Walder Frey is a treacherous, lecherous, and vicious old man.

[Craving Peaches]

7 hours ago, Here's Looking At You, Kid said:

Robb Stark broke his oath to Walder and insulted the Freys. 

People straight up predicted you would say this.

1. Robb never swore an oath to Walder.
2. Yes they are insulted, doesn't give them the right to break the sacred, fundamental laws of hospitality and murder not just Robb, but 3500 wedding guests.
3. But of course these points have been made over and over again but they are just ignored by you anyway.

[The Commentator]

You just described a typical elderly lord of Westeros.  The negative feelings against Walder are too extreme. He failed to observe guest rights. He tricked the Starks into a trap. But he was provoked. The Starks insulted his family and humiliated his daughters. 

[King_Tristifer_IV_Mudd]

21 minutes ago, The Commentator said:

You just described a typical elderly lord of Westeros.  The negative feelings against Walder are too extreme. He failed to observe guest rights. He tricked the Starks into a trap. But he was provoked. The Starks insulted his family and humiliated his daughters. 

See the post above this one. 

[sifth]

29 minutes ago, The Commentator said:

You just described a typical elderly lord of Westeros.  The negative feelings against Walder are too extreme. He failed to observe guest rights. He tricked the Starks into a trap. But he was provoked. The Starks insulted his family and humiliated his daughters. 

The “Starks suck” hate team in full effect. 

[csuszka1948]

Honestly, I feel the Freys would have been much better off if Walder Frey betrayed Robb Stark on the field.

Imagine the Freys and the Boltons attacking the rest of Robb Stark's forces when they assault Moat Cailin. I feel it's likely that they would have managed to take them by surprise and kill Robb.

Compared to this scenario, what did Walder Frey gain with the RW besides personal satisfaction (+earning the hate of everyone in the North and Riverlands), really?

1) No loss of soldiers in battle: does it really matter to Walder Frey how many Frey soldiers die?

2) Additional hostages: they are useful for keeping the North in check (thus for Boltons), but why they are necessary for the Freys? The Lannisters and Tyrells have the armies to take the Riverlands under control with the help of Freys

3) Surety that Robb is dead: again, why is it so important for the Freys? Even if Robb has somehow survived such a betrayal, his army would be so reduced that he wouldn't be able to return to the Riverlands

Edited June 15, 2023 by csuszka1948

[King_Tristifer_IV_Mudd]

2 minutes ago, csuszka1948 said:

Honestly, I feel the Freys would have been much better off if Walder Frey betrayed Robb Stark on the field.

Imagine the Freys and the Boltons attacking the rest of Robb Stark's forces when they assault Moat Cailin. I feel it's likely that they would have managed to take them by surprise and kill Robb.

Compared to this scenario, what did Walder Frey gain with the RW besides personal satisfaction (+earning the hate of everyone in the North and Riverlands), really?

1) No loss of soldiers in battle: does it really matter to Walder Frey how many Frey soldiers die?

2) Additional hostages: they are useful for keeping the North in check (thus for Boltons), but why they are necessary for the Freys? The Lannisters and Tyrells have the armies to take the Riverlands under control with the help of Freys

3) Surety that Robb is dead: again, why is it so important for the Freys? Even if Robb has somehow survived such a betrayal, his army would be so reduced that he wouldn't be able to return to the Riverlands

It’d have been better for sure. It would depend on where Robb is on the battlefield and where the Freys are. If Robb is on the Northern side, he could easily escape.

[csuszka1948]

15 minutes ago, King_Tristifer_IV_Mudd said:

It’d have been better for sure. It would depend on where Robb is on the battlefield and where the Freys are. If Robb is on the Northern side, he could easily escape.

 

Robb planned to attack Moat Cailin from the south, didn't he? That said, Balon's death would have helped him a lot, but that's not something the Freys and Boltons could foresee.

Even if Robb somehow survives, how big of a problem is it for the Freys?

[King_Tristifer_IV_Mudd]

Just now, csuszka1948 said:

Robb planned to attack Moat Cailin from the south, didn't he? That said, Balon's death would have helped him a lot, but that's not something the Freys and Boltons could foresee.

Even if Robb somehow survives, how big of a problem is it for the Freys?

He and his forces were to surround it I believe. With the Crannogmen on his side it’s be possible.

[Craving Peaches]

2 hours ago, The Commentator said:

You just described a typical elderly lord of Westeros.

No. Walder is not a 'typical elderly lord of Westeros'. Do you see any other 'elderly lord of Westeros' acting the way he did, being as bitter or spiteful as he is? No.

2 hours ago, The Commentator said:

The negative feelings against Walder are too extreme.

Not really given what he did.

2 hours ago, The Commentator said:

He failed to observe guest rights.

Yes, that is one of the pillars of their society. And Walder broke it. There is a reason not even Tywin broke guest right. It is a guarantee they need for their society to function properly. Walder broke it and now no one will ever trust the Freys again. You do not seem to understand, or do not care about, the magnitude of what Walder has done. Go on A Search of Ice and Fire and look up 'guest right'. See how often the 'Sacred Laws of Hospitality' are mentioned. Alternatively re-read the Books.

2 hours ago, The Commentator said:

But he was provoked.

Not an excuse, especially given the magnitude of what he did. He killed people who had no part in the 'provocation'.

[Corvo the Crow]

17 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Nah, a feudal relationship between lord and king is personal. If you don't do homage to a king, don't swear fealty, the king in question isn't your king.

Walder broke guest right and broke Robb's trust ... but he didn't betray his king.

And neither did Roose. He also never did homage to Robb as his king nor as his lord. When they separated Ned was still alive.

Chett was given the choice to take the black and did it. You cannot be forced to do it.

Nah, Howland disagrees.

Quote

My lords of Stark," the girl said. "The years have passed in their hundreds and their thousands since my folk first swore their fealty to the King in the North. My lord father has sent us here to say the words again, for all our people."

-ACoK Bran III

And unlike Frey, his children doesn’t even swear fealty to Robb himself, but to Robb’s brothers.

[KingAerys_II]

Some women of House Frey were disonhored by Black Walder, Walder Frey doesn't care about the honor, he sent Fat Walda to Dreadfort and was happy to get rid of her, he did the Red Wedding for power and greed. 

Edmure married Roslin and he is the heir of Riverrun, Freys must die and their heads exposed on the spikes

[Lord Varys]

4 hours ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Nah, Howland disagrees.

And unlike Frey, his children doesn’t even swear fealty to Robb himself, but to Robb’s brothers.

Not sure what that has to do with anything. The Reeds want to serve the Starks and want to renew their oath of fealty. Lord Walder Frey never swore such a vow, just as House Frey was historically never subject to Winterfell. It is still a betrayal of trust, but not the betrayal of his king. Even the Freys who all did homage to Robb as their king in the wake of his proclamation left his service and forswore their oaths when Robb betrayed them.

Their betrayal is them pretending to return into the fold, pretending to be Robb's friends again ... when they never had the intention to be his friends again.

Not really a great difference, but still a principal difference. After all, in the War of the Five Kings where so many would-be kings were running around both the Freys and the Boltons do have the excuse that nobody knew who the real king was and they did the right to pick their own - especially if they had never bindingly espoused one.

Roose and Ramsay definitely betrayed House Stark ... but neither Lord Robb nor King Robb as neither had ever sworn fealty to them. Robb was still but the heir of Winterfell rising in rebellion against the Iron Throne with the tacit agreement of the regent of the North, his mother Catelyn Tully, when the army was split and Roose left Robb.

Roose and Walder both effectively go along with 'King Robb', etc. in the sense that they don't oppose him being proclaimed King in the North and King of the Trident ... but they never swear fealty to him nor do they homage to him. And that is significant.

[sifth]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Not sure what that has to do with anything. The Reeds want to serve the Starks and want to renew their oath of fealty. Lord Walder Frey never swore such a vow, just as House Frey was historically never subject to Winterfell. It is still a betrayal of trust, but not the betrayal of his king. Even the Freys who all did homage to Robb as their king in the wake of his proclamation left his service and forswore their oaths when Robb betrayed them.

Their betrayal is them pretending to return into the fold, pretending to be Robb's friends again ... when they never had the intention to be his friends again.

Not really a great difference, but still a principal difference. After all, in the War of the Five Kings where so many would-be kings were running around both the Freys and the Boltons do have the excuse that nobody knew who the real king was and they did the right to pick their own - especially if they had never bindingly espoused one.

Roose and Ramsay definitely betrayed House Stark ... but neither Lord Robb nor King Robb as neither had ever sworn fealty to them. Robb was still but the heir of Winterfell rising in rebellion against the Iron Throne with the tacit agreement of the regent of the North, his mother Catelyn Tully, when the army was split and Roose left Robb.

Roose and Walder both effectively go along with 'King Robb', etc. in the sense that they don't oppose him being proclaimed King in the North and King of the Trident ... but they never swear fealty to him nor do they homage to him. And that is significant.

You’re really splitting hairs. Their armies literally fight and die for Robb. They very much are his men and they very do betray him.

[LongRider]

10 hours ago, The Commentator said:

He failed to observe guest rights. He tricked the Starks into a trap.

He didn't 'fail' to observe guest rights, he planned and schemed with Tywin and Roose to use the wedding of Edmure and Roslin as a way to trap them.  They thought they would be safe because of guest right, but no, guest right wasn't failed, it was obliterated, completely disrespected and used as ploy for Walder's crime.  

[csuszka1948]

23 minutes ago, LongRider said:

He didn't 'fail' to observe guest rights, he planned and schemed with Tywin and Roose to use the wedding of Edmure and Roslin as a way to trap them.  They thought they would be safe because of guest right, but no, guest right wasn't failed, it was obliterated, completely disrespected and used as ploy for Walder's crime.  

 

The main problem with the OP's argument is that the negative feelings about Walder Frey's breaking of guest rights are not something that onlythe 'Stark fan readers' exhibit, but a sentiment of both the Freys' allies and enemies present in-universe.   It's not a 'made-up excuse to hate the Freys', it's a legitimate reason in-universe (and out-universe, obviously).

[SeanF]

20 hours ago, The Commentator said:

You just described a typical elderly lord of Westeros.  The negative feelings against Walder are too extreme. He failed to observe guest rights. He tricked the Starks into a trap. But he was provoked. The Starks insulted his family and humiliated his daughters. 

Not really.  Walder's actions are seen as beyond the pale by almost every one of his peers.

In-universe, killing every woman and child at the Twins would be considered a fair response. 

Edited June 16, 2023 by SeanF

[Corvo the Crow]

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Not sure what that has to do with anything. The Reeds want to serve the Starks and want to renew their oath of fealty. Lord Walder Frey never swore such a vow, just as House Frey was historically never subject to Winterfell. It is still a betrayal of trust, but not the betrayal of his king. Even the Freys who all did homage to Robb as their king in the wake of his proclamation left his service and forswore their oaths when Robb betrayed them.

 

Has to do with Walder's sons being present when he is declared KotN and one of those sons being his heir. Also this entire "Walder swore no oath" argument is pointless because Walder is a vassal of Riverlands, Edmure is the LP of Riverlands. Did every single vassal of every king swore an oath to the Targaryens, especially every time a king changed? Perhaps you should also argue that Eustace should just have claimed that they can't punish him for joining the Blackfyre rebellions because he never travelled to KL to  swore to the king Targ. If Edmure, at this point heir of Hoster just like Jojen who is an heir and Bran an heir,  swears to Robb than there should be no further discussion, Edmure's vassals breaking the tables while screaming their lungs out shouting "da King in da Norf" is just the cherry on top.

[Lord Varys]

14 hours ago, sifth said:

You’re really splitting hairs. Their armies literally fight and die for Robb. They very much are his men and they very do betray him.

The Freys were with Robb until he spat on them. Then they left. They were no longer his followers until they pretended to rejoin him after he reached out to them. That is a difference. And while Stevron Frey, Walder's original heir, may have done homage to King Robb, Lord Walder never did. And neither did Roose Bolton. Although, of course, his betrayal is greater on a personal level as his house was traditionally sworn to Winterfell.

5 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Has to do with Walder's sons being present when he is declared KotN and one of those sons being his heir. Also this entire "Walder swore no oath" argument is pointless because Walder is a vassal of Riverlands, Edmure is the LP of Riverlands. Did every single vassal of every king swore an oath to the Targaryens, especially every time a king changed? Perhaps you should also argue that Eustace should just have claimed that they can't punish him for joining the Blackfyre rebellions because he never travelled to KL to  swore to the king Targ. If Edmure, at this point heir of Hoster just like Jojen who is an heir and Bran an heir,  swears to Robb than there should be no further discussion, Edmure's vassals breaking the tables while screaming their lungs out shouting "da King in da Norf" is just the cherry on top.

The Riverrun situation only adds more fuel to the Frey case. If the Tullys can rebel against the Iron Throne, the Freys can also rebel against the Tullys and Starks. If Edmure and Hoster think they can make and choose kings as they see fit, so can the Freys.

I do imagine that Aegon the Conqueror definitely demanded homage and vows of fealty from all his noble subjects - else he would not have confirmed them in their titles and lordships nor would he have created new lords.

And, yes, of course, standard practice would be that every king is (eventually) receiving new vows of fealty from his lords. That is how a feudal society works, especially if the succession is kind of in doubt. Now, if there is strife and little time kings might be fine with people doing nothing (like Lysa Arryn not renewing fealty but also not rebelling during the War of the Five Kings) but only if things continue as before.

The idea that a succession is an automatic process is modernistic nonsense. Especially in as a fucked-up a setting as there was in the main series during this era. Walder raises the issue as early as his talk with Cat. How should he, Walder, know who was the rightful king or whose cause was just? He can't, everything is up in the air.

I'm pretty sure Eustace Osgrey did swear fealty to Daeron II - he know him, personally, down to how his belly wobbled when he walked. Eustace, though, is but a landed knight, not a lord. I mean, you know how this society works, right? The lords are sworn to the crown, not the levies/servants of the lords. And, as Walder Frey points out in AGoT, he also swore vows to the king on the Iron Throne, not just Lord Hoster Tully. The king is in contact with all his lords (or most of them), he does not just act through the lords paramount. We also see this with the armies of the various Targaryen kings - Maegor rises hosts without bothering with any great lords at all, Bloodraven marshals a large army of Riverlords and Crownlanders in TMK without Tully involvement, etc.

Stevron Frey would also act as his father's representative if he was anointed with such a role - or when his status as heir would effectively make him regent of Riverrun due to his father's severe illness (as the folks of Riverrun do view him shortly before his father's death). But Stevron was never in that position - his father made it very clear. Even if Stevron had done homage to King Robb in the name of House Frey - Walder would rightly say that he was Lord Frey, not his heir, and only he would decide where House Frey's loyalties lay.

The Reed siblings were sent to Winterfell on behalf of their father and with the authority to do homage to a representative of Robb Stark. They were chosen for that role, given that job. Stevron Frey and his siblings and sons never had been granted such authority by Lord Walder.

I honestly think that Robb is partially betrayed as easily and smoothly as he is because only a very small cabal of lords made him king - a couple of Northmen and some Riverlords - not some larger council of effectively all Riverlords and Lords of the North. Folks went along with the idea or didn't object to it while Robb's star was rising ... but Walder and Roose weren't among the men making Robb a king. Which is why they are not really bound to him.

This doesn't make their betrayal less ugly or less evil. But legally speaking, we cannot say that they betrayed their king or even their liege lord. This also helps to explain why especially the Northmen in Roose's army but also the Frey levies went along with and actually executed the Red Wedding.

[Corvo the Crow]

48 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The Riverrun situation only adds more fuel to the Frey case. If the Tullys can rebel against the Iron Throne, the Freys can also rebel against the Tullys and Starks. If Edmure and Hoster think they can make and choose kings as they see fit, so can the Freys.

First,  they didn't rebel and second, to rebel against the Starks they have to be SWORN to the Starks in the first place, which you claim not to have happened so thanks for contradicting yourself.

 

48 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

do imagine that Aegon the Conqueror definitely demanded homage and vows of fealty from all his noble subjects - else he would not have confirmed them in their titles and lordships nor would he have created new lords.

Has the Lord of Lonely Light has also travelled to what would become KL or has Aegon went there with his dragon for convenience? 

 

48 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

'm pretty sure Eustace Osgrey did swear fealty to Daeron II - he know him, personally, down to how his belly wobbled when he walked. Eustace, though, is but a landed knight, not a lord. I mean, you know how this society works, right? The lords are sworn to the crown, not the levies/servants of the lords.

Well let's go back to the whoever was the last Osgrey with the tile of Lord if that would make you feel better. Was it the one who rebelled against Maegor? Did he went to KL and swear him fealty? 

48 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

And, as Walder Frey points out in AGoT, he also swore vows to the king on the Iron Throne, not just Lord Hoster Tully.

Oh, Did Walder went to KL and swore fealty to Joff? Sorry I must've forgotten that part of the books since it would be quite strange to bring this up when your claim is that he didn't swear to RObb.

48 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Stevron Frey would also act as his father's representative if he was anointed with such a role - or when his status as heir would effectively make him regent of Riverrun due to his father's severe illness (as the folks of Riverrun do view him shortly before his father's death). But Stevron was never in that position - his father made it very clear. Even if Stevron had done homage to King Robb in the name of House Frey - Walder would rightly say that he was Lord Frey, not his heir, and only he would decide where House Frey's loyalties lay.

He sent his son and heir in his stead because he was too old. On the field his son and heir is his representative. He also did no such thing as denounce his sons action of declaring Robb a kin, something he had plenty of time to do.

 

48 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I honestly think that Robb is partially betrayed as easily and smoothly as he is because only a very small cabal of lords made him king - a couple of Northmen and some Riverlords - not some larger council of effectively all Riverlords and Lords of the North. Folks went along with the idea or didn't object to it while Robb's star was rising ... but Walder and Roose weren't among the men making Robb a king. Which is why they are not really bound to him.

And yet they don't object to the idea and they even call Robb a king.

Edited June 16, 2023 by Corvo the Crow

[Lord Varys]

3 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

First,  they didn't rebel and second, to rebel against the Starks they have to be SWORN to the Starks in the first place, which you claim not to have happened so thanks for contradicting yourself.

There is no contradiction there, as Robb and his people really believe the Freys and Boltons are theirs. However, we know that they never formally swore themselves to Robb.

3 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Has the Lord of Lonely Light has also travelled to what would become KL or has Aegon went there with his dragon for convenience? 

Why are asking such a silly question? You know how this society works, you know that Joffrey's governments demands that the crucial lords of the Realm come to KL and do homage to the new King Joffrey. That's not unusual.

Aegon the Conqueror went to the Iron Islands himself to crush the Ironborn ... and it would indeed have been during that visit that they did homage to him, recognized him as their king, and were then given the right to choose their own lord paramount.

And how should know about Osgrey shit the author never even wrote about. But, of course, Maegor would have a strong need to make people swear him vows of fealty as he was a bloody usurper and false king. He was in dire need to force people to recognize him as the king, especially while Aegon the Uncrowned yet lived.

3 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Oh, Did Walder went to KL and swore fealty to Joff? Sorry I must've forgotten that part of the books since it would be quite strange to bring this up when your claim is that he didn't swear to RObb.

He sent his son and heir in his stead because he was too old. On the field his son and heir is his representative. He also did no such thing as denounce his sons action of declaring Robb a kin, something he had plenty of time to do.

LOL, Walder swore oaths to the kings in KL, namely, all the Targaryen kings during his time as lord as well as Robert Baratheon. And Robert's son and heir was Joffrey Baratheon, not Robb Stark.

The Freys help the Starks to beat back the Lannister invasion of the Riverlands and end the siege of Riverrun ... they don't march with Robb to crown a new king nor to unseat King Joffrey Baratheon.

Stevron doesn't speak for Lord Walder Frey, that is just a fact.

3 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

And yet they don't object to the idea and they even call Robb a king.

Sure, they pretend they are his ... which is why theirs is an ugly betrayal. But you cannot say they have sworn themselves to him, have done him homage, have ever publicly declared he is the(ir) rightful king.

In fact, Robb is as much Walder's and Roose's king as Viserys III or Daenerys Targaryen is their king/queen. Just because some other people proclaim or declare a person a monarch, doesn't mean powerful people in their own right agree with them.

Roose Bolton went along with the 'King Robb' idea ... as long as Robb was successful. When he started to mess things up, he looked for a new king.

And sure enough, he also never swore fealty in person to King Joffrey or King Tommen - although the deals he made with them through Tywin seem to have more substance than his deals with Robb. Although the fact that he never did Tommen homage certainly would help him if he actually makes a bid for a crown himself if he crushes Stannis.

The fact that Robb, Balon, Stannis, and Renly never did homage to King Joffrey also helped their own royal presumptions. A prince or lord who has sworn a vow of fealty to a monarch is, by definition, a rebel if he crowns himself. But a prince or lord who never swore a vow of fealty to a living king is in a much better position in that regard. Renly and Stannis and Robb and Balon don't rebel against a king they swore fealty to. They take up arms against a boy who says he is the rightful king ... and they doubt that or think they have the power or the right to be kings of their own lands for some reason.