Debunking the Myth: Did House Manderly Violate Guest Rights in ASOIAF?

In Game of Thrones (ASOIAF), the interactions between Houses can often be complex and laden with politics and agreements. One such incident involving House Manderly and the House Freys has sparked much debate. Specifically, whether House Manderly violated guest right when they had the Freys killed and baked into pies. Let's dive into the facts.

Context and Theoretical Understanding of Guest Right

In the old days of Westeros, the concept of guest right was a fundamental and deeply entrenched principle. This rule stated that once you invited someone to your home, they were your guest until you dismissed them. At the same time, those guests were obligated to behave decently and not commit any crimes, such as the murder of a host's family members or guests. Violating guest right could lead to severe consequences.

The Incident Involving House Manderly and House Freys

Hosts were known to offer their guests gifts as a token of goodwill and to mark the end of their guest status. In the case of the Freys, Lord Wyman Manderly presented them with gifts. These gifts were ostensibly to mark the formal end of the host-guest relationship, signaling the Freys' departure from House Manderly's domain.

This decision on the part of the Manderlys was strategic. They chose to use these gifts to symbolically end the guest status of the Freys. Once the Freys accepted these gifts, they were no longer considered guests but travelers, even if they were still on Manderly's property.

The Controversy: Did Guest Right Get Violated?

Contrary to popular belief, Guest Right was not technically violated. This is because the Freys were given "parting gifts," which marked a clear end to their guest status. Lord Manderly's actions were deliberate and follow all the traditional protocols, ensuring that no one could claim he acted against the rules of guest right.

Lord Manderly's conversation with Davos further clarifies his intentions. When Manderly offered each Frey a palfrey as a guest gift, he was essentially declaring the Freys no longer were considered guests. By doing so, the Manderlys were free to act in any way they saw fit, even to the extreme of turning the Freys into mincemeat.

The Visceral Revenge and Strategic Move

The killing of the Freys and their subsequent use as pies served a dual purpose. First, it was a harsh and brutal act of vengeance. It demonstrated Manderly's commitment to justice and his willingness to take extreme measures to avenge his son's death. The forcefulness of this action left no doubt about his resolve to protect his bloodlines.

Secondly, it aligned with Manderly's broader political strategy. With the Freys no longer considered guests, House Manderly's actions against them were justified both in terms of guest right and as a move to shore up their own position in the North. This event weakened the Freys and reinforced Manderly's power trajectory.

A Realistic Perspective on the Strategy

While some might argue that the act was irresponsible, even reckless, from a strategic standpoint, it was a calculated maneuver. The Freys were no longer valuable as hostages or bargaining chips once they rejected the gifts. Moreover, the Greatjon Umber, an ally of Manderly, was still in captivity, making the Freys' actions against him even more disturbing and justifying Manderly's response.

Historically, bold and sometimes brutal actions can serve as strong deterrents, especially when the stakes are high. In the world of ASOIAF, where survival often depends on alliances, these drastic actions can have significant impacts on the balance of power.

Conclusion

In summation, House Manderly did not violate guest right in their actions against the Freys. Instead, they used the concept of guest gifts to end the guest status of the Freys symbolically. Their subsequent actions were within the bounds of acceptable behavior, given the complex political landscape of Westeros. The act was a strategic move to avenge, align, and maintain power, demonstrating the harsh realities of the game of thrones.

While the act was morally questionable by common sense, it was tactically sound from a strategic perspective.