Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Finley McLeod

Lord Walder's Punctuality

Recommended Posts

The Late Lord Frey.  The insulting nickname given to him by the Tullys and the Starks.  Walder Frey and his men arrived late and only after the battle against the Royalists had already been won.  I believe there is ample evidence to support Walder's excuse, he simply arrived late.  Here are my clues presented.

Walder was already old at the time of the rebellion.  75 by my estimate.  It is believable for a man of his advanced age to ride slowly.  Horse back or carriage makes no difference.  He seems to genuinely care about his peasants.  That care would also apply to his men.  He's not going to march them hard through rough terrain.  They don't exactly have stop watches.  Time keeping was sketchy when distance is factored in.  What do they go by, the angle of the sun.

Examine Walder's deal with Robb.  The old man didn't hold back.  He gave, and gave generously.  His word was good as gold.  This is not the way of a man who would do what he was accused of, hedging his bet by arriving late to battle.  

Walder is a good businessman.  He built up their riches. People must have done repeat business with the Freys.  A man who doesn't keep his word will not prosper in business.  

Is it not possible that he was unjustly maligned by the Tullys?  Hoster Tully was as nasty as a hairy rim prior to toilet paper.  That man was a nasty piece of work.  Don't you all think he was annoyed with Walder and used it as an excuse to disparage the old man?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Lord Lannister said:

What is it with these skewed defense threads of morally unambiguous characters? Janos Slynt, wronged innocent and now this. Can't wait for Roose Bolton, the man no one ever trusted or Viserys, the King Westeros deserved.

Yeah! And why do those defending the likes of Walder Frey, Boltons and Slynt never create a Mo Krazniz defense thread? If they don't mind defending mass murderers of guests, rapists and baby killers, then surely they must be able to come up with some skewed defense of child crucifiers and slavers. If they argue that Free Folk are horrible people who should be kicked to the other side of the wall asap again, then where are the anti-Dothraki and anti-Vic threads? Because we all know where this comes from and it has nothing to do with reasonable arguments, but just readers who regard Starks as a threat to Dany's plot outcome, and see the enemies of Starks as their friends, and any group or person being a friend to a Stark as an enemy. Case in point, OP also claims that the FM love slavery and the slavers.

I swear that if Mo Krazniz turns out to have funded something that helped the Boltons or Freys take down or kill Starks, then you'd see Mo Krazniz defense threads popping up all the time. And if Free Folk would fight to end serfdom (another form of slavery) in the name of Dany, they wouldn't be so bad for raping and raiding. After all the Dothraki do it, and as long as it's done for Dany that's a-ok; just look at the praise for Jorah and love for Drogo (both slavers).

Edited by sweetsunray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Lord Lannister said:

What is it with these skewed defense threads of morally unambiguous characters? Janos Slynt, wronged innocent and now this. Can't wait for Roose Bolton, the man no one ever trusted or Viserys, the King Westeros deserved.

It all comes from the same place: hating the Starks so much that people feel it’s preferable to come across as someone who doesn’t get the story at all than to have to admit that Walker, Janos, Ramsay, etc are clearly horrible PoSs. It’s truly baffling. And if this was a discussion about actual people, it would be very disturbing and disgusting. But since it’s a discussion about fictional characters in a story, it’s instead quite pathetic and more than a little hilarious. 

Next one should be about Ramsay... that poor, misunderstood lad! He never meant to flay anyone or chop off their appendages! He was just trying to make a living as a tattoo artist. But his hands shake so much ( :crying: ), and accidents happen!

Share this post


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

The Late Lord Frey.  The insulting nickname given to him by the Tullys and the Starks.  Walder Frey and his men arrived late and only after the battle against the Royalists had already been won.  I believe there is ample evidence to support Walder's excuse, he simply arrived late.  Here are my clues presented.

The Late Lord Frey has nothing to do with him not riding to war. The Freys showed up at the Trident on the side of the rebellion when the battle was done and the outcome was decided following Rhaegar's death.

And it's not the Starks who called him that, it was Hoster Tully. 

But facts, who needs them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To give the straw man his due, Walder Frey did have a legitimate grievance with the Starks and Tullys. The Late Lord Frey? He was going to be on the winning side of the war, that was him looking after his own interests. Can't really fault that. The Tullys did routinely look down their noses at the Freys, sleight them  and treat them as poor relations. Robb Stark did go back on his word.

The problem comes not of his grievance, but that he took it too far. The Red Wedding was pretty much an orgy of gratuitous revenge. If Walder Frey just declared himself for Tywin, or even closed the Twins at an opportune time, trapping Robb on the wrong side, I don't think he'd be as reviled as he is both in the world and among the fans. Heck, his crass nature probably would be found amusing by most in the fan base. So long as you don't focus too much on the fact that he routinely used his position as lord to initiate completely consensual sex with girls in their early teens. :rolleyes: 

Share this post


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

Yeah! And why do those defending the likes of Walder Frey, Boltons and Slynt never create a Mo Krazniz defense thread? If they don't mind defending mass murderers of guests, rapists and baby killers, then surely they must be able to come up with some skewed defense of child crucifiers and slavers. If they argue that Free Folk are horrible people who should be kicked to the other side of the wall asap again, then where are the anti-Dothraki and anti-Vic threads? Because we all know where this comes from and it has nothing to do with reasonable arguments, but just readers who regard Starks as a threat to Dany's plot outcome, and see the enemies of Starks as their friends, and any group or person being a friend to a Stark as an enemy. Case in point, OP also claims that the FM love slavery and the slavers.

I swear that if Mo Krazniz turns out to have funded something that helped the Boltons or Freys take down or kill Starks, then you'd see Mo Krazniz defense threads popping up all the time. And if Free Folk would fight to end serfdom (another form of slavery) in the name of Dany, they wouldn't be so bad for raping and raiding. After all the Dothraki do it, and as long as it's done for Dany that's a-ok; just look at the praise for Jorah and love for Drogo (both slavers).

I was the one that started the criticism of the Free Folk thread, and I'll tell you that I have just as much disdain for both the Ironborn and the Dothraki. I also consider Dany kind of incompetent. I also dislike Dorne if that's on the table. It has nothing to do with being a Dany stan and everything to do with disliking factions for having the trait of being badly written/being bad people in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, The Jingo said:

I was the one that started the criticism of the Free Folk thread, and I'll tell you that I have just as much disdain for both the Ironborn and the Dothraki. I also consider Dany kind of incompetent. I also dislike Dorne if that's on the table. It has nothing to do with being a Dany stan and everything to do with disliking factions for having the trait of being badly written/being bad people in general.

At least you're consistent, but the OP of this thread, who stans Dany and anyone he or she believes to be in her corner, who in your thread made blanket statements about FF.

ETA: of course I find it really questionable you refer to it as "badly written" people when IIRC you haven't read the books beyond aCoK, right, in which the FF are hardly featured, except for Craster, a short encounter with Ygritte and the meeting with Rattleshirt.

Edited by sweetsunray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Finley McLeod said:

The Late Lord Frey.  The insulting nickname given to him by the Tullys and the Starks.  Walder Frey and his men arrived late and only after the battle against the Royalists had already been won.  I believe there is ample evidence to support Walder's excuse, he simply arrived late.  Here are my clues presented.

Walder was already old at the time of the rebellion.  75 by my estimate.  It is believable for a man of his advanced age to ride slowly.  Horse back or carriage makes no difference.  He seems to genuinely care about his peasants.  That care would also apply to his men.  He's not going to march them hard through rough terrain.  They don't exactly have stop watches.  Time keeping was sketchy when distance is factored in.  What do they go by, the angle of the sun.

Examine Walder's deal with Robb.  The old man didn't hold back.  He gave, and gave generously.  His word was good as gold.  This is not the way of a man who would do what he was accused of, hedging his bet by arriving late to battle.  

Walder is a good businessman.  He built up their riches. People must have done repeat business with the Freys.  A man who doesn't keep his word will not prosper in business.  

Is it not possible that he was unjustly maligned by the Tullys?  Hoster Tully was as nasty as a hairy rim prior to toilet paper.  That man was a nasty piece of work.  Don't you all think he was annoyed with Walder and used it as an excuse to disparage the old man?  

I don't think this holds up because I would doubt, Walder Frey, in all his magnificent 70+ year old glory, rode to battle himself. 

The issue here is he earned the title the "Late" Lord Frey as much as Roose has earned the Leech Lord or Viserys the Beggar King. You don't get to slaughter a bunch of people because you are offended. 

I don't recall hearing Hoster was particularly nasty to Walder either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Finley McLeod said:

The Late Lord Frey.  The insulting nickname given to him by the Tullys and the Starks.  Walder Frey and his men arrived late and only after the battle against the Royalists had already been won.  I believe there is ample evidence to support Walder's excuse, he simply arrived late.  Here are my clues presented.

Walder was already old at the time of the rebellion.  75 by my estimate.  It is believable for a man of his advanced age to ride slowly.  Horse back or carriage makes no difference.  He seems to genuinely care about his peasants.  That care would also apply to his men.  He's not going to march them hard through rough terrain.  They don't exactly have stop watches.  Time keeping was sketchy when distance is factored in.  What do they go by, the angle of the sun.

Examine Walder's deal with Robb.  The old man didn't hold back.  He gave, and gave generously.  His word was good as gold.  This is not the way of a man who would do what he was accused of, hedging his bet by arriving late to battle.  

Walder is a good businessman.  He built up their riches. People must have done repeat business with the Freys.  A man who doesn't keep his word will not prosper in business.  

Is it not possible that he was unjustly maligned by the Tullys?  Hoster Tully was as nasty as a hairy rim prior to toilet paper.  That man was a nasty piece of work.  Don't you all think he was annoyed with Walder and used it as an excuse to disparage the old man?  

He was simply, unavoidably late to the battle.  I say that because he behaved honorably during his pact with the Starks.  He gave everything he promised and with no delay.  It was the Starks who refused to pay up when it came their time to pay.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Victor Newman said:

He was simply, unavoidably late to the battle.  I say that because he behaved honorably during his pact with the Starks.  He gave everything he promised and with no delay.  It was the Starks who refused to pay up when it came their time to pay.  

That isn't entirely true though. It is true Robb didn't follow through with his end but he didn't refuse payment, he offered an alternative payment & Walder accepted. Then he slaughtered everyone. So, when  you get to the core of it, it's actually Walder who broke the agreement. 

Also, I highly doubt his being late to the battle was unavoidable. It was most likely because he wanted to see who was going to come out on top first. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

That isn't entirely true though. It is true Robb didn't follow through with his end but he didn't refuse payment, he offered an alternative payment & Walder accepted. Then he slaughtered everyone. So, when  you get to the core of it, it's actually Walder who broke the agreement. 

Also, I highly doubt his being late to the battle was unavoidable. It was most likely because he wanted to see who was going to come out on top first. 

What they said. Walder, it rhymes with adder. Did you read the farmer and the viper story, where a farmer nursed a snake back to full health? And the snake bit him in the chest for his troubles? Well, Robb is the farmer and Walder/Roose are vipers who bit him in the chest. With a knife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DR Supporter said:

What they said. Walder, it rhymes with adder. Did you read the farmer and the viper story, where a farmer nursed a snake back to full health? And the snake bit him in the chest for his troubles? Well, Robb is the farmer and Walder/Roose are vipers who bit him in the chest. With a knife.

Yes I have read it & it is certainly reminiscent of Robb & Walder/Roose. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Yes I have read it & it is certainly reminiscent of Robb & Walder/Roose. 

Stabbed through the heart
And Roose is to blame
He played his part
And he stole my home
I gave it my all
And I was the one to fall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DR Supporter said:

Stabbed through the heart
And Roose is to blame
He played his part
And he stole my home
I gave it my all
And I was the one to fall

Walder said "mayhaps" when Robb was lord of the crossing. So under the rules of the game, Walder's oaths were no longer binding and he got to knock Robb off the bridge.

Edited by John Suburbs
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, John Suburbs said:

Walder said "mayhaps" when Robb was lord of the crossing. So under the rules of the game, Walder's oaths were no longer binding and he got to knock Robb off the bridge.

Yet Roose was the one to claim the actual kill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/26/2020 at 2:33 PM, sweetsunray said:

At least you're consistent, but the OP of this thread, who stans Dany and anyone he or she believes to be in her corner, who in your thread made blanket statements about FF.

ETA: of course I find it really questionable you refer to it as "badly written" people when IIRC you haven't read the books beyond aCoK, right, in which the FF are hardly featured, except for Craster, a short encounter with Ygritte and the meeting with Rattleshirt.

I've read to the end of A Feast for Crows but okay

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

4 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

Walder said "mayhaps" when Robb was lord of the crossing. So under the rules of the game, Walder's oaths were no longer binding and he got to knock Robb off the bridge.

Walder's like a kid who invents his own game and keeps the rules of the game to himself - it's called cheating. Other kids tend to pick up on that pretty soon and will leave the kid playing by himself wigth imaginary friends instead.

And no matter what Walder tells himself or others about "I said mayhaps", doom and the rat cook is coming for his house. I don't play drinking games often, but I swear I will drink a glass of Tullamore Dew whenever another Frey dies in tWoW.

Edited by sweetsunray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...