Jump to content
•Brandon Ice Eyes

The Red Wedding Was Justified.

Recommended Posts

On 9/13/2019 at 2:06 AM, Widowmaker 811 said:

Many in the North is actually practicing ritualistic rape when their lords exercise the ancient rights of the first night.  It is illegal but the North is savage.  It is out of topic but I thought it deserved to be mentioned.  

No, few if any do.
Mostly its a very small number of bad men justifying their evil acts. And claiming some others do the same. Actually its only one man doing either of these things.

Quote
"Smitten?" Bolton laughed. "Did he use that word? Why, the boy has a singer's soul … though if you believe that song, you may well be dimmer than the first Reek. Even the riding part is wrong. I was hunting a fox along the Weeping Water when I chanced upon a mill and saw a young woman washing clothes in the stream. The old miller had gotten himself a new young wife, a girl not half his age. She was a tall, willowy creature, very healthy-looking. Long legs and small firm breasts, like two ripe plums. Pretty, in a common sort of way. The moment that I set eyes on her I wanted her. Such was my due. The maesters will tell you that King Jaehaerys abolished the lord's right to the first night to appease his shrewish queen, but where the old gods rule, old customs linger. The Umbers keep the first night too, deny it as they may. Certain of the mountain clans as well, and on Skagos … well, only heart trees ever see half of what they do on Skagos.
"This miller's marriage had been performed without my leave or knowledge. The man had cheated me. So I had him hanged, and claimed my rights beneath the tree where he was swaying. 

This is Roose Bolton, talking of Ramsey's conception. He is clear on several things and make claims on several more.
Clear and undoubtedly true:
i) he raped the wife because he wanted her, not because he had a right to her. Further, he only did it after murdering her husband, so it was clearly not 'legal', nor justified, just an asshole assholing.*
ii) the Lords right was abolished over a century ago
a claim, which may or may not be true:
iii) the Umbers and some mountain clans do this also, although they deny it because its clearly illegal from ii)

*I suspect that a large part of the reason he murdered the husband was to prevent the man going to the Starks and getting Bolton in trouble. Ned would be within his rights to hang (well, behead) Bolton for what he did, and is the kind of man to do it.

Quote

Ramsay smiled his wet smile. "Does she make your cock hard, Reek? Is it straining against your laces? Would you like to fuck her first?" He laughed. "The Prince of Winterfell should have that right, as all lords did in days of old. The first night. But you're no lord, are you? Only Reek. Not even a man, truth be told." He took another gulp of wine, then threw the cup across the room to shatter off a wall. Red rivers ran down across the stone. "Lady Arya. Get on the bed. Yes, against the pillows, that's a good wife. Now spread your legs. Let us see your cunt."

Ramsey, this time. Note that he is also clear that the right no longer exists. Just that he thinks it should.

Quote

"As you command." The white knight chose his words with care. "Prince Aerys … as a youth, he was taken with a certain lady of Casterly Rock, a cousin of Tywin Lannister. When she and Tywin wed, your father drank too much wine at the wedding feast and was heard to say that it was a great pity that the lord's right to the first night had been abolished. A drunken jape, no more, but Tywin Lannister was not a man to forget such words, or the … the liberties your father took during the bedding." His face reddened. "I have said too much, Your Grace. I—"

Aerys this time, drunkenly wishing it hadn't been abolished. But it has. So its not just the north, its assholes in general, who would like the right reinstated. For themselves at least.

Quote

Lord Gargon, the second and last Qoherys lord of Harrenhal, was the grandson of Lord Quenton. He was notorious for his appetite for women and became known as the Guest for his habit of attending every wedding within his domains, so that he might take advantage of the lord's right to the first night. It is no surprise that the father of a maid Lord Gargon deflowered opened a sally port for Harren the Red and his band of outlaws, or that Gargon was gelded before he died. Harrenhal would earn a reputation as cursed in the years that followed, as many of its ruling houses would meet unhappy ends.

Not just a northern thing we see here (before it was abolished). Just an asshole assholing.

Note that the Wildlings don't hold to First Night - apart from not acknowledging Lords in general, its pretty hard to operate a first night rite when brides have to be stolen from their families in the first place!

So in summary, there evidence shows that First Night is widely known to not exist as a right any more and only one family is shown to actually practice it - but even then, not actually practice it, just claim it as a justification for a murderous exercise of power. That the one person who has used it as an excuse for rape and murder claims that a small number of other Lords also do this, does not make it so.
And certainly there is no evidence that the practice is widespread in the north - that "many" in the north practice it, or even that it is more a northern than southern thing.
In fact, given that the wildings hold more true to original First Men cultural practices, and two out of three families known to practice or suggest the Right are Valyrian, it seems likely that it was not a northern practice at all originally - though no doubt northern lords took as much advantage as southerners did, if they felt so inclined.

 

 

 

 

Edited by corbon

Share this post


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

You don't know that.  Take the Starks.  Their hubris would at first make you think they keep their oaths.  To break an oath is taboo.  Oathbreaking is taboo everywhere in the kingdom.  Yet, if we look back within a short slice of their history, the Starks have been breaking their oaths.  Lyanna, Robb, Jon.  All of them are oathbreakers.  So if oaths are broken so is guest rights.  Put a family in desperation and they will break guest rights.  Jaime Lannister broke it when he pushed Bran from that tower.  

 

2 hours ago, Allardyce said:

I believe they would if placed in the same difficult situation that Walder Frey had to face.  

Look at the last 300 years of Westerosi history. Under no circumstances has a family had to resort to breaking guest right. George made guest right very precious to these westerosi. And breaking it means a bad omen. Walder was the only one stupid enough to go along with such a thing. 

Breaking an oath of allegiance or betrothal is very different to breaking guest right. Guest right was that one rule all common folk and highborn respected.

Oaths were broken in a daily basis by everyone. This was an acknowledged thing by the highborn. But Breaking guest right was the most alien of things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, corbon said:

And certainly there is no evidence that the practice is widespread in the north - that "many" in the north practice it, or even that it is more a northern than southern thing.

The right of the first night was a First Men thing. So it’s only natural that the North practiced it more than the other kingdoms. 

I don’t consider it a northern thing, since it’s more of a first men thing. And the first men culture is practically extinct or converted. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can imagine if for example Roose managed to persuade Robert to decriminalize the right of first night, and then Robert wants to have his way with Roose's future wife if the latter married. 

Robert being Robert I can totally see this.

Share this post


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

You don't know that.  Take the Starks.  Their hubris would at first make you think they keep their oaths.  To break an oath is taboo.  Oathbreaking is taboo everywhere in the kingdom.  Yet, if we look back within a short slice of their history, the Starks have been breaking their oaths.  Lyanna, Robb, Jon.  All of them are oathbreakers.  So if oaths are broken so is guest rights.  Put a family in desperation and they will break guest rights.  Jaime Lannister broke it when he pushed Bran from that tower.  

Alright. Name another family that has broken it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

The right of the first night was a First Men thing.

Supposedly.

However, those who hold first men culture most (wildlings) don't follow it and 2 of the three families that claim to want it were Valyrian.
The other distinct culture said to descend from the First men is the Ironborn, and they don't practice it either.

16 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

So it’s only natural that the North practiced it more than the other kingdoms. 

Except the evidence, limited as it is, is otherwise. We have the most famous practitioner being a Valyrian in the Riverlands, the only other named user being Roose Bolton, and the only other advocate for it being Aerys Targaryen.

 

Most importantly, the evidence, all of it, is clear that the Right has been abolished for many generations and is NOT widely practiced, in the North or anywhere.

16 hours ago, The Young Maester said:

I don’t consider it a northern thing, since it’s more of a first men thing. And the first men culture is practically extinct or converted. 

Not true. The wildlings still practice First Men Culture, the Ironborn are a first man descendant culture and much of the north is still culturally First Men. As evidenced by the lack of knights, the various burial practices of known First Men houses, the Stark iron swords in the crypt matching the wildling shades belief, the Starks holding to the judge being the executioner. the distinct lack of seven worship in the North, and more. 

The truth is its an anachronism. Assholes who want to asshole will bring it up, but even then, they daren't practice it openly.
And assholes are assholes, be they Northern, Valyrian, Riverlanders or Southrons.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎9‎/‎23‎/‎2019 at 11:08 PM, corbon said:

Supposedly.

However, those who hold first men culture most (wildlings) don't follow it and 2 of the three families that claim to want it were Valyrian.
The other distinct culture said to descend from the First men is the Ironborn, and they don't practice it either.

Except the evidence, limited as it is, is otherwise. We have the most famous practitioner being a Valyrian in the Riverlands, the only other named user being Roose Bolton, and the only other advocate for it being Aerys Targaryen.

 

Most importantly, the evidence, all of it, is clear that the Right has been abolished for many generations and is NOT widely practiced, in the North or anywhere.

Not true. The wildlings still practice First Men Culture, the Ironborn are a first man descendant culture and much of the north is still culturally First Men. As evidenced by the lack of knights, the various burial practices of known First Men houses, the Stark iron swords in the crypt matching the wildling shades belief, the Starks holding to the judge being the executioner. the distinct lack of seven worship in the North, and more. 

The truth is its an anachronism. Assholes who want to asshole will bring it up, but even then, they daren't practice it openly.
And assholes are assholes, be they Northern, Valyrian, Riverlanders or Southrons.

 

 

This is kind of a weird take. The Wildlings and the Ironborn don't need to have a special occasion for rape to be allowable, both cultures participate in regular rape. The saltwives and the women the Wildlings take away from the South or other tribes are raped. Rape is a regular occupation for the powerful men in both of these societies.

 

At work we do a 'Fat Friday', which basically means we order a lot of junk food for lunch on Friday and people genuinely bring Doughnuts and other kinds of cakes to the office. It is called 'fat Friday' because we don't regularly eat like that all week through. Similarly the Wildlings and Iron born don't need to have a 'First Night' as there is no restriction on them raping women, they do it when they please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/22/2019 at 8:43 PM, Allardyce said:

Walder's predicament was more complicated than Robb's.  Walder had to prove his loyalty to King Joffrey.  That's not easy to do after his family rebelled and fought for the Starks.  Fought bravely and effectively, if I may say so.  The Freys could lose their lands and The Twins as punishment for joining the rebellion.  For that, most families would violate guest rights.

It wasn't. The loyalty he had to prove? Blackwood bent the knee at the bitter end and lost a few villages, a mill, and gave a hostage. Going over like the Freys did needn't be done at all. Hell just leaving Robb, preventing his crossing, and telling Tywin Robb's plan would have been more than enough. People always mention the Reynes and Tarbecks but its at odds with basically everything that Tywin has done since then. He even tells Joffrey as much himself:

Joffrey, when your enemies defy you, you must serve them steel and fire. When they go to their knees, however, you must help them back to their feet. Elsewise no man will ever bend the knee to you.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

It wasn't. The loyalty he had to prove? Blackwood bent the knee at the bitter end and lost a few villages, a mill, and gave a hostage. Going over like the Freys did needn't be done at all. Hell just leaving Robb, preventing his crossing, and telling Tywin Robb's plan would have been more than enough. People always mention the Reynes and Tarbecks but its at odds with basically everything that Tywin has done since then. He even tells Joffrey as much himself:

Joffrey, when your enemies defy you, you must serve them steel and fire. When they go to their knees, however, you must help them back to their feet. Elsewise no man will ever bend the knee to you.

 

Exactly. No need to deceive and murder,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

It wasn't. The loyalty he had to prove? Blackwood bent the knee

House Blackwood was not with Robb in the Westerlands 'paying them back in kind'. There seems to more Frey men in with Robb in the Westerlands than any of his individual Northern Houses.

There is a reason why the Freys have more to fear than the average Riverland House in this regard.

18 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

 

at the bitter end and lost a few villages, a mill, and gave a hostage.

In fairness I think you are downplaying what original agreement was, the Blackwoods would be losing a quarter of their lands (under the assumption that they and the Brackens are roughly equal).

Jaime took it with his good hand, but he had to use the gold to open it and hold it flat. "This is a deal of land," he observed. "You will be increasing your domains by a quarter."

Jaime changed the deal.

 

 

18 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

 

Going over like the Freys did needn't be done at all.

I certainly agree with that. The Freys did what they did for a number of reasons

  • Revenge for the dishonour and losses they received at the Hands of Robb
  • The threat of what Roose would do his Frey hostages if they did not comply
  • The rewards on offer for pleasing the Crown
  • Fear of the consequences of their actions from Tywin

Now I'm not arguing that they are all equal in terms of why the Freys did what they did, I'm 100% certain that revenge was the primary reason, but the others are still valid.

And while I agree 100% with you that the Freys did not need to do what they did I'm sure you'd agree with me that, just like in the wars in our own history before we became more civilized, there are plenty of actions by all factions that did not need to be done.

 

18 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

 

 People always mention the Reynes and Tarbecks but its at odds with basically everything that Tywin has done since then. He even tells Joffrey as much himself:

Joffrey, when your enemies defy you, you must serve them steel and fire. When they go to their knees, however, you must help them back to their feet. Elsewise no man will ever bend the knee to you.

 

We have two different things here

  1. What Tywin would have done
  2. What the Freys are scared of what Tywin would do

One does not have to equal the other. Given that the Freys are about to give a severe revenge on Robb for what he has done to them it is possible that should they have been in Tywin's position they would have been far less lenient to their enemies, especially enemies that invaded their lands and had a hand in the death of Stafford. They, given Tywin's reputation, are probably not thinking their actions and his actions would be too far apart.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/9/2019 at 7:31 PM, Andrew Yang for President said:

On the matter of right and wrong.  I can see why what another considers right that another would consider wrong.  A tiger who must eat meat to live can't be faulted for hunting.  It's what the creator made them to do to survive.  The little dik-dik who the tiger preys on doesn't see it this way.  The tiger is the villain to the little dik dik.  We have to look at the matter from a narrow lens in order to decide the matter of right and wrong.  

 

On 9/9/2019 at 7:31 PM, Andrew Yang for President said:

It was justified to Walder.  He's the patriarch of a rich and large clan.  He had a lot to lose.  The Starks couldn't keep themselves in order.  Robb porks Jeyne, falls in love, and breaks his oath to the Freys.  And this after the Freys have bled for him.  Catelyn gives away an extremely important hostage for the very small chance of getting her girls back.  She bought Jaime's promise to send her girls back.  How that must have looked to their bannermen.  Stupid move.  Robb had the nerve to come back asking for another deal because he was desperate to survive the war his mother started.   Walder took advantage because he needed to remove the taint of rebellion and reestablish good relations with the real ruler in King's Landing, not this king in the north who humiliated the Freys.  

I can agree with the second paragraph.  The Starks put the Freys in a terrible position.  For what, for one boy.  Walder was forced to make a choice that carried a lot of risks, but the reward for that made the risk worthwhile to him.  The Freys better than honored their end of the deal.  The Starks refused to honor theirs.  Walder Frey now faced the possibility of losing a lot.  He must make himself useful to the Lannisters else they could take away his holdings.  Houses Frey and Bolton together can't hope to win against the Starks.  Trickery had to be employed.  It was a nasty trick but when you do the math it makes sense.  Walder could fight the Starks in battle, and lose.  It was better to trick them and play on their desperation to get his services again.  Many more people would have died if Walder had chosen to fight the Starks in battle.  The red wedding kept the death toll to as low as it could be to get the job done.  The only innocent casualty is Aegon Frey.  Many innocents would have died if the Freys had foght the Starks fairly.  Winning is the most important.  It wasn't honorable but if you think on it, there is no honor in defeat either.  Defeat can mean the death of his family. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Unit A2 said:

 

I can agree with the second paragraph.  The Starks put the Freys in a terrible position.  For what, for one boy.  Walder was forced to make a choice that carried a lot of risks, but the reward for that made the risk worthwhile to him.  The Freys better than honored their end of the deal.  The Starks refused to honor theirs.  Walder Frey now faced the possibility of losing a lot.  He must make himself useful to the Lannisters else they could take away his holdings.  Houses Frey and Bolton together can't hope to win against the Starks.  Trickery had to be employed.  It was a nasty trick but when you do the math it makes sense.  Walder could fight the Starks in battle, and lose.  It was better to trick them and play on their desperation to get his services again.  Many more people would have died if Walder had chosen to fight the Starks in battle.  The red wedding kept the death toll to as low as it could be to get the job done.  The only innocent casualty is Aegon Frey.  Many innocents would have died if the Freys had foght the Starks fairly.  Winning is the most important.  It wasn't honorable but if you think on it, there is no honor in defeat either.  Defeat can mean the death of his family. 

Nah just refusing to allow robbs men from crossing would have done the trick. Before the Red wedding Robb had only 3,500 horsemen (veterans). Walder had 4,000 (500-600 of these were knights) at the twins. Roose Bolton also has around 3,500 plus a couple rogue Karstark soldiers. Add 2 and 1 together and Frey-Bolton outnumber Robb 2-1. Roose and his men can block the ruby ford and Walder can block the crossing. Henceforth Robb is trapped in the Riverlands. Tywin would’ve rewarded them the same way had they decided to do this instead. 

Their are a dozen ways they could’ve betrayed Robb that didn’t include dishonouring their houses and shitting on a thousand years of customs. And both parties would have received the same reward as they did for the Red wedding

Share this post


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

The red wedding can never be justified but the jist of what your saying i get. The Freys had every right to abandon Robb and not even help him after what he did.

They had every right to kill him for his betrayal.  The heir to The Twins died fighting for the Starks and then they refused to honor their oath.  The Starks deserved to lose regardless of whether the RW is justified.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Roose and Walder wanted Robb dead, they could've taken the field along with the joined Lannister-Tyrell forces against the Starks. They would've outnumbered Robb what, six, seven soldiers to one? Still better than participate in such a barbaric and abominable act that they are cursed till the end of days, since nobody will ever have any trust in them. 

And some here calling the RW a "battle" is ridiculous. Warfare doesn't count such "battles", although it was done in history where GRRM has picked the idea from. 

Can someone tell me if he/she considers the Fall of Harrenhal in Clash of Kings a battle?

Because Vargo Hoat and Roose hatched a stratagem against the Lannister garrison different from the Red Wedding, but I wouldn't say it was a battle either. It was a treachery, and a slaughter of an unprepared enemy who thinks he's your ally (Vargo) and thinks that you are a prisoner of war (Northern vassals). 

Edited by The Sunland Lord

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just here to say: I've seen tens of "The RW was justified / good / we <3 Lord Walder / Evil Robb was Evil / compatible", but none of them appeared sincere. This one is no exception.

The wait for the Book that Will Never Come and It's No Good Deluding Ourselves is exhausting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think killing Robb would have help peace, if Tywin had survived. Not the way they did, violating the Guest Right. Killing thousands of others. They antagonized the North by killing Ned. Worsened it by killing Robb and Cat. Giving the North to their slayers, the Bolton and his Frey wife.

Joffrey had to die. He was a liability, even worse than Aerys II. They could put all the blame on his head. An unfortunate accident. Then mary Sansa to Tommen and have them rule the 7K. That would have helped... maybe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, BalerionTheCat said:

I don't think killing Robb would have help peace, if Tywin had survived. Not the way they did, violating the Guest Right. Killing thousands of others. They antagonized the North by killing Ned. Worsened it by killing Robb and Cat. Giving the North to their slayers, the Bolton and his Frey wife.

Joffrey had to die. He was a liability, even worse than Aerys II. They could put all the blame on his head. An unfortunate accident. Then mary Sansa to Tommen and have them rule the 7K. That would have helped... maybe

They annoyed the north by killing Ned but it was not enough to motivate them to attack.  Robb had to threaten the bannermen and Lady Dustin only agreed to send men because she feared the wrath of Winterfell.  May I remind you, Ned admitted to treason.  Many in the north are angry right now but that will be shortlived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Lord of the Crossing said:

May I remind you, Ned admitted to treason. 

Those with Stannis know Ned didn't betray Robert. Ned humiliation is another reason not to surrender.

1 hour ago, The Lord of the Crossing said:

Many in the north are angry right now but that will be shortlived.

Shortlived, yes. Forgiven, no. The Others will change the priorities.

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

×