if Robb had retaken the North and actually enforced Jon's release from his vows somehow, but even then: A Jon Stark has no claim to half of Robb's kingdom. He has no Tully blood, and Catelyn, Edmure, and the Blackfish - and with them all the Riverlands - would never bent their knee to him. For rather obvious reasons. And the idea that the people of the Seven Kingdoms suddenly acknowledge a bastard king who turned his back on the Night's Watch is completely unconvincing. He would be an outcast among his own people, and this kind of background should make it very easy to end his reign if he actually tried to set himself up as king. The Lannisters wouldn't need to throw a lot of gold on some Northern lord for him to realize that this 'king' was spitting on everything they held dear in the North.

As for the other boys: They don't really work as people succeeding Robb. The cripple and the child could be used as pawns by other lords, but they cannot hope to properly succeed Robb and lead and command their armies or rule whatever kingdom is left.

Jon may be a bastard but in the eyes of the north, he looks pretty damn Starkish.

Quote

And somehow after that the Greatjon became Robb's right hand, his staunchest champion, loudly telling all and sundry that the boy lord was a Stark after all, and they'd damn well better bend their knees if they didn't fancy having them chewed off.

A cloth sigil is a nice banner to inspire Stark loyalty. A Grey Wind is even better. Jons got one too. Renlys old troops switched sides at the sight of Renlys Ghost, what will Robbs men do when they see Ghost? 

Or Summer Shaggy and Nymeria? These direwolves are literally a banner for Robbs men to follow.

I see no real reason why the Stark kids cant wield relatively the same power as Dany. Well, not Sansa. Which is a shame because shes the most well suited for the task.

Children are usually easy to take advantage of, children with warrior friends and pet monsters are not

Under normal circumstances I'd agree that Tully would never bend to Jon but when the other option is Frey/Lannister, well bending the knee to grumkins and snarks sounds more favorable

[cpg2016]

22 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The point I was making is that the Freys/Bolton could have killed Robb the way the Tyrells killed Joffrey. By poisoning him or devise some other means that made his death look like an accident. Tywin mentions that he thought of it being done by an arrow that gone astray. Think about a Strangler in Robb's wine - the king choked to death, nobody murdered him (at the Twins Lord Walder's maester would conduct the investigation of his body). Think of a hunt where somebody accidentally shoots the king to death. It would be pretty hard to prove it was murder, and possibly even harder to tie it to the Freys and, especially, the Boltons. And if something isn't even confirmed or necessarily widely believed the amount of people continuing a lost war over this wouldn't be high.

Oh yes I agree.  The Freys are screwed because they so blatantly gave the finger to the laws of hospitality to the extent there isn't even a shadow of plausible deniability.

22 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Manderly wants to get Rickon to have a pawn to use against Bolton's Stark pretender ('Arya'). He doesn't want to save him (for all we know he might be safer on Skagos!), he wants to use him to get his revenge. It is about what he wants, not (necessarily) what Rickon Stark wants. Nobody has asked him at this point whether he wants to risk his own life to avenge his brother and mother - and we can be pretty sure that nobody is going to care about his opinion when they find him. 

I mean, we know what Wyman Manderly's motivations are.  Yes, he wants revenge for purely personal reasons.  He also has a genuinely altruistic sense of loyalty to the Stark line.  Wyman is quite clearly in agreement with Wylla Manderly, given his commentary on her outburst.

Without meaning to be an ass to Rickon, Wyman Manderly can be both ambitious and genuinely loyal at the same time.  That he isn't considering Rickon's wishes is kind of in keeping with the dictates of this kind of political system.  Rickon may be genuinely unprepared, and given his age probably has no real view of what he wants, but that doesn't mean that the Northern political class won't expect him to take up the mantle of running the North, regardless of whether he wants it.  Aerys I didn't want to be king either, and I guess he does a piss poor job, but he still gets crowned and all that.

22 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But it is also quite clear that smaller scale bloodbath - say, Robb, Catelyn, Edmure and some of their attendants being butchered in the middle of the night in their beds without this extending to the entire army assembled at the Twins - shouldn't have had the impact the Red Wedding had about both the Northmen and the Riverlanders. I mean, even Barbrey Dustin shows her contempt for the Freys at Winterfell because they also killed some Dustin men, and she is very close with Roose.

I mean, Barbrey Dustin is an interesting case because she has her own bone to pick, but again I'll refer you to Wylla Manderly.  Even a more localized slaughter of only Tullys and Starks would lead to significant political backblow (letting alone that it would have been extremely difficult to kill just them and not the various bodyguards).  Robb was the King in the North, and more than that, his lords proclaimed him such.  They have a vested interest in his success, but more than that, in his honor.  I don't think that is something the North or even the Riverlords would have taken lying down.

After all, Ned is executed, plausibly speaking for treason (given what the Northerners know) and he's just one man - and it still sparks a full on rebellion.  In light of that it's hard to imagine that Robb being assassinated by the Freys wouldn't also spark major long term resentment and violence.

22 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If there had been a smaller scale bloodbath or some accident then the other lords could have been brought back into the fold by offering them favorable terms. This could have worked. The idea of Jon Snow leaving the Watch and succeeding Robb as king was always ludicrous - this could have worked, perhaps, if Robb had retaken the North and actually enforced Jon's release from his vows somehow, but even then: A Jon Stark has no claim to half of Robb's kingdom. He has no Tully blood, and Catelyn, Edmure, and the Blackfish - and with them all the Riverlands - would never bent their knee to him. For rather obvious reasons. And the idea that the people of the Seven Kingdoms suddenly acknowledge a bastard king who turned his back on the Night's Watch is completely unconvincing. He would be an outcast among his own people, and this kind of background should make it very easy to end his reign if he actually tried to set himself up as king. The Lannisters wouldn't need to throw a lot of gold on some Northern lord for him to realize that this 'king' was spitting on everything they held dear in the North.

To go in order:

I don't think the Northern lords could have been offered terms.  Who would offer them?  The Lannisters have long since proven themselves to be bad faith actors.  The Riverlords aren't accepting terms, because the only reason they're in the fight in the first place is because Tywin launched a completely unprovoked, full scale invasion of the Riverlands and started a massive chevauchee.  Don't give me the whole Tyrion-kidnapping thing - the proper place for that is before Robert, who passes final judgement, not an invasion of the place Tyrion happened to be kidnapped.

And Robb doesn't claim the Riverlands by right of blood; he does so because the Riverlords elect him as their king.  Proclaim, really, and it's possible/likely that his ancestry has a lot to do with it, but at the end of the day they want a Stark for their king because he's fighting for them.  That is the duty of a feudal overlord - protection in return for service.  They don't say "Edmure is our king!" and then have him form an alliance with Robb - they choose a Stark.  And while Catelyn doesn't like Jon, she is in no position to contradict his will.  Undermining that means undermining his authority.

22 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

As for the other boys: They don't really work as people succeeding Robb. The cripple and the child could be used as pawns by other lords, but they cannot hope to properly succeed Robb and lead and command their armies or rule whatever kingdom is left.

Um, why not?  Obviously there will be a Regency, which could very well be a disaster, but both real life and Westerosi history is filled with child kings "ruling" in ridiculous circumstances.  Why in the world should Aegon III's rule have worked, given the massive bloodbath that preceded it and his relative age?  Just because you say they don't work, doesn't make it so.  Bran and Rickon are trueborn sons of Ned Stark, and as Manderly puts it, their wolves will prove that out.  Rickon doesn't have to command an army on Day 1.  Robb asserts his authority over fractious lords by saddling up and fighting, but no one expects a 5 year old to do that.  He'll be a pawn for his regents, depending on how well meaning they are, but that doesn't mean he won't be king and won't rule over a kingdom.

[Lord Varys]

40 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Jon may be a bastard but in the eyes of the north, he looks pretty damn Starkish.

Sure, he was a Stark bastard last time I looked. But the reason why people differentiate between bastards and legitimate children in this world has nothing to do with looks, but whether the parents were married or not.

40 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

A cloth sigil is a nice banner to inspire Stark loyalty. A Grey Wind is even better. Jons got one too. Renlys old troops switched sides at the sight of Renlys Ghost, what will Robbs men do when they see Ghost? 

Or Summer Shaggy and Nymeria? These direwolves are literally a banner for Robbs men to follow.

I see no real reason why the Stark kids cant wield relatively the same power as Dany. Well, not Sansa. Which is a shame because shes the most well suited for the task.

Children are usually easy to take advantage of, children with warrior friends and pet monsters are not

Under normal circumstances I'd agree that Tully would never bend to Jon but when the other option is Frey/Lannister, well bending the knee to grumkins and snarks sounds more favorable

We (or I) was not talking about a general setting, but merely about the political situation of Robb's kingdom in ASoS right around the time he was killed at the Twins. Robb had already lost his war. He was done. He could, perhaps, retake the North and Winterfell and then make some peace with the Iron Throne involving him giving up his crown to save his life and face. If were to insist to continue his war he would definitely lose half of his kingdom because he could never defend the Riverlands against the Tyrells/Lannisters after he had moved his remaining army back north.

Robb's sudden death by 'accident' or half-secret murder would free his bannermen and vassals to continue his doomed campaign and negotiate individual terms with the Iron Throne. There is nothing to be gained from continuing the war - and half Robb's followers would not even consider following Jon Snow. Brynden Tully makes that perfectly clear in AFfC.

Renly's ghost is a different matter. It is a miraculous appearance in the middle of a battle. Jon can have a direwolf, but that doesn't change who and what he is.

18 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

Oh yes I agree.  The Freys are screwed because they so blatantly gave the finger to the laws of hospitality to the extent there isn't even a shadow of plausible deniability.

Yeah, which is why the Red Wedding was a bad idea, but not necessarily murdering Robb.

18 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

I mean, we know what Wyman Manderly's motivations are.  Yes, he wants revenge for purely personal reasons.  He also has a genuinely altruistic sense of loyalty to the Stark line.  Wyman is quite clearly in agreement with Wylla Manderly, given his commentary on her outburst.

Wylla has a cool speech, but she is not altruistic, either. She doesn't even know that Rickon Stark might still be alive. She merely thinks that they should join Stannis because Stannis can help them get their revenge. Which is something the Manderlys may not want all that much if they had not been personally wronged or harmed in the Red Wedding.

18 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

Without meaning to be an ass to Rickon, Wyman Manderly can be both ambitious and genuinely loyal at the same time.  That he isn't considering Rickon's wishes is kind of in keeping with the dictates of this kind of political system.  Rickon may be genuinely unprepared, and given his age probably has no real view of what he wants, but that doesn't mean that the Northern political class won't expect him to take up the mantle of running the North, regardless of whether he wants it.  Aerys I didn't want to be king either, and I guess he does a piss poor job, but he still gets crowned and all that.

For one, trying to restore Rickon Stark to the North is kind of arbitrary considering Lord Wyman knows that Brandon Stark lives, too. And he would be the rightful heir of the North, not the younger boy.

I expect that a Rickon around 10-12 or older would also want to avenge his mother and brother, but it seems a rather self-serving and even cruel thing to drag a boy into a war which might get him killed. Tyrion understands that crown Myrcella is to kill her, and Myrcella would have had all Dorne at her back. Rickon Stark would have, perhaps, half of a weakened North. That's not enough to prevail if they mean to continue Robb's nonsensical secessionist idea (which they likely do not at this point, but it is still a huge risk).

18 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

I mean, Barbrey Dustin is an interesting case because she has her own bone to pick, but again I'll refer you to Wylla Manderly.  Even a more localized slaughter of only Tullys and Starks would lead to significant political backblow (letting alone that it would have been extremely difficult to kill just them and not the various bodyguards).  Robb was the King in the North, and more than that, his lords proclaimed him such.  They have a vested interest in his success, but more than that, in his honor.  I don't think that is something the North or even the Riverlords would have taken lying down.

Don't overplay the lords who proclaimed Robb. It was a handful of Northmen, and the only significant lords among them were Jon Umber and Rickard Karstark (who later denounced Robb as 'no king of mine'). Maege Mormont is no great lord of the North. The bulk of the lords declaring Robb king were Riverlords, and they were also the ones who later did Robb homage as their king. No lord from back North who didn't march with the army or who remained with Roose's part of the army ever personally searched out and did homage to Robb.

And Robb's kingdom was stillborn. It was a fool's project from the start. It prevented them/made it almost impossible to make the necessary alliances to win the war, and it was a spur of the moment idea. No proper thinking went into that. The point where pretty much everybody realizes that Robb's kingdom is going to go nowhere is after the Blackwater and when the boy king marries the wrong woman. At this point pretty much no one has any vested interest left in defending that kingdom against at all costs.

And I don't see any difference between the Northmen/Riverlanders choosing Robb as their king and the Reach men and Stormlanders taking Renly as their king. Do you really think the Riverlanders and Northmen are magically more loyal or honorable as a group than the Reach men and Stormlanders? I don't think there is any reason to believe that. Instead there are hints that the Riverlords and Northmen are actually more quarrelsome, ambitious, and focused on their own interests than the Stormlanders and Reach men. The Reach lords are supposed to more close and prone to less violent infighting than the other lords, and the Stormlanders collectively worshiped Robert and Renly both. And Renly was never challenged by any of his bannermen (or his Reach allies) the way Robb was challenged by the Greatjon - nor did he have the need to use a direwolf to assert his authority.

I agree that it would have been difficult to kill only Robb and the Tullys, say, and not the bodyguards - but it would have been possible. A sleeping drought in the wine, say.

18 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

After all, Ned is executed, plausibly speaking for treason (given what the Northerners know) and he's just one man - and it still sparks a full on rebellion.  In light of that it's hard to imagine that Robb being assassinated by the Freys wouldn't also spark major long term resentment and violence.

The situations are different, though. The North had capable and forceful leaders in Catelyn and Robb when Ned was arrested - and it is the arrest that triggers the rebellion, not the execution - which it wouldn't have after Robb was killed.

18 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

I don't think the Northern lords could have been offered terms.  Who would offer them?  The Lannisters have long since proven themselves to be bad faith actors.  The Riverlords aren't accepting terms, because the only reason they're in the fight in the first place is because Tywin launched a completely unprovoked, full scale invasion of the Riverlands and started a massive chevauchee.  Don't give me the whole Tyrion-kidnapping thing - the proper place for that is before Robert, who passes final judgement, not an invasion of the place Tyrion happened to be kidnapped.

The Riverlords and the Northmen actually do accept terms from the Lannisters even after the Red Wedding. It is quite clear that Manderly wouldn't have made any treasonous plans if Tywin had lived years longer and Wylis hadn't been returned to White Harbor.

And the fact that the Riverlands were invaded in and of itself is no reason for them to continue war forever. The idea would be to offer favorable terms after Robb's death, blaming the escalation of the war and the hostilities on him and, especially, Catelyn (who was the one who abducted Tyrion) allowing every side to keep face. And there would be no proof that Tywin or the Lannisters colluded with the Freys to kill Robb (the Freys have more than enough motives all by themselves!) so no reason why people caring about their honor couldn't make deals with Tywin.

And it is quite clear that you use vastly different standards to judge wrong. Tywin should have gone to Robert because of the abduction? But Robb rebelling against Joffrey because his father was accused of treason was okay? Robb has no proof that Ned did not betray Robert and Joffrey, he just assumes that. He is right that his father was betrayed, for the most part, at least. If Ned had acted with the knowledge Cersei herself gave him trying to give the throne to Stannis would have been the vilest of treason.

18 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

And Robb doesn't claim the Riverlands by right of blood; he does so because the Riverlords elect him as their king.  Proclaim, really, and it's possible/likely that his ancestry has a lot to do with it, but at the end of the day they want a Stark for their king because he's fighting for them.  That is the duty of a feudal overlord - protection in return for service.  They don't say "Edmure is our king!" and then have him form an alliance with Robb - they choose a Stark.  And while Catelyn doesn't like Jon, she is in no position to contradict his will.  Undermining that means undermining his authority.

It is rather obvious that his ancestry is the reason the Riverlords go along with the Greatjon's suggestion. It is also quite clear that if you come into a kingdom the way Robb did - essentially because he is descended from the families running two of the Seven Kingdoms - that him naming an heir who only has the blood of one of those families, not both, is going to face a problem. That would be the case even if Catelyn Tully and her family were not opposed to this Jon Snow - which they very much are.

Cat doesn't have to contradict and oppose Robb's will while he is alive - she and her brother and uncle can deal with it the same way Cersei dealt with Robert's last will after Robert was dead. And it is pretty likely that this would have been what they had done. Robb was about to make his mother a prisoner in all but name. Had she been sent to Seagard before his death and had thus outlived him she would have come back with a vengeance after Robb's death. And considering that Jon was somewhere beyond the Wall when Robb was killed it would have definitely fallen to Cat and Edmure (or the Blackfish if the Freys had killed the Tullys along with Robb) to deal with Robb's succession and the continuation of the kingdom. The Tullys and the Riverlords would have decided that, with input from whatever Northmen and Riverlords were with them. It is not unlikely that Edmure would have declared himself king or Catelyn would have decided to take the crown of her son. She was Robb's mother, a born Tully and a Stark by marriage. And capable of continuing a campaign or treat with the Lannisters.

18 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

Um, why not?  Obviously there will be a Regency, which could very well be a disaster, but both real life and Westerosi history is filled with child kings "ruling" in ridiculous circumstances.  Why in the world should Aegon III's rule have worked, given the massive bloodbath that preceded it and his relative age?  Just because you say they don't work, doesn't make it so.  Bran and Rickon are trueborn sons of Ned Stark, and as Manderly puts it, their wolves will prove that out.  Rickon doesn't have to command an army on Day 1.  Robb asserts his authority over fractious lords by saddling up and fighting, but no one expects a 5 year old to do that.  He'll be a pawn for his regents, depending on how well meaning they are, but that doesn't mean he won't be king and won't rule over a kingdom.

Because we are talking about a kingdom that was essentially disintegrating while Robb was still alive. A regency during the minority of a king can work after a war is over, but not while there are enemies on all sides. Whoever succeeded Robb would essentially be Tristifer V, gone in a fortnight or a couple of months.

Even in the present scenario there is a very high risk that a Lord Rickon restored to Winterfell would not restore peace to the North. There is no means to figure out who has a right to serve as guardian and regent to the boy until he comes of age, no procedure to figure out which lord is most qualified to run things for Rickon, etc. Many men might think that's their job.

While Robb was old enough to take the lead and go to battle (albeit he was unable to prevent Roose from plotting against and killing him - showing his own shortcomings) Rickon or Brandon couldn't do either. Their rule would not strengthen the North, it would weaken it, since boy lords are the bane of every house, as Roose Bolton eloquently points out. Such rulers would encourage attacks from all sides, from within and without the North.

Just think how Joffrey's death weakened the Lannister rule. Joff was still a boy, but he was fast approaching manhood when he died. Tommen is five years younger than Joffrey, meaning the regency government is to continue for a pretty long time. And when Tywin dies the government is run by a woman, which essentially encourages plots and treason all across the Seven Kingdoms. The same would happen in the North. I mean, you know how the Northmen look down on fat and weak Wyman Manderly, right? If he would act as regent for Rickon this would not exactly sent the message that the North was in strong and capable hands.

It would be basically a miracle if such a kingdom or lordship would live long - just as it would be a miracle that King Tommen is still alive and on the Iron Throne at the end of the series. Certainly not impossible, but very unlikely.

[SeanF]

Walder Frey gained nothing out of the Red Wedding that he would not have got by simply withdrawing from his alliance and renewing allegiance to the Iron Throne.

Instead, he placed a large target on the back of every single member of his clan.   They are hated across the North and Riverlands, and despised by their nominal allies.  I don't doubt that if Tywin had lived, and Tyrion become Lord of the North, he would have thrown the Freys under the bus to placate the Northern lords.

 

[Hugorfonics]

19 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure, he was a Stark bastard last time I looked. But the reason why people differentiate between bastards and legitimate children in this world has nothing to do with looks, but whether the parents were married or not.

We (or I) was not talking about a general setting, but merely about the political situation of Robb's kingdom in ASoS right around the time he was killed at the Twins. Robb had already lost his war. He was done. He could, perhaps, retake the North and Winterfell and then make some peace with the Iron Throne involving him giving up his crown to save his life and face. If were to insist to continue his war he would definitely lose half of his kingdom because he could never defend the Riverlands against the Tyrells/Lannisters after he had moved his remaining army back north.

Robb's sudden death by 'accident' or half-secret murder would free his bannermen and vassals to continue his doomed campaign and negotiate individual terms with the Iron Throne. There is nothing to be gained from continuing the war - and half Robb's followers would not even consider following Jon Snow. Brynden Tully makes that perfectly clear in AFfC.

Renly's ghost is a different matter. It is a miraculous appearance in the middle of a battle. Jon can have a direwolf, but that doesn't change who and what he is.

If Robb lived, the chances of him holding the Riverlands are small, agreed. However "definitely" is a strong word, which I dont think should be applied with the anomaly of Robb Stark. The man was a military genius, until he suffers a defeat its unwise to bet against him. 

If Robb were to keel over and have a heart attack or something, around the time he vistied the Twins, who knows? But probably not. Heres the Riverlords at Robbs crowning

Quote

"Aye," said Lord Bracken. "Gregor Clegane laid waste to my fields, slaughtered my smallfolk, and left Stone Hedge a smoking ruin. Am I now to bend the knee to the ones who sent him? What have we fought for, if we are to put all back as it was before?"

Lord Blackwood agreed, to Catelyn's surprise and dismay. "And if we do make peace with King Joffrey, are we not then traitors to King Renly? What if the stag should prevail against the lion, where would that leave us?"

"Whatever you may decide for yourselves, I shall never call a Lannister my king," declared Marq Piper.

"Nor I!" yelled the little Darry boy. "I never will!"

The anti Lannister sentiment is strong, seemingly irreversible. Obviously the Riverlords do bend the knee when their army was massacred and family incarcerated (but is it genuine?) Yet in the situation of Robbs death not murder, with the Riverlords keeping company with their family and bannermen, I dont see them meekly dipping their banners.

A Tyrell and Lannister bedroom looks scary, but this was never a game for two (or 4) Stannis remains on the field, Balon is dead, The Dornish will soon nearly crown/assassinate Myrcella. 

Brynden doesnt trust Jon like his niece, neither are Riverlords. Not like, say, Mallister who is a Lord and was present when the document was created. 

The boys are spitting images of Robb, like Summer is an image of Grey Wind. Its like the Renly/Gendry factor, very striking. Where as Jon and Ghost look Starkish, which cant hurt either.

Robbs kingdom needs someone to follow in that scenario or asoiaf, but it could never be the kingslayer and them. With Edmure currently on his way to KL (a notoriously safe passage) the Riverlords will seek for a new banner if that's, a crippled with a wolf, a baby with a wolf, lady Bolton of Winterfell with a wolf, LSH with a rope, or some girl with black hair who calls herself Sansa without a wolf but knights of the vale, or Jon Snow their actual rightful king (anyway you look at it lol), so be it. 

[Lord Varys]

9 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

If Robb lived, the chances of him holding the Riverlands are small, agreed. However "definitely" is a strong word, which I dont think should be applied with the anomaly of Robb Stark. The man was a military genius, until he suffers a defeat its unwise to bet against him. 

Robb wasn't a 'military genius'. He won three impressive victories, two of which were only possible (Whispering Wood and Camps) because his enemies underestimated him - and Oxcross happened because Stafford Lannister was a moron.

He never won a decisive victory, and he never had a plan how to end the war, reach an understanding with whatever Baratheon pretender prevailed, or how perpetuate his kingdom. He could have held the Riverlands if he had formed and stationed a permanent army there - which he neither had nor gave any indication to create.

There is no chance that the Iron Throne would accept that Robb's kingdom cut off the Vale from the West.

9 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

If Robb were to keel over and have a heart attack or something, around the time he vistied the Twins, who knows? But probably not. Heres the Riverlords at Robbs crowning

That is when they are all drunk and mad with enthusiasm. They are done after the Blackwater and they all know it. It is the reason why Roose turns against Robb. He wouldn't have done that if there had been a chance that they could win.

9 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

The anti Lannister sentiment is strong, seemingly irreversible. Obviously the Riverlords do bend the knee when their army was massacred and family incarcerated (but is it genuine?) Yet in the situation of Robbs death not murder, with the Riverlords keeping company with their family and bannermen, I dont see them meekly dipping their banners.

And in what would they continue the war? In the name of Sansa Lannister? Or some bastard who, at that time, was a brother of the Night's Watch who had defected to the wildlings? Tywin would have to give them some good terms, but they would have accepted them. Continuing the war would mean they would eventually be crushed by the Crownlands, the Reach, the Westermen, and the Vale.

9 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Brynden doesnt trust Jon like his niece, neither are Riverlords. Not like, say, Mallister who is a Lord and was present when the document was created. 

Brynden Tully holds Riverrun as Warden of the Southern Marches. He does not witness Robb's will but he would be an important player in the settlement of King Robb's succession - and he would have as much motivation to honor Robb's will as Cersei had to honor Robert's.

9 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

The boys are spitting images of Robb, like Summer is an image of Grey Wind. Its like the Renly/Gendry factor, very striking. Where as Jon and Ghost look Starkish, which cant hurt either.

This is not about looks, it is about the fact that those people are either far away (Jon) or believed to be dead (Bran/Rickon). Robb's succession would have to be settled immediately after his death, and there would be simply no heir left, meaning that his movement would crumble and the lords would look to their own interests rather than try to continue Robb's crusade by committee rule.

His army would go down the road Renly's did after he was murdered - or, perhaps a better image, like the Hightower army did during the Dance after they lost their leader at First Tumbleton.

9 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Robbs kingdom needs someone to follow in that scenario or asoiaf, but it could never be the kingslayer and them. With Edmure currently on his way to KL (a notoriously safe passage) the Riverlords will seek for a new banner if that's, a crippled with a wolf, a baby with a wolf, lady Bolton of Winterfell with a wolf, LSH with a rope, or some girl with black hair who calls herself Sansa without a wolf but knights of the vale, or Jon Snow their actual rightful king (anyway you look at it lol), so be it. 

Edmure is on his way to CR, not KL. Lady Stoneheart certainly could and likely will take over the Riverlands - but hers won't be a kingdom but a movement hellbent on death and destruction. It is also quite clear that she will have a power and authority transcending mundane power structures considering that she has come back from the dead. If you put resurrection next to the right of primogeniture it is quite clear who is going to win, no? If the Cat zombie wants she can take over Riverrun, the Riverlands, and even the North against both her brother and her living children.

[The Commentator]

On 7/25/2019 at 11:49 AM, Lord Varys said:

Just to clarify what I mean by a less bloody Red Wedding or rather the surgical removal of Robb Stark:

Compare it to Renly. He was murdered in the middle of his army and in the end only Loras Tyrell and Brienne of Tarth want to avenge his death. Anybody else quickly falls in line and allies with either of the powers who profited from Renly's murder and who could both have been the powers arranging his murder - Stannis or Joffrey.

If Robb had met a similar end his followers would have basically done the same thing as Renly's followers did.

I mostly agree.  But will it satisfy Joff and the Lannister’s?  Is Cat cool with Sansa marrying Tyrion.  

[Hugorfonics]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Robb wasn't a 'military genius'. He won three impressive victories, two of which were only possible (Whispering Wood and Camps) because his enemies underestimated him - and Oxcross happened because Stafford Lannister was a moron.

He never won a decisive victory, and he never had a plan how to end the war, reach an understanding with whatever Baratheon pretender prevailed, or how perpetuate his kingdom. He could have held the Riverlands if he had formed and stationed a permanent army there - which he neither had nor gave any indication to create.

We are not privy to Robbs pov, only Cats who was recently kicked out of the war room. We don't really know Robbs plans, though we know Blackfish was given command of the Riverlands so thats something.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

That is when they are all drunk and mad with enthusiasm. They are done after the Blackwater and they all know it. It is the reason why Roose turns against Robb. He wouldn't have done that if there had been a chance that they could win.

Roose turns on Robb because his son burnt Winterfell and killed his heirs, not because of Stannis losing some ships.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

And in what would they continue the war? In the name of Sansa Lannister? Or some bastard who, at that time, was a brother of the Night's Watch who had defected to the wildlings? Tywin would have to give them some good terms, but they would have accepted them. Continuing the war would mean they would eventually be crushed by the Crownlands, the Reach, the Westermen, and the Vale.

Yes in the name of Jon, just like they said they would. Why would Mallister and them agree, or at least not voice their displeasure to a king Jon?

By the Vale? Lysa will attack Edmure? Tywin expects Lysa to attack Tully? No way.

I told you last post, its not a game for 2 (or 4). Its a game for 7 or 8 with Dany and the GC as well.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

If the Cat zombie wants she can take over Riverrun, the Riverlands, and even the North against both her brother and her living children.

First Lysa now Cat? Its family duty honor. Not family murder family

[The Young Maester]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Robb wasn't a 'military genius'. 

Yeah I agree he wasn’t a military genius. He had one of those military genius serving him aka Blackfish. But I believe Robb had potential to become a great leader of men. If he had lived for like another 2 years he would’ve easily become one of the best Generals in Westeros. Robb was a great tactician but a horrible strategist.

Robb would’ve done well serving someone like Tywin, or Stannis. These guys understand the bigger picture whilst Robb never did. A commander in army is what Robb should’ve been. Him and Ned would have made a great duo if they had gotten the chance to march to war together.

[Tyrion1991]

Walder could have earned far more money by capturing the Northern Lords and selling them as hostages. 

Sure it’s impolite, but it’s not quite as blasphemous a crime as murdering them. One is just him being a pesky rapscallion and the other a monster. If Lord Tywin executes Rob that bloods on his hands.

No it was not a smart move. Unless you kill every Stark and every Northerner there’s going to be somebody gunning for revenge. Don’t burn bridges.

[Lord Varys]

5 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

I mostly agree.  But will it satisfy Joff and the Lannister’s?  Is Cat cool with Sansa marrying Tyrion.  

I certainly can't lay out here any details. I was just making the general case that the sudden death/alleged murder of Robb in a non-Red Wedding setting would lead to a different outcome than the great slaughter that was the Red Wedding. How things would turn out in such a scenario depends on the scenario. But as I said - the Renly example certainly gives us a hint.

3 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

We are not privy to Robbs pov, only Cats who was recently kicked out of the war room. We don't really know Robbs plans, though we know Blackfish was given command of the Riverlands so thats something.

We get Robb's intention when he marches back in ASoS. He had no plans to defeat King Joffrey in the field.

3 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Roose turns on Robb because his son burnt Winterfell and killed his heirs, not because of Stannis losing some ships.

No, it is quite clear that Roose was willing to stay true to Robb until he given sufficient assurance that Lord Tywin would not blame him for the loss of Jaime's hand. His first plans of real betrayal was when he received both the news of Stannis' defeat on the Blackwater and the news about Robb marrying Jeyne Westerling. And that is because it was quite clear that the war was lost at that point - and Robb had to go because he was too stubborn to bend the knee.

3 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Yes in the name of Jon, just like they said they would. Why would Mallister and them agree, or at least not voice their displeasure to a king Jon?

Because their king did not ask for their opinion. He asked them to witness his will and affix their seals to the parchment. That's not the same as them agreeing with his decision. Not to mention that this will was not supposed or expected to play a role in the near future. Robb had a wife and no intention of dying soon or without children. You can agree to such a succession settlement if you believe it is never going to play a role, anyway.

The other problem with the Jon solution is the simple fact that Robb's will has no impact on Jon's vows or the fact that he was a deserter who had joined the wildlings by the time Robb died. He was not at hand to take over for Robb when he was butchered.

3 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

By the Vale? Lysa will attack Edmure? Tywin expects Lysa to attack Tully? No way.

Lysa watched and did nothing while her kin was butchered in the Riverlands. She made her peace with the Iron Throne and remained part of the Seven Kingdoms. Either her troops would have helped to crush Robb's kingdom or she would have stood back and watched the Reach and the West and the Crownlands do it.

3 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

First Lysa now Cat? Its family duty honor. Not family murder family

Lady Stoneheart is no longer Catelyn. She is a zombie with her memories - people fear and worship her for what she is, for the divine miracle that brought her back. Such a person should be able to do anything she wants. She is basically some sort of anti-Jesus.

But nobody said anything about murder. Just taking the reins of power. That's not the same thing. Do you think her brother or any of her children could stand against her? I don't think so.

2 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

Yeah I agree he wasn’t a military genius. He had one of those military genius serving him aka Blackfish. But I believe Robb had potential to become a great leader of men. If he had lived for like another 2 years he would’ve easily become one of the best Generals in Westeros. Robb was a great tactician but a horrible strategist.

Not sure if the Blackfish was a genius, either. He knew a lot about warfare but Robb's problem was that he never had a proper goal. It doesn't matter if you are a good tactician (and that he was) or a good strategist (he was not completely bad there, either) if you don't really know what you want. All Robb originally was to help his mother's family and people and to free his father. Then it was avenge him and they made him king. Then it was ... I don't know, what was it?

They never had a plan.

The only way for Robb to keep his crown and kingdom would have been to destroy the Baratheons completely. That way there would no longer be (convincing) pretenders to the Iron Throne. The best way would have been for him to take and burn KL, kill all the people there, tear down the Red Keep, destroy the Iron Throne, cover the land with salt. Make it look more accursed than Harrenhal. That way he could have had a chance to keep his crown.

But he doesn't even make an attempt to take KL or to remove Joffrey himself.

I don't doubt Robb would have become a decent lord had he lived longer. He certainly had potential and pulled off some amazing things. 

2 hours ago, Tyrion1991 said:

Walder could have earned far more money by capturing the Northern Lords and selling them as hostages. 

Sure it’s impolite, but it’s not quite as blasphemous a crime as murdering them. One is just him being a pesky rapscallion and the other a monster. If Lord Tywin executes Rob that bloods on his hands.

He actually caught a lot of hostages. Those highborn men and women that were killed were among Robb's bodyguard. They fought and were slain in combat.

Edmure, the Greatjon, etc. were captured. And Catelyn was supposed to be captured, too. And many other men and women actually were captured.

The madness of the Red Wedding was also not killing a bunch of nobles, it is the scale of it. The fact that they actually butchered over ten thousand men in and outside the Twins during a wedding feast. That was just insane. Just because one member of your family is killed doesn't mean you have to take brutal vengeance. It is not just the fact that Wendel Manderly died the way he died that causes Lord Wyman to do what he later does - it is the scale of the Red Wedding, the way the Freys act afterwards, the number of people that were killed, the message that killing so many people in such insidious a manner sends to the world.

The North holds guest right pretty high, but if only Robb and a couple of other people had been killed then this wouldn't have caused the kind of vengeance that's brewing now - because many other people would have lived.

And it is not that the Red Wedding as such was necessarily a dead end leading to death and destruction. Roose wouldn't have done it if he thought he couldn't get away with it. And he is a smart man. He knew that he grind the North down with Tywin's help. But then Joffrey died and was replaced by Tommen and Tywin quickly followed him into the grave. Those things alone started to embolden those men and women who actually desire vengeance. But even a man like Manderly needed his heir returned to him before he made a real move.